Introduction to Debate with Skeptical


I know this will be boring and I apologize but I've been pushed to the limit, a certain poster here is not making contributions in a positive way and wont read the evidence and keeps insisting things I've answered a hundred times, Skeptical says:
what I said is that the studies you cite may be perfectly valid scientific studies, but they don't prove what you think they do. Of those 200 studies, most of them are either completely irrelevant to your thesis, or at best marginally relevant. The only common thread id that they have something to do with spirituality. You apparently have no concern for what they actually show, and insist that they somehow prove your point, which is a lie. Even the remainder of those studies that are more germane to your thesis still don't provide a basis for the conclusion that you have drawn from them. THAT's why your thesis and your book is just pseudoscientific bullshit.

"what I said is that the studies you cite may be perfectly valid scientific studies, but they don't prove what you think they do." What do I think they prove?I have told him over and over again,I've said it hundreds of times, he never gets it. I don't argue that they prove the existence of God. I have never argued that, Look at the last comment section where i argued with him to date I sad it there.

"Of those 200 studies, most of them are either completely irrelevant to your thesis, or at best marginally relevant."
How could any of them be irrelevant? They all deal with mystical experience every one of the 200 studies deals with ME, since my thesis is that  religious belief is rationally warranted on the basis of mystical experience,
there is no way they are not relevant, I will admit some of them may be marginally so but most of them are very relevant because they all contribute is some way to the sub thesis that ME is positive and transformative. Most of the studies prove this the thesis so they are extremely relevant. Moreover several of the researchers I have. Here are links to some of the  blog posts I've written he's never responded except in the most general way, He's never answered any of the detailed arguments I've made,

He thinks that because the researchers of all the various studies were not seeking to prove the existence of God  that this means that their data can't be used in making God arguments. That makes no sense of any kind. First of all the studies were constituted to ascertain things that are necessary to know in constructing the arguments, such as the  fact that mystical experience is universal or that it is good for you, These are findings of the studies why would it matter if the people doing the Study did not envision that data being used in an argument for God's existence? The Study still proves that point.

Skeptical continues:
There's a good reason the the authors of all those studies have never been so brazen as to make the conclusions that you have. It's because your conclusion is not justified. Not from those studies, and not from any scientific data that exists anywhere. As I told you before, if your conclusion were true, it would be monumental news in the scientific community, and you would be hailed as the discoverer of scientific evidence for God. Well, it's NOT monumental news, and nobody is hailing your earth-shattering discovery. Why? Because there's nothing to it. It's bullshit. Just like every thing you say, and every argument you make.
Let's  examine his empty rhetoric. He says: 

"There's a good reason the the authors of all those studies have never been so brazen as to make the conclusions that you have." As though they all had a meeting and decided, it;s 200 studies over 50 year period they have lots of reasons, There is a reason stated by one of them, In his book with Spilka Ralph Hood says it is not his place to say that  God exists or does not exist. That is beyond science, Yet Hood Makes God arguments with his data. I've talked with him, he sees what I do as perfectly valid. Another interesting thing he says none of the researchers don't make the conclusions I have (put aside the fact that he gets my conclusion wrong) Ralph Hood gave me the universality argument. He gave me the argument it says since religious experience should not be genetic (its cultural) then it should not be universal but it is.That is a reason to think there is an objective reality outside of ourselves that is being experienced. That means all those studies are relevant.

 "It's because your conclusion is not justified. Not from those studies, and not from any scientific data that exists anywhere...".Of course that assumes that he knows my conclusion, I've demonstrated that he clearly doe not, He is asserting that I claim to have proven the existence of God. This is obvious from what he says, for example: "As I told you before, if your conclusion were true, it would be monumental news in the scientific community, and you would be hailed as the discoverer of scientific evidence for God." Having evidence for something is no big deal. There is a ton of evidence that Christian apologists point to all the time,that is of a scientific nature (such as fine tuning argument  or big bang cosmology) but there is a difference in evidence for something and proof of something, Obviously he means scientific proof that God exists, Do I claim to have that?

I have told him and time again I do not claim that,I just got through saying it in the comment section here a couple of days ago,Here it is in a post on my blog: Here I am back in 2011 saying I don't seek, to prove the existence of God, So think about what that means given what's been said in paragraph 2 above.



Scientific Evidence and God Arguments part 1 (2011)

In this one I say this:
As before the same caveats apply. One should not be fooled into thinking that we need to "prove the existence of God." This a fools errand not even on the menu of reason. Like reality itself God is not something that can be demonstrated through empirical means. Scientific evidence can only be empirical. That means there can't be any evidence, not of a direct nature. Atheists capitalize on this with their constant mantra demanding scientific proof and trying to pretend that they have a scientific view point while denying that they have an ideology. 
Like Barney Fife strutting about Mayberry* demonstrating his authority as deputy Sheriff,he goes on " it's NOT monumental news, and nobody is hailing your earth-shattering discovery. Why? Because there's nothing to it. It's bullshit. Just like every thing you say, and every argument you make." It's also not what I claimed. 

So we re going to have this little debate, doing this is absolutely a necessisty for him to continuing posting here. We will do it on the message board because the comet section on this blog is old not waited to real argument, There's no  room to post curtains of data, I've got some real waling to do.
Debate  Resolved: that my conclusion in Trace of God  is justified and the studies provide a logical basis of support in scientific data for that conclusion..The conclusion being that religious belief is rationally warranted on the basis of mystical experience, I will be affirmative

 When the time comes i will break down the bluster he intones in paragraph 2 but first let;s look at the ravings in par.1. for the rules se comment section of this post, None of this is open to negotiations, you better pay attention this time an, read it all,

"The Causal linkage my God arguments"

rules for debate

(1) first one to make an insult loses,any reference to the opponent must be phrased as my worthy opponent

(2) sources must be cited to be placed in evidence, author,title, date.

(3) no new arguments in rebuttels

(4) posting order

1 affirmative constrctive
1 Negative constructive
2 affirmative constrjctive
2 negatove constrictove
1neatve rebuttle
1 aff r
2nr
2ar




Comments

im-skeptical said…
(1) first one to make an insult loses,any reference to the opponent must be phrased as my worthy opponent

- Joe, you can't make an argument without resorting to insults. Ad hominem seems to be your stock in trade.

In this post alone, the introduction to the debate, you make these claims:
- a certain poster here is not making contributions in a positive way and wont read the evidence
- Let's examine his empty rhetoric.
- Like Barney Fife strutting about Mayberry* demonstrating his authority as deputy Sheriff...
- i will break down the bluster he intones

By my estimation, you have already lost the debate.

Now, I must say that having a civil discussion with you is difficult at best. In our previous exchange, the one that prompted this so-called debate, you called me stupid, you said I was an idiot, that I know nothing, that I was a boor, that my scientific skepticism is religious, and you made claims about my supposed lack of education.

And now you're trying to lay down the rules like a parent would with his intransigent child. Well, I have an answer for that, Joe, but decorum prohibits me from saying it here.
Joe Hinman said…
the debate hasn't started, you are not the judge.
Joe Hinman said…
my fist Affirmative constructive (1AC) is up. register and answer in your 1NC on tye 1x1 board

http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4743
im-skeptical said…
Joe,

I have decided not to participate in your debate. It seems to me that you have set the agenda, the topic matter, and the rules all in a way the would be to your advantage. The topic is too broad and the rules too stilted. I would prefer to debate something more narrowly focused, so that I don't have to try to address your whole book in one shot. This is an argument you have been making and defending for at least ten years, and you have your material all lined up.

I have already addressed much of your argument in my previous posts, including the one I made today that addresses your article "The Causal linkage my God arguments":
here.

Discussion of "warrant for belief", focusing on causation: (with no reply)
here.

Discussion of logical flaws in Joe's the "Argument from God Corrolate [sic]": (with no reply)
here.

Discussion of Joe's use of scientific data, including the M scale: (with childish replies from Joe)
here.

Discussion of Joe's concept of the co-determinate: (with no reply)
here.

Discussion of "warrant for belief", focusing on deductive argument: (with no reply)
here.
Joe Hinman said…
linking t your is misconceived bull shit proves nothing, its just more misinformed guesswork based upon your ignorant jabber about a book you refuse to read.

I knew you were coward and that you would never face me on a level playing field where you have to know your stuff defend your lies.

have a nice life.
im-skeptical said…
As usual - you defeat me with your superb logic and insightful commentary.
Joe Hinman said…
the way it goes
im-skeptical said…
By the way, Joe, I am always wiling to defend what I have said. If you want to debate, you are free to answer any of the issues that I have raised. If you choose to reply on my blog, it can be done in a civil manner, but without imposing all your senseless rules, and the topic of discussion can be limited to one issue at a time. That way we can explore each topic more thoroughly, and have a better opportunity ferret out important details. I have no use for your stilted debate format.
Joe Hinman said…
that is dishonest BS. anyone can claim to debate when they can worm out but if you wont debate in the open where you can't back off the weakness in your argent it;s not debate.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Hinman said…
testing testing?

Popular posts from this blog

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition