Debate Existence of god Round II Argument II

Bowen-Hinman Debate (Existence of God) my argument 2

I am not arguing to prove the existence of God . Bowen tires to confuse that by muddling the meaning and acts as though if I don't use the phrase "prove the existence of God then there is nothing else I could mean. That is total bunck he;s just ignoring well thought out and well thought of arguments by People like Plantinga with his properly basic arguments,

I said up front I defend the proposition that belief in God is rationally warranted, We can regard belief in God in the same way as we think of "God's existence" if one is too unsubtle to distinguish property  between necessity and contingency in relation to being; so be it, Further below when he is claimimg that I never mention God or  his existence well his powers of observation failed him in other regards too.

I have an argument that seeks to prove only that I have good reason to believe in :"the existence of God." (EXCEPT IN TERMS OF GOD AS NECESSARY BEING rather then a contingency). The argument goes like this:

We equate experience of events and perceptions of the external world as reflections of what is real we sort out that reality by means of a criteria we all use: 

RegularConstantShared (inter-subjective).
We regard experiences that reflect these qualities in so far as they enable us to deal with the vicissitudes of life as real and as indicative of reality. What does the atheists say to miracles? No one ever sees this,If someone claims to have seen it what do they want? verification from others. they want it something happens  often not just once, Regular, anticommunist and shared,

We use this in trivial ways too, if we find it hot we ask others "do you find it hot in here?" shall we open a window?" Religious experience meets this criteria, Remember it is NOT a proof of God's existence but a reason to think there's a God (in the normal course of English we call this:"believe in God."

Supporting this reasom is the fact that the experience as effects upon the one experiencing that are measurable, real,always positive, Real effects have real causes.

Finally RE is universal to  all religious traditions around the world, That is a good reason to think its an experience of an objective reality because religious traditions are cultural so how can they produce the same effects?

Now let's move to show some documentation in  answer to Bowen's one trick of calling everything "unclear."

Bradley will tell you that my ideas are "unclear." But in reality what it really means is he doesn't know what I'm talking about. To keep from having to admit this is an area of knowledge outside of his sphere of learning he adopts the  ploy that I'm "unclear." what I am going to do is to extract one passage that really sums up his entire argumet. I will demonstrate with documents that he's totally wrong about the unclear and that he has no arguments against anything I've said. 

The Passage:
RE: Religious Experience. umbrella term including mystical experience, born again experience and others.Hinman gives us one general category of religious experience (i.e. “mystical experience”) and one specific type of religious experience (i.e. “born again experience”), and then adds the open-ended phrase “and others”.This is NOT a definition of “religious experience”. Hinman leaves us completely in the dark as to WHY “mystical experience” and “born again experience” should both be categorized as “religious experiences” and as to WHY we should treat these two kinds of experiences as being similar or related to each other.Furthermore, the addition of the phrase “and others” leaves the door open to a wide variety of other kinds of experiences being categorized as “religious experiences” even though we have been given NO HINT as to how to determine whether some specific experience is or is not properly considered to be a “religious experience”.So, Hinman leaves the central concept of this argument, namely “religious experience”, VERY UNCLEAR. This gives us sufficient reason to declare REMEC to be DEAD ON ARRIVAL, even if we ignore the fact that REMEC is clearly NOT an argument for the existence of God in the first place.

No, first of all I said religious experience (RE) is the umbrella term. There are at least two kinds, two kinds I will deal with here: (1) "Born again? and (2) Mystical. I did define Mystical (born again is obvious and well known from popular culture). Bracket born again for now. I am about to repeat the definition of terms.

Secondly, the charge that I'm being unclear is empirically disproved because there is a huge body of academic work from which I researched to write my book. That is  50 year development of 200 studies in peer reviewed journals. mostly in psychologist and sociology of religion. There are several empirical measurements employed n these studies, the most important is the "M scale" will get to that latter. All of these researchers use these same definitions generally and they clear enough to provide study after study of empirical data that is consistent and holds up over time.

Bowen refers to the problem of other kinds of experiences being called RE, yes that is why I called RE an "umbrella term" but ME (mystical experience)is  very specific and clear. It's clear in it's definition we know exactly what is produced and how to determine a valid mystical experience. It is a specific set of criteria gleaned from  these studies as a consistent body but to a major extent by those studies employing Ralph Hood's M scale.

RE: Religious Experience. umbrella term including mystical experience, born again experience and others. 

ME: Mystical experience, generally understood as defined by Stace as a state of consciousness embodying a sense of undifferentiated unity and sense of the Numinous but not visions or vices,

M Scale: s survey designed to provide control mechanism for deteriorating the authenticity of one;s mystical experience as opposed to some other kind of experience. Invented by Ralph Hood Jr, as a means of validating Stace's theories,

Control: social science methodology a means of measuring experimental results against the norm. 

The first quote documents the widespread and common use of the terms and the understanding of what they mean,

"The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical". The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that "mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963)." The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited exten

2) Defining characteristics.


"In a recent review of the mystical experience Lukoff and Lu (1988) acknowledged that the "definition of a mystical experience ranges greatly (p. 163)." Maslow (1969) offered 35 definitions of "transcendence", a term often associated with mystical experiences and used by Alexander et al. to refer to the process of accessing PC."[2][3]

Lukoff (1985) identified five common characteristics of mystical experiences which could be operationalized for assessment purposes. They are:

1. Ecstatic mood, which he identified as the most common feature;
2. Sense of newly gained knowledge, which includes a belief that the mysteries of life have been revealed;
3. Perceptual alterations, which range from "heightened sensations to auditory and visual hallucinations (p. 167)";
4. Delusions (if present) have themes related to mythology, which includes an incredible range diversity and range;
5. No conceptual disorganization, unlike psychotic persons those with mystical experiences do NOT suffer from disturbances in language and speech.
It can be seen from the explanation of PC earlier that this list of qualities overlaps in part those delineated by Alexander et al

3)Studies use Empirical Instruments.

Many skeptics have argued that one cannot study mystical experince scientifically. But it has been done many times, in fact there are a lot of studies and even empirical scales for measurement.



"Three empirical instruments have been developed to date. They are the Mysticism Scale by Hood (1975), a specific question by Greeley (1974) and the State of Consciousness Inventory by Alexander (1982; Alexander, Boyer, & Alexander, 1987). Hood's (1975) scale was developed from conceptual categories identified by Stace (1960). Two primary factors emerged from the factor analysis of the 32 core statements. First is a general mysticism factor, which is defined as an experience of unity, temporal and spatial changes, inner subjectivity and ineffability. A second factor seems to be a measure of peoples tendency to view intense experiences within a religious framework. A much simpler definition was developed by Greeley (1974), "Have you ever felt as though you were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself?" This was used by him in several national opinion surveys. In a systematic study of Greeley's question Thomas and Cooper (1980) concluded that responses to that question elicited experiences whose nature varied considerably. Using Stace's (1960) work they developed five criteria, including awesome emotions; feeling of oneness with God, nature or the universe; and a sense of the ineffable. They found that only 1% of their yes responses to Greeley's question were genuine mystical experiences. Thus Hood's scale seems to be the more widely used of these two broad measures of mysticism. It has received cross cultural validation" (Holm, 1982; Caird, 1988).[5]

 The works of W.T. Stace are very influential. He shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.[6]  Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:

The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):
1.      The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.
2.      The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.
3.      The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms.
4.      The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.
5.      The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985). The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[7]

the importance of the M scale

Ralph Hood who invented the M scale is a major figure in the field. Professor of psychology of Religion University of Tennessee @ Chattanooga. The point of the sclae was to validate W.T. Stace's common core hypothesis which says there is a common core in all religious tradition,that of mystical experience,  Having validated Statce with M scale studies around the world,the scale became the standard operating procedure for most studies of religious experience because it offers a control that allows us to verify the distinction between a true mystical experience and some other kind of experience,

Te importance and value of the M scale is summed up by authors of the Johns Hopkins study:

Katherine A. MacLean, Roland R. Griffithis, et al

"Beginning with Hood (1975), the modern empirical study of mysticism has focused on char-acterizing mystical experiences that individuals have had across their lifetime. Hood’s Mysticism Scale ...developed according to Stace’s (1960) framework, is the most widely used quantitative measure of mystical experience. The Mysticism Scale has generally been shown to be a reliable and cross-culturally valid measure of lifetime experiences."[8]

It's called cross cultural, it;s been used In UK,Canada,U.S, Iran,Saudi Arabia,India,Japan and other places,all with the same results,Peasants in Iran have never heard of W.T Stace so they can't second guess the study. The scale was originally designed to validate the works of Stace. These cross cultural applications are well documented my book. This backs up argument B about the universal nature of the experience.

Testimony of the ground breaking nature of the scale:

Michael E. Neilsen Georgia Southern University

Factor Analysis of the mystical experience Questionnaire: A study of experiences occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion PDF

"Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. Thepsychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief."

Dale Caird
originally in journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126
"Research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated over the last decade by Hood (1975). Utilizing the conceptual framework of Stace (1960) he devised a 32 item questionnaire tapping eight categories of mysticism. This questionnaire the M scale was shown by Hood to have respectable internal consistency and reasonable construct validity."[10]

Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Georgia Southern University
feb 2000

"Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America." \\[11]
 The Religious Studies Project (blog) May 20, 2013.

 "Dr. Ralph W. Hood Jr. has extensive experience in the field of psychology of religion and particularly in the study of mysticism and mystical experience. As an early pioneer in the renaissance of the field of psychology of religion, Hood’s work is extensive and prolific exploring a variety of research topics in the social sciences of religion. Moreover, much of his collaborative work extends beyond the field of psychology to include sociology, religious studies, medicine, and a variety of other disciplines in the social scientific study of religion. In this week’s podcast, Chris SIlver is joined by Ralph Hood to discuss in detail his work on mysticism and the benefits and disadvantages of this academic exercise."
 Ralph W. Hood Jr. is professor of psychology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He is a former editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and former co-editor of the Archive for the Psychology of Religion and The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.  He is a past president of division 36 (psychology of religion) of the American Psychological Association and a recipient of its William James, Mentor, and Distinguished Service awards. He has published over 200 articles in the psychology of religion and has authored, co-authored, or edited numerous book chapters and eleven books, all dealing with the psychology of religion.

(One of the primary interests of scholars and researchers from diverse academic disciplines has been in exploration of mysticism. Mysticism has been observed within a variety of traditions and philosophies from Neo-Platonism to Hinduism and Christianity. Mysticism as a field of study is pregnant with possibilities for academic inquiry, both cross-disciplinary and discipline specific. The field of psychology is one of those disciplines which have sought to explore the richness of individual claims of mystical experience. This has been done with theoretical depth and methodological sophistication and is centralized within a variety of tools of empirical inquiry.) (Ibid)[12]

The sheer volume of data, the diversity of academic voices, the consistency of the results disprove the notion that I am speaking of unclear things. What is very clear is that we are in territory in which Bowen is unfamiliar and unread, he has no arguments to cover up this lack he must assail my clarity. Let's go on and see other ways he pulls off this ploy.

Now he is going to use his lack of understanding in the first argument  to assail my second argument

But his second argument is NOT an argument for the existence of God, nor for the “reality of God” (whatever that means), nor for the rationality of “belief in God” (whatever he means by that phrase).

Why isn't it? The point about existence has no place in this argument it's not part of the academical discussion in the research as it is in Tillich's work. So bracket that. I will speak of the existence of God here as I always do with the proviso that we understand it is in the Hartshornian  sense to which Tillich agreed and Bowen doesn't need to worry about it.

Here he uses that problem with existence to charge bait and switch,

Rather, Hinman’s second argument, which I call REMEC (Religious Experience Meets Epistemic Criteria), is an argument for an UNCLEAR claim about the UNCLEAR notion of “religious experience”, and so Hinman has attempted to pull a huge bait-and-switch move, and has failed to even attempt to argue for the existence (or reality) of God.
(1) we trust perceptions that work for us in navigating the world(2) we judge by criteria Regular, Consistent, Shared (inter-subjective)(3) RE fits this criteria(4 ) enables “navigation” (the point of the criteria) 

(5) :. we are warranted to trust RE as indicative


We trust it as indicative of what? Of the presence of God, if God's presences real then there must be a God to sense the presence of, obviously this is nonvenomous with what people mean they say "god exists." but he does not get that and goes on:

You can tell that this is NOT an argument for the existence of God by the fact that the word “existence” (or “exists”) does not appear in the conclusion, and because the word “God” does not appear in the conclusion.  Furthermore, the word “existence”, and the word “exists”, and the word “God” do not appear in any of the premises of this argument!!  Because the words “God” and “existence” and “exists” appear nowhere in this argument, I judge this argument, which was supposed to be an argument for the “existence of God”, to be DEAD ON ARRIVAL, just like the first argument (the ABEAN argument) that was presented by Hinman.

This is nothing but inane, i explained several times in five documents that Tillich though existence only applies to contingent things,God cannot be contingent so we can't say "existence" in realization to God we must say being! He merely refuses to think abouit it.why? Because he get's more mileage out of out of muddling and out of making dishtowel claims avboutmy meaning hwnit;sobvoius he;s full ofit, It never even occurrences to him to go by the actual content of my speech. 

There is nothing so sad and so pathetic as an argument for the “existence of God” that never once mentions God or existence.  An argument for the existence of God cannot possibly FAIL any faster or more completely than such an argument.  It is the all-too-common presentation of such sad and pathetic arguments for God that convinces me that theism is unworthy of belief.  Norman Geisler’s pathetic case for God by itself is sufficient to warrant serious doubt about the existence of God.  Hinman’s pathetic ABEAN and REMEC arguments provide more reason for skepticism about God.

Gee what a shame that Brad's keen observational genius missed the top of the page where the actual argument is stated clearly:

"Argument II: Religious Experience warrants belief in God because (A) it fits the basic criteria by which we judge epistemic credibility, thus is trustworthy, and because (B) it is Universal when it should be culturally bound which implies that  an  external reality is being experienced."

What external reality am i talking about that of God obviously since the argument just said that.

Moreover I never said I am going to prove the existence of God i always said I aim to show belief in God is warranted, Of course Baredly dishonestly refusestoadmit beloefinmgodisamorderterms and everyoneinwsoit;seaning
Now Brad strikes one of his more vernal poses:


I’m tempted to say that the REMEC argument is a SPODS (a Steaming Pile of Dog Shit), but some of the readers and contributors here at The Secular Outpost do not like me to make such harsh criticisms, so I will refrain from doing so now.  However, I will be making some strong criticisms of this so-called “argument”.
unprofessional.  puerile; It's not my argument you make look bad, This is the same kind of crap we can get on any message board on any given day,I would have thought he had respect for himself.

Like the ABEAN argument, REMEC is VERY UNCLEAR, too unclear to seriously and rationally evaluate.  Because this is NOT an argument for the existence of God, and because this argument is VERY UNCLEAR,  I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the truth of the premises or the logic of the argument.  I’m just going to point out problems of unclarity, and hope that someday Mr. Hinman will learn how to present a clear and intelligent argument for his views.
Arguments have a way of seeming unclear if you are too lazy to read about the concepts upon which they are based. I only gave you half a year to look up Tillich.

All of this self important, ignorant. arrogant bluster is predicated upon up on the fact that the one trick pony can't cope with arguments that have nothing to do with  Norman  Geisler or Aquinas. 

“We trust perceptions that…”

What does the word “trust” mean in this premise?  There is no definition or explanation by Hinman of what this means, but it is crucial for the success of this argument that we know precisely what “trust” means in this premise.
Joe Hinman 
Is this an imitation of Bill Clinton? Yes there is no way to understand the meaning of the term trust that's way beyond anyone's expertise.

Let's talk about the word, respect, as in I have lost all respect for you. You have any problems with the meaning of that sentence. There are some other words to discuss too.

What does the word “perceptions” mean in this premise?  Is it possible to “perceive” something that does not exist?  If it is not possible to perceive something that is non-existent, then the use of the word “perception” is question begging in this context.

obviously it means our sense data and qulia, since ME is a sensation of presence ew are talking about judging experiences as perceptions of reality.

What does the word “trust” mean in this premise?  There is no definition or explanation by Hinman of what this means, but it is crucial for the success of this argument that we know precisely what “trust” means in this premise.

you think trust might mean placing confience in an hypothesis?

What does the word “perceptions” mean in this premise?  Is it possible to “perceive” something that does not exist?  If it is not possible to perceive something that is non-existent, then the use of the word “perception” is question begging in this context.

qualia the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. All researchers agree that ME is based upon perception of qualia. That in itself does not prove what is perceived but it is fact that there are perceptions and they do stack up to the world. The resulting consequences documented in the first speech show that these perception result in real effects, that in itself is reason to think it is n experience of a reality,

that work for us in navigating the world”What does this phrase mean?  This is a very vague idea.  Miracle diets and bogus natural remedies are sold to millions of naive consumers on the basis of testimonials about how some powder, elixir, or pills are ones  “that work for us”.  I wouldn’t spend one nickel on such bogus products without a good deal more clarity and specificity than that.  The phrase “navigating the world” is more poetry than science, and is hardly the sort of phrase that allows for confident judgments and conclusions, apart from provision of a definition or a clear explanation of this concept.

Joe Hinman
He wants to question words like perception but he would have us believe there are no epistemological problems and perceptions are just transparent and never problematic. Does that make any kind of sense? Philosophers have been concerned with understanding reality for a long time, I brought Reid into it because of his insistence that we assume reality based upon what works what allows us to gt by. \

Matty says:

Thomas Reid
Theory of Knowledge lecture notes.
G.J. Mattey
Philosophy, UC Davis
"Consider the question whether we are justified in believing that a physical world exists. As David Hume pointed out, the skepticism generated by philosophical arguments is contrary to our natural inclination to believe that there are physical objects." "[T]he skeptic . . . must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, tho' he cannot pretend by any arguments of philosophy to maintain its veracity. Nature has not left this to his choice, and has doubtless esteem'd it an affair of too great importance to be trusted to our uncertain reasonings and speculations. We may well ask, What causes induce us to believe in the existence of body?, but 'tis in vain to ask, Whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasoning." (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV, Section II)

"Nonetheless, after considering the causes of our belief in the existence of body and finding them inadequate for the justification of that belief, Hume admitted to be drawn away form his orignal assumption that bodies exist. 'To be ingenuous, I feel myself at present . . . more inclin'd to repose no faith at all in my senses, or rather imagination, than to place in it such an implicit confidence,' because ''tis impossible upon any system to defend either our understanding or senses." His solution to these doubts was "carelessness and in-attention,' which divert the mind from skeptical arguments."[13]
"Thomas Reid, who was a later contemporary of Hume's, claimed that our beliefs in the external world are justified.'I shall take it for granted that the evidence of sense, when the proper circumstances concur, is good evidence, and a just ground of belief' (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX). This evidence is different from that of reasoning from premises to a conclusion, however." "Such original and natural judgments [based on sense-experience] are, therefore, a part of that furniture which Nature hath given to the human understanding. They are the inspiration of the Almighty, no less than our notions or simple apprehensions. They serve to direct us in the common affairs of life, where our reasoning faculty would leave us in the dark. They are part of our constitution; and all the discoveries of our reason are grounded upon them. They make up what is called the common sense of mankind; and, what is manifestly contrary to any of those first principles, is what we call absurd. (An Inquiry into the Human Mind, Chapter VII, Section 4)"

"One might say that judgments from sense-experience they are justified insofar as they justify other beliefs we have, or perhaps because they are the output of a perceptual system designed by God to convey the truth. (Of course, if the latter is what gives these beliefs their justification, the claim that we are designed in this way needs to be justified as well.)"[14]
Obviously I'm connecting perceptions to a source of sense experience and reflects upon RE as another source of sense experience.
PREMISE (2) IS VERY UNCLEAR“we judge by…”This is a very sloppy start to this sentence.  What Himan means here is this:
We judge some unspecified aspect of religious experience by…Some aspect of religious experience is apparently going to be evaluated, but the aspect is left unspecified, making this sentence UNCLEAR.Furthermore the concept of “religious experience” is problematic, so this phrase is in need of definition or clarification.  Hinman makes an attempt to clarify the meaning of this problematic phrase:

Somehow he seems to have missed the fact that I first establish a criteria then I talk about how RE fist the criteria. The criteria is what we use to determine the reliability of our experiences and perceptions, Thomas Reid suggests that criteria, true he does not use the phrases "regular," "constant." and "shared," but the process he describes is best summarize in that way,he gives three examples:
(1)A solider on the battlefield notices all those stuck with bayonets tend to die so he does not ask bunch of Cartesian questions about reality while waiting to be stabbed he get's out of the way;
(2) A man making love to a woman does not stop in the middle to quiz her about the reality of her existence,
(3) Common people living their lives going about their tasks don't refrain from putting bread on the table until they they sort out the epistemology,even Descartes waited for retirement.
Block on religious experience.
This is the poimt at which tehmaterial I presneted at thev top was originally presented,

According to Hinman, some unspecified aspect of “religious experience” (whatever that means) is to be evaluated in terms of
“...criteria Regular, Consistent, Shared…”But Hinman makes no attempt to define or clarify what these “criteria” consist of, and that makes an already UNCLEAR premise VERY UNCLEAR, because he is now basing his argument on a set of UNSPECIFIED criteria.  There is a footnote attached to this premise, and so I expected to find some definition or clarification of these UNSPECIFIED criteria in the article that the footnote pointed to:


Is the point of the criteria to evaluate RE? No, where did I say that ?nowhere, I did not say it, I said the criteria is how we evaluate all experience,!!!!  this is how we know the world is real, lt is  how we know Descartes wrong,we are not being deceived  by an evil genius because it works to assume we are not because the criteria allows us to forget such nonsense, We apply this criteria habitually The shared aspects subjected to mutual verification such as:do you find hot in here too: did you see that?

Here's where Brad notices that I', extrapolating from Reid I'm not sticking rigidly to a word for word rendition, but if we understand the meaning of the content there's no reason why we can;t do it.
 Bowen took a look at this article and discovered the following important facts about it:
  • There is NO MENTION OR USE  of the word “regular” in this article.
  • There is NO MENTION OR USE of the word “consistent” in this article.
  • There is NO MENTION OR USE of the word “shared” in this article.

No meson of that formulation but the Principe is clear. The reason we don't stop and let the enemy  run us through on the battlefield is because we all see it is regular and consistent that one dies when one gets stabbed it happens regulatory and consistently, we all see that it's a shared understanding,

The reason he speaks of how we don't stop making love to find out if the partner is real, is because we have that shared experience we know how absurd it would be to do that. So even though he did not use that exact formulation of words it's a good description of what he was trying to say.

Bowen has no argent or evidence against the criteria!

In other words, not only is Hinman too intellectually lazy to provide clarification of these key “criteria” in his presentation of REMEC,  

Let's talk about intellectually lazy, he is too lazy to read the major thinkers who I reference for my ideas ,he can;t even read shallow surface commentary on them, He is too lazy to read the multiple documents I wrote in clarifying my arguments, he's too lazy to explain why my classifications don;t work.

Debates are judged in how you argue in the debate not what the reads think without the debate. If you don't answer an argument you lose it. He has lost every issue because he has not answered any of my arguments, is that not lazy?

but he sends us on a wild goose chase to read a long article on epistemology that does not mention or use any of the words Hinman uses to specify his key epistemological criteria!  If these criteria are false or faulty, then Hinman’s REMEC argument FAILS.  But we have no way to evaluate these epistemic criteria because Hinman doesn’t bother to spell out any of his epistemic criteria.
I just explained why my arguments are based upon Reid

This failure to specify the epistemic criteria upon which REMEC is based is sufficient reason by itself to judge REMEC to be DEAD ON ARRIVAL, and to declare premise (2) to be VERY UNCLEAR.

So now we are Playing baseball? Or is this a facet of formal logic they didn't tell me aboiut?  C.I. Lewis says three strikes and your out? Or was it A.J.Ayer? I thought he was into European football?


Given that Hinman’s REMEC argument never mentions God or existence, and given that Hinman fails to define the central concept of the REMEC argument (i.e. “religious experience”), and given that Hinman fails to specify the content of the three key epistemic criteria, upon which REMEC is based, we now have three good reasonsto declare REMEC to be DEAD ON ARRIVAL:

He already made a fool of himself on that one, see above. Now he's regurgitating

  • Neither God nor existence are mentioned ANYWHERE in REMEC
  • The central concept of REMEC (i.e. “religious experience”) is left UNDEFINED and VERY UNCLEAR
  • The contents of the key epistemic criteria upon which REMEC is based are left UNSPECIFIED

We don;t need to emotion existence because I mentioned being,and I did mention God,see above.
There is no point in me continuing my critique of REMEC.  It is a sad and pathetic bit of reasoning that is VERY UNCLEAR and that fails to address the main question at issue. I will not waste another minute of my time examining and thinking about this argument.
As with Norman Geisler’s sad and pathetic and VERY UNCLEAR case for God, Hinman’s arguments provide us with a good reason for skepticism about the existence of God.  Theists have had thousands of years to perfect their case(s) for God, and yet it is all-too-common to find really bad arguments and cases for God, even by educated people who ought to know better than to present such crap to the public.


Just to drive Home the point the one trick pony does his one trick again, Ta DA!  Friends the Christian tradition demands entirely upon Norman Geisler’s who has been severely chortled by Bradley Bowen that the whole Christian tradition  is ready to fold up.

The truth is when you take Bowen off the Geisler lecture circuit has to resort to saying Unclear all the time and can't go any deeper. What he means is his understanding is unclear because that's all he knows.

when I  google who was Norman Geisler I get a wiki page (probably written by Geisler himself: "Norman GeislerNorman Leo Geisler (born July 21, 1932) is a Christian systematic theologian and philosopher. He is the co-founder of two non-denominational Evangelical seminaries (Veritas Evangelical Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary)."

when I google who was Paul Tillich there is a wiki article (he died im 1965 so he probably write it) that says he was a great theologian but the next one is Britannica encyclopedia: "

Paul Tillich | American theologian and philosopher |

May 4, 2017 - (1886-1965). One of the most influential and creative Protestant theologians of the 20th century was Paul Tillich. He became a central figure in the intellectual life of his time-both in his native Ger- many and in his adopted homeland, the United States.

Good old Brad can't be bothered to look up any thing about the major guy, he;s rooted criticizing Geisler so he just compares everyone to that and calls it unclear. This staggering array of intellectual acuity and high energy excitement has Christianity on the ropes.

Sources and notes

1] Jayne Gackenback, "pure Consciousness/Mystical Experience,"  Childhood Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration

[2]Lukoff, D. & Lu, F.G. (1988). Transpersonal psychology research review topic: Mystical experience. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20(2),161-184.

[3]Abraham Maslow, Religion, Values, and Peak Experience, NY:Penguin 1970
[4]D. Lukoff, . The diagnosis of mystical experiences with psychotic features. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 17(2), (1985),155-181.

[5]Gackenback op cit

[6] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion.  Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235.

[7] Robert J. Voyle, “The Impact of Mystical Experiences Upon Christian Maturity.” originally published in pdf format:
google html version here:  Voyle is quoting Hood in 1985, Hood in return is speaking Stace.

[8] Katherine A. MacLean, Roland R. Griffithis, et al "Factor Analysis of the mystical experience Questionnaire: A study of experiences occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion PDF 

the Johns Hopkins study

[9] Michael E. Neilsen, "Factor Analysis of the mystical experience Questionnaire: A study of experiences occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion PDF Feb, 2000
Neilson is Prof of psychology of  religion at Georgia Southern University

[10] Dale Caird Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Vol. 27, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 122-127 On Jstor:

[11] Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.Georgia Southern University feb 2000 op cit

[12] C.F. Silver, "Ra;ph Hood On mysticism," The Religious Studies Project (blog) May 20, 2013. URL:

Silver pforf Psychology and Religiomapplied Psych, Newcaqstle upom Tyne

[13] G.J. Mattey Theory of Knowledge lecture notes.Philosophy,"Thomas Reid" UC Davis
A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV, Section II)
[14] Ibid Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX


Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

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

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

Jewish writings and a change in the Temple at the time of the Death of Jesus

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

The Folded Napkin Legend