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

* Barney Fife

More Barney Fife