CADRE Comments

no Empirical Data: There is No Empirical Data that proves reducibility Atheists always assume mind is brain and this a proven fact, science proves it, the truth is they no empirical evidence. Remember the atheists stock in trade is empirical evidence. They demand it of God and they say if there is none then no God. Yet they don't have it this, one their most cherished views. Both sciences and the general public have come to accept the idea that the mind is dependent upon the brain and that we can reduce mental activity to some specific aspect of the bran upon which it is dependence and by which it is produced. Within this assumption neuroimaging studies are given special credence. These kinds of studies are given special credence probably because the tangibility of their subject matter and the empirical data produced creates the illusion of “proof.”[15] Yet EEG and MRI both have resolution problems and can’t really pin point exactly where neural activ...

    The issue of brain/mind irreducibility  is crucial for several reasons. First because people tend to equate soul with mind and as such they often take reducibility as proof that the only existing things are naturalistic. While it is possible to maintain a spirituality that is based upon a naturalistic mind as the physical product of brain, the possibility of mind as a basic product of nature and irreducible offers the prospect of a dimension not reducible to the physical and thus shatters naturalism/materialism from the outset. It is also possible to produce God arguments based upon a non reductive reading of mind. Moreover, the reductionist reading provides the basis for deterministic ideology that threatens to reduce the value of humanity and to eliminate he integrity of human agency. Theoretically non Reduceable.             By way of explanation of the two sides, I will take property dualism as r...

  Originally Posted by NoctambulantJoycean God is not love; God can have the attribute of being loving, but God is not love. I don't know why some theists make a mistake this basic. The basis for something is equated with the thing itself. Yes God is love. you are making a huge mistake but it's typical reductionist misunderstanding of things. (1) reduce the wording from its metaphorical state it's an attempt to denude the power of the statement. (2) It's literally true in the sense of the contingency. If love is merely an experience of adaptation that comes from an accident of neural net based upon brain chemistry, then it's limits to the feelings attached to the sentiment and is not purposeful or expansive. So the concept of Love (agape) in a God ordained universe has a lot more to it than love in a Godless universe. It's like saying your dog is hunger, as opposed to saying your dog has the attribute ...

Notice in these arguments every single argument they make is flatly contradicted bya pile of studies, the artheists are totally un aware of this fact. Atheist: Opponents of the Religious Experience Argument claim that religious experiences involve imagination rather than perception, Hinman Clearly its more than just imagination, if any is involved, because the effects are real. I devote several chapters in the book to proving this. I discuss study after study. Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75. Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614. Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184. Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavior...

Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa* on the blog arguments for atheism. ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE The Argument | The Refutation They begin by asserting: The Religious Experience Argument posits that one can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. My arguments do not proceed from this premise. I make two arguments in the trace of God. The first proceeds from the reasonable assertion that we are warranted to trust our experiences, thus we are justified in believing on that basis. The second argument is based upon the premise that our only rational epistemic assumption must of necessity be based upon the results of experiences. Since religious experiences are proven scientifically to correlate with positive outcomes we are warranted in assuming their reality. argument 1 Co-determinate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a f...

Multiverse is the idea that our space/time is merely one "universe" in a huge limitless number of parallel worlds. Atheists often use this concept to argue against the fine tuning argument by saying with all those universe out there the odds of hitting one that can bare life is not so great. Our life bearing universe is not as improbable as the FTA would have us believe because when we consider that it's just one of a limitless expanse of other worlds then it's not so improbable that one would have life. We just happen to be it, if we weren't we wouldn't know about it. We would not be here. Sometimes they also argue that against the cosmological argument on the grounds that the universe is eternal and infinite and parallel words have been popping up forever. Then there's no way to say "here's the moment of creation." Atheists have another favorite tactic and that is to argue that Occam's razor rules out God because God is not th...

   I'm going against advice and deal with arguments by carm atheists because I think it's important to remember that certain things have been answered. Dealing with an old article by Richard Carrier that was sighted recently on CARM. Even though it's old these guys are rallying around it like its new and the same bunck is being noised about by atheists all the time. Carrier's article is here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html this is prompted by Fleetmouse's statement that: "You have no answers to Carrier's essay. " He seems the most worked up over the idea that since carrier proves the superstitious nature of the folks of Jesus day, like he never considered that. That's something I knew about as a kid. I used it in highschool to justify my own atheism (1973).  I can't imagine anyone being impressed by it. Be that as it may that's not an argument so examine it.   Carrier My first reaction...