tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post3245926019037963228..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-50462627383817178612018-02-27T08:10:18.974-08:002018-02-27T08:10:18.974-08:00If that can be called an argument, I'd say it ...If that can be called an argument, I'd say it is exactly what many believers would say. But to my ears, it is more of an assertion than an argument.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-35960279426314235182018-02-26T22:07:05.490-08:002018-02-26T22:07:05.490-08:00It seems to me that Metacrock's argument can b...It seems to me that Metacrock's argument can be stated much more simply: we perceive God in mystical experiences. But that does sound very pretentious or pompous, and that may be why Metacrock does not like it.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-17624368486052246172016-11-01T15:42:22.897-07:002016-11-01T15:42:22.897-07:00I think the whole line of reasoning about "re...I think the whole line of reasoning about "real" causes and "real" effects is dubious. I have no problem admitting that experiences are real and that whatever causes them is also real. But this is sloppy thinking. Conflating a mental event <i>about</i> something with the thing itself. The mental experience is real, and it might have real consequences, but that doesn't imply that whatever it makes you think of is real.<br /><br />Joe has not formulated his argument well. Statement 4 is an example of that. He skipped a step. On the assumption that A (the divine) causes B (the experience), which in turn causes C (improved life), the argument would say that if C is real, then its cause (B) must be real. And if B is real, then its cause (A) must be real. But that's not the way he argued it. Again, he conflates the mental experience with the thing itself, that he believes is what causes it. And that just shows the sloppiness of his logical thinking.<br /><br />On the other hand, if he states his argument more precisely, it becomes easier to see where assumptions are made, and easier to show that those assumptions are not defended.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-37245926031878617702016-11-01T12:49:36.300-07:002016-11-01T12:49:36.300-07:00Number 6 is so obviously invalid it makes me wonde...Number 6 is so obviously invalid it makes me wonder about the mindset that would accept it.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.com