Friday, October 28, 2016

argument from God Corrolate

We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the world.The only question at that point is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine? The answer is in the argument below. Here let us set out some general parameters:

We can set up criteria based upon what we would expect from encounter with the divine:

A. Life Transforming and vital in a positive life=affirming sense

B. It would give us a sense of the transcendent and the divine.

C. No alternate or naturalistic causality could be proven

These criteria are based upon the writings of the great mystics and religious thinkers of history, especially in the Christian tradition, and distilled into /theory by W.T. Stace. The theory is verified and validated by several hundred studies using various methodologies all of them published in peer reviewed journals. The following argument is based upon the findings of these studies. All of this, the studies, the methods used, Stace's theory, these studies and their methodologies are discussed in depth in The Trace of God: a Rational Warrant for Belief by Joseph Hinman, (all proceeds go to non profit) available on Amazon



Read much about the book on the Trace of God blog..

Argument:


(1) Real effects come from real causes

(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real

(3) the effects of mystical experience are real

(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.

(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine

(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine

(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.

(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME


I do not claim that I have proved the existence of God. This is a rational reason to believe in God., Therefore Belief in God is rationally warranted,. not proved but warranted,

6 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

The argument moves from the reality of the cause to the reality of the content. This, in general, is not defensible.

If a child is so afraid of monsters under the bed that she won't go to sleep, we can't conclude from the reality of her refusal that there really are monsters under the bed.

Joe Hinman said...

that is rubbish, you are purposely making an un-analogous example,you chose an example with no real effects but we have real effects. if there are real growling noises coming from under the bed and the kid has scratches then that's a good reason to there is something there.

Eric Sotnak said...

Behavior doesn't count as a real effect?
Scratches are objectively observable physical effects. Growling noises are objectively observable physical phenomena.
When you say "(3) the effects of mystical experience are real" are these real in the sense you are demanding in my example?

Joe Hinman said...

giving up drugs an alcohol are physical effects. Being more socially conscious might be considered a physic effect. Psychological changes that producer enhanced life style are exemplified physical behaviors that is physical, even if it is not physical it;'s measurable.


The skeptical argument says that feelings can't be measured but when they translate into measurable differences in behavior or outlook that leads to positive social situation it is measurable.

is measurable. That measurement has existed in psychology as a test score for decades. measurable results, it doesn't have to be tanglble to be significant or measurable,

Joe Hinman said...

Behavior doesn't count as a real effect?
Scratches are objectively observable physical effects. Growling noises are objectively observable physical phenomena.
When you say "(3) the effects of mystical experience are real" are these real in the sense you are demanding in my example?

yes that's my point

im-skeptical said...

Here's my response to your argumment.