A tragic tale of atheist incredulity:

An atheist on CARM called "Space Monkey" offered to show me a way to restructure on of my arguments and make it logically valid, which of course he pretends it wasn't.

My original argument:

(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion

(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being

(3) Thus being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion

(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."

(5) since we know this special sense of being existing then QED God exists.

Here's the version he restructured:

(1) For many people, the “sense of the numinous” evokes feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 1]

(2) For [some of(?)] those people, this “sense of the numinous” results from a perception of the juxtaposition of the finite nature of ourselves and the infinite nature of the universe, and contemplation of the “special nature of being” which is rationally inferred on the basis of these perceptions. [Premise 2]

(3) This “special nature of being” refers to the necessary existence of a “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of reality. [Premise 3]

(4) These perceptions and the inferred “special nature of being” meet our criteria of epistemic judgment. [Premise 4]

(5) If certain perceptions or inferences meet our criteria of epistemic judgment, then it is rationally warranted to conclude that the perceptions, and that which is inferred on their basis, accurately represents the nature of reality. [Premise 5]

(6) For many people, feelings of religious devotion are evoked by that which results from contemplation of the “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of all reality, which they are rationally warranted in taking to accurately represent the nature of reality. [From 1~5]

(7) For these people, the “ground of being” or “being itself” is itself the object or source of the evoked feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 6]

(8) Whatever is the object or source of feelings of religious devotion can be reasonably defined as “God”. [Premise 7]

(9) There are people who are rationally warranted in concluding that reality contains as its basis that which we can reasonably call "God".
[Conclusion, from 6, 7, & 8]

I agree that his version is closer to being a more formally correct version. I studied Perlman's non formal logic and I don't think it has to be formally correct to be logically valid or to make sense as an idea. Of atheists mock and ridicule it saying that's the 'ravings ofa mad man" and that it's terrible makes no sense. They  have said "you are the only person in the world who thinks the way you do." My ideas are so way out so they so stupid. But if you look at the content mine and his, the only difference is a big of teaking to explain more about why each move is the way it is.

I had explained that myself anyway, I just didn't do it in each line, I did it analysis after each line, what's the difference as long as the ideas are the same the reasons for them are out there? But of course Spacemonkey doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying, even he is very intelligent and I'm not criticizing his abilities. Here is the full presentation I made:

Definitions:

Sense of the numinous: intuitive sense that some special quality or attribute obtains to some aspect of reality such that it points to a larger all embracing truth, some realm of the divine, or some divine aspect of reality. (numinous means "spiritual" form the Greek Penuma).

Ground of being: (aka "being itself") The basic aspect of being that is not contingent are particular to any temporal or temporary or contingent aspect of beings or a being, but is eternal, ontologically necessary, and upon which the individual beings are predicted.

religious: Human tendency to identify the set of problems related to the nature of being human, the way in which humans define the nature of their own existence and that of other humans with respect to meaning or purpose on an ontological level, and the attempt to mediate an ultimate transfomrative experience through ritual or other means such that the sense of problematic is resolved in the transformative power.

Religious Devotion: Personal commitment ot a form of medication (see above).


Basic assumptions: all arguments are based upon assumption, even in scientific studies. This is not an argument it's just the background to the argument based upon things I generally assume about the sources of our knowledge at the most basic level.

(1) The argument assumes that all human understanding of the nature of reality begins with the phenomenological level. That is to say the categories of thought suggested to us by our sense data.

(2) Phenomenological level is predicated upon the five senses in addition to some insinuative senses that humans believe obtain from the nature of being human. (note: this is not necessarily esp or psychic power, just the regular sense of intuition). I include the intuitive because I'm talking about the most basic epistemology. Included with intuition is tacit knowing. It's a psychological function. I'm not saying that our knowledge of the world rests upon this, but it is part of the mix of sources that goes into our understanding of what's real.

(3) Even our basic trust of "official" or "proven" or "empirical" "facts" are based upon, in the final analysis, the extent to which the regular nature of our perceptions have led us to trust such things. For example mathematics is trusted by mathematics because they study it. It may not be trusted by fish mongers or pig iron collectors becuase they have no experiential basis for placing trust in mathematics. They have not studied it.

(4) The extent to which the trust that which we place our confidence in is related to the extent to which such sources meet the criteria:

(a) regular

(b) consistent

(c) shared (inter-subjective)

(d) promotes navigation in the world and in life.

By "navigation in the world and in life" I mean we can use the perceptions to get by, either in physically understanding the world, or emotionally coping with the world. In this way we form trust about perceptions if, and only if, they work, they help us in the process of coping and understanding.

(5) If we can logically place confidence in a proposition, and that confidence is born out in some way (vis the criteria just outlined) then are justified in our confidence and the proposition in which we place confidence is rationally warranted.

Argument:

premise:
(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion

Premise:
(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being



Inferense
(3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion

inferense
(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."

conclusion
(5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality.


Now let's go over again and I'll explain why I draw these conclusions:




premise:
(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion

this is a statement based upon empirical observations made by anthropologists, historians of religion and other social social scientist. The idea of a sense of numinous is old and is well documented in may areas: the works of Marcea Eliade, Karl karene and studies by Ralph Hood, W.E. Stace, William James and others. All of this body of work from scholars and historians link the sense of the numinous to the orignis of religion.

The old 19th century sociological approach was to assume that religion was about explaining nature. That's becasue they were structural functionalists and they were trying justify their theory that things exist in social structure because they serve a function to the tribe; they did not understand the sense of the numinous as a serving a function, because they didn't have it and they shaped early man in their own images.

Social scientists don't make those assumptions now. Now we look for the real reasons people think things, by listening to them on their own terms.


Premise:
(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being

There is a link from the concept of sense of the numinous to the concept of eternal necessary being (being itself). That is through the perception of the juxtaposition between infinite and finite. In other words, we sense our limitations as temporal creatures, vs the endless nature of the entire universe, we sense our smallness against the backdrop of the vast universe, in making these perceptions the sense of the numinous is evoked and we connect that psychologically to a sense of the nature of what it means to be (that is demonstrated through the studies on mystical experience--one of the major aspects of mystical experience is that juxtaposition between infinite and finite.

So by contrasting between of being as a whole vs our own limited nature, we link the sense of the numinous to being because its evoked by contemplation of being.

Inferense
(3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion.

what that sentence means is what I just said above. We draw certain conclusions psychologically form the experience of this juxtaposition that creates a link between being and the numinous, that link tells us that this special nature of the numinous is based in the eternal necessary nature of being itself. In other words the eternal necessary aspects of being (the vast universe for example) as opposed to any one particular being that is merely temporal and quickly vanishing (my own finite existence) grounds the sense of the numinous in the concepts of eternal necessary being.

In other words we derive from these experiences of nature, such as the starry sky over the night time desert, the sense that the eternal and necessary aspects of being are where the divine aspects of reality are located.


inferense
(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."

This sentence is logically derived from the information given previously and it just says that when we think about the nature of religion (apart form hating it) whatever evokes the psychological sense of the numinous is a valid object of worship, why? Because that's what worship is, it's commitment and devotion to the special nature of reality perceived in this thing called "sense of the numinous." Since that's the center and origin of religion anyway it's the final orbiter as to what is sacred.

the sense of the numinous itself is a sense of the sacred. we can put this into a syllogism

*whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship

*the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred

*therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship.

now we come to the conclusion.

conclusion
(5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality.

In other words it's just the logical outcome of what's said above. the eternal necessary nature of being (or our perceptions of same) motivate the basis of religious devotion and connect them to these aspects of being which are designated as 'ground of being.' Therefore, we are justified or rationally warranted in assuming that or in placing confidence in the proposition we are actually sensing some divine aspect to reality.

this divine aspect of reality is what the term "God" stands for.


We can make a syllogistic argument:

*whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship

*the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred

*therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship.


*"God" is the designation for the fit object of worship

*Ground of being is a fit object of worship (from above)


*therefore we are rationally warranted in thinking of ground of being as "God."

Premise
*whatever is the ground of being has an actual existence according to the definition above as "eternal" and "necessary" aspects of being

*We are justified in thinking of the ground of Being as "God" since it evokes the numinous and is a fit object of worship; the term "God" designates a fit object of worship

*therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that God has a real an actual existence as the ground of being.

We could go further and argue that in experiencing this realization we find the epistemic criteria are met and thus it works as a means of navigation in the world, and that is the ground for epistemic judgment, in other words for deciding that it's real.

the overall conclusion: we are rationally warranted for concluding that reality contains as it's basis that which we call "God."

I grant that some of the reasons might be better expressed by Spacemonkey and that perhaps doing it his way is better, even though I like mine for its streamlined nature, fewer lines. All he did was put sme of the explanation in further premises but long as the content is there I don't see why it really matters. The atheists are acting this is retarded  to this way. It appears that the can't understand concepts. They can't think logically either. All they can think about is form.

another atheist named Electric Skeptic says:

But SpaceMonkey's version is far better than yours. It is much more exact, with much less question begging, and requires anyone who disagrees to be far more specific in specifying exactly what they disagree with - which would enable the person posting it to be able to better rebut their rebuttal.

I don't see why that would not all be there in the analysis anyway, but be that as it may, I decided to go for the pithy comment rather than argue. So I said "then you better get busy."

ES: Busy doing what?

Meta: debating the argument because now that you admit it's good I'll be using it all the time.

ES says:

Oh, I getcha. I admitted that SpaceMonkey's version is much better framed - I didn't admit that it's a good argument

But I'll certainly tackle his version, if you'd like.

Spacemonkey says:

Notice that there are now many more premises which an opponent might reasonably wish to challenge. But note also that no-one can rationally reject the conclusion now without also specifying exactly which premise or premises they disagree with and why. 

 While disagreement is still open, he has to demonstrate which premise he disagrees with and why. So does he? No! of course not, he never has. In fact 90% of the time when I challenge them to show what's wrong with any of my premises they never do. Once I put all the first premises to all my God arguments in a list to see which they agree withe (not telling them they were premises to God arguments) they did not disagree with a single one,

Bill Walker Strickes Again.

"Who is Bill Walker? I hear you asking. He's just a friendly internet atheist who stops by from time to time to say stuff so I'll have material for another blog piece. Well he's at it again. He has a gimmick, he acts like his insulting diatribes against things he doesn't study or understand are really for my own good, and the fains the anguish of a Pastor fretting over the lost sheep of his flock.

Here's his latest:

Joe, You have no idea how much I am hoping that you will see past that book of mean/dirty fairy tales. The bronze age 'produced/ invented' a huge number of 'saviors'. Only 15 or 16 were crucified, the rest were poisoned, hanged or impaled. JC is the composite of these other 'saviors'. He was 'created' at Nicaea, 325CE. If you spent a tenth of the time reading history, that you have wasted reading that book of fairy tales, you would join us at ExChristian.Net. We would love to have you join us in disbelief of an invisible, imaginary deity created by Emperor Constantine.

Pretty unremarkable, and this was posted on the well worn post about introducing atheist watch which I know he's seen before, telling me this is just a routine mission and not some new idea. Since there is nothing remarkable here it's hardly worth commenting on. But I will anyway because it demonstrates such typical meld of all the major atheists buzz words and myths that have been floating around the net, that have been answered, disproved, beaten into the ground so many many times, and thus stands as a testimony to how littl atheists really listen to what we say.

Of course the begins with the usual name calling, the bbile si fair tale ect ect. its' so stupid any one who would believe that bunch of hog wash is an idiot. Of course he can't say that that would be a dead give away. But by insulting the book he's insulting the reader.

Then of course he launched into the tired old well disproved carp of Jesus mytherism. He knows this composite crap, this lie has been exposed as the lie that it is. He's heard this a million times, but like so many ideologically driven atheist minions of the hate group he doesn't care what's true or what's real. He's not seeking any kind of answer, he's a soldier. He's in the war, he's on the battle field, he's firing his weapon at the enemy, his weapon is the lie about the unhistorical nature of Jesus. He's a solider, this is what soldiers do they shoot at the enemy.

My page on Doxa, copy cat savior? thoroughly destroys this nonsense. Speaking of copy cat don't tell J.P. Holding about the title of that article I kind of, well, copied it.

the lunacy about Jesus being created at Nicaea hardly deserves an answer. No one with any sort of real knowledge of anything connected with the new testament would think that. Even those with a very elementary and cursory familiarity with it can see by just reading the NT what a crap it is to claim that.

He has the gall to say this:

If you spent a tenth of the time reading history, that you have wasted reading that book of fairy tales, you would join us at ExChristian.Net. We would love to have you join us in disbelief of an invisible, imaginary deity created by Emperor Constantine.

My dear fellow. I spent ten years in a Ph.D. program studying history. I know from my training as a historian that you know nothing about the subject. I doubt that you have adequate undergraduate training in the subject. You are a good little soldier but you are not a scholar or a thinker and you know nothing about history. I looked at the ExChrsitain.net sight and was totally unimpressed. As thinkers we are better off without most of them.

The link above to my Doxa page is important becuase it links to many other sites where the documentation to back up the follows view are found, it also contains my answers on other figures. Just to show a little bit of the how desperately misguided the mytehrs are I'm going to show what I say about Mithra who is one of the major figures they use most often.



The Mythic Mysteries are very complex, and the only real similarities to Jesus are minute ones.. Most of these alleged similarities are suspect or unimportant. It is often claimed by skeptics on the Internet that "there is so much similarity" but I find very little. Mithra comes from Persia and is part of Zoroastrian myth, but this cult was transplanted to Rome near the end of the pre-Christian era. Actually the figure of Mithra is very ancient. He began in the Hindu pantheon and is mentioned in the Vedas. He latter spread to Persia where he took the guise of a sheep protecting deity. But his guise as a shepherd was rather minor. He is associated with the Sun as well. Yet most of our evidence about his cult (which apparently didn't exist in the Hindu or Persian forms) comes from Post-Pauline times. Mythic rituals were meant to bring about the salvation and transformation of initiates. In that sense it could be seen as similar to Christianity, but it was a religion and all religions aim at ultimate transformation. He's a total mythical figure he meets the sun who kneels before him, he slays a cosmic bull, nothing is real or human, no sayings, no teachings.

1) no Virginal Conception

Mithra was born of a rock, so unless the rock was a virgin rock, no virginal conception for him. (Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper, 1987,, p. 201). David Ulansey, who is perhaps the greatest Mithric scholar of the age, agrees that Mithras was born out of a rock, not of a virgin woman. He was also born as a full grown adult. (Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1989.)

2) No crucifixion or resurrection.

There no story of Mithras death and no references to resurrection. The only similarity about him in this relation is that his shedding of the Bull's blood is said by H.G. Wells (Out Line of World History ) to be the prototype for Jesus sacrifice on the cross. But in reality the only similarity here is blood, and it wasn't even his own. It may even be borrowing form Christianity that made the shedding of blood important in the religion. Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- (Gordon, Richard. Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.(p96)

3) No Savior, no baptism, no Christmas

Moreover, one of the major sources comes from the second century AD and is found in inscriptions on a temple, "and you saved us after having shed the eternal blood." This sounds Christian, but being second century after Christ it could well be borrowed from Christianity (Meyer, p 206). (This source, Meyer, is used by Kane as well, but it says nothing to back up his claims, and as will be seen latter, Meyer disparages the notion of conscious borrowing] (More about this ceremony on Page II)

"Mithra was the Persian god whose worship became popular among Roman soldiers (his cult was restricted to men) and was to prove a rival to Christianity in the late Roman Empire. Early Zoroastrian texts, such as the Mithra Yasht, cannot serve as the basis of a mystery of Mithra inasmuch as they present a god who watches over cattle and the sanctity of contracts. Later Mithraic evidence in the west is primarily iconographic; there are no long coherent texts". (Edwin Yamauchi, "Easter: "Myth, Hallucination, or History," Leadership University)

4) Most of our sources Post Date Christianity.

.....(a) Almost no Textual evidence exists for Mithraism

Most of the texts that do exist are from outsiders who were speculating about the cult. We have no information form inside the cult.

Cosmic Mysteries of Mythras (website--visted July 1, 2006)

David Ulansey (the Major scholar of Mithraism in world)

Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas.

International congress of Mithraic studies

"At present our knowledge of both general and local cult practice in respect of rites of passage, ceremonial feats and even underlying ideology is based more on conjecture than fact." (Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975. ,437)

And Cumont himself observed, in the 50s

"The sacred books which contain the prayers recited or chanted during the [Mithraic] survives, the ritual on the initiates, and the ceremonials of the feasts, have vanished and left scarce a trace behind...[we] know the esoteric disciplines of the Mysteries only from a few indiscretions." (Cumont, Franz. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950.152)

........(b) Roman Cult began after Jesus life

Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. The earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the third century. (Ulansey, David. Cosmoic Mysteries of Mithras (Ulansey website)

..........(c) No Continuity between Ancient Persian past and Roman Cult

Throughout most of the twentieth century Franz Cumont so influenced scholarship that the entire discipline followed in the wake of his assumption that the Roman cult was spread by the Persian cult. In the early 70's David Ulansey did for Mithric scholarship what Noan Chomsky did for linguistics, he totally redefined the coordinates by which the discipline moved. Ulansey showed that the Roman cult was not the continuance of the Persian cult, that there was no real evidence of a Persian cult. He showed that the killing of the great comic bull which latter became the major event in Mithraism, and the parallel from which Jesus Mythers get the shedding of blood and sacrifice, was not known in the Persian era. This was be like showing that the story of the Cross was not known to Christians in the first century. The major likeness to Christianity and the central point of the cult of Mithraism was not known in the time of Christ, in the time Paul, or for at least two centuries after:

"There were, however, a number of serious problems with Cumont's assumption that the Mithraic mysteries derived from ancient Iranian religion. Most significant among these is that there is no parallel in ancient Iran to the iconography which is the primary fact of the Roman Mithraic cult. For example, as already mentioned, by far the most important icon in the Roman cult was the tauroctony. This scene shows Mithras in the act of killing a bull, accompanied by a dog, a snake, a raven, and a scorpion; the scene is depicted as taking place inside a cave like the mithraeum itself. This icon was located in the most important place in every mithraeum, and therefore must have been an expression of the central myth of the Roman cult. Thus, if the god Mithras of the Roman religion was actually the Iranian god Mithra, we should expect to find in Iranian mythology a story in which Mithra kills a bull. However, the fact is that no such Iranian myth exists: in no known Iranian text does Mithra have anything to do with killing a bull." (David Ulansey Mithras Mysteries).

(5) Mithraism Emerged in the west only after Jesus' day.

Mithraism could not have become an influence upon the origins of the first century, for the simple reason that Mithraism did not emerge from its pastoral setting in rural Persia until after the close of the New Testament canon. (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.)

(6) We Don't know what any of it means.

"No one can be sure that the meaning of the meals and the ablutions are the same between Christianity and Mithraism. Just because the two had them is no indication that they come to the same thing. These are entirely superficial and circumstantial arguments." (Nash, Christian Research Journal winter 94, p.8)

(7) Mithraism was influenced by Christianity

,,,,,,,,,,a) Roman Soldiers Spread the cult.

Roman soldiers probably encountered Mithraism first as part of Zoroastrians when they while on duty in Persia. The Cult spread through the Roman legion, was most popular in the West, and ha little chance to spread through or influence upon Palestine. It's presence in Palestine was mainly confined to the Romans who were there to oppress the Jews. Kane tries to imply that these mystery cults were all indigenous to the Palestinian area, that they grew up alongside Judaism, and that the adherents to these religions all traded ideas as they happily ate together and practiced good neighborship.

,,,,,,,,,,,,b) Mithric Roman Soldiers Influenced by Christians in Palestine

But Mithraism was confined to the Roman Legion primarily, those who were stationed in Palestine to subdue the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66-70. In fact strong evidence indicates that in this way Christianity influenced Mithraism. First, because Romans stationed in the West were sent on short tours of duty to fight the Parthians in the East, and to put down the Jewish revolt. This is where they would have encountered a Christianity whose major texts were already written, and whose major story (that of the life of Christ) was already formed.

"There is no real evidence for a Persian Cult of Mithras. The cultic and mystery aspect did not exist until after the Roman period, second century to fourth. This means that any similarities to Christianity probably come from Christianity as the Soldiers learned of it during their tours in Palestine. The Great historian of religions, Franz Cumont was able to prove that the earliest datable evidence for the cult came from the Military Garrison at Carnuntum, on the Danube River (modern Hungary). The largest Cache of Mithric artifacts comes form the area between the Danube and Ostia in Italy." (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.)

3) Mithraism was not Christianity's Major Rival



Mithraism

The Ecole Initiative:

http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/articles/mithraism.html

Mithraism had a wide following from the middle of the second century to the late fourth century CE, but the common belief that Mithraism was the prime competitor of Christianity, promulgated by Ernst Renan (Renan 1882 579), is blatantly false. Mithraism was at a serious disadvantage right from the start because it allowed only male initiates. What is more, Mithraism was, as mentioned above, only one of several cults imported from the eastern empire that enjoyed a large membership in Rome and elsewhere. The major competitor to Christianity was thus not Mithraism but the combined group of imported cults and official Roman cults subsumed under the rubric "paganism." Finally, part of Renan's claim rested on an equally common, but almost equally mistaken, belief that Mithraism was officially accepted because it had Roman emperors among its adherents (Nero, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and the Tetrarchs are most commonly cited). Close examination of the evidence for the participation of emperors reveals that some comes from literary sources of dubious quality and that the rest is rather circumstantial. The cult of Magna Mater, the first imported cult to arrive in Rome (204 BCE) was the only one ever officially recognized as a Roman cult. The others, including Mithraism, were never officially accepted, and some, particularly the Egyptian cult of Isis, were periodically outlawed and their adherents persecuted.