Thursday, December 20, 2007

We do not have Souls We ARE Souls!

Photobucket
the soul is not like Casper



It seems almost a universal belief among atheists on the net (with some notable exceptions) that science has explained all of consciousness, reduced "mind" to an illusory nature, a side effect of brain chemistry. Atheists argue this fantasy from the stand point of the soul or the spirit, reducing dualistic aspects of religious thought to only the material realm, thus confirming their naturalism and eliminating what they see as privative religious thinking. The problem is, this is sheer fantasy. The atheist delusion that the whole of science accepts this conclusion as fact and as a matter of course is totally contradicted by the major physicists (Pennrose) and the Nobel Laureates who support many of the new forms of dualism or quantum versions of consciousness.

Atheists argue this issue on two grounds: (1) that there is no data of any kind whatsoever supporting any sort of soul or spirit; (2) that alterations to brain chemistry seem to alter consciousness in many ways. Thus they conclude that brain chemistry is what "mind" reduce to, and there is nothing more than that and there need be nothing more than that. To answer the first point first, what atheists have in mind on the issue of soul is something like Casper the friendly ghost. They seem to think that religious thinking has not advanced sufficiently to get past the vaper notion of a by gone era. But not all religious view points understand things in is way.

"Soul," in my parlance, is a veg term which is given no consistent use in the Bible. What emerges from the Biblical text most often is the idea that "soul" is a symbolic term referring to the over all life of the individual, especially with reference to the religious sphere, the telos of the individual's life goal, the after life. This is not to say that "soul" is what lives on, except in the symbolic sense. In other words, we do not have souls, we are souls. Thus the Bible speaks of a certain number of "souls" going down into Egypt, or we speak of "lost souls" and "saving souls."

It is Spirit that I think of as the thing that lives after death. Spirit is the "life force" in a metaphorical sense. Now this doesn't mean it's a mysterious energy, for I understand "spirit" in the way that Albert Schweitzer did, as mind: Spirit = mind. Mind is an immaterial aspect of brain which produces consciousness, self awareness, and that is what lives on after death. Of course the atheist will argue that the mind is a side effect of brain chemistry, below (page 3) I present a boat load of data to show that this is simply not the case. Mind transcends brain. Of course we should be prepared to assume that mind is produced by brain function, that is "caused" by having a brain; but just being caused by the brain doesn't mean that the mind is reduced to the brain. As for living without a brain, we are talking about a state of after life. Of course we shouldn't expect minds to go running around planet earth without brains while people are still alive, but in the state of after life, where one transcends the material, why not? Some Christians might raise the issue of "resurrection body," but when Jesus was still in the flesh, after the resurrection, he told Mary he had not yet ascended to the father, and implied that his body would be transformed. Paul says he was raised a life giving spirit; he doesn't say he was a life giving spirit immediately upon raising.So perhaps in the state of after life the "resurrection body" is pure spirit? That is to say, the resurrection body is pure mind; being taken up into God's presence the mind coheres through some divine measure we know not of? That seems like the simplest solution to consider to me.

As for the issue of brain chemistry and changing brain function changes consciousness, there is a problem here between correlation and causality. There is a very strong correlation between brain damage and changes of consciousness, but there is no way to prove that this is because the mind is reduce able to the brain. If the mind is dependent upon the brain as a soft ware package is dependent upon hardware, then of course damaging the hard ware would make the soft ware inaccessible, but it would not mean that soft are is reduceable to hardware.

This idea always leaves atheists cold and usually they just ignore it on message boards. But it really does answer all the problems connected with belief in life after death and soul. It is not an entity that lives separately from the body. Its' the symbol of the over all life in relation to God. Mind is spirit, this means there is no Casper like aspect of humans that lives on after death. Mind may or may not live on after death, but as mind and we can ponder "resurrection body" another time. This makes after life something of a physical thing. If we are ideas in the mind of God this is not hard to understand. All God need to do so save our maind matrix is just think about it adhering

.


My concept that we don't have souls, we are souls, that it is a metaphor for the overall life, but especially in relation to God, our relationship with god (save soul/lost soul) has tons of biblical backing:

*where people themselves are referred to as souls

word for "soul" is translated "life" in many verses.


Matthew10 uses


Mt 6:25 "For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clo thing?

Mt 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (could go either way)

how could you destroy the soul in sheol (hell) if the soul lives on? It must mean our overall life on earth.



Mt 10:39 "He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it.

Mt 11:29 "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your soul s.

Mt 12:18 "Behold, My Servant whom I HAVE CHOSEN; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim JUSTICE TO THE Gentiles.

Mt 16:25 "For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it.

Mt 16:26 "For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (in exchange for his overall life, so it could fit this passage)

Mt 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Mt 22:37 And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'




Revelation:


Re 6:9 And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the soul s of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;


Re 8:9 and a third of the creatures, which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed.
Re 12:11 "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death.


Re 16:3 And the second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like that of a dead man; and every living thing in the sea died.

Re 18:13 and cinnamon and spice and incense and perfume and frankincense and wine and olive oil and fine flour and wheat and cattle and sheep, and cargoes of horses and chariots and slaves and human lives.*


Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the soul s of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


Acts



Ac 2:27 Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor ALLOW Thy Holy One to UNDERGO DECAY.

Ac 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand soul s.*



Ac 3:23 'And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet* shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'

Ac 4:32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that any thing belonging to him was his own; but all thing s were common property to them.

Ac 7:14 "And Joseph sent word and invited Jacob his father and all his relatives to come to him, seventy-five person s in all.

Ac 14:2 But the Jews who disbelieved stirred up the mind s of the Gentiles, and embittered them against the brethren.

Ac 14:22 strengthening the soul s of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."

Ac 15:24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your soul s,

Ac 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ac 20:10 But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him."

Ac 20:24 "But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.

Ac 27:10 and said to them, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be attended with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives."

Ac 27:22 "And yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there shall be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.

Ac 27:37 And all of us in the ship were two hundred and seventy-six person s.


1 Pete:

1Pe 1:9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your soul s.

1Pe 1:22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your soul s for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

1Pe 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. (either way)

1Pe 2:25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your soul s.

1Pe 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight person s, were brought safely through the water.

1Pe 4:19 Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their soul s to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. (either)


Hebrews most of these could go either way)




Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart

Heb 6:19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

Heb 10:38 But My righteous one shall live by faith; And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

Heb 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

Heb 12:3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your soul s, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.




I'm going to expand into a second post. But note, the alternative is to see soul as either berath or mysterious life force, or emotions. But while we can be assured that ancient people probably did understand soul as life force or something mysteirous, we need not see it that way. Part fo the time its used in the way that spirit is used; as an extention of mind, emotions, feelings, understanding, seat of motivation.








MetacrockSense of the Numinous.

Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 2051
(11/1/05 8:49 am)
152.163.100.195
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter

Re: Can you prove there is such a thing as a soul...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pslams

I am not gonig to go through and mark each one. I did that. I was three passages from the end of the list, puched the wrong button by mistake and zapped the whole post! I will not tro though it again. But I'll tell you my findings and you can corroboarate if you wish.


I did find three enstances in Pslams (the word Nephish is used something like 134 times) where it is used in the sense of "my soul which is within me." It says direclty "it is within me." But don't celibrate too soon LV, that's 3 to 200. I will admit there probably was a concept of the soul as within; but not as an amorphus gohst taking up space like a kidney. It was either that of the emotions, or the seat of intellect and feeling, or the life force, or the idea of the self.

But the vast majority of verses the word is used in the pslams to mean "my overall life being saved from death." it is contrsted with Sheol quite a bit. In other words, life vs death. And in many estnaces (over eight) it is translated directly as "life" in the sense of "save my life." Pslams are poetic, and in a great many of these estances the seeming emotional aspect of the soul is, I think, the literary device of personification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ps 3:2 Man y are saying of my soul, "There is no deliverance for him in God." Selah.
Ps 6:3 And my soul is greatly dismayed; But Thou, O Lord-- how long?
Ps 6:4 Return, O Lord, rescue my soul; Save me because of Thy lovingkindness.
Ps 7:2 Lest he tear my soul like a lion, Dragging me away, while there is none to deliver.
Ps 7:5 Let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it; And let him trample my life d own to the ground, And lay my glory in the dust. Selah.
Ps 10:3 For the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, And the greedy man curses and spurns the Lord.
Ps 11:1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. In the Lord I take refuge; How can you say to my soul, "Flee as a bird to your mountain;
Ps 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Ps 13:2 How long shall I take counsel in my soul, Having sorrow in my heart all the day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
Ps 16:10 For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.
Ps 17:9 From the wicked who despoil me, My dead ly enemies, who surround me.
Ps 17:13 Arise, O Lord, confront him, bring him low; Deliver my soul from the wicked with Thy sword,
Ps 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
Ps 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.
Ps 22:29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go d own to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.
Ps 23:3 He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.
Ps 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood, And has not sworn deceitfully.
Ps 25:1 A Psalm of David. To Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul.
Ps 25:13 His soul will abide in prosperity, And his descendants will inherit the land.
Ps 25:20 Guard my soul and deliver me; Do not let me be ashamed, for I take refuge in Thee.
Ps 26:9 Do not take my soul away along with sinners, Nor my life with men of bloodshed,
Ps 27:12 Do not deliver me over to the desire of my adversaries; For false witnesses have risen against me, And such as breath e out violence.
Ps 30:3 O Lord, Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol; Thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go d own to the pit.
Ps 31:7 I will rejoice and be glad in Thy lovingkindness, Because Thou hast seen my affliction; Thou hast kn own the troubles of my soul,
Ps 31:9 Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; My eye is wasted away from grief, my soul and my body also.
Ps 31:13 For I have heard the slander of man y, Terror is on every side; While they took counsel together against me, They schemed to take away my life.
Ps 33:19 To deliver their soul from death, And to keep them alive in famine.
Ps 33:20 Our soul waits for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.
Ps 34:2 My soul shall make its boast in the Lord; The humble shall hear it and rejoice.
Ps 34:22 The Lord redeems the soul of His servants; And none of those who take refuge in Him will be condemned.
Ps 35:3 Draw also the spear and the battle-axe to meet those who pursue me; Say to my soul, "I am your salvation."
Ps 35:4 Let those be ashamed and dishonored who seek my life; Let those be turned back and humiliated who devise evil against me.
Ps 35:7 For without cause they hid their net for me; Without cause they dug a pit for my soul.
Ps 35:9 And my soul shall rejoice in the Lord; It shall exult in His salvation.
Ps 35:12 They repay me evil for good, To the bereave men t of my soul.
Ps 35:13 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting; And my prayer kept returning to my bosom.
Ps 35:17 Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only life from the lions.
Ps 35:25 Do not let them say in their heart, "Aha, our desire!" Do not let them say, "We have swallowed him up!"
Ps 38:12 Those who seek my life lay snares for me; And those who seek to injure me have threatened destruction, And they devise treachery all day long.
Ps 40:14 Let those be ashamed and humiliated together Who seek my life to destroy it; Let those be turned back and dishonored Who delight in my hurt.
Ps 41:2 The Lord will protect him, and keep him alive, And he shall be called blessed upon the earth; And do not give him over to the desire of his enemies.
Ps 41:4 As for me, I said, "O Lord, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee."
Ps 42:1 For the choir director. A Maskil of the sons of Korah. As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for Thee, O God.
Ps 42:2 My soul thirst s for God, for the living God; When shall I come and appear before God?
Ps 42:4 These things I remember, and I pour out my soul within me. For I used to go along with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God, With the voice of joy and thanksgiving, a multitude keeping festival.
Ps 42:5 Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him For the help of His presence.
Ps 42:6 O my God, my soul is in despair within me; Therefore I remember Thee from the land of the Jordan, And the peaks of Hermon, from Mount Mizar.
Ps 42:11 Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall yet praise Him, The help of my countenance, and my God.
Ps 43:5 Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him, The help of my countenance, and my God.
Ps 44:25 For our soul has sunk d own into the dust; Our body cleaves to the earth.
Ps 49:8 For the redemption of his soul is costly, And he should cease trying forever--
Ps 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; For He will receive me. Selah.
Ps 49:18 Though while he lives he congratulates himself -- And though men praise you when you do well for yourself --
Ps 54:3 For strangers have risen against me, And violent men have sought my life; They have not set God before them. Selah.
Ps 54:4 Behold, God is my helper; The Lord is the sustainer of my soul.
Ps 55:18 He will redeem my soul in peace from the battle which is against me, For they are man y who strive with me.
Ps 56:6 They attack, they lurk, They watch my steps, As they have waited to take my life.
Ps 56:13 For Thou hast delivered my soul from death, Indeed my feet from stumbling, So that I may walk before God In the light of the living.
Ps 57:1 For the choir director; set to Al-tashheth. A Mikhtam of David, when he fled from Saul, in the cave. Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me, For my soul takes refuge in Thee; And in the shadow of Thy wings I will take refuge, Until destruction passes by.
Ps 57:4 My soul is among lions; I must lie among those who breath e forth fire, Even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, And their tongue a sharp sword.
Ps 57:6 They have prepared a net for my steps; My soul is bowed d own; They dug a pit before me; They themselves have fallen into the midst of it. Selah.
Ps 59:3 For behold, they have set an ambush for my life; Fierce men launch an attack against me, Not for my transgression nor for my sin, O Lord,
Ps 62:1 For the choir director; according to Jeduthun. A Psalm of David. My soul waits in silence for God only; From Him is my salvation.
Ps 62:5 My soul, wait in silence for God only, For my hope is from Him.
Ps 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, Thou art my God; I shall seek Thee earnestly; My soul thirst s for Thee, my flesh yearns for Thee, In a dry and weary land where there is no water.
Ps 63:5 My soul is satisfied as with marrow and fatness, And my mouth offers praises with joyful lips.
Ps 63:8 My soul clings to Thee; Thy right hand upholds me.
Ps 63:9 But those who seek my life, to destroy it, Will go into the depths of the earth.
Ps 66:9 Who keeps us in life, And does not allow our feet to slip.
Ps 66:16 Come and hear, all who fear God, And I will tell of what He has done for my soul.
Ps 69:1 For the choir director; according to Shoshannim. A Psalm of David. Save me, O God, For the waters have threatened my life.
Ps 69:10 When I wept in my soul with fasting, It became my reproach.
Ps 69:18 Oh draw near to my soul and redeem it; Ransom me because of my enemies!
Ps 70:2 Let those be ashamed and humiliated Who seek my life; Let those be turned back and dishonored Who delight in my hurt.
Ps 71:10 For my enemies have spoken against me; And those who watch for my life have consulted together,
Ps 71:13 Let those who are adversaries of my soul be ashamed and consumed; Let them be covered with reproach and dishonor, who seek to injure me.
Ps 71:23 My lips will shout for joy when I sing praises to Thee; And my soul, which Thou hast redeemed.
Ps 72:13 He will have com passion on the poor and needy, And the lives of the needy he will save.
Ps 72:14 He will rescue their life from oppression and violence; And their blood will be precious in his sight;
Ps 74:19 Do not deliver the soul of Thy turtledove to the wild beast; Do not forget the life of Thine afflicted forever.
Ps 77:2 In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord; In the night my hand was stretched out without weariness; My soul refused to be comforted.
Ps 78:18 And in their heart they put God to the test By asking food according to their desire.
Ps 78:50 He leveled a path for His anger; He did not spare their soul from death, But gave over their life to the plague,
Ps 84:2 My soul longed and even yearned for the courts of the Lord; My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God.
Ps 86:2 Do preserve my soul, for I am a godly man; O Thou my God, save Thy servant who trusts in Thee.
Ps 86:4 Make glad the soul of Thy servant, For to Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul.
Ps 86:13 For Thy lovingkindness toward me is great, And Thou hast delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.
Ps 86:14 O God, arrogant men have risen up against me, And a band of violent men have sought my life, And they have not set Thee before them.
Ps 88:3 For my soul has had enough troubles, And my life has drawn near to Sheol.
Ps 88:14 O Lord, why dost Thou reject my soul? Why dost Thou hide Thy face from me?
Ps 89:48 What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah.
Ps 94:17 If the Lord had not been my help, My soul would soon have dwelt in the abode of silence.
Ps 94:19 When my anxious thoughts multiply within me, Thy consolations delight my soul.
Ps 94:21 They band themselves together against the life of the righteous, And condemn the innocent to death.
Ps 97:10 Hate evil, you who love the Lord, Who preserves the soul s of His godly ones; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
Ps 103:1 A Psalm of David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; And all that is within me, bless His holy name.
Ps 103:2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, And forget none of His benefits;
Ps 103:22 Bless the Lord, all you works of His, In all places of His dominion; Bless the Lord, O my soul!
Ps 104:1 Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, Thou art very great; Thou art clothed with splendor and majesty,
Ps 104:35 Let sinners be consumed from the earth, And let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Praise the Lord!
Ps 105:18 They afflicted his feet with fetters, He himself was laid in irons;
Ps 105:22 To imprison his princes at will, That he might teach his elders wisdom.
Ps 106:15 So He gave them their request, But sent a wasting disease among them.
Ps 107:5 They were hungry and thirst y; Their soul fainted within them.
Ps 107:9 For He has satisfied the thirst y soul, And the hungry soul He has filled with what is good.
Ps 107:18 Their soul abhorred all kinds of food; And they drew near to the gates of death.
Ps 107:26 They rose up to the heavens, they went d own to the depths; Their soul melted away in their misery.
Ps 109:20 Let this be the reward of my accusers from the Lord, And of those who speak evil against my soul.
Ps 109:31 For He stands at the right hand of the needy, To save him from those who judge his soul.
Ps 116:4 Then I called upon the name of the Lord: "O Lord, I beseech Thee, save my life!"
Ps 116:7 Return to your rest, O my soul, For the Lord has dealt bountifully with you.
Ps 116:8 For Thou hast rescued my soul from death, My eyes from tears, My feet from stumbling.
Ps 119:20 My soul is crushed with longing After Thine ordinances at all times.
Ps 119:25 Daleth My soul cleaves to the dust; Revive me according to Thy word.
Ps 119:28 My soul weeps because of grief; Strength en me according to Thy word.
Ps 119:81 Kaph My soul languishes for Thy salvation; I wait for Thy word.
Ps 119:109 My life is continually in my hand, Yet I do not forget Thy law.
Ps 119:129 Pe Thy testimonies are wonderful; Therefore my soul observes them.
Ps 119:167 My soul keeps Thy testimonies, And I love them exceedingly.
Ps 119:175 Let my soul live that it may praise Thee, And let Thine ordinances help me.
Ps 120:2 Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, From a deceitful tongue.
Ps 120:6 Too long has my soul had its dwelling With those who hate peace.
Ps 121:7 The Lord will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul.
Ps 123:4 Our soul is greatly filled With the scoffing of those who are at ease, And with the contempt of the proud.
Ps 124:4 Then the waters would have engulfed us, The stream would have swept over our soul;
Ps 124:5 Then the raging waters would have swept over our soul."
Ps 124:7 Our soul has escaped as a bird out of the snare of the trapper; The snare is broken and we have escaped.
Ps 130:5 I wait for the Lord, my soul does wait, And in His word do I hope.
Ps 130:6 My soul waits for the Lord More than the watch men for the morning; Indeed, more than the watch men for the morning.
Ps 131:2 Surely I have composed and quieted my soul; Like a weaned child rests against his mother, My soul is like a weaned child within me.
Ps 138:3 On the day I called Thou didst answer me; Thou didst make me bold with strength in my soul.
Ps 139:14 I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well.
Ps 141:8 For my eyes are toward Thee, O God, the Lord; In Thee I take refuge; do not leave me defenseless.
Ps 142:4 Look to the right and see; For there is no one who regards me; There is no escape for me; No one cares for my soul.
Ps 142:7 "Bring my soul out of prison, So that I may give thanks to Thy name; The righteous will surround me, For Thou wilt deal bountifully with me."
Ps 143:3 For the enemy has persecuted my soul; He has crushed my life to the ground; He has made me dwell in dark places, like those who have long been dead.
Ps 143:6 I stretch out my hands to Thee; My soul longs for Thee, as a parched land. Selah.
Ps 143:8 Let me hear Thy lovingkindness in the morning; For I trust in Thee; Teach me the way in which I should walk; For to Thee I lift up my soul.
Ps 143:11 For the sake of Thy name, O Lord, revive me. In Thy righteousness bring my soul out of trouble.
Ps 143:12 And in Thy lovingkindness cut off my enemies, And destroy all those who afflict my soul; For I am Thy servant.
Ps 146:1 Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Resources Search and Directory
Sponsor A Child
Free Book: This Book will change your life! No Shipping.
Books & Music


Partner




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MetacrockSense of the Numinous.

Edited by: Metacrock at: 11/1/05 8:56 am

Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 2052
(11/1/05 8:59 am)
152.163.100.195
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter

Re: Can you prove there is such a thing as a soul...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis:




Verse Count: 32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ge 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creature s, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

Ge 1:21 And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Ge 1:24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creature s after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Ge 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Ge 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breath ed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Ge 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Ge 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Ge 9:5 "And surely I will require your life blood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.

Ge 9:10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.

Ge 9:12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations;

Ge 9:15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Ge 9:16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

Ge 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the person s which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan.

Ge 12:13 "Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may live on account of you."

Ge 14:21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself."

Ge 17:14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Ge 19:17 And it came about when they had brought them outside, that one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay any where in the valley; escape to the mountains, lest you be swept away."

Ge 19:19 "Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have sh own me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, lest the disaster overtake me and I die;

Ge 19:20 now behold, this t own is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved."

Ge 23:8 And he spoke with them, saying, "If it is your wish for me to bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and approach Ephron the son of Zohar for me,

Ge 27:4 and prepare a savory dish for me such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat, so that my soul may bless you before I die."

Ge 27:19 And Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your first-born; I have done as you told me. Get up, please, sit and eat of my game, that you may bless me."

Ge 27:25 So he said, "Bring it to me, and I will eat of my son's game, that I may bless you." And he brought it to him, and he ate; he also brought him wine and he drank.

Ge 27:31 Then he also made savory food, and brought it to his father; and he said to his father, "Let my father arise, and eat of his son's game, that you may bless me."

Ge 32:30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved."

Ge 34:3 And he was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her.

Ge 34:8 But Hamor spoke with them, saying, "The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; please give her to him in marriage.

Ge 35:18 And it came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Ge 36:6 Then Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all his household, and his lives stock and all his cattle and all his goods which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to another land away from his brother Jacob.

Ge 37:21 But Reuben heard this and rescued him out of their hands and said, "Let us not take his life."

Ge 42:21 Then they said to one another, "Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has come upon us."

Ge 44:30 "Now, therefore, when I come to your servant my father, and the lad is not with us, since his life is bound up in the lad's life,

Ge 46:15 These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, with his daughter Dinah; all his sons and his daughters number ed thirty-three.

Ge 46:18 These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to his daughter Leah; and she bore to Jacob these sixteen person s.

Ge 46:22 These are the sons of Rachel, who were born to Jacob; there were fourteen person s in all.

Ge 46:25 These are the sons of Bilhah, whom Laban gave to his daughter Rachel, and she bore these to Jacob; there were seven person s in all.

Ge 46:26 All the person s be longing to Jacob, who came to Egypt, his direct descendants, not including the wives of Jacob's sons, were sixty-six person s in all,

Ge 46:27 and the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt were two; all the person s of the house of Jacob, who came to Egypt, were seventy.

Ge 49:6 "Let my soul not enter into their council; Let not my glory be united with their assembly; Because in their anger they slew men, And in their self- will they lamed oxen.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Think of it as A Pledge Drive

at this point we are in emergency mode. An unexpected expense took all our fonds. I have no bandages and can't get any more. I can't work without showering and I can't shower without bandages. We also are about to be without any food and no money to get any. I appreciate a hand. Think of it as pledging, like with PBS. I get up every morning at 4am to write good blogs before work. Bellow is the background to the bandaging problem.


I have asked for money before, but I hate doing it and try not to make a habit of it. I only did it to save my house so my brother and I would not be homeless. Now we have an equally compelling crisis. I helped a friend get her lights turned back on, now we don't have enough to keep our lights on. Moreover,I can't buy my bandages.

I need bandages everyday because I have problem called Venus ulcer disease. It means that the circulatory system in my legs has packed up and I am not getting blood back up form my ankles to the rest of the body. The consequences is that I have big gaping sores all over my legs and the skin rots and leaks "ouk." That's not a technical term. The technical term is "interstitial mass." But it's ouk. It's gross, my pants and shoes get all messy unless I bandage my legs.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
not my actual legs.they look better than this but they did look similar to
this at one time.


Here's an article about it but the pictures are kind of gross
The major problem is infection.IF I get a bad infection my legs might have to be cut off. I am not exaggerating.

I am supposed to bandages everyday but I can't afford to. I have to use abd pads with ace bandages around them for compression. I only bandages every two or three days because I just can't afford the bandages.

I have been to churches and ministries and charities,to government social workers, the visiting nurses; there are no structures to pay for his problem. My family can only help me now and then.

Now I hate asking but you know, there areprofessional bloggers who ask their readership to support them entirely so that they are independent and only blog for a living.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
actual hospital where I was treated for Venus Ulcers in the
wound care center at Plano Presbyterian, Plano Texas.


I'm asking the regular readers of kottke.org (that's you!) to become micropatrons of kottke.org by contributing a moderate sum of money to help enable me to edit/write/design/code the site for one year on a full-time basis. If you find kottke.org valuable in any way, please consider giving whatever you feel is appropriate.




I just don't think I have that much to say. No blog is that valuable when there are million others for free. On the other hand, I am only asking for help with one bill and bandages.

It's a truly disgusting feeling to have ouk dripping down your leg into your shoe, and it really can cause infection not to bandage. Infection would result in amputation.

Please click on the link to the left side bar under "website links" "save Meta's legs" or go here. This is the link to a button where you can donate through my pay pal account.

Or you can just use this button:














from Pub med
Quality of life of people with venous leg ulcers: a comparison of the discriminative and responsive characteristics of two generic and a disease specific instruments.
Iglesias CP, Birks Y, Nelson EA, Scanlon E, Cullum NA.

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, North Yorkshire, UK. cpiu1@york.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are an important source of morbidity in society. Measuring the impact of leg ulcers on quality of life is important within clinical and economic evaluations.


I really need help and there is no source that it is coming from.

Venus ulcer disease is incurable, so I've been told by the wound care specialists. I have seen hints of cures on the net, but its so extremely expensive to even go to a wound care specialist. At one hospital near by its' $300. just to have an office visit! It's a painful condition. I am always in pain and no one really cares enough to just shell out $50.00 or so bucks a month to help keep my legs bandaged.

This is all I'm asking, just from some basic help so I can treat my legs and save them and to keep my lights on. In Texas summer you can't survive without air conditioning.

Thank you










Sunday, December 16, 2007

Answer to Ben Elijah's Critique of My God Arguments

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket




My friend Ben Elijah made a response in comments to the last post on what we know about God's existence. I found this such a good comment that think it deserves to be a major pot. So here are my responses.


Case for God Arguments"
2 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments

Blogger Ben Elijah said...


Meta: “
We have no empirical demonstrative proof that God exists, but we come closer to having that than atheists do to having proof of no God. Basically, we know three things:

I. We are fit to be Religious

II. We have empirical proof of the "God correlate." (aka CO-determinate).

III. Religious belief works as a way of life.

These three facts are enough to demonstrate the rationality of belief and the irrationality of atheism. Yes, these are facts. They are not merely opinions or speculations they are amply demonstrated through a ton of data.
Ben:

It would be silly to deny that most human cultures have religion of some sort of course but that is a form of argumentum ad populum. Basically, simply because most people believe, or are inclined to believe in something, does not constitute evidence of its existence. It begs the question of why so many believe it.


Meta

(1) I already covered the argument from popularity in the original post. It's not, it's the argument that the overwhelming incidence of belief throughout human history is indicative of something deeper than just being popular. It's not merely "the majority" its the vast majority of humans throughout all of human history going back 65,000 years! when I say "vast majority" I mean actual atheism didn't' really even exist in history until about the time of the Greeks. At that point humanity had been religious for 64,0000 years. Its' like 99% of humanity in any given era. Even when they tried to totally wipe out religious belief and build an atheist socie3ty still 50% or so remain religious (China).

(2) I think when any characteristics is universal to humanity social scientists assume it is genetic or somehow endemic.

(3) Its' not begging the question because I did present reasons to think it's genetic. I presented several reasons. I had about twelve reasons why it's instinctive and he's only dealing with the first one there. Other include hard wried God part of the brain. archetypes and other things.

(4) moreover I did present a reason why people are religious. I spoke of the origin of religion in the sense of the numinous. And I quotes social sciences backing that up.



Ben:
Your argument is an evidence of circular reasoning then; we are fit to be religious which is evidence of our fitness to be religious.


Meta: sorry Ben I think you misapprehend that. I do not use fitness of religion as proof that we are fit for religion. I use fitness for religion (which is evidence by its effect upon our physical and mental health) as proof that we are designed to be religious. It's a design argument. It's not circular because premise (we are fit to be reglious) does not rest upon the conclusion (fitness for religion is indicative of design).


Ben:

It's an interesting tautology. We could happily go into such things as the evolutionary/memetic history of religion or issues of developmental psychology. One could say that we have evolved the capacity for religion, just like we have evolved the capacity for rape, murder, paedophilia and self-destruction. It makes more sense not to live our lives by what we are biologically / psychologically capable of, but by the courage of our convictions and reasoning.

Meta:

Oh oh, here we have several fallacies.

(1) There is no tautology here. Tautology is a statement, not false, that has no new information. Tautology is not a false statement but one that tells us nothing, such as "all husbands are married men." "my existing house exists." "anger making statements make me angry." You seem to be confusing this with circular reasoning , but the example you give is not an example of even circular reasoning but merely an example of alternate causality. One can quibble over causality without the argument one is responding to being fallacious. so that is not even a sign of fallacy of any kind. Merely a straightforward dispute.

(2) The idea that we have evolved religion, comparing religion to things like murder, is certain begging the question and ignores the the obvious. Why would you say religion evolved as did murder when in fact so did eating, sleeping, speech, language, thinking, math, science and everything else. Not all of these are genetic, we don't have genes for working math, but everything evolves. Evolution is nothing more than progressive change and adaptation to change. Here I am including social as well genetic evolution.

with a million positive things to which you might have compared it, why compare it to murder and child abuse? Clearly the evidence I have put forth demonstrates, and quotes psychiatry stating point blank, that religion is normative for humanity. Religion is clearly demonstrated to be one of the positive aspects of humanity. Why would you use only negative things as examples of evolution?

(3) There is clear evidence that religion has evolved in human understanding. This evidence show us that religion is genetically endemic to humanity. One of my major arguments is that religion is genetic, it is designed into us. evolution by itself could not do this. So that argument clearly has not effect upon my over all case because I can absorb it into my theology quite easily.

but

(4) There is NO scientific evidence that murder or pedophilia are products of human evolution. They may be social evolution no evidence they are genetic. That is indeed begging the question.


Meta:

“Atheists want to attribute the origin of religion to the need to explain nature. But anthropologists and psychologists no longer find this credible. Now they attribute religious belief to the sense of the numinous. Because we find some aspect of reality to be different from the mundane, we sense a sublime, a transcendent, a terror, a sense of dread, the existential sense of meaning, we conclude that there is a reality higher than just the material daily world. Since this is endemic to us, and it is part of our inborn religious nature, we can assume it is an indication of something higher.”

Ben:
Why? Since it is endemic to us and part of our inborn religious nature (I shall take that as read, you assume it to be true but I am aware of much scientific research into whether that is so... personally I like the memetic idea but I digress), it begs the question of how that inclination came to be.


Meta:

Ok I see you arguing three things here (1) why" take to mean why conclude there is a reality higher than our own? (2) dispute that any causality can be proven other than "memtic." (3) attributing to sense of numinous is begging question because because it doesn't answer the origin of religious motions.

(1) because its' the religious a priori, that means we sense the high realm or nature in the numinous. that's just a a priori, that's a intuitive sense.

(2) "memetic" doesn't tell us anything. all that means is ideas spread from person a to person and can be charted epidemiologically. But even though there is an accompanying ideology to that concept it really tells us nothing and all it really can ever prove is idea spread from person to person.

(3) I think you are working under the assumption that unless religion is accounted for in negative terms then the question has not been answered.

I have presented evidence from social science that says religious experince is genetic. It's caused by a part of the brain that responds to God talk. Now I say that this requires innate ideas. That is, the mind cannot distinguish between "God and "tree," "lamppost" "frog" or other things unless it can have an innate understanding of "God" is. This is so because it doesn't respond to anything else that way. Thus there must be some innate idea of God. But innate ideas are supposed to be impossible. They were given up in the 18th century. Innate ideas are favorable
to religious belief not materialism.











Ben:
If I understand your argument, I can present the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle as an analogy:

i)You have a complete jigsaw where you know each piece must fit into another to form a complete, coherent picture that cannot deviate.
ii)You have a piece from that jigsaw puzzle
iii)Ergo, your piece will fit into the bigger picture.


Meta:

No I don't think that fits my argument. I don't see why you would say it does. If you will forgive my supposition, I do not mean offense but I think it fits your view of religion in general and that's what you expect my argument to be like. But really don't see how it has any application to my specific argument.


Ben:
In other words, our capacity for transcendental experience must mirror, or be “tuned” to the experience which it is “designed” to receive. That represents point i) of my analogy. The problem is that there are so many different realities that have been proposed throughout human history.... Vedic religions and Zoroastrianism, Aboriginal beliefs, paleolithic “shamanistic” cultures, the Greek pantheon, mezo-American beliefs, the Celtic Pantheon, the Levantine pantheon which evolved into monotheistic Judaism by the time of King Hezekiah. The list goes on. We have an enormously varied bunch of philosophies and concepts that all represent a different reality. The jigsaw puzzle is not one “reality” but thousands. There's the flying spaghetti monster!



Meta:
Ok see I think what you really have here is a general argument against religious belief as a whole. I don't think it works as an argument. but it is an appropriate picture of the situation vis world religions overall. On the other hand, my theology is immune to this criticism. It is immune for the same reason tha tit is immune to the criticism of religious belief as a product of human evolution. I don't really have time to go into the ins and outs of all my views. You can read about my general view of Godon Doxa,(my website) and I have a thumbnail of my theological credo.

I do not see the idea of religion as a part of evolution as particularly detrimental to religion. Please read that latter link as it will explain how I feel this view fits with Christianity. But in a nutshell I believe that we have this sense of the numinous that has been evolving sense the early inception of human consciousness. WE experience it at the mystical level, which means beyond word, thought or image. We can't talk about it because it's beyond our understanding, we have no words to describe it. So we just filter it through cultural constructs. That's why all religion s are different and all are rooted in cultural understandings. These differences in god personalties are just bs. They are just conventional points of reference so we have something to relate to. Like on the original Star trek episode, where they fight Klingon commander Koor. Advanced being create a pastoral setting so the privative humans can relate to something, but they are really blinding flashes of light that are way beyond our understanding. There have been interfaith dialogues, it is possible for people of other faiths to get along. It's all a matter of phenomenological apprehension, not doctrine on paper.


In any case I'm having trouble seeing how your view, your analogy has any currency against my arguments.



Ben:
Your answer to this will probably be that each religion has something in common – most have creation myths, one or more deities that either personify certain concepts (you will note that Judeo-Christian religions are a deviation from that trend) deal with civilisation vs. barbarity, have a moral code, etc etc. '

Meta:
ahahah, my friend, it is always a mistake to expect your opponent to be stereotypical.;-)

I do not think the answer is found in trying to correlate or coordinate the individual fiddly bits of religions. I basically see the fiddly bits as bs. with notable exceptions in the cause of Christ, because he was a historical figure and played a definite role in the economy of God. But all the brickabrack of religious devotional ism such as doctrines (most doctrines with some exceptions) and the like are just conventional points of reference; part of the pastoral setting.



Ben:

My answer is that each differing religion mirrors exactly the anthropological history of the people that believe it. For example, Judaism is suited to the history of the people who first came to believe in it, similarly Celtic religions are suited to their environment and lifestyle. The contrast between the early Vedic ideas and Zoroastrianism is fascinating because where the latter evolved, hill peoples fought with settled farmers. We have a dualism that informed the gnostic idea of Good and Evil that is unique to the Abrahamic religions.
Meta

yea! Good point. It a mirror of anthropological development because they filter ing their understand through cultural constructs. But the mystical experince Of which I write, or of which there are many empirical studies, is real. that is not fictional that is not filtered that is the real actual sure enough thing, the sense of the numinous. That's the origin of religion and the revelation of God. The studies show that mystical experience has certain commonalities that transcend all cultural differences. by this I don't mean mayoralty, but the actual sense of the presence of God and it's effect upon the mystic.

Gackenback

Quotes:

"The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical". The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that "mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963)." The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited extent."





"In a recent review of the mystical experience Lukoff and Lu (1988) acknowledged that the "definition of a mystical experience ranges greatly (p. 163)." Maslow (1969) offered 35 definitions of "transcendence", a term often associated with mystical experiences and used by Alexander et al. to refer to the process of accessing PC."

Lukoff (1985) identified five common characteristics of mystical experiences which could be operationalized for assessment purposes. They are:

1. Ecstatic mood, which he identified as the most common feature;
2. Sense of newly gained knowledge, which includes a belief that the mysteries of life have been revealed;
3. Perceptual alterations, which range from "heightened sensations to auditory and visual hallucinations (p. 167)";
4. Delusions (if present) have themes related to mythology, which includes an incredible range diversity and range;
5. No conceptual disorganization, unlike psychotic persons those with mystical experiences do NOT suffer from disturbances in language and speech.
It can be seen from the explanation of PC earlier that this list of qualities overlaps in part those delineated by Alexander et al.






As I said in the original post, a vast body of scientific literature proves that these experiences are real, because they have a real effect, a dramatic life transforming effect. I have already documented this and linked to two pages of data. see the original post. No atheists has ever given me any alternate causality that is long term and positive and dramatic in its effects. So the effects of these experiences cannot be be accounted for.


Ben:
I could go on, but the crux of my argument is that you will find more of an explanation for the religious experience of certain people by looking at their history and the evolution of their beliefs over time, than from the flawed assumption that because they all have some sort of superstition, there must be a higher reality.

Meta

evolution and history of beliefs doesn't disprove my argument. I've accounted for those differences.


Meta
“The atheists will argue that this is supposition. Of course it is. Of course the fact that ti's empirically documented as to the effects and that it is the most logical and educated supposition will be meaningless to them. This is their ultimately excuse to ignore the truth and so they will ignore it. But I don't see how anything could be more obvious.”

Ben:
With all due respect I think this is just FUD.


Meta

with equal due respct....hu? what is "FUD?" fud? Like Elmer? "you wasckawe wabit!" ;-)



Ben:

It may be obvious that the Earth is flat or that, judging by its motion, the sun goes round the Earth. This is obvious, but an unsatisfactory explanation out of which no further information can come.
Meta
(1) I've demons tread and documented actaul data proving that the idea of God is genetic. The brain studies on the God part of the brain are scientific and empirical.

(2) no amount of memes can explain how e can have innate ideas of God.

(3) I have other arguments. Points II and IIII are very important and you have touched them. I also had something A-J arguments for religious instinct you didn't really answer one of them.

Meta
“Of course it's not proof. but it means any reasonable understanding of a prmia facie burden. The atheists thev the burden of proof to show us why a ratioanl warrant is not good enough. We have met our prima facie burden.”

Ben:
You may need to explain this as it makes no sense to me after a few readings. Most atheists I know will use the burden of proof to say that since theists make a positive proposition, i.e., “there definitely is a God”, the burden of proof is on them to assert this.


Meta
WEll Ben

(1) I did not say "there definitely is a God." I was careful to lay out an entire post prior to the one under discussion which was nothing but a decision making paradigm. Far from making bold assertion "there definitely is a God" my paradigm called for the conclusion that I have a rational warrant for belief in God. stated explicitly many times in the original post that Id o not claim this as actual proof. I showed why we cannot and should not expect empirical proof of God. I showed that rational warrant is good enough.

that's what I claim rational warrant.

so To the extent that I have demonstrated a rational warrant I have meta my prmia facie burden it now becomes your burden o show that my view is not prmia facie.


Ben:
The default position is one in which there is no God because prior to the theists (logically speaking, not historically), there is no God.



Meta
No that assumption no longer will fly, the reason: the studies on God part of the brain show that we are born with innate knowledge of God. I don't mean to be critical, Ben, but the time to make this sort of criticism was to part I with the decision making paradigm. But I wont quibble. you make it where you make it. But that's my answer to it.

Religious belief is normative for humans. points A -J prove this. Thus there is no default assumption.



Ben:
The atheist can then go to town on the theist arguments as to why there is a God. This often catches out a lot of theists because they've grown up in a society which is religious to varying degrees. Religious life is the de-facto standard in the West and it takes a bit of thought to realise that this is not the case once we get into logic.


Meta

Yea, that's very convent the way they worked that out. Have you ever noticed that no major philosopher supports that view? That was not the result of people like Russell and Hume and Kant, that was the atheist on the net. They might possibly have taken their cues from Quine and Hair and maybe Russell to some extent. But the point is it is merely the product of a truth regime. It's just an attempt to get around the fact that religion is the normative human experience. There is no logical reason why there should be a default when we have innate ideas of God.

as to Why there is a God! that is not far to seek.

there's a God because Being has to be.


now you turn to three. So my criticism was hasty above. But you didn't' talk about II and I fear your discussion of three is going to be too short shrift.



Meta
“III. works as a way of life."



In other words, even though many find religion abusive or stiffening, for the majority religion is a source of strength. the empirical data demonstrates that for the great majority religion is a major factor in wellness. The normative nature of religious belief is a good indication of truth content.”






Ben:

Whoa!! Too much too fast there! Religion works as a way of life for a lot of people, yes. I'm not going to argue with that. To my, atheism is just an intellectual chess game. I live my life by principles which I think are right... to say that there is no god is just a philosophical statement which I happen to agree with. I would never force it on people who derive pleasure from their faith and would only debate it with them if we agree to do so within the context of a debate, not a preaching session.



Meta

I applaud your fairness. But the topic was "answering the charge that our sense of "I know God is real" is no better the atheist since of "I know there is no God." My decision making process was to find a rational warrant and demonstrate that it is more rational than that of the atheists.

If you mean to refute my ideas you must show either that I'm just wrong and I don't have a rational warrant. Or that rational warrant is not the issue.



Ben:
Now, I could argue that any benevolent holistic belief or moral system is going to work as a way of life. I am a humanist, as are many of my friends and while we don't believe in God, we're all happy, successful, well adjusted people with no deep-seated psychological issues or traumas. Is that evidence of it's truth by itself? What if I believed in the moral powers of the pimple on the nose of the giant pixie, and this gave joy, happiness and well being to millions of people. Does that make it more true? Of course not! Truth is a matter for a posteriori experimentation and scientific method to uncover – not a straw poll of who is more happy!




Meta

The Larsen study of which I quoted was a lit search of 2000 studies in social sciences index which showed that religion was the major factor in people coping with life. There is no such data demonstrating that atheism works like that. tot he same extent there is good health data on church participation and that specifically controls for other kinds of social social support including atheism. Atheist, humanist liberals all have crummy health indices's from their social support networks.

you may feel good about them but the data does not back you.

I had other sources too from Nielson.




Ben:
I could accept that there is a utilitarian argument for religion, using your logic, but with the qualification that it's negative aspects such as child abuse, indoctrination, homophobia, suppression of women and moral absolutism is removed first.

Meta
Those problems are not inherent in religion itself. Those are examples of trying to explain experience through certain kinds of cultural constructs. In other words you can certainly be religious without those aspects.

The point of No III in the decision making paradgim it demonstrates the co-determinate. The effects are real, so the experience is real. The content is of God so we should assume God is the cause of the effects.

In other words. it's an experience of the divine, the experience is real, i's an experience of something so we should assume that it is an experince of that which it seems to be on its face, an experience of the divine. That's a rational warrant. not proof it's a warrant.



Ben:


“a) Unbeliever is the Sick Soul”

Forgive me but I simply can't take that seriously. If atheists may tend to be unhappy, it is likely because of the rejection they have endured from family/friends who are religious. I'd say that's more of a problem in the US than it is here in the UK where atheism is accepted, uncontroversial and won't cause World War Three in even most religious families. Am I a “sick soul”?

Meta
"sick soul" is not an insult. It doesn't mean atheists are sick people, it's a technical term. Maslow was Jungian based. The guy who said that (Amaro, Brazil) was a Maslowite, a follower of Maslow's transactional psychology. "sick soul" has to do with the way they resolve major epistemic issues; negatively, skeptical "you can't prove it" ect. The alternative is the healing soul, I'm getting better and I'm being healed. I'm experiencing healing through these experiences.

Don't ignore the finding he gives, that psychology no longer makes Freud's assumption that religious belief is pathology.



Ben:

I've read the rest of your post a few times, I think that what I have said here covers your other points which can be summed up as “religion is popular, well established and beneficial and therefore true”. I believe my objections adequately refute that assertion.


Meta

Your comments are most welcome. If you wish a rebuttal I will also put up here and you can post it in the comment section to this post. I will answer it, if you wish a rebuttal to that I will allow that to be the last word. I always give my guest the last word on my blog.













Saturday, December 15, 2007

What we KNow: part II, Prima Facie Case for God Arguments

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


A poster on the comment section of the CADRE blog arrogantly proclaimed:



I understand that some Christians have a mental issue accepting that some people have knowledge that the Christian god does not exist. It is a very scary thought (needing debunking) that someone claims to know what your belief is wrong. It is especially scary when it come from an atheist, not from a "misguided" muslim.


12/10/2007 03:02:00 PM





when challenged to present the argument he just said:



No, I don't have a proof that dodos are extinct, Socrates lived, Allah does not exist or that Model-T Fords are not manufactured any more, but once one investigates an issue sufficiently the usage of the word "know" is generally excepted. Many religious people seem to "know" that their particular deity exists. I don't think you call all of them naive and ignorant?


12/11/07



I had challenged him to show the proof. If you really "know" there's no God then show us how so we can stop the nonsense and get on with our lives as atheists. Of course he had no evidence nor argument either, all he had was the typical "I don't see any God so there must not be one," couched in terms above "no proof of passenger pigeons, can't prove Bigfoot or UFO so therefore, no God. In others what you don't see is what you don't get metaphysically. The strange twist is he then implies that the term "knowing" is valid when used of any sort of knowledge derived from study. This means the concept of actual certain knowledge is really just a synonym for "educated faith" which would make even more puzzling how he could hold this out as some sort of superior position for atheism. If we take that seriously it really means we have much reason to believe in God as not. Unless of course he wants to content that atheist study harder and I would gladly take that challenge. If the volume of study or matter read was really the same as proof of one's position I know my position would win hands down. Rather than speaking in terms of knowledge we are actually speaking of warrants for belief. When a person says "I know X is the case" in the sense of conviction one is saying "the confidence I place in this hypothesis is warranted." This is not absolute knowledge as to a state of affairs that might be demonstrated to the extent that all opposition must become silent. But it is a statement of the veracity of one's warrant. I will argue that Christian warrant for belief is more rational in the sense that it has more positive evidence in its favor than do atheistic warrants.

We have no empirical demonstrative proof that God exists, but we come closer to having that than atheists do to having proof of no God. Basically, we know three things:

I. We are fit to be Religious

II. We have empirical proof of the "God correlate." (aka CO-determinate).

III. Religious belief works as a way of life.

These three facts are enough to demonstrate the rationality of belief and the irrationality of atheism. Yes, these are facts. They are not merely opinions or speculations they are amply demonstrated through a ton of data.


I. Fit to be religious:


The argument actually says that the fact of a religious species is far too coincidental to be merely the product of random chance. Why would it be that we are fit to be religious, that it is our instinct and our way of life? That would indicate that an object of religious devotion designed religiosity into humans. In summation the following factors indicate that religiosity is part of human nature:

a) Historical Tendency:

The vast Majority of Humans have been religious as far back as we have evidence of humanity (50,000 years) [see above A. 3]

b) Believers have always been vast numerical majority

That is not appeal to popularity, it's an argument about behavior which indicates an innate condition. Almost 90% currently of world population are rleigious believers in some sense.

c) Transcultural

When anthropologists see a behavior that transcends culture they assume it is innate. There has never been a culture tha was atheistic. Every culture we have ever seen or found traces of on earth going back as far as we can has been religious in some way.

d) Even in cultures such as China where the government attempted irradiation of religious belief there are still 51% religious and many more undecided but not "anti-"religious

e) Physical fitness for religion

Our bodies work better when we are religious, it is the major factor in health and far more of a motivator than any other trigger of the Placebo effect [see above C.3]

f) Archetypes Universal

Archetypes are natural part of the human psyche (see the next argument). Also see Jesus Christ and Mythology page II. Archetypes are psychological symbols which point to transcendent ideal beyond the material realm. Studies show that they are natural to all people and emerge under a broad verity of psychological techniques.Maslow says that they are found among all people using ever technique of psychoanalysis. [above B.3]

g) Psychologically fit for religion

Psychological factors, religious believers have far less depression and incidence of mental illness so the human mind works best when religious. [above C]

h) Trans formative power

IF the appeal of the argument were merely popularity, it would not turn on things other than popularity. Obviously these reasons I'm giving here are not popularity. But, the trans formative power of religious experience is another aspect of the argument which proves that it' not merely an appeal to popularity. Religious expernce transforms lives, it gives people life affirming experiences which makes them better as people and makes life worth living. Not all psychological factors are capable of doing that. We are so constituted as a species that we respond to these experiences in such a way that they do transform our lives. That proves that we are fit to be religious, and that is not an appeal to popularity.[see also point C above on psychological normality and self actualization]

i) brain wave patterns

Brain wave patterns are changed by religious experience. We go from Alpha waves to Beta and to other levels of Brain wave patterns when we have these experinces.

j) "God pod" (God module in the brain)

Scientists have identified a cluster of neurons in the brain which, when stimulated, produce feelings of extacy and thoughts about God and the transcendent. This is too great a coincidence that nature would just produce this by random chance, especially when taken together with all the other ways in which we are fit to be religious. It's an evidence of design, we are made to be a religious species.

k) Sense of the Numinous universal


When we see aspect of human evolution endemic to the species as a whole we assume that it is the product of evolution. We assume religious belief is a product of evolution but how foolish it is to assume that nature would, unaided by any sort of higher reality, make man religious for no reason. We can can't chalk it up to survive because we don't find the same hard wring and other aspects in ideas of social unity and cohesion or ethics and morality. Only in religion do we find all of these aspects including he hard wired brain.


II. empirical proof of God correlate.

Atheists want to attribute the origin of religion to the need to explain nature. But anthropologists and psychologists no longer find this credible. Now they attribute religious belief to the sense of the numinous. Because we find some aspect of reality to be different from the mundane, we sense a sublime, a transcendent, a terror, a sense of dread, the existential sense of meaning, we conclude that there is a reality higher than just the material daily world. Since this is endemic to us, and it is part of our inborn religious nature, we can assume it is an indication of something higher. This forms the basis of all religion.

In the previous post I deal with the issue "how do we know these effects of Religious Experience are actually a co-determinate?"

The atheists will argue that this is supposition. Of course it is. Of course the fact that ti's empirically documented as to the effects and that it is the most logical and educated supposition will be meaningless to them. This is their ultimately excuse to ignore the truth and so they will ignore it. But I don't see how anything could be more obvious.

(1) the content of the experience is about the divine.

(2) the effect of the experience is to create faith where there was none and to turn people on to God

(3) the effects are real, lives are transformed.

(4) I really fail to see why it is not logical and rationally warranted to accept this as reason enough if one is so included.

Of course it's not proof. but it means any reasonable understanding of a prmia facie burden. The atheists thev the burden of proof to show us why a ratioanl warrant is not good enough. We have met our prima facie burden.




The effects are proven thorough a voluminous body of material, empirical studies which show the long term positive effects of religious belief upon the believer.

III. works as a way of life.



In other words, even though many find religion abusive or stiffening, for the majority religion is a source of strength. the empirical data demonstrates that for the great majority religion is a major factor in wellness. The normative nature of religious belief is a good indication of truth content.



Shrinks assume religious experience Normative.
Dr. Jorge W.F. Amaro, Ph.D., Head psychology dept. Sao Paulo

[ http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/amaro.html]

a) Unbeliever is the Sick Soul

"A non spiritualized person is a sick person, even if she doesn't show any symptom described by traditional medicine. The supernatural and the sacredness result from an elaboration on the function of omnipotence by the mind and can be found both in atheist and religious people. It is an existential function in humankind and the uses each one makes of it will be the measure for one's understanding."



b. psychotherapeutic discipline re-evaluates Freud's criticism of religion

Quote:

Amaro--

"Nowadays there are many who do not agree with the notion that religious behavior a priori implies a neurotic state to be decoded and eliminated by analysis (exorcism). That reductionism based on the first works by Freud is currently under review. The psychotherapist should be limited to observing the uses their clients make of the representations of the image of God in their subjective world, that is, the uses of the function of omnipotence. Among the several authors that subscribe to this position are Odilon de Mello Franco (12), .... W. R. Bion (2), one of the most notable contemporary psychoanalysts, ..."



[sources sited by Amaro BION, W. R. Aten��o e interpreta��o (Attention and interpretation). Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1973.

MELLO FRANCO, O. de. Religious experience and psychoanalysis: from man-as-god to man-with-god. Int. J. of Psychoanalysis (1998) 79,]



c) This relationship is so strong it led to the creation of a whole discipline in psychology; transactionalism

Neilson on Maslow

Quote:

"One outgrowth of Maslow's work is what has become known as Transpersonal Psychology, in which the focus is on the spiritual well-being of individuals, and values are advocated steadfastly. Transpersonal psychologists seek to blend Eastern religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) or Western (Christian, Jewish or Moslem) mysticism with a form of modern psychology. Frequently, the transpersonal psychologist rejects psychology's adoption of various scientific methods used in the natural sciences."
"The influence of the transpersonal movement remains small, but there is evidence that it is growing. I suspect that most psychologists would agree with Maslow that much of psychology -- including the psychology of religion -- needs an improved theoretical foundation."





3) Religion is positive factor in physical health.

"Doctrors find Power of faith hard to ignore
By Usha Lee McFarling
Knight Ridder News Service
(Dec. 23, 1998)
Http://www.tennessean.com/health/stories/98/trends1223.htm

Quote:

"Some suspect that the benefits of faith and churchgoing largely boil down to having social support � a factor that, by itself, has been shown to improve health. But the health effects of religion can't wholly be explained by social support. If, for example, you compare people who aren't religious with people who gather regularly for more secular reasons, the religious group is healthier. In Israel, studies comparing religious with secular kibbutzim showed the religious communes were healthier."Is this all a social effect you could get from going to the bridge club? It doesn't seem that way," said Koenig, who directs Duke's Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health .Another popular explanation for the link between religion and health is sin avoidance."

"The religious might be healthier because they are less likely to smoke, drink and engage in risky sex and more likely to wear seat belts.But when studies control for those factors, say by comparing religious nonsmokers with nonreligious nonsmokers, the religious factors still stand out. Compare smokers who are religious with those who are not and the churchgoing smokers have blood pressure as low as nonsmokers. "If you're a smoker, make sure you get your butt in church," said Larson, who conducted the smoking study."



see also: he Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993 For data on a many studies which support this conclusion.

4) Religion is the most powerful Factor in well being.

Poloma and Pendelton The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3290.

Quote:

"The authors found that religious satisfaction was the most powerful predictor of existential well being. The degree to which an individual felt close to God was the most important factor in terms of existential well-being. While frequency of prayer contributed to general life satisfaction and personal happiness. As a result of their study the authors concluded that it would be important to look at a combination of religious items, including prayer, relationship with God, and other measures of religious experince to begin to adequately clearly the associations of religious commitment with general well-being."


(5) Greater happiness


Religion and Happiness

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD


Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness



Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nielsen, M. E. (1998). An assessment of religious conflicts and their resolutions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 181-190.


of course atheists are going to argue that just because it works that is no proof of truth content. I think it is. Its' foolish to think that something which is so endemic to humanity, hard wired in our brains, evolved socially over time, and makes our lives work the they way they are supposed to work, would be just a mistake or an accident. More importantly it doesn't have to be proof. Its' shallow and hypocritical to argue "well sure it woks, but I just can't believe something that's not true." Atheists don't know what's true. They know they don't know how the universe got here or what caused the big bang. That doesn't bother them. They don't know and they don't know and it doesn't bother them a bit. It only bothers them when they have to subjugate the will to a higher power. That's the real issue, that's the whole crux of the matter. Here are valid well documented major rational reasons to believe something, they have no clue as to the ultimate origin of things, but they would rather keep their heads in a black box than to take a risk and make a leap of faith, even though the evidence favors it.


The bottom line is this, this is what we truly know with certainly, we have met our prima facie burden that's all we need to meet.











Friday, December 14, 2007

What we Know: Part I, Decision Making Paradigm

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Rodin's "The Thinker."

Note: scroll below this post for a list of my empirically based God arguments.


A poster on the comment section of the CADRE blog arrogantly proclaimed:



I understand that some Christians have a mental issue accepting that some people have knowledge that the Christian god does not exist. It is a very scary thought (needing debunking) that someone claims to know what your belief is wrong. It is especially scary when it come from an atheist, not from a "misguided" muslim.

12/10/2007 03:02:00 PM




when challenged to present the argument he just said:



No, I don't have a proof that dodos are extinct, Socrates lived, Allah does not exist or that Model-T Fords are not manufactured any more, but once one investigates an issue sufficiently the usage of the word "know" is generally excepted. Many religious people seem to "know" that their particular deity exists. I don't think you call all of them naive and ignorant?

12/11/07


I had challenged him to show the proof. If you really "know" there's no God then show us how so we can stop the nonsense and get on with our lives as atheists. Of course he had no evidence nor argument either, all he had was the typical "I don't see any God so there must not be one," couched in terms above "no proof of passenger pigeons, can't prove Bigfoot or UFO so therefore, no God. In others what you don't see is what you don't get metaphysically. The strange twist is he then implies that the term "knowing" is valid when used of any sort of knowledge derived from study. This means the concept of actual certain knowledge is really just a synonym for "educated faith" which would make even more puzzling how he could hold this out as some sort of superior position for atheism. If we take that seriously it really means we have much reason to believe in God as not. Unless of course he wants to content that atheist study harder and I would gladly take that challenge. If the volume of study or matter read was really the same as proof of one's position I know my position would win hands down. Rather than speaking in terms of knowledge we are actually speaking of warrants for belief. When a person says "I know X is the case" in the sense of conviction one is saying "the confidence I place in this hypothesis is warranted." This is not absolute knowledge as to a state of affairs that might be demonstrated to the extent that all opposition must become silent. But it is a statement of the veracity of one's warrant. I will argue that Christian warrant for belief is more rational in the sense that it has more positive evidence in its favor than do atheistic warrants.

We have no empirical demonstrative proof that God exists, but we come closer to having that than atheists do to having proof of no God: Once we understand the decision making paradigm, we can see that the basis of belief in God is more rationally warranted than is disbelief. We can observe three things about the decision making paradigm:

I. We should not expect Empirical Proof of God: nor do we need it.

II, We can understand a co-determinate, or God Correlate, which is empirical.

III. The empirical nature of the co-determinate provides prima facie justification for belief, which is sufficient justification for belief.

Let us examine these three observations:

I. We should not expect empirical proof of God.


Atheists don't just want empirical proof, they want absolute proof. They want DNA evidence. They want to see God physically. They want the kind of evidence, literally, that it would take to establish a law of physics. This is an irrational demand owning to the nature of empirical proof. A think is proven empirically when it can be observed and understood within the framework of the cosmos and of our cultural context in which we make sense of the universe. We accept many things that are not empirical and take them for granted. Essentially empirical evidence is meaningless outside the context of a whole set of basic assumptions that we take for granted all the time. These pertain to our understanding of what life is, what the world is, what it means to live in the world. None of that would be possible without logic. We are co;instantly drawing logical inferences about the nature of the world and we take these for granted as givens. Something beyond our understanding, from outside that context of given assumptions, clearly is beyond empirical evidence. Examples of the given assumptions would include:

(a) I exist as a coherent stable entity in a world which is external to my own understanding and being.

(b) the world did not start with the moment of my birth but went on for some time before I existed.

(c) there are other minds external to my own which exist independently of my own perception.

There are many other assumptions, such as the future will be like the past, the sun will rise tomorrow. We can think of many more. The point is none of these things can be proven with the kind of certainty that atheist demand for God. We only take them for granted and they form the basis of our understanding of a stable coherent world that works according to rules of reason and laws of both logic and physics. We have no proof that we are not brains in vats being fed illusions by an evil genius, or even a good genius. We assume not because it doesn't help us get by in life. We find that we navigate in the world much better when we assume the reality of the world, but we can't prove it. We take it for granted.

Empirical proof is not absolute proof in an epistemological sense. This also means that epistemological problems are prior to science, they are foundational to science they are not resolved by science. Science is what we do in terms of systematic observation in lue of an answer to these problems, and it only works within the context of assumptions we have made about the world. This means empirical proof is only good for tangible things within that sphere of assumption. God is beyond that sphere. Why? Because God is the foundation of all that is. "God" is the term we use to designate the basis of reality. Thus God is beyond the sphere in which we can assume and take for granted these basic epistemic assumptions. If we think of God as a mind and ourselves as a thought in that mind, we have way of understanding God or even approaching God other than God's own willingness to let us know.

atheists want to make assumptions about what God would do, because they are hoping under sting will come easily. They are skeptical of any answer from beyond that sphere of knowledge taken for granted, the known zone of epistemic assumption. I will not delve into the reasons for skepticism as thought might take us far afield. It doesn't matter anyway, the point is atheists are loath to accept this idea that empirical evidence is not absolute because to understand it one must step outside the framework of empirical knowledge. It's a conclusion arrived at without the aid of empiricism and to arrive at is is to demonstrate the useless nature of empirical knowledge in an absolute sense. Thus the claim "I have no evidence that passenger pigeons are gone but I know they are." That's an assumption which is itself not based upon empirical proof, because I doubt seriously that this guy has interstage ever aspect of reality such that he can see there is no passenger pigeon. The very nature of statement is begging the question in a sense. It's based upon extrapolation from empirical data, it's inductive as a conclusion. It's a reasonable assumption given the context of that Known zone, but doesn't make any sense in terms of God. Obviously this kin of assumption can't work in relation to something that transcends our ordinary level of knowledge.

In thinking about the basis of reality, there is no way we can understand the foundations of being. This is completely beyond anything we experience. Thus to try and rule out an hypothesis on that level based upon its lack of empirical data is laughable and absurd. If you were a character in the Holodeck, from Star Trek TNG (or yes, the matrix as much as I hate that movie)how would you ever know it? You could not unless someone from outside the program told you about "outside the program." Or of course, unless the program as designed to give clues. Atheists assume that God would tell us but I have given reasons why he would not. He has left clues because he wants us to know, but he wants to know in a certain way, that's why he requires faith. He wants us to seek the truth and find the clues because that will be the only way to internalize the values we will learn form seeking. If he just came down to central park or the UN an held a press conference "O yes I am God, btw better obey me now." We would all probably try to obey but we would all resent it. Only if you seek and find the clues that you internalize the values an then it matters to you that there is truth which must be obeyed. you want to obey because knowing this as the pay of of truth finding is important, having sought and found.

Thus we should not expect to find empirical proof of God, nor do need such proof. We don't need it any more than we need proof that we are not brains in vats. We can get by just fine navigating the world assuming that life is real and other minds are real and that the world is real; we can also get by find assuming that God is real. In fact we get by better assuming that God is real. But I'm coming to that.


II. We can understand a co-determinate, or God Correlate, which is empirical.


Decision Making Paradigm.

Co-determinate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a fingerprint. It's the accompanying sign that is always found with the thing itself. In other words, like trailing the inviable man in the snow. You can't see the inviable man, but you can see his footprints, and wherever he is in the snow his prints will always follow.

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? But that should be answerer in the argument below. Here let us set out some general peramitors:

(1) The trace produced content with specifically religious affects

(2)The affects led one to a renewed sense of divine reality, are transformative of life goals and self actualization

(3) Cannot be accounted for by alternate causality or other means.

Argument:

(1)There are real affects from Mystical experince.

(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.

(3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations we should assume that they are genuine.

(4)Since mystical experince is usually experince of something, the Holy, the sacred some sort of greater transcendent reality we should assume that the object is real since the affects or real, or that the affects are the result of some real higher reality.

(5)The true measure of the reality of the co-determinate is the transfomrative power of the affects.

Historically this sense of the numinous is at the basis of why religion exists in the first place. Atheists want to believe that religion is like mans failed primitive attempt at science; they had to explain the thunder and the rain and so on. That is not really the answer modern anthropologists are fond of anymore. Now they are much more interested in something more organic. the sense of the numinous is more often seen as the origin of religion because it more completely explains why people began talking about God concepts.


The Origin of Religion in the Sense of the Holy

Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) produced his own notion of the religious a pariori based upon the experience of the numinous or the Holy. This sense "combines both rational and non-rational elements. In his book The Idea of The Holy "Otto saw the origin of religion in what he called the mysterium tremendum et fascinans...some particular experience, usually for primitive people some confrontation with natural forces, but for the more sophisticated some depth of personal relationship, where simultaneously one is both attracted and repelled by a sense of awe..." [R. Jones "Numinous" Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology..(405)]

a) Criticisms based on the primative

This is apt to be taken as a disproof by internet atheists. The argument would say that the sense of awe at encountering the holy is merely the fear of the unknown experienced by primitive people.while it no doubt does contain that, the argument is merely reifying the experience. First, it is centered upon a prejudice against privative people; O, they don't have science so how can they know anying? Secondly, it is reducing the experience to an alleged counter causality which we have no right to do. The "primitive" who intuits a sense of awe is taken for a dummy whis only frightened by the thunder. But that is merely modernist prejudice. Premiative people know what thunder is, the encounter it all the time, it is the added element of what they attach to nature that the senes in thunder (or whatever the case may be) so there is an added dimension that we are reducing and losing in the "explanation" (and explanation which is just ideologically based).

b) the Sophisticated version

In more developed world religions there is a more "sophisticated" sense of the holy that derives from a host of things, including ritual, the sense of the numinous that obtains to holy ritual, doctrine and understanding. This may contain a sense of personal relationship with the Divine. Again, while the explanation of it may be culturally conditioned, the experiencing of the thing itself must be taken on its own terms. We cannot say, without getting into the consciousness of the believer, that a particular believer has not had a particular experience.

3) Religion as the Externalization of the Archetypical

Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences Abraham H. Maslow
Appendix I. An Example of B-Analysis


Maslow talks about the psychological necessity of being able to maintain a tranformative symbology. He is not merely saying that we should do this, but that we do it, it is universal and through many different techniques and psychological schools of thought he shows that this has been gleaned over and over again. What Jung called the Archetypes are universal symbols of transfomration which we understand in the unconscious, and we must be able to hold them in proper relation to the mundane (the Sacred and the Profane) in order to enjoy healthy growth, or we stagnate and become pathological. It is crucial to human psychology to maintain this balance. Far from merely being stupid and not understanding science, striving to explain a pre-Newtonian world, the primitives understood this balance and held it better than we do. Religious beleif is crucial to our psychological well being, and this fact far more than social order or the need for explanations explains the origins of religion.

Quote:

"For practically all primitives, these matters that I have spoken about are seen in a more pious, sacred way, as Eliade has stressed, i.e., as rituals, ceremonies, and mysteries. The ceremony of puberty, which we make nothing of, is extremely important for most primitive cultures. When the girl menstruates for the first time and becomes a woman, it is truly a great event and a great ceremony; and it is truly, in the profound and naturalistic and human sense, a great religious moment in the life not only of the girl herself but also of the whole tribe. She steps into the realm of those who can carry on life and those who can produce life; so also for the boy's puberty; so also for the ceremonies of death, of old age, of marriage, of the mysteries of women, the mysteries of men. I think that an examination of primitive or preliterate cultures would show that they often manage the unitive life better than we do, at least as far as relations between the sexes are concerned and also as between adults and children. They combine better than we do the B and the D, as Eliade has pointed out. He defined primitive cultures as different from industrial cultures because they have kept their sense of the sacred about the basic biological things of life.

"We must remember, after all, that all these happenings are in truth mysteries. Even though they happen a million times, they are still mysteries. If we lose our sense of the mysterious, or the numinous, if we lose our sense of awe, of humility, of being struck dumb, if we lose our sense of good fortune, then we have lost a very real and basic human capacity and are diminished thereby."

"Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it involves a universal symbology which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypal symbols? (For more on archetypes see Jesus Christ and Mythology page II) The "primitives" viewed and understood a sense of transformation which gave them an integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numinous, that is the origin of religion."


On to page (2 of 3)
3)Mystical experince at the root of all religions

Trans personal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration (unpublished paper 1992 by Jayne Gackenback


http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm

Quotes:

"The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical". The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that "mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963)." The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited extent."



a). Core of Organized Religion

The Mystical Core of Organized Religion

David Steindl-Rast

The Mystical Core of Organized Religion





Brother David Steindl-Rast, O.S.B., is a monk of Mount Savior Monastery in the Finger Lake Region of New York State and a member of the board of the Council on Spiritual Practices. He holds a Ph.D. from the Psychological Institute at the University of Vienna and has practiced Zen with Buddhist masters. His most recent book is Gratefulness, The Heart of Prayer (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1984).

"If the religious pursuit is essentially the human quest for meaning, then these most meaningful moments of human existence must certainly be called "religious." They are, in fact, quickly recognized as the very heart of religion, especially by people who have the good fortune of feeling at home in a religious tradition."

b)What all Religions hold in Common.

Cross currents

Thomas A Indianopolus
prof of Religion at of Miami U. of Ohio

http://www.crosscurrents.org/whatisreligion.htm

Quote:

"It is the experience of the transcendent, including the human response to that experience, that creates faith, or more precisely the life of faith. [Huston] Smith seems to regard human beings as having a propensity for faith, so that one speaks of their faith as "innate." In his analysis, faith and transcendence are more accurate descriptions of the lives of religious human beings than conventional uses of the word, religion. The reason for this has to do with the distinction between participant and observer. This is a fundamental distinction for Smith, separating religious people (the participants) from the detached, so-called objective students of religious people (the observers). Smith's argument is that religious persons do not ordinarily have "a religion." The word, religion, comes into usage not as the participant's word but as the observer's word, one that focuses on observable doctrines, institutions, ceremonies, and other practices. By contrast, faith is about the nonobservable, life-shaping vision of transcendence held by a participant..."


Smith considers transcendence to be the one dimension common to all peoples of religious faith: "what they have in common lies not in the tradition that introduces them to transcendence, [not in their faith by which they personally respond, but] in that to which they respond, the transcendent itself..."(11)

Thus, we know we are "made" to be religious, we are fit to be religious, and our sense of the numinous is the basis of religion in the first place.


from this we derive our decision making paradigm, the sense of the co-determinate: the idea being something like God's finger prints. The finger print of God is the effect of the divine upon humans. We can't see God, we can't get hair samples or photographs but we can see his foot prints in the snow, the effects of God upon human experience.

Since the sense of the numinous is the basis of religion, it only stands to reason that the extent to which it leads us to belief is the extent to which we can understand it as the God Correlate. What else would we understand as divine activity but the basis phenomenon through which humans began thinking of the divine anyway?

This leads us to an understanding of the third aspect of the decision making paradigm, the prmia facie justification. This is similar too the concept of proper basicality, but not identical. Prima facie just says that the argument stands on face value. AT that point the burden of proof is reversed, it then becomes the burden of the opposition to show that a PF case has not been made.


III. Prima Facie Justification.

Thomas Reid
Theory of Knowledge lecture notes.
G.J. Mattey
Philosophy, UC Davis
(this page has been moved over the years)

"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain."

"Reid pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of it."


"According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in accepting that things are the way they appear, when

* it does appear to one that they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone wrong.


[Ibid]

"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated." Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible."

"For Reid, our beliefs about physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects. Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs about physical objects is a mental state such as:


* looking like something is red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"


"For example, what justifies a person in believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things appear."



This decision making process is far more rational than atheist skepticism because it assumes that the world is wide. The atheist must assume that our tiny sliver of perceived reality is sufficient for ruling out all that doesn't fit into the narrowly perceived materialist truth regime. Atheists do what Thomas Kuhn says defenders of a lost paradigm always do. They hide the anomalies in their paradigm and as long as the paradigm absorbs the anomalies it holds. But we know that eventually, like all paradigms, it will shift. The clues that atheists dismiss as meaningless are a valid decision making paradigm that give us a prmia faice justification for God belief. thus it is useless and counter productive to reject God on the basis of "no empirical evidence." As we will see in part II this is also decremental because it means denying not only the way we are made but the way of life that works best for us as a species.

Thus the decision making paradigm under which all my God arguments are made is:

(1) Co-determinate as the rational warrant

(2) The attempt at making a PF case demonstrating the empirical nature of the co-determinate

this applicable to empirically based arguments. Its' a bit different for analytically based arguments but I will deal with that at another time.












Thursday, December 13, 2007

My Empirical Arguments for God

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket




I am really sick of atheists saying "you don't have any empirical evidence for god. So I am doing three things about this:

I am issuing this reminder that I have many empirical or empirically based arguments.




What needs to be understood is the rational decision making paradigm. Once you understand that you can understand that, which I will try to summarize, in a future post but I have talked about it a lot here. Once you understand that you will see that I have actually proven the existence of God many times.

In a nut shell the decision making paradigm is in two parts:

(a) rational warrant for belief

(b) co-determinate

we do not need to prove empirically that God exists. Once we prove that God is rationally warranted and that the co-determinate is empirical we have come close as we need come for rational discourse.

Empirical arguments:

I have 42 arguments for God. These are just the empirically based ones and where they come on the list. You can find them linked here in all their glory and read the full arguments for ourself.


1.Argument from Cosmological Necessity

2.Everything Has to have a Reason



4. Anthropic Principle (2 Pages)

5. From Religious Instinct (3 pages)

6. From Religious a priori

7. From Mystical experience, (3 pages)

8. Thomas Reid Argument, (2 pages)

9. Argument from the Sublime

10.Existential Argument.

11. Feeling of Utter Dependence"


21. Argument from Consciousness.(3 pages)(Revised)

22.Moral Argument.

23.Argument from Moral Judgment and Abstract Values.



25. Argument From Temporal Begining.

26. Elegance of God hypothesis.



28. Near Death Experience.

29. Why anything at all?

30.Positive Epistemic Status.

31. Confluence of Proper function and Reliability.

32. Argument From Induction.

33. Rejection of Universal Skepticism.

34. Hick's Argument from Personal Origin.

35. Materialism Vanishes (2 pages).

36.Argument from Logical Necessity

37.God Pod

38.Miracles

39.Argument from Arbitrary necessity


40.Modes of being

41. Cumulative Case.


42.Koon's Cosmological Argument.