If you put it in argument form it would look like this:
1. Person claims supernatural experience
2. If persons claims to have supernatural experience, person is insane
3. Person is insane (MP 1,2)
4. Supernatural evidence is claimed
5. If person is insane, supernatural evidence can be discarded.
6. Supernatural evidence can be discarded (MP 4,5)
If you don't see how circular this is, you aren't interested in taking seriously the testimony of mystical experience that has dominated the whole world, whether the spirits people experience testify to the same propositions doesn't matter.
Notice how badly 2 begs the question. Of course if you start off saying that anyone who claims supernatural evidence is insane, you are begging the question, you have already set your mind to believe the supernatural does not exist without evidence and reduce all miracles to insanity. You are a sophist.
Now, I don't expect a serious response where you dissect exactly where my analysis is wrong. It is not ad hominem to mention that someone is incapable of making a decision because they are psychologically incapable of making a decision. But that is not what you are doing here. You are not producing evidence that I am psychologically unable to make the decision, you are pressuposing that ANYONE who has miraculous claims is psychologically unable to testify reliably and that miraculous testimony itself is simultanously evidence for insanity, and that insanity invalidates testimony.
The last statement that you just stuck on to the end, a kind of psuedo-evidence about me becoming "unhinged" as atheists use blatantly fallacious reasoning techniques to advance a nihilistic agenda serves only to support the claim that you will do anything to avoid honest reasoning and resort to ad hominem and circular reasoning.
1. Person claims supernatural experience
2. If persons claims to have supernatural experience, person is insane
3. Person is insane (MP 1,2)
4. Supernatural evidence is claimed
5. If person is insane, supernatural evidence can be discarded.
6. Supernatural evidence can be discarded (MP 4,5)
If you don't see how circular this is, you aren't interested in taking seriously the testimony of mystical experience that has dominated the whole world, whether the spirits people experience testify to the same propositions doesn't matter.
Notice how badly 2 begs the question. Of course if you start off saying that anyone who claims supernatural evidence is insane, you are begging the question, you have already set your mind to believe the supernatural does not exist without evidence and reduce all miracles to insanity. You are a sophist.
Now, I don't expect a serious response where you dissect exactly where my analysis is wrong. It is not ad hominem to mention that someone is incapable of making a decision because they are psychologically incapable of making a decision. But that is not what you are doing here. You are not producing evidence that I am psychologically unable to make the decision, you are pressuposing that ANYONE who has miraculous claims is psychologically unable to testify reliably and that miraculous testimony itself is simultanously evidence for insanity, and that insanity invalidates testimony.
The last statement that you just stuck on to the end, a kind of psuedo-evidence about me becoming "unhinged" as atheists use blatantly fallacious reasoning techniques to advance a nihilistic agenda serves only to support the claim that you will do anything to avoid honest reasoning and resort to ad hominem and circular reasoning.
