(July 20, 2013 at 10:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Are you saying if there's no valid objections or alternate explanations, then you still have no reason to believe them? I'm confused...
Either way, we're not talking about anyone else's beliefs but the theist in question.
No, I'm saying that if there are no valid objections or alternate explanations, then the theist has a good enough reason to believe the experience. The presence of those factors should undercut his own experience.
(July 20, 2013 at 10:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: True, but we're keeping it simple in this thread. You see a royal flush, you can claim you have a royal flush. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then that would be an over-simplification. Theistic claims are never as simple as seeing a royal flush. While seeing a royal flush you are looking at something that is very much possible - though improbable - and perceiving it through normal visual mode. Theists claim to perceive something outside known possibility often via some different mode of perception. That is the fundamental difference between seeing a royal flush and experiencing god - a difference which changes things a lot.
(July 20, 2013 at 10:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: And why should the person with the experiential justification for their claim even listen to your suggestions? Sure, any given properly basic belief might have been formed in such a way that it doesn't actually reflect the truth about the subject in question, but when we're talking about a past event, we can't exactly go about it like you outlined allegorically. All the theist can really do is claim p i.e. what they perceived to experience. Suggestions that presuppose ~p and therefore bluntly conclude that they're e.g, deluded, don't really do much. As the theist, I'd just shrug my shoulders and say "so what? I know what I experienced". You casting a bit of agnosticism over a past event isn't a strong argument at all.
The reasons for the theist taking my suggestions form the basis of a rational debate:
1. He cares whether his beliefs are true.
2. He wants convince me of the truth of his beliefs.
If neither of the above is true then there wouldn't be a reason for the discussion at all. If he doesn't want me to share his belief and would continue to hold them regardless of truth of the matter, then all debate is pointless. So I'm assuming that atleast one of the above is true and thus reason enough to listen to my suggestions.
As for presupposition of ~p, that is the default position we both happen to agree on. We agree on certain premises such as this being the real world, perceivable through occasionally erroneous sense and working in specific manner. As far as things we agree on are concerned, there is no god in the picture. He is the one trying to bring in something extra. And not only that something extra improbable (like the royal flush) - it also often runs contrary to premises we've agreed upon (like a royal flush when we both can see that I have 4 kings).
(July 20, 2013 at 10:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Sounds like you know the totality of what we call "reality". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence my friend
I don't need to know the totality of reality to judge something as unreal. As I said, if it seems contradictory to whatever part of reality I do know about, then I have sufficient justification for doubting it.
