Theism is unscientific, illogical, and irrational

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.03.2024 03:31PM

Randomly saw a person in the forums saying no atheist wants to debate that ever, which was very surprising to me so here we are. @Sidewalker and I have agreed to a casual debate (or conversation) since I have no current interest in formal debates due to multiple reasons.

To start the conversation I would suggest we provide our definitions and go from there. Here are mine:

“Theism” - belief in the existence of a god or gods

“God”- all powerful and intelligent creator/creators of the universe, all knowing and all of that, etc …. Could get into specifics later if those are not enough

“Irrational”- not logical or reasonable

“Illogical”- lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning

“Unscientific”-not in accordance with scientific principles or methodology

“Belief”- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

I won’t mind responding to other people as well but I would appreciate if comments are made after me and Sidewalker are done debating so there are not a lot of distractions or change of the course of the conversation or the topic itself. Thanks.

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.03.2024 06:36PM

Looks good, but be advised, my argument will entail the contention that how God is "defined" is not relevent to the argument as to whether Theism is unscientific, illogical, and irrational or not.

Theism refers to God as a “Spirit”, most commonly described as "transcendent", so arguments about defining/describing God are foolish, they are most commonly engaged in by those who know nothing about the subject matter, wasting timetalking past each other and accomplishing nothing. When reading these discussions, more often than not, it is clear that neither party is the least bit interested in understanding the other.

Nobody thinks of God as an object and attemptsto dispute existence by insisting we objectively define the term negates theprimary concept of transcendence which is at the core of Theism. For logical or scientific understanding, we get nowhere debating what the word“God” stands for, we must look at “How is it used?” if we want to understand itlogically or scientifically. Evaluating the concept of God in that way allows logicaland scientific standards of observation and evidence to be applied.

When you observe the use of the word God by Theists, we cansee that it is used to evoke and sustain a way of seeing the world which cannotbe expressed in any other way. The wordGod is used in many ways, but primarily to evoke a certain dispositional set ofresponses to human experiences, and to express the personal nature of thoseexperiences. This is the basis upon which I will logically and scientifically be arguing that Theism is a rational position to take.

Topic's author

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.04.2024 05:23AM

-->

@Sidewalker

Theism is all about or mostly about God so if we go without defining “God” it could get difficult . I dont think I have any problems with your definition except I dont know what a “spirit” is and might challenge you on how you define god later on if it comes to that since obviously there’s much more to “god” than just a spirit or transcendent. Either way let’s get to my main arguments of why I think Theism or To Believe in God is illogical, irrational and unscientific. I know you said you want to argue all of those separately but I will lump irrational and illogical into one category for now. For me both mean almost the same- unreasonable. I will respond separately to all three after your arguments tho. Also this being more of casual debate/conversation I dont want to go all out in 4-5 long arguments and prefer this to be more like back and forth type of exchange if you dont mind.

Why do I think Theism is unscientific? If we go by your definition and think about spirituality more than what most people think of when they say god then I would still claim that science has yet to find anything spiritual or a spirit anywhere in the world. Which would make the core of theism or the spirit idea itself coming from somewhere else (not science), therefore unscientific.

If you want to say the spirit is unscientific but the belief in the spirit is scientific then I’ll hear you out.

Why do I think its unreasonable? I just haven’t seen one convincing evidence or argument for God or spiritually. For me it is unreasonable to believe and accept something as true in this particular case (when it is not something mundane), without any good reasons. Now depending on what we’re talking about exactly I can get deeper in what good reasons are for me to confirm that particular huge claim but It can be hard without mentioning any particular religion. I feel like this will be conversation that has nothing to do with the Abrahamic God so if you can get more specific about what exactly is theism for you or which one are we talking about it could be good. Thanks

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,405

05.04.2024 06:45AM

-->

@baggins

Both theism and deism are sound hypotheses.

Though, associated pseudo-evidence tends to be a bit sketchy.

Nonetheless, as a system of social control and intellectual evolution, theistic data has seemingly served a purpose.

It's just that the transference of established data is a hard habit to shake off, and once transferred becomes very addictive.

Topic's author

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.05.2024 11:18AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Both theism and deism are sound hypotheses

This is what is up to debate now.

…theistic data has seemingly served a purpose

What data and would “seemingly serving a purpose” mean that now its reasonable to accept theism as true description of reality?

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,405

05.05.2024 12:21PM

-->

@baggins

Well, I would suggest that outside "reality" is an assumption based upon an inner simulation derived from external signalling.

And I assume that our inner conclusions are a reasonably accurate interpretation thereof.

Theism based societies, have been key in the development of intellect and knowledge.

Intellect and knowledge would seem to be essential in the furtherment of material evolution.

The furtherment of material evolution would seem to be purposeful...But of course it might not be.

One can variously interpret the concepts of deism and theism.

Magical beings from elsewhere was and still is popular, and cannot be dismissed out of hand.

But I would suggest that magical beings from elsewhere would still only be a part of a bigger picture.

I ramble.

But I nonetheless conclude in my ramblings, that theism is neither illogical nor irrational.

And science is as science does...It investigates stuff and attempts to reach conclusion rather than just answers.

Topic's author

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.05.2024 03:04PM

-->

@zedvictor4

That sounds interesting but could be problematic and not very relevant.

The assertion that "outside 'reality' is an assumption" seems to dismiss the possibility of an objective external world altogether. This veers towards a solipsistic view in which only the individual's inner experience is real, which is a not a strong philosophical position or at best debatable.

The idea of an "inner simulation derived from external signaling" implies a disconnect between subjective perception and an external reality. While, yes we cannot trust our senses to be a direct representation of reality that doesn’t mean they are disconnected from the objective natural world. And that doesn’t automatically open the door to supernatural or divine explanations. Even if our perceptions are filtered through an "inner simulation", the scientific method allows us to make reliable inferences about the external world. The success of science in modeling and predicting natural phenomena suggests our "inner simulation" is grounded in an actual external reality. And if you say that the external reality is simulation too then there must still be an underlying reality that still begs the same questions. This philosophical idea lacks empirical evidence to support it as a comprehensive explanation of reality. It cant be tested or falsified - without that, it remains speculation rather than a reasonable theory. Can speculation turn out to be true? Yes, sure! But is it reasonable to believe in speculations without evidence? Regardless of the nature of reality, the scientific method remains our best tool for understanding the world today.

Even in a simulated universe, the principles of empiricism, logic and methodological naturalism would still be the most reliable path to knowledge. And even if we are in a simulation universe that does not point in any way to divine creator. The simulation can have natural or non theistic origins.

The claim that our "inner conclusions are a reasonably accurate interpretation" of this external signaling is a bold assumption. Our senses and cognitive biases are known to distort and misinterpret information, so the accuracy of our internal models of reality is far from guaranteed. This only shows we cannot trust our personal experiences and they don’t represent reality. Nothing about this favors any arguments for theism since most of them are based on personal experiences.

Also all of this might be of little relevance since the statement about "inner simulation" and

"external signaling" does not seem to directly address the claim that theism is unreasonable and unscientific. While it raises some metaphysical questions about the nature of reality and our perception of it, it does not provide a strong argument for the existence of a deity or the reasonableness of theistic beliefs.

A more direct rebuttal to the claim that theism is unreasonable and unscientific would need to engage with the specific arguments and evidence put forth by proponents of that view. Issues like the lack of empirical testability of theological claims, issues with the pseudo-evidences that you mentioned, problems that we haven’t got to address yet in this debate like the problem of divine hiddenness, problem of evil… etc. The huge conflicts between scientific explanations and religious cosmologies would likely need to be addressed in detail.

Your philosophical ideas or assumption about the nature of reality, while interesting, does not inherently undermine or support the

reasonableness of theistic beliefs. Its unrelated and cannot logically lead to the conclusion that “theism is neither illogical nor irrational”. At best it can lead you to the conclusion that you dont know because this might be a simulation and Im actually a figment of your imagination and if you believe that I am whats the point in even talking to me.

Topic's author

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.05.2024 03:26PM

-->

@zedvictor4

To address the second part of your post, you make some questionable historical claims that would require more analysis. Many non-theistic societies have also made significant intellectual and scientific advancements.

The correlation between theism and intellectual progress does not necessarily imply causation.

Other social, cultural and economic factors likely played major roles.

"Intellect and knowledge would seem to be essential in the furtherment of material evolution."

This is a reasonable observation, but it does not inherently point to a theistic explanation.

Evolutionary processes can produce increasing complexity and knowledge without divine guidance.

"One can variously interpret the concepts of deism and theism."

True, but vague definitions do not make a case for the reasonableness of theism. The theist would need to clearly define their specific theistic beliefs and provide evidence for them.

"Magical beings from elsewhere was and still is popular, and cannot be dismissed out of hand."

While belief in extraterrestrial or supernatural entities is common, popularity alone does not confer legitimacy or make such beliefs reasonable.

Without verifiable proof, the existence of

"magical beings from elsewhere" remains speculation, not a sound basis for theism.

"But I would suggest that magical beings from elsewhere would still only be a part of a bigger picture."

This is a vague and open-ended statement that doesn't advance the argument for theism in a meaningful way.

It suggests the theist is leaving room for other, potentially non-theistic explanations, which undercuts the claim that theism is the most reasonable conclusion.

Overall this part of your argument if I might call it that, relies heavily on speculation, questionable historical claims, and the appearance of purposefulness in evolution - none of which definitively point to the existence of a divine creator or theistic worldview.

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,405

05.05.2024 09:27PM

-->

@baggins

I think that the argument always relies heavily upon speculation.

And I have never stated that theism is the most reasonable solution.

But rather, a reasonable hypothesis.

So I therefore see a reasonable hypothesis as not being illogical and irrational in terms of intellectual assessment and output.

A solution is perhaps an unlikely outcome anyway..

But one must never say never.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm currently speculating about simulation theory, but need to read more.

Nonetheless, I have held for quite a while the notion that process and function dictate that externality is always a subjective conclusion.

But for sure, we're pretty certain that our conclusions are more than reasonably accurate, despite the inherent glitches and limitations of our sensory equipment and internal computing system.

#10

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.06.2024 07:45AM

-->

@baggins

Theism is all about or mostly about God so if we go without defining “God” it could get difficult .

It’s not supposed to be easy, yourargument comes down to saying that the vast majority of mankind is, and alwayshas been, unscientific, illogical, and irrational, that is an extraordinaryclaim and it should be difficult to justify. I think you will be hard pressedto show that Isaac Newton was illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific, buthey, good luck with that.

I dont think I have any problems with your definition except I dont know what a “spirit” is and might challenge you on how you define god later on if it comes to that since obviously there’s much more to “god” than just a spirit or transcendent. Either way let’s get to my main arguments of why I think Theism or To Believe in God is illogical, irrational and unscientific. I know you said you want to argue all of those separately but I will lump irrational and illogical into one category for now. For me both mean almost the same- unreasonable. I will respond separately to all three after your arguments tho. Also this being more of casual debate/conversation I dont want to go all out in 4-5 long arguments and prefer this to be more like back and forth type of exchange if you dont mind.

Why do I think Theism is unscientific? If we go by your definition and think about spirituality more than what most people think of when they say god then I would still claim that science has yet to find anything spiritual or a spirit anywhere in the world.

Note: Above you said “I dont know what a“spirit” is”, and here you are referring matter of factly to “anythingspiritual or a spirit”, so I think you have conceded that one can certainlydiscuss the concept of Spirit without being able to explicitly know it’snature. Minimally, you can define spiritas what you are talking about here, and then define God as that thing thoseTheists are talking about over there.

To say that “science has yet to findanything spiritual” must certainly be explicated, what exactly do you mean bythat? The simple fact is that science hasnever found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at anytime in history. The experience of thesacred, the common experiential reality of human beings we refer to asSpiritual, is common to all peoples in all times, and it appears to have beenreached independently among peoples and cultures that did not have contact withone another. This certainly leads one to logically conclude that a Spiritualorientation is the natural state of human beings. It is fair to say thathumanity is innately spiritual, which is to say, spirituality is the naturalorienting response to human experience.

Perhaps it would be more accurate tosay “science has yet to find anything spiritual” except for mankind, in everytime and every place they have ever looked, they have found mankind to bespiritual.

If you are saying this because of amistaken belief that science doesn’t deal with immaterial things, that is physicalism and it is simply misguided. In science there are plenty of thingsthat are not physical, but that have the power to affect things that arephysical, the study of immaterial entities are foundational to physics. Theconcept of a field in physics is not a physical or material thing, but it hasan affect on physical objects. Newtonian gravity is a field that has anobservable and measurable effect on anything with mass, but it is certainly animmaterial thing. In Relativity theory, gravity is a curvature of spacetime,still not a physical or material thing. All of the unifying theories ofphysics postulate more dimensions, most reference ten or eleven dimensions,that is to say that reality ultimately consists of at least six additionaldimensions that transcend the four-dimensional frame of reference of science.

Physicalism is not supported by science,quite the opposite, physicalism would require the causal closure of thematerial world and science has abandoned any attempt to demonstrate that. In fact, Kurt Godel provided a logicallyconsistent proof that such causal closure is impossible, even in principal.

The Theistic belief that there is atranscendent Spiritual dimension to reality is not refuted by science, andtherefore, it is not “unscientific” any more than dark matter or dark energyare unscientific because they are immaterial at best, and we do not know whattheir nature is.

Which would make the core of theism or the spirit idea itself coming from somewhere else (not science), therefore unscientific.

The things science studies do not“come from” science, they come from observation, experiment, and analysis.Consequently, the scientific evaluation of Theism is necessarily a matter ofobservation of Theism, and what we observe is these guys talking about God, butunable to define God.

If you want to say the spirit is unscientific but the belief in the spirit is scientific then I’ll hear you out.

I don’t want to say “spirit isunscientific” at all, there are different ways of knowing, science, religion,philosophy, science and religion or two different things, but that is not thesame thing as saying religion is unscientific.

Why do I think its unreasonable? I just haven’t seen one convincing evidence or argument for God or spiritually. For me it is unreasonable to believe and accept something as true in this particular case (when it is not something mundane), without any good reasons.

It is mycontention that the belief that Theism is illogical, irrational, andunscientific is a strictly unfounded and faith-based belief, it is not based onlogic, reason, or science, and consequently, rather than Theism, it is thatbelief itself that is illogical, irrational, and unscientific.

The fact is,reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raisedhere, Theism is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, which is to sayit is a choice, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectuallysatisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of humanexperience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounterthat we have with a reality that is experienced as full of qualities, values,meanings, and purposes.

For those whodo choose it, Theism is reported to provide a sense of orientation while purporting toembrace everything, including regions of being that are presumed to existwithout their nature being known, so it can be said to be a more comprehensivepoint of view.

The theisticconclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but ratherit aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and moreprofound context and understanding.

Now depending on what we’re talking about exactly I can get deeper in what good reasons are for me to confirm that particular huge claim but It can be hard without mentioning any particular religion. I feel like this will be conversation that has nothing to do with the Abrahamic God so if you can get more specific about what exactly is theism for you or which one are we talking about it could be good. Thanks

I've studied comparative religions but I'm most familiar with Christianity and it's source material, a lot of Christians would disagree but I believe I can call myself a Christian for your purposes, so please feel free to proceed with that "particular religion" if you want.

#11

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.06.2024 08:11AM

-->

@baggins

The assertion that "outside 'reality' is an assumption" seems to dismiss the possibility of an objective external world altogether.

I don’t think it dismisses the possibility of an objective reality altogether, rather than ontology, it speaks to epistemology, about how we can know about the external world.

There’s a reason Immanuel Kant is considered the father of modern philosophy and it’s largely because of his underlying insight that the mind is constructive.

The mind doesn’t mirror the order of nature; it constitutes that order. We see nature from the vantage point of, and as it conforms to, the structure of human reason. So argues the single most influential work in modern philosophy, Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”.

In a nut shell, he said we can only assume that there is an objective reality “out there” somewhere, which is presumably the cause of our sensations, but we can’t know it in and of itself. We can only know it as it presents itself to our senses, and that knowing is a matter of the way we are constitutionally organized to know. Basic things like time, space, matter, and energy, are not independently existing things in reality, they are conceptual frameworks we mentally impose upon reality; they are the way we know things as a function of our particular cognitive apparatus. A being with different senses and a different cognitive apparatus, will know and experience reality differently. What reality is, in and of itself, remains a mystery.

This is very close to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics by the way, the Copenhagen Interpretation’s answer to the question of “what is light” would be, we don’t know, it isn’t a wave or a particle, it is something else, wave and particle are only our ways of knowing it, based on our limited ability to know something.

Before he died, Steven Hawking was most recently advocating a new version of truth he called a “model dependent reality” which states that there is no independent reality; that reality is dependent upon the models we develop, and a model that works is true. Pragmatically speaking, two logically conflicting models are both true if they both work.

If that is the case, then from Steven Hawking’s point of view, if the Theistic model works for a person, it is true, and the same could be said for an Atheistic model.

Topic's author

#12

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.06.2024 11:49AM

-->

@Sidewalker

…. Firstly….

“ yourargument comes down to saying that the vast majority of mankind is, and alwayshas been, unscientific, illogical, and irrational, that is an extraordinaryclaim and it should be difficult to justify. I think you will be hard pressedto show that Isaac Newton was illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific, buthey, good luck with that.”

We can either talk about how what you said is a Composition/Division Fallacy or how its irrelevant for many other reasons.

In this case, your argument is saying that if I claim theism is irrational, then I must also be claiming that rational thinkers like Isaac Newton were irrational. You assume that if the whole (theism) is irrational and unscientific, then its parts (its members) should also have the same attributes and vice versa. Just because all bricks in my house are light doesn’t mean my house is light in weight too. Just because my house has a square shape doesn’t mean that each part of my house is with square shape. If I claim that the belief in God / Theism is irrational and unscientific that doesn’t mean I claim everyone who holds that believe is unscientific. What Im doing is Im claiming they hold irrational and unscientific beliefs. Theres plenty of overall rational scientists who are christians but they are aware that the belief they hold is based on faith/emotions and not reason or science. How does “all of mankind being unscientific” make any sense? There’s so many generalizations being made here, and you were the one that said this is not supposed to be easy? Issac Newton (or all of mankind if you want) can be unscientific and irrational about some things and rational and scientific about others.

The next rout we can take is talking about how none of this matters even if went along with your argument. Even if you were right and I did claim Issac Newton and all people who were/are theistic are irrational and unscientific for this specific belief thats not difficult to justify at all. It’s just another fallacy (appeal to authority and appeal to popularity) that makes no sense. What smart people believed hundreds years ago does not make the belief reasonable NOW. How are we going to test what Issac Newton would think about religion in 2024? How are we going to test what philosophers and scientists from thousands years ago think with access to current day technology and information about the universe and the laws of physics? Is it so difficult to imagine that humanity for the majority of its history has been unscientific? For how many hundreds of thousands of years humans have been living outside and in caves before we modernized. Do you think cavemen were rational and scientific? By our standards today. I dont care about what was the right thing to do or think back then. Im asking you if you start acting and thinking like a caveman in 2024 would you be rational and scientific?

“so I think you have conceded that one can certainlydiscuss the concept of Spirit without being able to explicitly know it’snature”

Sure I “concede” but Idk how that is helping you. Im still waiting to find out. All this spirit talk is little bit confusing so I will wait until I know more about what you’re saying exactly before I comment on your definition. So far I still dont know your definition of spirit and god is but maybe we are agreeing.

“To say that “science has yet to findanything spiritual” must certainly be explicated, what exactly do you mean bythat? The simple fact is that science hasnever found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at anytime in history.”

“they have found mankind to bespiritual. “

I dont like to use the word fallacy all the time but… Even if all of the societies from all time were thought to be “spiritual” that does not mean they are “spiritual” if you know what I mean lol. if you dont heres the explanation: Theres a difference between claiming (or believing) to be spiritual and being spiritual. “Science” has found a lot of societies that thought they are spiritual and lived accordingly. Just because they believe in spirits does not mean they were actually spirits there interacting with them. Science has not confirmed any of the claims of any of the spiritual societies. It is no surprise to everyone that majority of the past human societies were more spiritual / undeveloped / religious / primitive etc… That brings nothing to the topic of the conversation which is : Is theism reasonable and scientific? And idk if you are aware but I am talking from a 2024 perspective. I am talking about if theism is reasonable today, now, not 500 or 5000 years ago.

Also spirituality is not always interchangeable with theism so we might want to focus more on theism and not the assumed “spirituality” of ancient people. If you want to discuss why humans so far have been mainly spiritual throughout history thats another topic, which I can discuss if you want.

Also if theism or spirituality were/are beneficial for anything that wont make them truth or reasonable.

On to the next thing,

“If you are saying this because of amistaken belief that science doesn’t deal with immaterial things”

…the straw man. No I am not saying science doesn’t deal with immaterial things, I am aware of mathematics for example. Quantum fields, the space time continuum, dark matter, … how does any of this help theistic cases exactly? Theres a lot of things that go along with all those entities. We have been able to observe them, test them, verify them, make predictions based on the information we learned, wheres all of that on the side of theism? How do we test the truth of your spirit dimension or your force of God that interact with us? We can see what gravity does? What does the spirit do? If you can find things that we know of that are immaterial that does not help you justify all of your claims just because you decide to label yours as immaterial too. Magnetic fields are “immaterial” but we sure know why and how they work. We know about Magnetic flux lines, flux density, flux permeability. We know its the motion and alignment of charged particles, which create invisible lines of magnetic force that can interact with other magnetic materials. Thats what makes it scientific. Its been observed, tested, studied and confirmed.. bringing up stuff that are “unseen” but real does not make your unseen claim true. Why dont you just show me the scientific work where scientists confirmed or observed a spirit. Or anybody that observed a spirit and we can try to confirmed that. We cannot observe any of the theistic claims. That makes it unscientific. Just because science cannot deny or refute them does not make them scientific. Science cannot refute unfalsifiable and untestable claims.

“Oh hey I think theres a leprechaun flying in this room but in the same time he is in a different dimension (spiritual) so science cant possibly test that so therefore you cant prove im wrong so therefore my “experience” with the leprechauns in a spiritual dimension is scientific”

-if this is your argument I would rather not waste more time discussing this. And if science prove right now while Im writing this that theres some spiritual 5th dimension, we still dont know whats in that dimension and if theres leprechauns in there, or unicorns , or gods, or god, or which god is it, or anything at all. Just show me something that leads to your specific god.

“It is mycontention that the belief that Theism is illogical, irrational, andunscientific is a strictly unfounded and faith-based belief, it is not based onlogic, reason, or science, and consequently”

Im waiting to see problems with my logic. There is either scientific evidence/observations/experiments that confirm it or there isn’t. The answer to that determines if the belief is scientific or based on faith or something else.

There is either a sound hypothesis for theism or there isn’t. The answer to that determines if it’s reasonable to believe in theism or not. Im waiting for the sound hypothesis you have that made you believe theism. Some sort of syllogism would be nice and not so much irrelevant talk. All we need is for you to form an argument that starts with premises and end with the conclusion - “theism is rational and scientific”.

Sound hypothesis dont consist of fallacies btw or pseudo-evidence. I’ll let you address those points before giving you anything new to respond to and I will get to christianity later.

Topic's author

#13

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.06.2024 12:06PM

-->

@zedvictor4

I think that the argument always relies heavily upon speculation.

Therefore not a sound hypothesis therefore not a reasonable worldview

#14

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,405

05.06.2024 03:27PM

-->

@baggins

A hypothesis is a hypothesis.

A modus operandi based upon a speculative hypothesis is a tad unnecessary, but has been shown to work.

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.07.2024 04:38AM

-->

@zedvictor4

A hypothesis is a hypothesis.

And what is a hypothesis?

“Hypothesis” - an educated guess or explanation for an observation or phenomenon. It is a proposed solution to a problem or a tentative explanation for a particular event or situation. A hypothesis is typically formulated based on existing knowledge and is used as a starting point for further investigation or experimentation.

“Scientific hypothesis” - a tentative, testable explanation for an observation or phenomenon in the natural world. It is an educated guess or prediction about how something works or why it occurs.

Some key characteristics of a scientific hypothesis are:

1. Testability: A hypothesis must be possible to test through observation, measurement, and experimentation. It should make predictions that can be verified or falsified.

2. Logical reasoning: A hypothesis should be based on existing scientific knowledge, logical inferences, and rational thinking. It should not be merely a wild guess or speculation.

3. Specificity: A good hypothesis is narrow in scope and focuses on a specific relationship or explanation for a particular observation or problem.

4. Falsifiability: A hypothesis must be possible to disprove or show to be false through empirical investigation. If a hypothesis cannot be tested and potentially refuted, it is not considered a valid scientific hypothesis.

Not all hypotheses are created equal - some can be considered sound and reasonable, while others may be unreasonable or unfounded.

Sound/Reasonable Hypotheses:

- These are hypotheses that are based on existing evidence, logical reasoning, and scientific principles.

- They are testable and make predictions that can be verified through observation or experimentation.

- Sound hypotheses are plausible and align with our current understanding of the world.

- They provide a good starting point for further investigation and research.

Unreasonable/Unfounded Hypotheses:

- These are hypotheses that are not well-grounded in evidence or existing knowledge.

- They may be speculative, far-fetched, or not logically coherent.

- Unfounded hypotheses are often not testable, as they do not make clear, verifiable predictions.

- These types of hypotheses are less likely to lead to meaningful discoveries or advances in understanding.

Examples for sound hypothesis:

UV radiation can cause skin cancer

Extensively tested, studied and validated through epidemiological studies. Grounded in our understanding of UV radiation and how it affects the DNA and causes cellular mutation. All of those also extensively studied and verified on their own.

Example for unreasonable hypothesis:

The Earth is on the back of a giant turtle

…

And after many various stages a successful hypothesis can be elevated to a coherent theory.

So which one is the theistic hypothesis that you refer to when you say “not unreasonable, not irrational” or “speculative but shown to work” ?

#16

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,405

05.07.2024 05:54AM

-->

@baggins

Deism and Theism are basically based upon the idea that life on Earth was inspired by and remains affected by extra-terrestrial or metaphysical influences.

It was neither illogical nor irrational to propose such ideas.

And "science" is still looking to the heavens for answers.

So, theistic ritual and the worship of a hypothetical creator is a tad unnecessary.

But we could say that about a lot of stuff people get up to.

Topic's author

#17

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.07.2024 06:59AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Ah ok then, I see now that theism and deism are reasonable and logical because theism and deism are reasonable and logical because theism and deism are reasonable and logical became theism and deism are reasonable and logical. Those are your reasons right?

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.07.2024 07:58AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Also we are discussing if its reasonable to accept the existence of God (creator of the universe) … Today. Not if it was reasonable to propose such ideas centuries ago.

#19

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.07.2024 09:38PM

-->

@baggins

…. Firstly….

“ yourargument comes down to saying that the vast majority of mankind is, and alwayshas been, unscientific, illogical, and irrational, that is an extraordinaryclaim and it should be difficult to justify. I think you will be hard pressedto show that Isaac Newton was illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific, buthey, good luck with that.”

We can either talk about how what you said is a Composition/Division Fallacy or how its irrelevant for many other reasons.

LOL, nope, that’s not a Composition/DivisionFallacy, go back to your fallacy list and try another one to see if that works.Let’s go with why you think it’s irrelevant.

In this case, your argument is saying that if I claim theism is irrational, then I must also be claiming that rational thinkers like Isaac Newton were irrational.

It’s really not all that complicated,if you claim theism is irrational, then you are necessarily saying that it isirrational to be a theist.

You assume that if the whole (theism) is irrational and unscientific, then its parts (its members) should also have the same attributes and vice versa.

So you want to change the definitionof theism such that the word theism is unrelated to the word theist? You will need to explicate that idea,I assume when we talk about theism we are by definition, talking abouttheists.

In your first response to me in post#3 you referred to your “main arguments of why I think Theism or To Believe inGod is illogical, irrational and unscientific”. You weren’t making this distinction then,you equated “theism” and “to believe in God”. It is disingenuous to now say that theism and believing in God are twoseparate things.

Just because all bricks in my house are light doesn’t mean my house is light in weight too. Just because my house has a square shape doesn’t mean that each part of my house is with square shape.

Non-sequitur.

If I claim that the belief in God / Theism is irrational and unscientific that doesn’t mean I claim everyone who holds that believe is unscientific. What Im doing is Im claiming they hold irrational and unscientific beliefs.

OK, let me get this straight, you areclaiming that theism is irrational and unscientific, but believing in theism isnot irrational and unscientific? Thisstrikes me as nothing more than a semantic distraction from the fact that youneed to present an argument, stating that theism is irrational and unscientificagain and again is not an argument. Ifyou want to say that theism and theists are two different subject matters,fine, but you still need to make an argument as to why theism is irrational andunscientific.

Theres plenty of overall rational scientists who are christians but they are aware that the belief they hold is based on faith/emotions and not reason or science.

It appears that your atheism is basedon faith/emotions and not reason or science. If you want to share the reasons, logic, and science behind yourassertion about theism , that would actually be an argument.

How does “all of mankind being unscientific” make any sense? There’s so many generalizations being made here, and you were the one that said this is not supposed to be easy? Issac Newton (or all of mankind if you want) can be unscientific and irrational about some things and rational and scientific about others.

Of course it doesn’t make sense,that’s why I pointed out that you were saying it. But hey, lets go with your idea of theism asindependent of theists, now please give your “reasons” why theism is irrationaland unscientific.

The next rout we can take is talking about how none of this matters even if went along with your argument. Even if you were right and I did claim Issac Newton and all people who were/are theistic are irrational and unscientific for this specific belief thats not difficult to justify at all. It’s just another fallacy (appeal to authority and appeal to popularity) that makes no sense.

Nope, it's not an "appeal to authority andappeal to popularity either", go back to your list and try again. Or, get pastthis innane distraction and go with the “thats not difficult to justify at all” thingand actually justify it with an argument. Then I will respond to your argument, then you can respond, and it willbe like we are having a debate.

What smart people believed hundreds years ago does not make the belief reasonable NOW. How are we going to test what Issac Newton would think about religion in 2024? How are we going to test what philosophers and scientists from thousands years ago think with access to current day technology and information about the universe and the laws of physics? Is it so difficult to imagine that humanity for the majority of its history has been unscientific? For how many hundreds of thousands of years humans have been living outside and in caves before we modernized. Do you think cavemen were rational and scientific? By our standards today. I dont care about what was the right thing to do or think back then. Im asking you if you start acting and thinking like a caveman in 2024 would you be rational and scientific?

OK, since none of that has anything todo with what we are supposed to be debating, how about we just get past it andyou present an argument for why theism is irrational, unreasonable, andunscientific.

“so I think you have conceded that one can certainlydiscuss the concept of Spirit without being able to explicitly know it’snature”
Sure I “concede” but Idk how that is helping you.

You seem to think that it isirrational and unscientific for theists to talk about spirit without being ableto explicitly know it’s nature, but it is rational and scientific for you totalk about spirit without being able to explicitly know it’s nature. It’s just an observation, please don’t goback to your fallacy list and try to make a distinction about how it’s somehowrational for you but irrational for others.

Im still waiting to find out.

What are you still waiting to findout?

All this spirit talk is little bit confusing so I will wait until I know more about what you’re saying exactly before I comment on your definition. So far I still dont know your definition of spirit and god is but maybe we are agreeing.

If you want to have a debate you needto have at least a cursory understanding of the subject matter of thedebate. I don’t think that saying youare confused is an argument. Do you know what the word “transcendent”means? Understanding the concept oftranscendence is important to the discussion.

“To say that “science has yet to findanything spiritual” must certainly be explicated, what exactly do you mean bythat? The simple fact is that science hasnever found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at anytime in history.”

“they have found mankind to bespiritual. “
I dont like to use the word fallacy all the time but…

Oh, but I think you do.

Even if all of the societies from all time were thought to be “spiritual” that does not mean they are “spiritual” if you know what I mean lol.

No, I have no idea what you mean, itsounds like you want to get into the semantics weeds again, how about you just tellme why theism is irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific.

if you dont heres the explanation: Theres a difference between claiming (or believing) to be spiritual and being spiritual. “Science” has found a lot of societies that thought they are spiritual and lived accordingly. Just because they believe in spirits does not mean they were actually spirits there interacting with them.

I see, so spirituality is a vastconspiracy? There is some sort of globalconspiracy where the majority of mankind in all times and all places haspretended to be spiritual but they really weren’t?

Continued....

#20

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.07.2024 09:39PM

-->

@baggins

...Continued

Science has not confirmed any of the claims of any of the spiritual societies. It is no surprise to everyone that majority of the past human societies were more spiritual / undeveloped / religious / primitive etc… That brings nothing to the topic of the conversation which is : Is theism reasonable and scientific? And idk if you are aware but I am talking from a 2024 perspective. I am talking about if theism is reasonable today, now, not 500 or 5000 years ago.

OK, then please talk about “if theismis reasonable today”, that’s the task at hand, to make an argument as to whytheism is irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific today.

Also spirituality is not always interchangeable with theism so we might want to focus more on theism and not the assumed “spirituality” of ancient people. If you want to discuss why humans so far have been mainly spiritual throughout history thats another topic, which I can discuss if you want.

I think we can table that topic tilllater, let’s do the topic of the debate today.

Also if theism or spirituality were/are beneficial for anything that wont make them truth or reasonable.

Whoa there, this is an completely illogicalstatement, if spirituality is beneficial then it is reasonable to chooseit. Is that the point of yourbifurcation of the topic into theism and theists? To say theism is unreasonable but it’s notunreasonable to choose theism as a belief is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps youneed to go back and learn what the word reasonable means. My argument is that it “is not” illogical,unreasonable, or unscientific to choose to believe theism. Your argument needs to be that it “is”illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific

On to the next thing,
“If you are saying this because of amistaken belief that science doesn’t deal with immaterial things”

…the straw man. No I am not saying science doesn’t deal with immaterial things, I am aware of mathematics for example. Quantum fields, the space time continuum, dark matter, … how does any of this help theistic cases exactly? Theres a lot of things that go along with all those entities. We have been able to observe them, test them, verify them, make predictions based on the information we learned, wheres all of that on the side of theism?

Let’s be clear, the definition of“reasonable” is “having sound judgment; fair and sensible”. Theism is a belief, theists are people whohold that belief, so to say theism in unreasonable, is to say it isunreasonable for a person to hold that belief. I don’t see how your distinction between theism and theists can have anymeaning at all really. “Sound judgement”implies a conscious agent making the judgement, theism itself cannot have soundjudgement, only a person can have sound judgement in choosing theism, younecessarily need to be talking about whether it is a reasonable for a person tochoose theism. To say that an action isreasonable is to refer to the action being reasonable for a person to engage in,the action itself isn’t what is reasonable.

How do we test the truth of your spirit dimension or your force of God that interact with us? We can see what gravity does? What does the spirit do? If you can find things that we know of that are immaterial that does not help you justify all of your claims just because you decide to label yours as immaterial too. Magnetic fields are “immaterial” but we sure know why and how they work. We know about Magnetic flux lines, flux density, flux permeability. We know its the motion and alignment of charged particles, which create invisible lines of magnetic force that can interact with other magnetic materials. Thats what makes it scientific. Its been observed, tested, studied and confirmed.. bringing up stuff that are “unseen” but real does not make your unseen claim true. Why dont you just show me the scientific work where scientists confirmed or observed a spirit.

Do you think this debate is aboutproof? There are no proofs of God,scientific or otherwise, that’s why you see the word “faith” being associatedwith theism.

Or anybody that observed a spirit and we can try to confirmed that. We cannot observe any of the theistic claims. That makes it unscientific. Just because science cannot deny or refute them does not make them scientific. Science cannot refute unfalsifiable and untestable claims.

I said at the beginning that the onlyway to evaluate theism logically and scientifically is to observe theists, theonly way to determine if their choice to believe is reasonable is to evaluatethe reasons they give for holding that belief, and then determine if thosereasons given, are resonable.

“Oh hey I think theres a leprechaun flying in this room but in the same time he is in a different dimension (spiritual) so science cant possibly test that so therefore you cant prove im wrong so therefore my “experience” with the leprechauns in a spiritual dimension is scientific”

A lot of atheists seem to think ifthey say something really stupid about theism, it makes theism look stupid, butit doesn’t, it is the person making the stupid statement that looks stupid.

-if this is your argument I would rather not waste more time discussing this. And if science prove right now while Im writing this that theres some spiritual 5th dimension, we still dont know whats in that dimension and if theres leprechauns in there, or unicorns , or gods, or god, or which god is it, or anything at all. Just show me something that leads to your specific god.

That’s a great imagination you havethere, not a particularly scientific imagination, but hey, it is definitely cool. My point was that science does in fact, tellus that there are other dimensions of reality of unknown character. If you want to think it’s leprechauns andunicorns that science doesn’t know about, go for it, whatever floats your boat.

“It is mycontention that the belief that Theism is illogical, irrational, andunscientific is a strictly unfounded and faith-based belief, it is not based onlogic, reason, or science, and consequently”
Im waiting to see problems with my logic.

I’m still waiting to see your logic.So far your argument seems to be that Illogical, unreasonable and unscientificare just labels I put on theism and I can’t tell you why. You can refute that by actually telling mewhy.

There is either scientific evidence/observations/experiments that confirm it or there isn’t. The answer to that determines if the belief is scientific or based on faith or something else.

There is either scientificevidence/observations/experiments that confirm what exactly?

There is either a sound hypothesis for theism or there isn’t. The answer to that determines if it’s reasonable to believe in theism or not. Im waiting for the sound hypothesis you have that made you believe theism.

I see where you are going with this,this is that BS burden of proof game, if I can’t prove that God exists you win,right? Well, that is not logical, it isn’teven an argument, it’s a game and nothing more.

Some sort of syllogism would be nice and not so much irrelevant talk. All we need is for you to form an argument that starts with premises and end with the conclusion - “theism is rational and scientific”.

OK, so you are making the debate “theismis rational and scientific” and the burden of proof is on me now? Does it have to be theism as opposed totheists too? Do I need to prove theexistence of God, leprechauns and unicorns too?

Sound hypothesis dont consist of fallacies btw or pseudo-evidence.

No shit?

I’ll let you address those points before giving you anything new to respond to and I will get to christianity later.

By “I will get to Christianity later” do you mean you willdeclare that Christianity is unscientific, illogical, and irrational” too, and then sayI need to prove you wrong?

Topic's author

#21

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.08.2024 12:56AM

-->

@Sidewalker

''go back to your fallacy list ''

How did you know I keep a list of your fallacies ?

''It’s really not all that complicated,if you claim theism is irrational, then you are necessarily saying that it isirrational to be a theist.''

Yes. This is what I said? But you clearly don't get that holding an irrational belief and thinking irrationally about one specific issue does not make you irrational about everything else. I can claim Isaac Newton would be irrational in believing in God in todays age. It is a little bit more complicated than what you try to word it as.

''So you want to change the definitionof theism''

....Wait I do? Im sorry I missed something, what did I change the definition of 'theism' to? Lets define them again.

Theism- Belief in God shortly

God- Creator of the universe and all that

Theist-someone who has accepted a form of theism

I hope thats good.

''Non-sequitur.''

lol what does not follow? Just because my house is a square does not mean everything in my house is a square. Just because you believe in theism (which i define as unreasonable) does not mean I claim everything else that you believe in is also unreasonable. Thats where I put the separation between theist and theism. If someone tells me they are Christian I assume they are irrational about that not about everything else too. This all started when you said Im claiming Isaac Newton is (overall) unreasonable and unscientific. No he is not overall unscientific and unreasonable but he could be about this specific issue. Even if he is a reasonable person and he believes in theism that does not prove theism to be reasonable. This is appeal to authority. "Hey you cant claim theism is unreasonable because I have some example over here for a famous scientist from 300 years ago who believed in God".

''OK, let me get this straight, you areclaiming that theism is irrational and unscientific, but believing in theism isnot irrational and unscientific? ''

No, read everything again.

''It appears that your atheism is basedon faith/emotions and not reason or science. If you want to share the reasons, logic, and science behind yourassertion about theism , that would actually be an argument''

Show me my emotions and faith.

Tell me what kind of Christian you are and I will give you a specific argument against the logic of your beliefs? Theres no point in listing problems with every single religion and its subgroups. Because those are my problems with theism. Its claims. And every theistic doctrine makes different claims. So with which one should I start with? Are you a fundamentalist, do you believe the bible literally? Just tell me what you believe in exactly and we can talk about your theism and see if its scientific. That's how you said we should determine if theism is reasonable or not. You said we have to ask a theist and see their reasons.

''it's not an "appeal to authority andappeal to popularity either"''

Ok my mistake, when you were saying that the majority of humanity has been spiritual and theistic that must be something else that I dont have in my list of fallacies :/

''OK, since none of that has anything todo with what we are supposed to be debating, how about we just get past it''

Oh wow, thank you, I can finally stop talking about Isaac Newton and spiritual tribes, I have no idea why ''I'' brought them up .

''You seem to think that it isirrational and unscientific for theists to talk about spirit without being ableto explicitly know it’s nature, but it is rational and scientific for you totalk about spirit without being able to explicitly know it’s nature.''

Oh boy, yes my friend. Im sorry that its seems unfair to you but I am not the one thinking spirits and gods exist so I am not the one who should come up with the definition of what they are. I have yet to encounter anything like that so it is not unreasonable for me to say "hey I am not convinced spirits exist, idk what that is can you explain?". But if the person who claims that it is reasonable to believe spirits exist but does not know anything about any spirits, then thats a different story. Also idk why are you so pressed about it. I am not trying to make any kind of argument when I ask you what the hell is a spirit. I just want to know what your definition is so we know we talk about the same thing. Once we know what you think a spirit is we can try to identify anything like that anywhere. I have never said you cant talk about spirits reasonably either so idk where that came from.

''What are you still waiting to findout? ''

Definition of spirit.

CONTINUES...

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.08.2024 12:58AM

-->

@Sidewalker

''If you want to have a debate you needto have at least a cursory understanding of the subject matter of thedebate. I don’t think that saying youare confused is an argument. Do you know what the word “transcendent”means? Understanding the concept oftranscendence is important to the discussion.''

You are right, saying Im confused is not an argument. It was never intended to be. I am not aware what a spirit is and I wanna know what we are talking about exactly. I asked for clarification I did not make an argument. No need to be defensive here.

''I see, so spirituality is a vastconspiracy? There is some sort of globalconspiracy where the majority of mankind in all times and all places haspretended to be spiritual but they really weren’t?''

oh damn you are right, so many tribes were spiritual, that must mean spirits exist, oh wait thats not how it works...

No they did not pretend, they actually believed and interpreted natural phenomenons like divine signs and did a lot of dumb shit too. That is no proof that they were actual spirits lol. Its called being primitive and living in the jungle, son. Are you really asking me "uhh how come everyone else from thousand of years ago was spiritual and believed in absolutely everything they can think of" LOL AND are you really not seeing again that the argument "something is true because everyone else though it is true" is a.....my favorite word.... FALLACY...appeal to popularity. google it my friend. We said sound hypothesis dont include logical fallacies right? So this argument is down the trash not that it was ever any real argument.

Guess what, lotta people believed for a looong time Zeus exist. Is it reasonable now to think Zeus exists just because a lot of people did long time ago?

''make an argument as to whytheism is irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific today.''

Sure, I just did. Its unscientific because there's no scientific method that can falsify or verify any spirit, anything supernatural or any theistic or deistic god. Show me anything scientific in your theistic beliefs and you win is not that hard. Oh wait...

Its unreasonable because the theistic hypothesis and arguments do not consist of sound logic and most of the evidence are pseudo-science or some other bs that does not align with our understanding and knowledge of how our universe functions. I mean we can stop going in circles if you want and you can just present your hypothesis and how the theistic worldview explains our reality reasonably and we can see if your hypothesis follows the rules of logic . Simple :)

''if spirituality is beneficial then it is reasonable to chooseit''

Beneficial for what,first and second please provide me your argument for why beneficial=reasonable to accept as true. I admit I will have a lot of benefits if I join Christianity and even more if I actually sincerely believe in it. Just think about the fear of death. If I think this party dont stop once Im dead and Im going to live happily forever in a heavenly wonderland with the creator of the universe who loves me personally I would definitely have at least some extra peace of mind as a benefit. Other benefits are the community, the blind faith that everything happens for a reason and all that. I mean sure I can think of a lot of things that have benefits if you believe in them but they are not necessarily representing reality and what is actually true and reasonable to believe. I can believe in leprechauns too and that can make me very happy, and I can go on walks everyday trying to find their gold and those walks are most likely going to affect my physical health beneficially but that wont make leprechauns true ( or my belief in them reasonable) .

''To say theism is unreasonable but it’s not unreasonable to choose theism ''

Never said that. And if I did say somehow something that led you to that conclusion let me clarify, again. Theism is unreasonable and it is unreasonable to choose it. It is unscientific to choose it. Again, if someone makes ONE unreasonable choice or holds one unreasonable belief that does not make them unreasonable in every other aspect of their life too. You claim my argument is that I claim all people who believe in theism are unscientific and unreasonable. I claim that they are unreasonable and unscientific regarding that belief (theism). They can be reasonable and scientific in other topics. Someone, can choose to follow Christianity simply for emotional or personal reasons acknowledging that science and reason cannot help him there. Some people are religious just because they were raised like that and they never gave it an actual though. Are they unreasonable for believing without good reasons. Yes. Am I saying they are unreasonable in every other decision they make? No. Am I saying that every thought they have is unreasonable. No. Can there be good reasons to believe theistic claims? I am still waiting to hear what theistic claims you believe are reasonable and what are the good reasons.

'Let’s be clear, the definition of“reasonable” is “having sound judgment; fair and sensible”.''

Show me now sound fair and sensible arguments for theism. I claim there isnt and thats my reason for not thinking theism is reasonable. I cant believe something without good sensible reason. You say they are good reasons, you might be right I might have missed them. Please lmk which ones have I missed.

''Theism is a belief, theists are people whohold that belief, so to say theism in unreasonable, is to say it isunreasonable for a person to hold that belief''

People who hold theistic believes are unreasonable in doing THAT. And they have reached THAT ( not every ;) ) conclusion by unscientific methods. :)

'' need to be talking about whether it is a reasonable for a person tochoose theism''

Did you miss everything Ive said about why it is unreasonable to choose it? I said theres nothing scientific about it, Im waiting for you to present me something scientific. I said theres no logical arguments, Im waiting for a logical sound arguments with good evidence that supports your claims. I guess after you tell me your exact religion I can give you specific examples of its falsehoods. Before that happens the best argument against unspecified theistic God/Gods will be simply that I have not seen any evidence pointing to an intelligent personal creator of the universe that cares what I do.

''Do you think this debate is aboutproof? There are no proofs of God,scientific or otherwise, that’s why you see the word “faith” being associatedwith theism. ''

Oh yea I definitely think this is about proof too. Not only but proof is a big part of it. Or sorry did you think your hypothesis is special and we shouldn't apply the same standards. Im sure you want proof of evolution or everything else an atheist says. It is not my fault theism is unprovable like i said many times. Which is one of the reasons why its unscientific and irrational. "Faith" is a reason to believe,yes. Not very reasonable tho. What position cant you take just by faith. I can claim absolutely everything and say "its just based of faith". No problem, but not a very good methodology for discovering the truth.

'' theonly way to determine if their choice to believe is reasonable is to evaluatethe reasons they give for holding that belief, and then determine if thosereasons given, are resonable''

Im still waiting for your reasons then, why do you believe in your specific religion. You are a theist. Lets follow your method and discuss your reasons then.

''it is the person making the stupid statement that looks stupid.''

''My point was that science does in fact, tellus that there are other dimensions of reality of unknown character''

Oh okay, so you have some information that said science has proved the existence of more dimensions and theres un unknown character there? Tell me more please

''If you want to think it’s leprechauns andunicorns that science doesn’t know about, go for it, whatever floats your boat''

If you want to think it’s Jesus Christ Almighty God that science doesn’t know about, go for it, whatever floats your boat

''I see where you are going with this,this is that BS burden of proof game, if I can’t prove that God exists you win,right? Well, that is not logical, it isn’teven an argument, it’s a game and nothing more.''

Jeez, sucks to have to prove your claims huh? No I dont win and I'm not trying to prove God doesnt exist. Im trying to prove that the believe in him is unreasonable and unscientific based on the fact that theres no proof of him. He can still exist tho. Saying you are not convinced in something does not mean "Im saying it is not true". We dont know what could have cause the universe. Might be god, might be gods, might be something else that we have no idea of, might be nothing, the universe can be eternal, theres many options here. Nobody is gonna take your God away, you can still unreasonably and unscientifically believe in it without any proof but hey who knows, you might be right at the end. As far as we know tho, youre not.

''OK, so you are making the debate “theismis rational and scientific” and the burden of proof is on me now? Does it have to be theism as opposed totheists too? Do I need to prove theexistence of God, leprechauns and unicorns too?''

Buddy do you know how a conversations works. I have no idea why you take this PRO and CON so seriously, we are just talking bud. Imagine we are on the street. I give you my reasons you give me yours. Idgaf about who has BoP here. Technically when I challenge your worldview you have the BoP to show me Im wrong. I challenge it by saying it is unscientific, I told you why I think that is and Im asking you why do you think its scientific? All you keep repeating is "give me arguments, give me arguments".. Im sorry but the best argument against theism is always going to be that theism doesnt make any sense. If you want to go into specifics you have to present me your specific theistic claims because I cannot guess which one you follow (from like 3000 theistic religions). Then I can tell you how they dont make sense.

''By “I will get to Christianity later” do you mean you willdeclare that Christianity is unscientific, illogical, and irrational” too, and then sayI need to prove you wrong?''

I will declare that christianity is unscientific because science has not proven the biblical god, adam and eve, the ark and whole ton of other things. Then I will ask you to justify Christianity being scientific and show examples. After we see that nothing about the bible is scientific we will move forward to why you believe in it and we can see if your reasons are logical. Simple :)

Topic's author

#23

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.08.2024 01:24AM

-->

@Sidewalker

btw the BoP is not a game. Theism claims something extraordinary as an absolute truth. You dont need to be a genius to get skeptical about it especially when theists say "welp its based on faith actually". It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable). If I declare the existence of something to someone who does not see that I wont be saying " yea this some BoP BS game Im not proving anything, but you go ahead and disprove my unproven claims". Your claims are unreasonable to believe because they make huge assertions with 0 evidence. You said nobody will debate theism being illogical. Just assume I dont know anything about theism and show me its logic. Show me what your theism says and we can judge the logic together.

#24

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,405

05.08.2024 06:12AM

-->

@baggins

That would wholly depend upon what GOD might be.

As an A-theist, I don't run with popular religions and their magical men

But as an open minded person, I'm happy to run with the GOD principle.

Nonetheless, I've provided ample reasons why deism and theism were necessary phases of human intellectual evolution.

And I'm pretty sure that you are as ignorant of the truth as I am.

We are both speculators.

#25

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.08.2024 10:20AM

-->

@baggins

btw the BoP is not a game. Theism claims something extraordinary as an absolute truth. You dont need to be a genius to get skeptical about it especially when theists say "welp its based on faith actually". It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable). If I declare the existence of something to someone who does not see that I wont be saying " yea this some BoP BS game Im not proving anything, but you go ahead and disprove my unproven claims". Your claims are unreasonable to believe because they make huge assertions with 0 evidence. You said nobody will debate theism being illogical. Just assume I dont know anything about theism and show me its logic. Show me what your theism says and we can judge the logic together.

OK, then let’splay your BOP game. I know the rules ofthe game by those who like to play are you have the BOP and I don’t because youare making a claim and I’m not. So lets play.

I’ll serve.

The debate is “Theismis unscientific, illogical, and irrational” and you are pro, which is to sayyou are the one making the assertion that “Theism is unscientific, illogical,and irrational”, therefore the Burdon of Proof is on you.

Now it’s your turnto bounce it back to me.

Teeheehee, this isso clever, it’s much better than actually debating the subject matter, you don’tneed to know anything about anything and you can still debate it.

#26

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.08.2024 10:27AM

-->

@baggins

In post #7 you argue for the existence of an "objective external world", the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.

Prove that an objective external world exists.

#27

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076

05.08.2024 10:37AM

-->

@baggins

btw the BoP is not a game. Theism claims something extraordinary as an absolute truth. You dont need to be a genius to get skeptical about it especially when theists say "welp its based on faith actually". It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable). If I declare the existence of something to someone who does not see that I wont be saying " yea this some BoP BS game Im not proving anything, but you go ahead and disprove my unproven claims". Your claims are unreasonable to believe because they make huge assertions with 0 evidence. You said nobody will debate theism being illogical. Just assume I dont know anything about theism and show me its logic. Show me what your theism says and we can judge the logic together.

Let's do the BOP game itself, like a BOP game Bop game.

Your assertion about the BOP game is that "It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable)." This is a "huge assertions with 0 evidence."

The Burden of Proof is on the person making the assertion, please prove that "It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it".

Topic's author

#28

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.08.2024 11:39AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Nonetheless, I've provided ample reasons why deism and theism were necessary phases of human intellectual evolution

Yes but what I asked you for are reasons theism is logical to accept as true and not reasons why deism and theism were necessary throughout history

Topic's author

#29

Debates: 4

Posts: 88

05.08.2024 12:17PM

-->

@Sidewalker

Okay you “win the debate”. Congrats. Theism is not unscientific and not irrational because of … idk reasons. Whatever you want to put there I wont question it. Thanks for the conversation, Im not interested in talking about solipsism, what majority of mankind believed in, what was beneficial, what was necessary, which scientists believed in God, proving the existence of the external world and all of the other irrelevant arguments.

On the other hand for everyone else who might see this, if you believe theism (whichever you believe in) is logical and you actually want to defend your theistic beliefs and present them, we can see if they are logical and scientific and have that discussion. The point of the conversation would be to find out if theism is reasonable/rational/scientific to accept today.

#30

Debates: 6

Posts: 2,076