-->
@Sidewalker
You win all the debates brother, ill give you even 5 not 3. Just let me know whenever you actually want to talk about this and you are ready to defend your position with arguments
Theism is unscientific, illogical, and irrational
Posts
Total:
96
-->
@baggins
You win all the debates brother, ill give you even 5 not 3. Just let me know whenever you actually want to talk about this and you are ready to defend your position with arguments
I defended my position already, the burden of proof is on you.
There, I defended it again loser.
-->
@Sidewalker
How did you defend theism being scientific, oh mighty winner. Can you quote yourself.
-->
@baggins
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.
please explain the "problem" with solipsism
-->
@baggins
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.
ok, this is interesting
-->
@baggins
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.
well stated
-->
@3RU7AL
Can I safely assume that you answered your own question?
-->
@baggins
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.
NOUMENON
-->
@baggins
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.
do you enjoy dreams ?
-->
@baggins
Can I safely assume that you answered your own question?
i'm genuinely curious if you can map it out
-->
@baggins
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.
not to throw a monkey-wrench into things
but i'm not sure any belief is "scientific"
science is simply a method for gathering and processing and verifying data
people sometimes colloquially employ the term "scientific conclusions" but this is very misleading
even the best data can be interpreted multiple ways
conclusions are never "scientific"
only the data and the method of processing and verifying the data can be considered scientific
-->
@Sidewalker
Theism refers to God as a “Spirit”, most commonly described as "transcendent", so arguments about defining/describing God are foolish,
you literally just defined/described "god"
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
you could simply say "god" is incomprehensible and inconceivable
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
so, basically GNOSIS
-->
@Sidewalker
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,
just on this one specific topic
of course there are plenty of christian scientists and engineers and doctors and lawyers
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
keep insisting on undefined terms
that's your best tactic
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain the "problem" with solipsism
My point wasn’t really trying to disprove solipsism itself. As far as I am aware this is unprovable and unfalsifiable speculation that leads to no answers whatsoever even if its true. Now my point was relative to the topic at hand and how does questioning the nature of reality bring you to the conclusion that god exists. Like I said even if you are a figment of my imagination and only my mind exists or im in a simulation, that does not logically connect to theism.
do you enjoy dreams ?
depends on the dream
i'm not sure any belief is "scientific"
Welcome to the team. 👍
-->
@baggins
Theism is what it is.
Because neither you nor I can know the truth of creation.
So all hypotheses are either true or false.
How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.
Proposing theism wasn't illogical, and was certainly not irrational.
And therefore still isn't.
Even though some might consider theistic hypotheses less valid.
-->
@zedvictor4
So all hypotheses are either true or false
Correct.
Theism is what it is.
?
How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.
Well, I would not say I know the absolute truth and again we are not arguing if theism is true we are arguing if theism is reasonable to accept as true. So that I would know if there are logical reasons to believe it is true. There might be no logic in it but it could end up being true. Theoretically.
Proposing theism wasn't illogical, and was certainly not irrational.
“Proposing”…
And therefore still isn't
Where is the logical link? Something was logical back then therefore its logical now? Also we are not talking about if theism was irrational to “propose”.
-->
@zedvictor4
How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.
examine the logical coherence of key claims
-->
@baggins
we are arguing if theism is reasonable to accept as true
in order to make a determination
we must examine specific claims
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.examine the logical coherence of key claims
I guess we are not allowed to do that. The Sidewalker guy did not even attempt to present any theistic claims let alone try to show any reason in them.
in order to make a determinationwe must examine specific claims
yep
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
if this premise is accepted
then every "spiritual belief" is equally true
are you a polytheist ?
-->
@Sidewalker
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,
everything scientifically observable
is by definition
measurable, quantifiable
-->
@Sidewalker
Physicalism is not supported by science,
nobody nowhere believes in "physicalism" in this way
nobody nowhere disbelieves in the concept of "speed"
nobody nowhere disbelieves in the concept of "heat"
nobody nowhere disbelieves in the concept of "gravity"
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
an extremely general and broadly UNdefined "theistic belief" (is) "unscientific" because it is not rigorously defined, observable, testable, falsifiable data
science is not a belief
science is a method of collecting and validating OBSERVABLE data
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
you're describing anthropology
-->
@Sidewalker
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.
no claim is automatically logical
in order for a claim to be considered logical, it must be demonstrated and each component defined
for example
something plus something divided by something and then multiplied by the square-root of something = 42
you can't prove me wrong - so it must be true
if you don't believe me then you are just denying mathematical facts
-->
@baggins
Wouldn’t you say it is possible that the human species has been selected by evolution for a predilection toward spiritualism?
-->
@cristo71
Interesting question. From an evolutionary biology perspective, it's difficult to say for sure if humans have been specifically selected for a predilection toward spiritualism. While spirituality can play a role in human culture and behavior, it's not directly tied to survival or reproductive success, which are the main driving forces of natural selection. Our beliefs and behaviors are influenced by a variety of factors, including cultural, social, and psychological aspects. While spirituality may have had an impact on our evolution indirectly, it's not something that can be solely attributed to natural selection.