-->
@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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can I safely assume that you answered your own question?
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.
Theism refers to God as a “Spirit”, most commonly described as "transcendent", so arguments about defining/describing God are foolish,
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.
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,
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.
please explain the "problem" with solipsism
do you enjoy dreams ?
i'm not sure any belief is "scientific"
So all hypotheses are either true or false
Theism is what it is.
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
How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.
we are arguing if theism is reasonable to accept as true
How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.examine the logical coherence of key claims
in order to make a determinationwe must examine specific claims
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 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,
Physicalism is not supported by science,
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.
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.
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.