substantial argument
You still don't get it... and it's the main reason why i'm in forums and not formally debating. This isn't a debate. There is no one side is right one side is wrong. You can only discuss possibilities and use the reason and logic we have to count the less logical out... but, some of them... you just have to say, who knows. You can use reasoning to say the Abrahamic religions are not a good possibility, you can use reasoning to say Valhalla is not a good possibility, but you can't use our present day knowledge to say nothing happens after death. I never took philosophy to get into complex arguments with you... My simple argument is we don't know enough to say what happens after death. That's my argument if you're looking for one. An argument i'm quite sure i've repeated a couple times now.
For something to be reasonable it requires evidence.
I also told you there is evidence to "suspect" there "could be" a reality beyond ours. The fact we can create a virtual reality, and likely in the future make that into another reality, indicates its possibility. But my main thing is testimonial evidence. Again i'll say, if only one testimony of someone having a spiritual experience happened in a spiritual way that would be proof. I personally doubt the millions of experiences people have reported isn't "at least enough" to "suspect" there "could be" a spiritual level to all this. This is even if i don't count my own experiences. Beyond that i have to go research again which i don't feel like doing but there are plenty of scientific hypothesis and metaphysical hypothesis out there. *I hope highlighting words helps bc you keep reading over them.
You really triggered.
You're being a child. If this conversation was about the logic of arguments and philosophy... i would gladly concede i am not well versed enough and yes... i would ask for advice if i saw you know more. But i don't have to remember what ad hominem fallacy is to make the points i'm making.
Anecdotal evidence is subject to your feelings
I misread that the first time... i thought you said something else. Of course it's subject to feelings.
"off anecdotal evidence". That doesn't mean it was the reason the person was guilty it was the basis like a claim. Actual evidence was required like fingerprints, blood etcetera.
That is not true. There are ways to verify testimonial evidence... and there are plenty of cases that's all that's needed. It's tougher in criminal law bc the threshold is higher, but it happens. Say your roommate see's you get murdered but they can't find any other evidence from the perp... do you think the guy gets away with murder just bc they couldn't find any other evidence? It all comes down to if the person is "believed" .. if so, it's enough evidence.
Basically they pretty much say theists have already have the answer and science needs to catch up and some of them are in such denial that they actually think science has proven the existence of a God.
Why do you keep bringing theists and god into this... i don't believe in either. I don't believe any religion. I don't believe anyone knows what is beyond this reality, if anything. My belief only has to do with myself (and my arguments for why that's the case stands)... And, to further define my words since i am not using the common definition, when i say belief i mean i suspect more than not in the context of saying anything beyond this reality/after death. However, my standard remains the same. I do not think "proof" is necessary to have a hypothesis... if that was the case, we'd be stuck in the past. Examining and brainstorming possibilities from current knowledge is what pushes us forward. Not thinking about it bc it lacks proof is short-sighted but also necessary for certain people to have.
The burden was on you to prove spirituality but still you have not.
You're quite the broken record. Here is my argument for "spirituality." Something happens when you die. You really don't listen, assume way too much (but that's understandable), have reading comprehension problems, or maybe it's my fault. Since i'm increasingly getting tired of this, site in general not this conversation, i'll spell it out: I don't have proof of an afterlife, i don't have proof of multi-realities, my belief (suspect more than not) only currently applies to myself, the world is like a movie... well... that one i can prove since movies are made off the world, my religion is people (not something i need to prove), we don't have proof what happens after death (no one's come back to tell about it - but those that 'say' they have may throw a wrench a little but it's not brain death)... furthermore on that one, we don't know enough about consciousness (or this reality) to say it ends with brain death... the counter claims to that are too easily addressed like the radio wave argument and other hypos, we don't know enough to say there are no other realities (what is beyond our universe - what is before the big bang - we don't know), there is enough evidence to suspect spirituality (i define, which you should have asked ages ago but it's my fault, spirituality as something beyond this reality / death)... Also, this evidence can be proven wrong in time, but it hasn't been yet which is why i continually use the word suspect... What else did i say... umm, can't remember, so there it all is for the millionth time but i hope you can follow it if it's in one place. If i said anything counter to these assertions, or said i have proof of something which you keep assuming or making up, bring it up and i'll gladly concede. Oh in regards to rational and irrational... i've defined my position enough. I'm not going to be the one continually asserting i'm rational or not... which then would be projecting.
