-->
@3RU7AL
Religious hypothesis.
Exactly my opinion too.
There'll never be closure on whether God exists
Posts
Total:
554
-->
@ethang5
Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
That is to say. The assumed bases of religious spirituality.
One isn't attempting to assert that the physiological responses to assumed spirituality are not real enough mind trickery.
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
-->
@3RU7AL
Definitely something of a contradiction there.
With a pinch of conditioned bias thrown in for good measure.
Just what one would expect.
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@zedvictor4
Illogical. The one making the claim bares the BoP. Can either of you prove all spirituality is delusion?Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
(As soon as the person tries to shirk the BoP, I know I'm dealing with an ideologue.)
@3RU7AL
Do you consider that statement a fact or an opinion?
I consider it both.
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
When you make comments like that, please let the readers know that is your belief, not mine.
Debate me, not the christian caricature in your head.
-->
@ethang5
One doesn't necessarily need to prove that all spirituality is delusion.
Of course any argument against an abstract idea, has an easy counterargument.
Nonetheless, the onus must fall upon the one that attempts to promote the primary concept as reality.
-->
@Fallaneze
Thank You { a prayer in of itself }.
The truth exists for those who seek it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A { the } Cosmic Trinity: The most comprehensive, wholistic outline........Ebuc
1} Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of baseballs, dogs, Toyotas, God Space, mathematics etc i.e concepts are not an occupied space ergo they have no properties such as energy, spin, mass, color, taste, weight, sound, smell etc
--------------------------------------conceptual line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
2} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, surrounds/embraces the following,
3} Finite, occupied space Universe/God i.e. fermions { ex electrons }, bosons { ex photons }, Gravity, Dark Energy, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.................................................Uni - V - erse / G o d....................................................................
Blue = Gravity,..................Red = Time { Observed }.........Blood Red = Dark Energy
.......................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space..................................................
* * = bilateral consciousness of humans
i = ego i.e. self-identity
Time { occupied Space } = Observed Time i.e. observed { quantum } physical/energy reality ex fermionic matter, and bosonic forces all associated with sine-wave frequencies /\/\/\/\/
( ) = Gravity{ occupied space } via positive shaped geodesic Space is metaphysical-3, because has not been quantised nor quantified by humans, at least not yet and maybe never
)( = Dark Energy { occupied space } via negative shaped geodesic Space metaphysical-4, because it has not been quantise nor quantified and even less is known about Dark Energy than Gravity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biologic and soul are synonyms ergo biologic/soul ergo all biologics are souls.
1} Spirit-1 = spirit-of-intent and metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts
-------------------------------conceptual line-of-demarcation------------------
2} Spirit-2 = physical/energy ergo Observed Time{ /\/\/\/ } as fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof ex electrons, photons, rocks, biologics/souls, planets, etc
3} Spirit-3 = metaphysical-3 Gravity,
4} Spirit-4 = metaphysical-4 Dark Energy aka the cosmological constant Einstein put into his original maths. Dark Energy is the opposite of Gravity and is believed to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of Universe, that humans discovered about 15 years ago, indirectly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dare to be naive"... R. B. Fuller
"My education has been one of my biggest impediments to my learning"...A. Einstein
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."...R Feynman
-->
@ethang5
Illogical. The one making the claim bares the BoP. Can either of you prove all spirituality is delusion?
Burden-of-Proof.
Can you prove that BigFoot is false? If you can't prove that BigFoot is false, then BigFoot must be TRUE!
Can you prove that Shiva is false? If you can't prove that Shiva is false, then Shiva must be TRUE!
Failure to disprove BigFoot is false DOES NOT PROVE BigFoot is REAL.
In science this is called an UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Burden-of-Proof.Can you prove that BigFoot is false? If you can't prove that BigFoot is false, then BigFoot must be TRUE!Can you prove that Shiva is false? If you can't prove that Shiva is false, then Shiva must be TRUE!Failure to disprove BigFoot is false DOES NOT PROVE BigFoot is REAL.In science this is called an UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM. [LINK]
This is rather sophisitic. The unfalsifiable claim originated with zedvictor's question:
Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
And you answered:
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
Ethang5 is not bound to substantiate the negation of zedvictor's claim, nor is Ethang5 suggesting that in the failure to substantiate your position, his position is validated. Both you and zedvictor made claims (as evidenced by the quotes.) You ought to substantiate them.
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
It's pretty obvious that 3RUTAL was parodying what he expected to be the Christian response.
-->
@PressF4Respect
I imagine there was some sarcasm involved. Be that as it may, the suggestion is still "spirituality is delusional." In their attempts to pathologize religious belief and/or spirituality, they've resorted to making sophistic arguments. Now that they have, I ask only that they substantiate them.
-->
@zedvictor4
If one said all spirituality was delusion, he certainly would be expected to back it up.One doesn't necessarily need to prove that all spirituality is delusion.
Nonetheless, the onus must fall upon the one that attempts to promote the primary concept as reality.
The onus, as always, falls on the one making the positive claim.
Illogical. The one making the claim bares the BoP. Can either of you prove all spirituality is delusion?
Burden-of-Proof.
Can you prove that BigFoot is false?
I would have to If I claimed BigFoot was false.
If you can't prove that BigFoot is false, then BigFoot must be TRUE!
OK. Take it up with the one making the claim about BigFoot.
The fact remains that if you claim ALL spirituality is false, you should have a logical reason for that claim. If you don't, I can dismiss the claim as unsupported.
Failure to disprove BigFoot is false DOES NOT PROVE BigFoot is REAL.
I agree, but I don't think this statement means what you think it does. Do you mean "prove" instead of "disprove"?
In science this is called an UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM.
Then you should not have made it.
-->
@Athias
Can you prove that some spirituality (BigFoot) isn't delusion? = Can you prove that some spirituality (BigFoot) is TRUE?
All spirituality (BigFoot) is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS (LochNessMonster).
This claim highlights a lack of Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
Can followers of JESUS prove that other religion's gods are false, WITHOUT using their own old book?
You can't argue that because you think the LochNessMonster is real, therefore BigFoot is false.
-->
@Athias
Be that as it may, the suggestion is still "spirituality is delusional." In their attempts to pathologize religious belief and/or spirituality, they've resorted to making sophistic arguments. Now that they have, I ask only that they substantiate them.
This is an attempt is to stake-out common ground.
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.
The Hindus believe the Christians are delusional.
How can you tell which one is "correct"?
Is it possible they are both right?
Is it possible they are both wrong?
What Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence can be applied?
-->
@Athias
This is rather sophisitic. The unfalsifiable claim originated with zedvictor's question:
Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
And you answered:
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
Ethang5 is not bound to substantiate the negation of zedvictor's claim, nor is Ethang5 suggesting that in the failure to substantiate your position, his position is validated. Both you and zedvictor made claims (as evidenced by the quotes.) You ought to substantiate them.
Thank you Athias! What is your IQ? It has to be astronomical. Who are you? I'm trying not to gush!
@press4Respect
It's pretty obvious that 3RUTAL was parodying what he expected to be the Christian response.
I imagine there was some sarcasm involved. Be that as it may, the suggestion is still "spirituality is delusional." In their attempts to pathologize religious belief and/or spirituality, they've resorted to making sophistic arguments. Now that they have, I ask only that they substantiate them.
My God this is good! Logically concise, clear, perceptive.
OK. This is my pet peeve with so many atheists, they so often debate the cartoon Christian in their minds, and not me.
And then they try the BoP switcharoo with you.
It gets old. Fast.
-->
@ethang5
Illogical. The one making the claim bares the BoP. Can either of you prove all spirituality is delusion?
This can be done by appealing to common-ground.
Do you believe that any form of spirituality is false?
If you believe that some spirituality is false, how do you distinguish between true spirituality and false spirituality?
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. But this comes after zedvictor had already asserted that it was a delusion. Zedvictor didn't particularly substantiate that assertion. Instead, zedvictor attempted to shift the burden to ethang5.Can you prove that some spirituality [...] isn't delusion? = Can you prove that some spirituality [...] is TRUE?
All spirituality (BigFoot) is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS (LochNessMonster).
Who made this claim?
This claim highlights a lack of Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
Redundant.
Can followers of JESUS prove that other religion's gods are false, WITHOUT using their own old book?
Why would they have to?
You can't argue that because you think the LochNessMonster is real, therefore BigFoot is false.
No one other than you has stated that.
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.
Which Christians?
The Hindus believe the Christians are delusional.
Which Hindus?
How can you tell which one is "correct"?
To the exclusion of the other? That's subjective.
Is it possible they are both right?Is it possible they are both wrong?
I extend my previous argument.
What Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence can be applied?
Is the application of Uniform Standards of Evidence necessary? If so, what's the reason?
-->
@ethang5
Ethang5 is not bound to substantiate the negation of zedvictor's claim,
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
...nor is Ethang5 suggesting that in the failure to substantiate your position, his position is validated.
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
Both you and zedvictor made claims (as evidenced by the quotes.)
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
-->
@Athias
Can followers of JESUS prove that other religion's gods are false, WITHOUT using their own old book?Why would they have to?
You stated that the claimant has the Burden-of-Proof.
-->
@ethang5
Thank you Athias!
No problem.
What is your IQ? It has to be astronomical.
I don't subscribe to the "psychometric" known as "I.Q." But, I do consider myself fairly intelligent.
Who are you? I'm trying not to gush!
Athias is a family name. So it isn't necessarily a pseudonym. For all intents and purposes, I am Athias.
OK. This is my pet peeve with so many atheists, they so often debate the cartoon Christian in their minds, and not me.
It's clear that they're strawmanning you--or at the very least, attempting to strawman you.
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would they have to without their "old book"?You stated that the claimant has the Burden-of-Proof.
-->
@Athias
You can't argue that because you think the LochNessMonster is real, therefore BigFoot is false.No one other than you has stated that.
It's an illustration that it is illogical to argue that simply because you think the LochNessMonster (JESUS) is real, therefore BigFoot (SHIVA) is false.
-->
@Athias
You stated that the claimant has the Burden-of-Proof.Why would they have to without their "old book"?
If you want to use an old book to make your case, you must first substantiate the claim that your old book is a reliable source for your particular claim.
Otherwise you're begging-the-question.
Many religions have old books. Some are even older than the one the Christians like to use.
Would a Christian be convinced that Shiva is real by a few quotes from the ancient Hindu scriptures?
I'm going to guess they wouldn't.
Therefore, how can a Christian expect to convince a Hindu that their version of god is true by referring to their own old book?
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Is the Judeo-Christian god the one and only god?
-->
@Athias
What Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence can be applied?Is the application of Uniform Standards of Evidence necessary? If so, what's the reason?
The same logic applies to any and all unfalsifiable claims (like BigFoot).
In order to maintain a coherent belief system, you must apply the same Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence to every claim.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
-->
@3RU7AL
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
Both of who ought to substantiate what?
-->
@3RU7AL
If you want to use an old book to make your case, you must first substantiate the claim that your old book is a reliable source for your particular claim.
What is "reliable"?
Would a Christian be convinced that Shiva is real by a few quotes from the ancient Hindu scriptures?I'm going to guess they wouldn't.
In other words, you're incredulous.
Therefore, how can a Christian expect to convince a Hindu that their version of god is true by referring to their own old book?
But this conclusion is based on your own incredulity. Is the resolution informed by that which a Christian "expects" or that which a Christian does?
The same logic applies to any and all unfalsifiable claims (like BigFoot).
Okay.
In order to maintain a coherent belief system, you must apply the same Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence to every claim.
Okay.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
Where and by whom were these exceptions made?
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
They are attempting the same thing with you.It's clear that they're strawmanning you--or at the very least, attempting to strawman you.
But we must first make the claim before you start attacking it!In order to maintain a coherent belief system, you must apply the same Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence to every claim.
The only one who has made a claim is you. Now, instead of defending the claim you did make, you want us to defend a claim we did not make. Only noobs would fall for that ploy.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
And when we make exceptions for certain claims, you may have a point.
-->
@ethang5
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.Both of who ought to substantiate what?
All claims and counter-claims should be substantiated.