The debate "Is there proof that any religion is true based off evidence of so could you please explain" was started by
February 5, 2020, 2:34 pm.
64 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PeaceSafe posted 5 arguments, SleepDeprivedSmarts posted 1 argument, Cdawgthree posted 19 arguments to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 20 arguments, Cdawgthree posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Paula, Khairon, PeaceSafe, jrardin12, abhiram, ProDavid, safalcon7, hmm_ok, SleepDeprivedSmarts, Cdawgthree, Martianna and 53 visitors agree.
diecinueve, Rashia, Nemiroff and 23 visitors disagree.
Both "real" and "apparent" are part of the whole but are not the same, in the same way that both dogs and cats are part of the whole but are not the same. The real exists independently of the apparent in the same way that dogs exist independently of cats, even though all four are part of the whole.
The subject matter of this debate is proof of religious concepts. The first book of the geometric proof I mentioned is labeled "Concerning God," so if you're insinuating that it is irrelevant, it's not.
However, you seem to be focused on the "real world" argument, and that is fine.
If you agree that there cannot be two wholes, then how are you suggesting that "real" and "apparent" can exist as substances and not perspectives? This would make two wholes, aka an absolute dichotomy.
The geometric proof you gave only says that the substance is the whole and there cannot be two wholes, it says nothing that the external and internal reality are the same
Based on nothing? Are we simply ignoring the geometric demonstration I cited or the explanation I gave pertaining to overlapping attributes?
Your paradox of dualism is based on nothing. You just gave examples like left and right and black and white. Just because some things have that behavior doesn't mean that everything has it. Reality and what we perceive of reality do not have that behavior.
Sorry if my last reply seemed hostile. It has just become frustrating because you are not addressing any of the points I have made and are instead opting for various unrelated "stoner theories" and strawmen arguments that I never implied, and it almost seems intentional, as if to derail the debate. You have never once mentioned substance, nor are you addressing the paradox of dualism that my initial argument was based upon.
If you wish to continue, I only ask that you refrain from talking about any theories. Theories have no place in a conversation concerning ontology, metaphysics, or epistemology, as all of these topics follow from logical deduction and do not rely on external possibilities or "what ifs"
No. Why would I claim that I knew everything? Why would you even insinuate that I said that?
I asked you what validates the truth of an MRI. You said "by seeing it." So you finally admit that you are the sole proprietor and creator of this truth?
Sensation has nothing to do with the brain? Then what is perceiving sensation? Magic? Some spirit or ego? I thought you didn't believe in any of that nonsense.
I don't know why you keep insisting that I said "the eyes and the brain are the same" because I never did... I never even implied it.
Once more, cogito ergo sum is a presupposition that attempts to assert itself without any proof. It's actually based on a paradox called substance dualism. If dualities cannot exist in nature, then how to you suppose that there can be a metaphysical duality between ego and non-ego?
And no, a psuedo-theory is not required to understand a simple concept like epistemology.
are you saying we know everything? im confused. there are things we know, and things we dont know. we know the brain involves many physical processes. we can see them happening with an MRI. there are some process we do not understand, are the also physical, or are they metaphysical, we do not know.
sensation is the eyes. nothing to do with the brain. you stated "they are all nervous system, so they (eyes and brain) are the same." i explained that they are different.
the brain is perceiving the sensations sent to it from the eyes. if our eyes, ears, and other sensory organs are damaged, our brain will be without input and will not have any sensations to perceive.
i dont remember saying anything about knowledge in general. our senses can be manipulated. our perceptions of the outside world are knowledge "beyond a reasonable doubt." the only thing you can truly know beyond ANY doubt is that you yourself exist as evident by the fact that you think.
because that pseudo theory is the only explanation i have for why you would doubt your eyes and what the fMRI is showing you.
How do we "not know?" That's like saying "we know right exists, but not left...." Right implies left. Up implies down. Opposites justify eachother.
I never said the eyes were the brain... I don't know why you're trying to imply that I did.
You tell me "your brain perceives but does not sense..." then what is it perceiving if not senses...?
So you agree that knowledge comes from perception?
Why are you bringing up this pseudo-philosophical simulation theory BS again? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and only serves to derail the debate. I'm asking a rather simple question that has nothing to do with "false information" or whatever conspiracy theories you are concocting. My question is this: What validates the MRI?
the fact is that the brain has physical. it may have mental as well, we do not know... but we know it is also physical.
saying that your eyes are the same as your brain because they are both part of the nervous system is like saying your stomach is the same as your colon cause they are both part of the digestive system. your nervous system both perceives and senses. your brain perceives but does not sense, your senses sense but do not perceive.
you are right. sensation is not perception, it is simply an electric signal generated from a physical interaction.
you asked how i know the mri is showing reactions in the brain... what is it showing then? is it showing a manipulated lie?
@nemiroff ..and what fact is that?
The sensory organs are literally extensions of the nervous system... lol. Claiming they're "independent" from eachother is like claiming you're independent of the laws of nature.
You've only further proven my point that only interpretations exist, not phenomena in themselves. Only conceptions of reality exists, not reality itself.
Your only reply is that it interprets sensations... I dare you to run a humans nervous system into a Dell laptop or a calculator and see if they're able to recreate what we call "reality" or if they're simply going to be overloaded with 1's and 0's that don't mean a goddamn thing to them.
Without our mind, what you call "sensation" is nothing but random code.
Why are you asking if something is "manipulating the image?" When did I ever insinuate that some mysterious entity was "manipulating truth?" Please. Stay on topic. All I asked you was a (rather rhetorical and self explanatory) question: "what validates the MRI?"
i am not proclaiming any dichotomy, i am simply stating fact to the best of our knowledge. Also, you are confusion sensation with perception.
perception is in your brain.
sensation is in your sensory organs (eyes, ears, nose).
you said it correctly at the end without even noticing. "the brain perceives (interprets) the sensations that come from the outside world. it does not create sensations, it simply interprets them into perception.
also, if the mri is not showing activity in the brain, what is it showing? is it lying? is there something manipulating the image? did you skip my first sentence when i stated that "unless your assuming something wild like the brain in a vat mental experiment" which should account for whatever philosophical twisting you are applying to this reasoning.
I should also point out that God, the bond between being and nothing, absolute and relative, man and nature, is a conscious creation of the universe. WE consciously create our own existence through dichotomies.
Fair enough, but the term "God" has spanned over far more than the three Abrahamic religions we are used to. One could still say that my God even possesses the same tri-omni attributes as the Abrahamic one, just from a different (active) perspective. I include God into my vocabulary precisely because he can fit, just like Dao or the hermetic "ALL," or Spinozas "natura naturans." The point is to recognize them all as stemming from the same concept. This is why you find religion in every corner of the world; it is essentially the dogmatization of philosophy.
And when people think of the term "God", they generally think of a conscious being who created the universe, so it is also not an appropriate term to describe the whole.
Ok, now I see where that confusion was coming from. My bad for not being direct; the question was meant to be rhetorical. The answer to what ultimately justifies any truth is you! Any ideatum is verified by an idea, and any idea is verified by an ideatum.
I still don't think "universe" is a proper term to use when describing the "whole" simply because when people think of the term "universe," they typically think of a physical reality that has laws like gravity, a reality that we can learn from through science and experiments. Substance, Dao/Tao, The All, God, natura naturans, "the way," or whatever you would like to call it, is something that we cannot fathom. It is absolute and without parameter; you cannot put it into a box. To prescribe a science to it, like we do the universe, would be incorrect.
When I say "universe" I mean everything that exists, not just the physical.
When you said "How do we know physical reactions happen in the brain? Is it not your own brain who is convincing you of this fact?" I thought you were implying that the information that our brain gives us is not real, that is, that it deceives us. If that wasn't what you wanted to say, what was it?
How can the whole be the universe when physicality is opposed by mentality? You're completely dismissing this fact. How can a song be "just sound waves" when a song has many other attributes?
Why you are insinuating that our brains are "cheating" on us is unknown to me, and it seems rather off topic. I'd like to stray away from any pseudo-philosophical theories about simulations or "brains in jars" because they have absolutely nothing to do with ontology and metaphysics.
The whole is the universe, not God.
The cause of thoughts are the physical reactions in our brain, not God. You say we can't know that because it's our brain that convinces us of that, so you think our brain is cheating on us? If so, then it is impossible to know what is outside our mind, therefore it would be impossible to prove that God exists.
It is self-evident. All we experience are contingencies, reactions, effects. This constitutes the existence of a cause. Every effect must have a cause. Every part must correspond to a whole
And why do you think that substance exists?
Maybe you are confused in what I mean. I'm saying that substance holds both the attributes of mental and physical, just as the song holds the attributes of sound and notes.
So what you say is that ideas are a part of the monistic substance that can be conceived with the mind?
But what makes you think that there is a monistic substance? You said that black and white are part of the same thing, but physical and mental are not
You're not addressing the question. How do we know the MRI is showing reactions the brain? You say "looking at it" but fail to address that "looking at it" is literally the only way that you're validating "truth." Foolishly claiming that things are "only physical" leads to into yet another false dichotomy. I find it odd that you would suggest sensation to be independent of the brain. If not the brain, then what perceives sensation? Magic?
If a song can be conceived through both sound waves and through notes on sheet sheet music, does that mean the song "is soundwaves?" No. It simply means the song can be CONCEIVED through sound waves. You're conflating the attributes of a thing with the actual existence of a thing.
If physical and mental are part of the same thing, then thoughts would be something physical and therefore the monistic substance could be a physical field.
If physical and mental are not part of the same thing, then there is no monistic substance
So then you agree? I am correct in my logic?
unless you are assuming something wild, like all our perceptions are false, like the brain in vat mind experiment, then we know reactions happen in the brain because a) we can see it live with MRI. and b) we know the brain is made of cells, and we know cells dont work on magic.
also sensations are physical and dont involve our brain. it is the interaction of the outside world with our senses. hence SENSation. this is before those senses get turned into an electrical signal and sent to our brain. in the brain, interpreting that data into our consciousness is called PERCEPTION, not sensation.
It is proven that physical reactions occur in the brain and that they are related to our sensations. If ideas are not caused by the brain, what do you think causes them?
And if physical and mental are not part of the same thing, there is no monistic substance
How do we know physical reactions happen in the brain? Is it not your own brain who is convincing you of this fact? Is it not an idea that justifies the ideatum just as you claim the ideatum justifies the idea? How can you claim one and not the other without a blind bias?
All thoughts need a thinker according to the laws of causality, so you are wrong to assume that one polar end can exist without its counterpart or opposite.
Substance, again, cannot be any concept arising from a dichotomy. Physical/mental is one such dichotomy.
Substance monism does not suggest that "everything is the same." Substance monism only suggests that everything is part of the same thing. Your "white/hot" analogy still doesn't apply because it isn't a dichotomy.
Thoughts are caused by physical reactions in the brain. Something does not need to have thought to cause thought, so the substance can be a physical field.
From what I understand, that there is a monistic substance means that ultimately everything that exists is the same thing, therefore if light and heat are not the same there is no monistic substance, so that does apply to this problem
No opposites in nature means that substance is monistic because of the fact that it forbids the existence of any opposing substance. Because there is no possibility of any opposing substances, this means that substance is without limit (infinite). If nothing is to oppose substance, this also means that substance is active, aka the cause of all things. Substance cannot exist as the cosmos or any physical plane of existence precisely because that would imply yet another false dichotomy between physical and mental. This is why I say substance is of the mind, meaning that it possesses thought as an attribute. Not only is it a thought, but because it is purely active, it exists as actively thinking/creating (you will find that these are also one in the same thing). I do not know why you brought up the difference between heat and light, as they are not opposites and thus do not apply to this issue.
That there are no opposites does not mean that the substance is monistic, that black and white are the same thing does not mean that white and heat are the same thing.
Even if the substance were monistic, that sounds more to me like a physical field (like the electromagnetic field) than a god. When you say that it is infinite, of the mind, and entirelly active, infinite in what sense? And what do you mean "of the mind" and "entirelly active"?
Firstly, a "completely dark place" cannot scientifically exist due to the laws of thermodynamics. Secondly, before we are able to grant that anything "dark" exists, we must first grant that something "light" exists by comparison. Otherwise, there would be no basis in which to conceive of darkness at all! People who are born blind do not even know what "dark" means. Claiming that black can exist without white is like claiming left can exist without right.
All opposites being a product of the mind versus a product of nature has everything to do with God. If there are no opposites in nature, it means that substance (the indwelling of reality) is monistic. Like I said before, a monistic substance is infinite, of the mind, and entirely active. This is God.
a completely dark place would be black without any white. And I don't understand how this is related to the existence of a god
There are many, but every proof is centered around the truth that all is one, that God is natura naturans (nature naturing). Spinoza's proof is laid out in the form of a geometric demonstration, which I find very appealing and straight forward. He demonstrates how no two substances or "things in themselves" can co-exist due to the fact that thought constitutes existence/essence, thus any two substances would naturally share a similar attribute, resulting in paradox. This one substance must be infinite, of the mind, and completely active (God). Hermetic philosophy similarly points out that all opposites are not two opposed entities, but the same in nature, just to a different degree. Hot cannot exist without cold, black without white, ect. This can then be applied anywhere, like creator and creation, good and evil, ect. Once we realize that all dichotomies or opposites are necessarily products of the mind, not nature, we are able to denounce false, dualistic, beliefs like Christianity and even Atheism.
What are those ontological and metaphysical proof?
Hermeticism, Taoism, or really any panentheistic religion comes with ontological and metaphysical proof to back it up. Abrahamic religions are filled to the brim with dogma and paradox, but those religions who posit a monistic existence rather than a dualistic cosmology have the benefit of being logically supported.
Ark: Not enough Hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere.
Being Swallowed by a whale: Not one Species of whale has an Esphogus wide enough to swallow a grown adult male (max whale esophagus,10 inches wide)
Losing your long hair doesn't cause you to lose muscle mass: Self explanatory.
Unless the bible is a bunch of confusing cryptic metaphors.
It's clearly bullshit scientifically.
Aka, Christianity is an easy one.
Notice how there isn't a single argument here. That's all you need to know.
Just because you would like God to exist does not mean that he exists, I would also like him to exist.
And if you are not willing to change your mind I do not understand what you do in a discussion app
ok,this is last I answer to you, because u kind make me to think how u think 100%
my reason I belive that God exist is because he (already/only) making heaven and hell to us to go(choose) finally which mean I will not PERISH. and because of that I belive ISLAM the only Way that have those cateria to me belive about the ONE perfect God that never born and and don't have wive or any single child.....
I'm making more short (I am human and we all not the God, and I don't want feel perish inside his hellfire) . #gochangeaccount
So you have no reason to believe in God? Do you just think it exists without any reason to think that?
show me the way(Maher Zain)..hehe
I need arguments to believe
btw,if I could choose other then debating .. surely i will.
reason why I "into" this apps nothing else except sharing knowledge that I believe goodEQ+excellentIQ people will understand maybe if they fine enough to believe it
This is a discussion app, so I want to know your reasons to debate
can you reveal some detail questions to me? because idk why you would like to know about my reason..... don't you know we had many different background
so I will wait. Tq
So why do you think what is written in the Quran is true?
true... but hard to them to accept, because lazynest and many reasons more
Just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's true
had sex with 6 years old
you can prove how jesus isreal bnysearching for him and reading the bilbe. also people who killed and hated jesus had wrote about his exsistent
yes, we have Quran (book of Muslim religion) Islam
proof:already 1400+years and yet nothing changing .
explanation:it no just book to look but it reveal to human to"read" it .so grab the translation and start proof by Ur self
and hmm. can u believe in something that always changing like all religion "base/book" if not u should find anything else that have power like Quran "pure"