Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[prometheus11]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Because G-d claims it .
Regards
paarsurrey said: ↑
I am as certain (or even more or most or absolute certain) that G-d exists as I am certain that I have a father or ancestors and distant ancestor fathers that existed million of years ago since inception. It must be one's assumption that God does not exist just out of one's being sceptic, else one should give one's evidence that God does not exist. Please don't enumerate any hypothetical/mythical names that one does not believe in oneself.
Regards

I don't have any burden whatsoever on me of others. Please
Regards

Correct. If you don't care about others believing you, you have no burden of proof when putting forth an assertion.

For example, if I tell people that I have an invisible and undetectable spaceship in my living room, my visitors are welcome to disbelieve me. If I want them to believe me, I have theburden of proving my claim since I made it.

 

[Shad]

Correct. If you don't care about others believing you, you have no burden of proof when putting forth an assertion.

Any claim has the burden of proof regardless of how one "feels" about other people. Showing no interest in meeting this burden does not absolve one of this burden. It just shows a lack of interest, evidence or argument.

For example, if I tell people that I have an invisible and undetectable spaceship in my living room, my visitors are welcome to disbelieve me. If I want them to believe me, I have theburden of proving my claim since I made it.

If you tell people you have already made a claim. The burden is on anyone making claim. You just have no interest in meet the burden you must meet. You ignore your burden of proof rather than absolve the requirement.

 

[prometheus11]

Agreed, Shad. I was attempting to show the uselessness of making a claim in which you had no interest.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

But is that dichotomy something you're imposing on the human race a little bit, the one of 'believer' vs. 'non-believer?' I think if you disable that construct from your approach, you might see a little bit more about what's really going on here. Belief and non-belief are pretty anthropic qualities, and you should be more concerned with analyzing why either should exist. It seems obvious that a mind can either believe, not believe, know or not know, think or not think. However, all that is just a game that comes with the mind. Seeing past what the mind does or tries to do, is all the space that the mind or its thoughts does not inhabit. And from that space, actually sprung the mind and its thoughts to begin with.

 

[Shad]

Agreed, Shad. I was attempting to show the uselessness of making a claim in which you had no interest.

Making a claim, as in openly communicating the claim, shows an interest itself. If one had no interest they wouldn't make a claim at all. They would remain silent.

 

[prometheus11]

Making a claim, as in openly communicating the claim, shows an interest itself. If one had no interest they wouldn't make a claim at all. They would remain silent.

You and I think that, yes. Apparently some believers of myth do not.

 

[cambridge79]

But is that dichotomy something you're imposing on the human race a little bit, the one of 'believer' vs. 'non-believer?' I think if you disable that construct from your approach, you might see a little bit more about what's really going on here. Belief and non-belief are pretty anthropic qualities, and you should be more concerned with analyzing why either should exist. It seems obvious that a mind can either believe, not believe, know or not know, think or not think. However, all that is just a game that comes with the mind. Seeing past what the mind does or tries to do, is all the space that the mind or its thoughts does not inhabit. And from that space, actually sprung the mind and its thoughts to begin with.

and how do you know what you think is "outside the mind boundaries" is not something inside the mind boundaries that your mind makes you think it's not? basically how can you know you're not under a delusion?

 

[Theunis]

and how do you know what you think is "outside the mind boundaries" is not something inside the mind boundaries that your mind makes you think it's not? basically how can you know you're not under a delusion?

I agree with you. Your mind can present you with all kinds of illusion and delusions and while it is doing so no other thoughts enter your mind ("being") and you believe that which is presented to you as being factual.

I found the information in the following link quite interesting - about a third way into it where is starts with 1. Senses
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/maya.asp

 

[amorphous_constellation]

and how do you know what you think is "outside the mind boundaries" is not something inside the mind boundaries that your mind makes you think it's not? basically how can you know you're not under a delusion?

That's actually what I'm talking about, how do we know that things like reason and scrutiny are really reason and scrutiny if actually they are just anthropic projections of our little stirrings of linguistic muck. But as for things outside the boundaries, consider that there were plenty of things in the universe and on the earth before there were thoughts. Well, from those things sprung us. Things with no thought in them were combined somehow to make a thing with a thought in it. Given the strangeness of that alone, how are we reassured that real scrutiny and reason are even ours to have?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't found morals in personal feelings, so I don't have to make a leap based on values. I have the luxury of positing a mind independent moral system. I can suggest the metaphysical reality of moral constants. Materialistic Naturalists can't.

God is the architect of the game, including morality.

So you do found morals in personal feelings: the personal feelings of God (or the feelings you attribute to God). How could God's whim ever be the basis for morality?

You've made several unfounded leaps here. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with or discourage them, but they are leaps and you do recognize that your punches, as it were, have no weight behind them, yes?

I disagree.

Even granting that materialistic naturalism is a given, you can't support the idea that morality even exists outside of the subjective minds of humans. That would actually defeat the purpose and run countrariwise to the given.

Since we're talking about rules of behaviour in social groups, then how would this "defeat the purpose"?

Any manner in which you support your chosen definitions of morality can be used just as forcefully to support any other ethical stance.

Not true. If you're talking about basing morality on different values than they are, then you're arguing about facts about the real world that can be true or false. If you're talking about inferring different moral tenets from the same premises, well, logic allows us to label some conclusions correct and others incorrect.

That being said, the approach I described doesn't limit itself to a single conclusion. There can be more than one moral course of action in a given situation, much like there can be different diets that are "most nutrititious" or several winning strategies for a chess game.

Why should you consider it even proper for you to expect support when you've hand-waived any responsibility you have to do the same?

What are you talking about?

You've just given me zero reason to consider that fact at all in making decisions.

If you want to talk about reasons why you should be moral, we can do that, but the fact that you don't see the need to behave in a moral way doesn't change what is and isn't moral, just it wouldn't change what "nutritious" means if you were to choose to eat only junk fod.

Yes, you've just defined morality to your convenience with no support other than that is what you prefer it to be.

If you want to get more into the nitty-gritty of it, you're welcome to read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape or check out Matt Dillahunty's lecture The Superiority of Secular Morality:

Stop evil, love good.

Since you would need moral precepts to tell you what "evil" and "good" mean, aren't you really just talking in circles?

Morality isn't about values, it is an intrinsic quality of our existence.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[outhouse]

If morality exists solely as a man made description, then right and wrong truly mean like and dislike or really, really, like and dislike.

That is an aspect of it. We are still animals after all.

Morality is now opinion and we've lost the meaning.

It is opinion yes. That does not mean the good of a few do not outweigh the bad of the masses.

The meaning changes from one culture to the next.

What I would call barbaric unmoral actions of a people and their treatment of women, is law to them and very moral.

No difference between morals preventing murder and those preventing eating left handed

We as a society murder people all the time, and it is looked at as very moral. Society has many different names for this to make then not feel guilty, but its murder none the less.

Morals are on a rather large scale, ethics can be debated in many manners.

 

[Thief]

I would like to interject.....
Morality is not a matter of opinion.
It is more akin to sensitivity.

Morality dealt by those without compassion?.....I would hope not.

 

[atanu]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

I am so happy for you .. You who is endowed with such invincible intellectual power.

 

[Nurion]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

I would argue that it is impossible for anyone to find an argument that could convince you even in the slightest. After all, you have trained to think as you do for a long amount of time, gathered plenty of experiences that prove you right in your thinking. Therefore, every argument presented to you would automatically fall on "hostile grounds".
The same is true for believers. They have come to understand and accept certain claims about religions or spiritual things that you didn't, nor ever could. And many have experiences to back their beliefs up.

Ultimately it seems futile to try to debate each other in such a way. Religious arguments in my honest opinion will never be able to stand up to logic and reason, but I accept that other people have had other experiences that will make them convinced of the existence of some deity or being or the correctness of a doctrine. The question to me rather seems to be, how can we create a world where these two views are not mutually exclusive and working on eradicating each other.

 

[cambridge79]

I am so happy for you .. You who is endowed with such invincible intellectual power.

the problem is exactly that. i don't consider myself to have such "invincible intellectual power". Yet religious arguments falls flat on me.
All I always hear about end up to be most of the time wishfull thinking or unsubstantiated claims.
it's not me that is incredibily smart. It's religions that end up to be incredibily weak.
Is it my fault the fact that I don't indulge in believing simply what i want to believe?

 

[cambridge79]

I would argue that it is impossible for anyone to find an argument that could convince you even in the slightest. After all, you have trained to think as you do for a long amount of time, gathered plenty of experiences that prove you right in your thinking. Therefore, every argument presented to you would automatically fall on "hostile grounds".
The same is true for believers. They have come to understand and accept certain claims about religions or spiritual things that you didn't, nor ever could. And many have experiences to back their beliefs up.

Ultimately it seems futile to try to debate each other in such a way. Religious arguments in my honest opinion will never be able to stand up to logic and reason, but I accept that other people have had other experiences that will make them convinced of the existence of some deity or being or the correctness of a doctrine. The question to me rather seems to be, how can we create a world where these two views are not mutually exclusive and working on eradicating each other.

i see it in a slightly different way. Let's assume i meet a priest. Even if i can prove to him that Jesus never existed he would be so much into it that would reject all the possible evidences i can provide or argument i can have and stick to what he wants to believe simply because he wants to believe that.

What i in fact believe now is what i've end up with trying to link the dots with all the evidences and argument i was able to find. It's not what i want to believe. if people provide me with new arguments i would consider them before rejecting them or accepting them. If one can prove me Jesus is the son of God i'll turn christian tomorrow, if someone can prove me with no possible other explanations that muhammad was Allah prophet i'll turn muslim tomorrow.

fact is I've never been provided with an argument that would make me consider any of the major religions to be possibly true, and God anything but just a myth, even in this discussion it didn't happen.

at the same time i've presented here and in other places arguments to support my position, and they were never refuted, they are usually ignored because they've actually feet to stand on and people who are directed to don't like the outcome.

 

[atanu]

the problem is exactly that. i don't consider myself to have such "invincible intellectual power". Yet religious arguments falls flat on me.
All I always hear about end up to be most of the time wishfull thinking or unsubstantiated claims.
it's not me that is incredibily smart. It's religions that end up to be incredibily weak.
Is it my fault the fact that I don't indulge in believing simply what i want to believe?

None of your fault, of course. You would be responsible if you had any control over creation of your intelligence, motivation etc. Isn't it?

 

[cambridge79]

None of your fault, of course. You would be responsible if you had any control over creation of your intelligence, motivation etc. Isn't it?

you see, i'm not that smart. in fact i don't get what you're saying here

 

[cambridge79]

is it morality anything different than a shared set of values that we tend to agree on?

is it moral to kill animals for food?
some think it's not ( buddhists and vegetarians )
some think it is as long as if we make them suffer the less possible ( i would be among these )
some think it is and they don't care about animal suffering ( think about Halal or Kosher food )
in 200 years time we may become all vegetarians and think it's absolutely terrible, who knows.

even things like don't kill or don't still apply only in determinate conditions.
Would you find it immoral to kill an Isis member if Isis was at the gates of your city menacing to plunder and rape and kill everyone?
would you find immoral if a hungry children steals an apple from donald Trump garden?

 

[outhouse]

the problem is exactly that. i don't consider myself to have such "invincible intellectual power". Yet religious arguments falls flat on me.

Our friend here who is well educated Sojourner, has made some great arguments that line up with nature and still hold religious overtones. [based on god being a conscious thought more so then a being]