Me vs. infrabenji on religion and gods

[PoetPhilosopher]

This discussion is only for posts by me and @infrabenji - if you wish to discuss this debate, please create a new thread.

If you talk to religious people on forums, many on each forum, have had a spiritual experience, whether involving ghosts, angels or the divine. Even I have.

I try to use abductive reasoning to make the case for a universe ran by intelligence:

This can be done by taking all of the spiritual experiences you have heard from believers, and drawing a plausible case from it.

The alternative argument is to say that they all lied, or were crazy, or were too imaginative.

Think science doesn't use abductive reasoning? Think again:

And for those who say abductive reasoning isn't quite strong enough... it's the process at which jurors seem to typically decide a case in court.

Granted, science may be used in the courtroom in the form of for example, DNA. But the jury doesn't necessarily have intimate knowledge of it, just what they are told. Abductive reasoning decides court cases.

And my theories also seem to be compatible with the approach to Critical Thinking... aren't they?

So let's hear the thought processes to say everyone who has a spiritual experience, doesn't know what they are talking about!

At the very least, I believe so far I've established the spiritual side as valid, though not yet proven something.

Objection number 1: All people have different experiences. Christians will have spiritual experiences about Jesus. Catholics about Mary. And so on and so forth.

Answer: This inconsistency leads to the possible theory there are not one paranormal intelligence, but many. Such a view, I find, is compatible with polytheism.

Polytheism tends to make more sense as part of looking at the universe. If there was one single power, it still doesn't explain why it, being so very powerful, doesn't intervene to stop madness and cruelty.

Yet, this is a naive view too. Hinduism has many stories trying to explain the universe. It's a lot to read. But they are all interesting theories. Here is one from my belief, Kashmir Shaivism:

Kashmir Shaivism - Wikipedia

Not your average Sunday school lesson, is it?

So you may be an atheist. But can you tell me with a straight face how these ideas are wrong, how you take the position that none of this can be correct?

However, I'll be fair - atheism tackles the question of whether gods exist. Not whether religious philosophy is true. And I see there as being a 50/50 chance a god or gods are responsible for divine influence regarding the Big Bang. Since as it is, it's somewhat impossible to know - I argue we have to then look at the other facts to draw a conclusion. And I look forward to exploring that with you further.

 

[infrabenji]

Best way I've found for debates is to address one claim at a time. It's the fairest to both parties so were not muddying the waters. Very interesting are your beliefs. I dig it. Abductive reasoning gives people a lot of wiggle room. Unfortunately, between the premises and conclusion one or more may or may not be true. So how do we determine that which is true from false. Certainly we want to know what's true to align ourselves with reality. Deductive reasoning always concludes in a specific and always true conclusion. Because there are over 1 billion muslims who believe in allah does that make allah real? Using abductive reasoning a person may choose true when the answer is false and and vica versa yet come no closer to testable and provable knowledge. As for your claim that there is intelligence running the universe....Well, that's a tough one for a lot of people. Do you want to start there or do you want to start on the plausibility of the supernatural spirits, ghosts, etc...It's up to you. Wherever you want to start but let's go one claim at a time for each of us. Fair?

 

[infrabenji]

Lastly, just as a friendly side note. Too many of your conclusions are not supported by the premises. Too many to coherently draw a correct conclusion accept by accident. That could be filed under abductive reasoning but do you see how abductive reasoning becomes less reliable the more extraordinary the claim?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Because there are over 1 billion muslims who believe in allah does that make allah real?

I might actually buy that theory. I don't believe a billion people believing something makes it real. But if a million people claim they saw allah in New York city, they probably did see something.

Next, if we can establish that something was seen, there are other questions. Such as, can it be explained as natural phenomena? If not, what if it was a trickster spirit and not really allah? What if it was a benevolent trickster spirit that, with the exception of presenting falsely here, is perfect goodness incarnated?

As for your claim that there is intelligence running the universe....Well, that's a tough one for a lot of people. Do you want to start there or do you want to start on the plausibility of the supernatural spirits, ghosts, etc...It's up to you.

Let's start on the Big Bang. It may be easier. What are your scientific beliefs regarding it?

Lastly, just as a friendly side note. Too many of your conclusions are not supported by the premises. Too many to coherently draw a correct conclusion accept by accident. That could be filed under abductive reasoning but do you see how abductive reasoning becomes less reliable the more extraordinary the claim?

Yes.

 

[infrabenji]

I might actually buy that theory. I don't believe a billion people believing something makes it real. But if a million people claim they saw allah in New York city, they probably did see something.

Next, if we can establish that something was seen, there are other questions. Such as, can it be explained as natural phenomena? If not, what if it was a trickster spirit and not really allah? What if it was a benevolent trickster spirit that, with the exception of presenting falsely here, is perfect goodness incarnated?



Let's start on the Big Bang. It may be easier. What are your scientific beliefs regarding it?



Yes.

Nicely said, We have examples of mass hallucinations. Totally natural and testable. Knowing that is was allah or a trickster spirit would be the problem, right? We have no mechanisms for testing the supernatural. If we did we'd just call it natural lol. I follow the scientific consensus regarding the big bang. As far as I know, and I'm no scientist, the laws of physics break down at the singularity before that any scientist worth there mettle will give the honest answer which is I don't know. It doesn't follow and makes an argument unsound to unnecessarily insert unknowable propositions. For example: God did it. We would first have to demonstrate that it was even possible for a god to exist.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I haven't read your latest post yet, but I need to add something real quick while my phone is working correctly... there's a reason why I brought up the Big Bang... it's because I wanted to show you this, I find it interesting:

Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia :

 

[infrabenji]

That's wild. Was curios about your religions view. Very cool.

 

[infrabenji]

Side note Hinduism is the oldest continuously practiced religion in the world, as you know, and I think that fact alone is rad.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Nicely said, We have examples of mass hallucinations. Totally natural and testable. Knowing that is was allah or a trickster spirit would be the problem, right? We have no mechanisms for testing the supernatural.

My beliefs kind of work that out. In my beliefs, we are all in a divine play. There is a universal consciousness at the very least, and we are all some part of that consciousness as well. I guess that's kind of like Panentheism? I'm not sure - I'd have to ask someone who knows. But anyway, the way I see, there are universal powers who make things seem spiritually real. We can't have an Allah, the Hindu gods, and everything else in the same universe, so then these divine powers make them be, to reach the people who believe in their particular gods. There also might be, I feel, multiple spiritual realities. For example, I believe that thing I posted about the Hindu interpretation of the Big Bang, yet it's a bit different than my beliefs of Kashmir Shaivism. Yet I do feel called to worship Shiva as the supreme God. This tells me that my path is to worship in such a way the consciousness manifests as Shiva, but that this divine play may play out differently for another.

If you play video games, here's an analogy... you are playing a video game with randomly generated levels. Some games, like Cadence of Hyrule for Nintendo Switch, have this. One person might be on dungeon one. One person might be on dungeon two. And besides this, every level or dungeon is randomly generated. When they tell us about their experience, it may be true, but it may not necessarily be true for the other player, yet, somehow, it's still true.

 

[infrabenji]

My beliefs kind of work that out. In my beliefs, we are all in a divine play. There is a universal consciousness at the very least, and we are all some part of that consciousness as well. I guess that's kind of like Panentheism? I'm not sure - I'd have to ask someone who knows. But anyway, the way I see, there are universal powers who make things seem spiritually real. We can't have an Allah, the Hindu gods, and everything else in the same universe, so then these divine powers make them be, to reach the people who believe in their particular gods. There also might be, I feel, multiple spiritual realities. For example, I believe that thing I posted about the Hindu interpretation of the Big Bang, yet it's a bit different than my beliefs of Kashmir Shaivism. Yet I do feel called to worship Shiva as the supreme God. This tells me that my path is to worship in such a way the consciousness manifests as Shiva, but that this divine play may play out differently for another.

If you play video games, here's an analogy... you are playing a video game with randomly generated levels. Some games, like Cadence of Hyrule for Nintendo Switch, have this. One person might be on dungeon one. One person might be on dungeon two. And besides this, every level or dungeon is randomly generated. When they tell us about their experience, it may be true, but it may not necessarily be true for the other player, yet, somehow, it's still true.

I'm glad to hear your personal beliefs. They are very interesting. Shiva has always been one of my favorites. Unfortunately, this is all hyperbole. We have to determine first that a god or gods are even possible. This feeling that something may be true without evidence is also a logical fallacy. Not having absolute certainty is sufficient to combat the close-mindedness that would have someone making proclamations as to the validity of someone's experience. We need to allow room for appropriate skepticism depending on the extent of the claim. I may apply additional scrutiny to an extraordinary claim but less so if someone told me they took their dog to the vet.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm glad to hear your personal beliefs. They are very interesting. Shiva has always been one of my favorites.

Cool.

Unfortunately, this is all hyperbole. We have to determine first that a god or gods are even possible.

If we go by formal debate rules that are used when people have formal debates (not the same as RF rules), the facts or lack thereof tend to speak for themselves, and the crowd viewing decides what's hyperbole. So far I've established:

-The train of thought that can potentially lead to seeing people's expressed spiritual experiences as valid.

- That Hinduism seems to have some accuracy when it comes to scientific cosmology despite, apparently, the ideas having been written down many, many, many, many, many, many years and generations before.

But you saying I have to prove a God strengthens my case. It tells me it's just about whether or not we can establish some God exists, and doesn't factor in whether they are a trickster. So I'll stop talking about my experiences on the divine play and all that stuff. Because, looks like they aren't necessary for the debate.

So, how about we define "a god" for purpose of this debate. What qualities would that god have to have, such that if one were to believe in it, they can safely say they believe in a god?

I've been talking about religious culture to you a lot. The thing is though, that some Hindus are atheist, so since you seem to want to focus on God(s), and this seems to be what the debate is about.... let's define a god.

 

[infrabenji]

Cool.



If we go by formal debate rules that are used when people have formal debates (not the same as RF rules), the facts or lack thereof tend to speak for themselves, and the crowd viewing decides what's hyperbole. So far I've established:

-The train of thought that can potentially lead to seeing people's expressed spiritual experiences as valid.

- That Hinduism seems to have some accuracy when it comes to scientific cosmology despite, apparently, the ideas having been written down many, many, many, many, many, many years and generations before.

But you saying I have to prove a God strengthens my case. It tells me it's just about whether or not we can establish some God exists, and doesn't factor in whether they are a trickster. So I'll stop talking about my experiences on the divine play and all that stuff. Because, looks like they aren't necessary for the debate.

So, how about we define "a god" for purpose of this debate. What qualities would that god have to have, such that if one were to believe in it, they can safely say they believe in a god?

I've been talking about religious culture to you a lot. The thing is though, that some Hindus are atheist, so since you seem to want to focus on God(s), and this seems to be what the debate is about.... let's define a god.

Do we have spectators. I shouldn't have assumed in the place of spectators I could call out hyperbole. Its again a logical fallacy to assume that since because something is old it has merit. Forgive me for using examples of the logical fallacies as opposed to naming them. I can if you want. I just feel like it's condescending to assume everyone knows every logical fallacy as well and I don't want you to have to google every time I call out a thought that uses incorrect logic. I leave the defining of god to you as you are the affirmative. I'm very interested in hearing your definition of god. In all honesty we should have gotten definitions out of the way earlier. My apologies. I think it's important to start at the beginning of a belief set which is the founding deity and move forward to ancillary beliefs resulting from the original belief set. In this case, A god or gods exist and have agency in the cosmos. Let's tackle this together. It will be fun. I haven't heard apologetics for the existence of Hindu gods. Then let's tackle the belief in Hindu gods. Surely, it's to complicated to go back and forth between existence and belief. These are two very different topics with totally different approaches for both of us.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do we have spectators.

Yeah. We're still on the public forum. I asked them not to post in this thread, but they do get to view it, see what we're saying, like posts, and if they desire, create a separate thread to discuss this debate.

I leave the defining of god to you as you are the affirmative.

I define a god as a powerful person or spirit. It gets way too confusing to use people as an example though. Then we'd be off talking about emperors and everything else. And that just doesn't really make sense for either of us. So I'll go with a powerful spirit.

I think it's important to start at the beginning of a belief set which is the founding deity and move forward to ancillary beliefs resulting from the original belief set. In this case, A god or gods exist and have agency in the cosmos.

I'm still preparing to tackle a more in-depth answer to the subject.

Choosing God(s) or not choosing God(s) seems a matter of preference. Whereas accepting some belief systems might lead one to be prone to feel pressured to reject certain scientific and societal ideas.... from what I've studied of Hinduism, we pretty much cover the whole spectrum of ideas, so you don't have to really reject science to be a Hindu, whereas something like Seventh Day Adventism, some of the community to it may pressure you to believe certain things, certainly. Or you may find it hard to mesh science with some of their beliefs including end-times prophecies.

But with Hinduism, existence comes down to whether God(s) exist or don't.

So we can debate philosophy. I can post something like Aquinas, then all you have to do is Google "refutations to Aquinas".

This goes back to my idea that things are 50-50.

So I think we now have to break down what separates the atheists from the theists.

From what I can discern, theists tend to feel something in their heart. Somehow, it's one of those miraculous and spiritual experiences, but it starts with the heart, then from there, they might read more religious Scriptures and rethink their worldview.

So we can go through the boring exercises, and I don't think either of us will win, or I can talk about what kind of led me fully and more away from atheism.... I think it was that I thought I had life all figured out, and then I experienced a crash from too much booze and caffeine. While in recovery, I heard a religious song, and I started to feel a sort of therapeutic feeling from faith. So I saw the use of faith. It's taken me awhile to figure things out since then.

So thinking it over, I don't think I can convince you of God's existence in a way that would make you truly experience God, as God requires feeling, that deep love, and I feel the closer you are to the feeling of love, the better you can discern. Being a theist is truly getting behind your friend, and they hold out their hands and say "I'll catch you", and you, knowing they very well could drop you, trust them and fall anyway. This is, I feel, what theism is all about.

But... I don't think I can prove God's existence in a more organic way in which the winner isn't who has the best debate skills. Either you see God in everything or you don't, and you want to live that life or you don't. I've had people convince me of things before, in which I didn't know the refutation... then I was just mad because I didn't know the refutation, rather than really be changed by it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So the different understandings are really about epistemology. I'm not the best debater, far from it, but I think a few of my arguments are enough to convince theists even more of some things, but that not much can bridge the gap between an atheist and theist in what they see as valid.

 

[infrabenji]

I could take this piece meal but I'm not sure what would be the point. I'm glad you've had experiences. I also have experiences. I live for experiences. As an atheist with no evidence of an afterlife experiences are all I have. The relationships I build. The love I experience. The memories I make. The people who enter and exit my life like satellites. All so important to me. I refuse to lay on my deathbed full of regrets and missed opportunities but to experience the fullness of life and when my time comes to face it bravely and graciously. Theists talk about the heart, a catalyzing event such as some abuse or self destructive behavior and then some spiritual experience followed by fervent study of scriptures that leads them to believe whatever religion they now believe in. Why do you think that is so common across different religions? Does an untestable and unfalsifiable claim have any merit on it's face. Experiencing god in a way that's unrepeatable as an experiment is effectively useless. I can use all sorts of knowledge that's verifiable and testable to improve the quality of my life and others. A god is not needed for that as far as I can tell. I've made a significant impact in many peoples lives. I'm not googling counter responses to your claims. I'm qualified enough without the advantage of google. What I am doing is testing whether you have good reason to believe and to test whether my logic and reason applied to argument is both sound and valid. It's about intellectual honesty. If at every turn you're shown flaws in your reasoning shouldn't that give you pause at the very least to reassess your beliefs and test them against the best working models we currently have for determining the truth value of the claims you're making. Critical thinking, the laws of logic, and logical fallacies.

Claims I personally would reassess if I was you using these tools:

So I saw the use of faith.
God requires feeling, that deep love, and I feel the closer you are to the feeling of love, the better you can discern.
Either you see God in everything or you don't
Choosing God(s) or not choosing God(s) seems a matter of preference
whether they are a trickster

Look forward to hearing what a description of your god or gods would look like, if you still want to debate. As it stands I am unconvinced. We have identified several logical problems in your beliefs as stated namely arguments from ignorance, arguments from personal experience, and arguments from personal incredulity. Please take this with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire. I simply want us both to be intellectually honest and apply the same rigorous standards of critical thinking we use in our every day lives to the extraordinary beliefs we develop as we grow older and are molded by our experiences.

 

[infrabenji]

We can use experiences as coping mechanisms. This is common practice in psychology to deal with all kinds of mental illness e.g. PTSD, stress, depression, and anxiety. If your adding religion into the mix, that carries a lot of baggage we would have to unpack, that's a whole different enchilada. The list of cognitive bias's that comprise an argument from personal experience is well long. i think we are still in a debate though I'm not sure how this works? If you'd like I'd be happy to have this conversation in another room as to not offend the kind hearted affirmative I am currently having a conversation with. Thanks for your question.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The genuine problem with proving god is that often the person considering the proposal thinks there has to be objective truth - that is, a truth that is the same for all - for there to be God, but in reality:

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows | Live Science