Maybe it’s too much to say people who experienced this stuff are delusional? I know a lot of them personally and they live a normal life, but they keep saying testimonies about holy experience, that God talks to them etc.
Maybe it’s too much to say people who experienced this stuff are delusional? I know a lot of them personally and they live a normal life, but they keep saying testimonies about holy experience, that God talks to them etc.
Much of the church’s insistence that there has to be a god to explain things is based on Aristotle. He gave them the tools to construct logical constructs in which faulty assumptions about reality are used to say “I want there to be a god, therefore this thought process is all the proof I need.” For example, Aquinas’ “Five Ways” are a classic demonstration of how to misuse Aristotlean physics to justify belief in a god.
I’m definitely not going to debate philosophy with you. It’s a waste of time.
I will continue to challenge the validity of spiritual thinking until such time as anyone can objectively demonstrate the existence of anything spiritual. I will follow the evidence, and complaints about how evidence doesn’t allow for spiritual answers just reaffirm the conclusion that it’s not based on reality. It’s just an irrational perspective with no basis beyond wishful or magical thinking.
Philosophy is always based on assumptions, just because people had different assumptions and intuitions in the past, doesn’t mean they are intellectually deficient in any way. If you think your intuitions are definitively true, or that you do not assume anything at all, debating or, possibly, reading philosophy might not be so pointless as you think.
You can try to challenge spiritual thinking all you want, but you have not provided any arguments against it yet.
If you don’t want to debate philosophy, it is fine. I can’t say I agree with your understanding of historical philosophers in any case, and it does eem rather pointless.
You can’t make anything true through argument. Spiritualism has a burden of proof that has never been met. There are no excuses for this, and until you can meet that burden, there is no further discussion to be had.
You can’t prove anything to be definitively true. Materialism especially.
Your worldview is just as unporven.
Thank you for demonstrating you are not here for a rational conversation. Now everyone knows why you’re here.
Goodbye.
I could say the same to you. FYI, rational does not mean “something I reckon is true”.
It is easy to just say your worldview is rational and dismiss everyone who disagree with you on that basis. Making good arguments is much more difficult, isn’t it?
Goodbye.