>>108837172>It’s actually a hypothesis, not a presupposition, and a successful one with explanatory power. It explains why concepts of God reliably mirror the moral intuitions, social structures, fears, and values of the cultures that hold them, and why those concepts change across time and place. >Logic and reason aren’t arbitrary assumptions, they’re justified by results. The scientific method builds models of reality that are so accurate they are, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from reality itself. This isn’t philosophical posturing; it’s a track record of success that continuously self-corrects and improves. >If someone claims that logic and reason only “work” because God exists, they still face a fatal problem: they have no independent way to demonstrate that claim without using the very tools they’re trying to subordinate. Meanwhile, science requires no theological premise to function, it works equally well regardless of the researcher’s beliefs, culture, or religion.>So the asymmetry is decisive: logic earns its authority through demonstrated success; faith-based belief demands authority without evidence. Once you discard methods that work in favor of ones that don’t, you’re left with no reliable basis at all for claiming that your beliefs correspond to reality rather than merely reflect your own presuppositions.You confuse epistemic reality with ontological reality, but epistemology requires a sort of metaphysics to justify itself. You can't try to use reason and logic to prove higher-order elements, starting from humans, because epistemology itself is grounded in metaphysical implications. Saying presuppositions aren't presuppositions doesn't make it true
>Without evidence backing it up, a testimony is no more than just a collection of claims. Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean there's none lol. "JUST LET ME DICTATE WHAT IS VALID OR NOT, AND THEN I CAN PROVE YOU WRONG!" absurdity
>The experiences of people that can be attested do not justify your claims in any shape or form, as they have no supernatural elements whatsoever.Plenty of people have experiences that have supernatural elements, and they can be attested
>Human beings across cultures report direct, sensory experiences of saints, spirits, gods, ancestors, demons, UFOs, and past lives (which are often mutually incompatible). The existence of sincere experiences does not validate the metaphysical interpretation attached to them. If Christian saintly experiences count as empirical evidence, then consistency demands that Hindu darshan, Islamic visions, shamanic spirit encounters, and modern alien abduction reports must count as well. You don’t get to selectively upgrade your tradition’s experiences to “empirical” while demoting the rest to delusion.They are all authentic, and you're right that most of these are mutually incompatible, but that's only if you take them at face value and if you give all of their systems full credit. In truth, however, most of these systems should be given no credit whatsoever because they're retarded and often are circular. The lives of the saints and their faith, however, clearly and thoroughly showcase that these experiences, while genuine in a way or another, are actually the work of unclean spirits. This gives a consistent standard for all these experiences. The reason why the saints are above the other is that they pass all tests of truth, be it internal consistency or reflecting reality (which their faith can give an account for). The scientific worldview, however, cannot explain these experiences without an absurd level of mental gymnastics that, at the end of the day, don't prove anything beyond the fact that the experiences transpire for the individual— even if there are multiple people who go through the same thing, lol. Of course, you just go ahead and make up a new explanation of a phenomenon that you can't actually explain with only your previously standing beliefs; this is why so often we hear that "a discovery has changed everything we know about reality", you have no sound basis for your claim on reality beyond what you see, and you do so indiscriminately. AND THEN you have the hubris to tell others what is true when your truth is forever changing.
>Saints are canonized precisely because they exemplify the virtues a community already values.So if the cultures are shaping the religion and their understanding of God, and you claim that the morality of Christians has changed over time, then why do we still venerate Saints from millennia ago, calling them examples of virtuous people? Doesn't that contradict all that you've been saying? Thanks for conceding on this lol
>>108837420>>108837484>>108837529>>108837596You're a sad retard
