Death is an illusion

Aupmanyav said:
Not just to Mohammad, but to Bahaollah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad too (and many others whom you can find on Wikipedia..
Click to expand...
Deflection..
From Moses to Muhammad does not include those you mention.
Just stick to Moses, Aaron, David, Soloman, Jonah, Elijah, Zakariah, John the Baptist..
..and of course, Jesus and Muhammad. :)

May peace and blessing be with them.
..and my question still stands .. is this one big giant conspiracy/fraud?
 
muhammad_isa said:
From Moses to Muhammad does not include those you mention.
Just stick to Moses, Aaron, David, Soloman, Jonah, Elijah, Zakariah, John the Baptist..
..and of course, Jesus and Muhammad. :)

..and my question still stands .. is this one big giant conspiracy/fraud?
Click to expand...
People have different views. To me, it is a giant fraud from before the time of Akhenaten and Zoroaster.
 
Aupmanyav said:
I have mentioned it hundreds of times, no verifiable evidence. It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
OK, but from our pov, that's flawed reasoning, as science will tell you – to expect 'verifiable evidence' is an error in itself. It's as simple as that.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Wait, requiring verifiable evidence wouldn't be flawed reasoning in science.
Click to expand...
In the physical sciences, no, but that's because those sciences proceed by a method that requires evidence and demonstration.

Science, from a broader perspective, recognises that those sciences such as theology, metaphysics, ontology and so forth, proceed by reason and logic, inquiring into the meaning and nature of matters that lie outside the empirical domain.

The 'no evidence = no existence' argument simply refuses to accept that there's anything outside the empirical. It's flawed in that it insists on setting the argument within its own terms, on the assumption that its own terms are absolute, which they are not.
 
Thomas said:
Science, from a broader perspective, recognises that those sciences such as theology, metaphysics, ontology and so forth, proceed by reason and logic, inquiring into the meaning and nature of matters that lie outside the empirical domain.

The 'no evidence = no existence' argument simply refuses to accept that there's anything outside the empirical. It's flawed in that it insists on setting the argument within its own terms, on the assumption that its own terms are absolute, which they are not.
Click to expand...
Science recognizes only what has evidence. Show us the evidence that there is something outside the empirical.
 
Thomas said:
Exactly.

Although, that itself opens up a can of worms with regard to what constitutes 'evidence'.
Click to expand...
"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method."

"Empirical evidence is evidence obtained through sense experience or experimental procedure. It is of central importance to the sciences."

"The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous skepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation."

I do not see any ambiguity.
 
Thomas said:
In the physical sciences, no, but that's because those sciences proceed by a method that requires evidence and demonstration.

Science, from a broader perspective, recognises that those sciences such as theology, metaphysics, ontology and so forth, proceed by reason and logic, inquiring into the meaning and nature of matters that lie outside the empirical domain.
Click to expand...
Mathematics too right?
Often these other areas are less likely to be categorized as science these days AFAIK
I think the problem with using reason and logic without explicit evidence is that it requires forming SOME kind of agreement on basic premises.
And also unless very careful it could all turn into apologetics (not just religion but apologetics for any POV) and eventually to sophistry based in assumptions.
When theology is based on logic and reason - how does it account for the differences amongst religions?
Thomas said:
The 'no evidence = no existence' argument simply refuses to accept that there's anything outside the empirical. It's flawed in that it insists on setting the argument within its own terms, on the assumption that its own terms are absolute, which they are not.
Click to expand...
So it would be more precise to say "no empirical evidence" and with that, the observation would stand, right?
 
Thomas said:
Exactly.

Although, that itself opens up a can of worms with regard to what constitutes 'evidence'.
Click to expand...
Well, it should right? If non-empirical evidence is being used, it deserves rigorous examination.
And the debate may remain open rather than ever being closed.
If evidence, that cannot be perceived somehow, is what is being relied upon.
 
"... science does not disprove religion. Science and religion address different aspects of human understanding. Science focuses on explaining the natural world through empirical evidence, while religion deals with spiritual matters and faith. They operate in different domains and do not inherently contradict each other..."

To insist that they do is, therefore, illogical – it's 'bad science' 🤣
 
Aupmanyav said:
"The scientific method involves careful observation..
Click to expand...
Observation of what??
..not people, as far as you're concerned .. because you discard what they have to say (about the Divine).

..so your only concern is with this material world, despite the fact that more than half believe
that the material world is not the sum total of all that is.
..and that goes for scientists too .. not just the layman.

It is not a simple case of, scientists don't believe, and non-scientists do.

It's very easy to "hide behind" science, and cry "no evidence" .. but as @Thomas says,
why would you expect material evidence of the non-material?
It's disingenuous, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top