Hallucinogen

OK, why do you think viability is what is morally relevant enough to make the difference between for it to be or not be permissible to abort/kill some...

OK, so the highest priority is the right to refuse having your body interfered with, unless you're dependent on someone else's body? It seems to me th...

OK, so now that you're saying that inside/outside and viable/not-viable are the substantive differences between foetus and baby here, am I to understa...

When you say it's a "non-issue", do you mean we're in agreement that a human foetus and a human baby are the same thing, despite the different terms u...

My claim is that people who insist on using the term foetus instead of baby can't point out what the substantive difference is, and that they use the ...

But what's the justification for this? At what point does a foetus become a baby, and what's the relationship responsible for making the difference? C...

Why is the bodily autonomy of the baby irrelevant? They're just as much a human individual as the mother is.

At which developmental stage does a foetus become conscious, and what reasoning have you used to arrived at that conclusion?

You could use this claim to argue against the law prohibiting murder. Deciding on which laws to have and which choices to give people has to consist o...

What I'm saying is the other way around: you cannot have a sound argument without true premises. You cannot have a sound argument without true premise...

Why are you bringing up false premises? What you're responding to is my response to this comment: I'm going on the basis of this: What I am saying is ...

Consistency with reality is a form of evidence, so if one theory is more consistent than others, that serves as evidence for that theory.

I agree, but before we were talking about soundness and validity in terms of how they differ. You began by saying that validity doesn't have much to d...

No, soundness is the truth of the premises, not the relationship it has to the conclusion. No, an argument can be invalid with a false conclusion that...

Validity is the relationship a true premise has with a true conclusion, just like invalidity is the relationship a false premise has with true premise...

You didn't say unenlightened isn't God, before. As far as I could see, you only changed one word to another. This is now no longer the case, because n...

Changing the semantics doesn't change the validity of the argument.

It seems to me like you bring up this red-herring as a way of avoiding the OP of this thread.

Well if "God did it" explains O relative to other members of T, it would seem "God did it" is evidenced relative to the others.

Why would that be false?

When science is used to study something other than those subjective phenomena, but not when it is studying the subjective phenomena themselves. And by...

And the OP does this. I can't answer your question unless I know how broadly you're using the term phenomena -- are you using it the same way I did in...

The inference is meant to be about prayer specifically, it's not meant to hold under generalization. It's intended to clarify where prayer-induced exp...

I can't answer that question without knowing how broadly you mean "phenomenon". The argument discerns between observations and hallucinations, and con...

Yes, your comment would have to support what 180proof was arguing, for it to be an effective reply to bert1. Like I said, agreeing with 180proof isn't...

The fact that you and 180proof are on the same side doesn't mean your reply to bert1 addresses bert1's reply to 180proof.

This isn't a response to what bert1 was responding to, though.

I don't see a problem with this. If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true.

This would be the fact that many people have them, along with a logical model (theology) that provides rational support for any given claim.

Attacks are restarting now that there is more dry weather. In 2023 Russia took 1000 sq km of territory while Ukraine only 500 sq km. In 2024 Ukraine h...

Evidence is a true interpretation. Yes, they're rare subjective occurrences for which religions propose models. They offer a means of true interpretat...

You should state what's wrong with it. Well, you made this up. God is appearing to all people at all times. The universe He's thinking up is in your f...

A person sees an image, such as an apparition, or experiences their body in another location during prayer. For something to reach the status of an ob...

That is what the argument does, it shows that an observation specific to Christianity is consistent with reality. Evidence as defined premise (1) is a...

Well, you're free to explain if you want to. This doesn't seem to be relevant to the argument.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. What an absurdity is and what bad evidence would be is what is under contention.

Yes. No, there's no evolutionary or brain-physiological reason why praying would cause an immersive experience. Yes. Up to their degree of logical and...

The first thing to be determined would be whether Muslims do have visions of Muhammad, or that they have any that would contradict other religions. I'...

My argument is about gathering evidence for a religion, not proving God. Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to ...

It wouldn't contradict the argument if it were. Yes, so since religions have certain aspects in common, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping tho...

So what is your response to my claim that to rationally believe X, one has to know X? I said to rationally believe X. Do you think one needs to know X...

Under rationality* To have a belief about presidents, you need to know what "presidents" means. To have a belief about who will become president in th...

No, I have different degrees of certainty in my beliefs. Some are based on more knowledge than others.

I didn't say this. I gave an example of a kind of belief that can turn out to be irrational or rational on some temporal dependency. Why is it necessa...

It's you that said one is more relevant than the other, not me. I'd say "relevance" of a definition comes down to popularity and history. As a way of ...

And they aren't even incompatible with the definition I gave or the OP either. So you aren't even proving me wrong by pointing these out.

How are you deciding "relevant", other than as a way of describing the reference that supports your own view? I should point out that appealing to dic...

Then I don't know what your criteria for atemporality is or how you're reaching any conclusion about what is temporal and what isn't. No, I can have a...

By being I meant something with a mind. You're right. Anti-theist can mean asserting God doesn't exist.