Have I debunked all religion and spirituality? (respectfully)

[Anonymous No.17984225]

I want to preface that this thesis is not central around the evidence of religious/spiritual proof within the material world. I am specifically focusing on the border of our perceivable reality. (where the magic happens)

I argue that anything beyond the border of materialism(our reality) is variable X, as in could be everything, nothing or anything in between. The border is clear. For us to cross out, we must no longer be material and for something to cross in and be perceivable it must become material. Religion and spirituality argue that their material world effects (miracles, feelings, predictions, spirit, gods, etc) originate from beyond the material world (variable X), making them un-traceable/provable.

Because variable X is not within the border of our material based perception, religion/spirituality must be accepted as belief or faith. So I ask, how can we logically believe that any belief/faith originating from the un-perceivable variable X is: not a lie, inexistent or misinterpreted.

eg:

Some say variable X is God, I may argue it is a sentient cucumber. Neither of us can cross the border to prove each other right or wrong, nullifying the argument.

But wait! Some may quote material world effects/evidence like the bible, tracing origin to variable X (God). I may argue that variable X lied to them about its identity/intentions (cucumber pulling a prank). Some may claim that they crossed the border after death/meditation/divine contact, I may claim it was a delusion or lie.

As we can only perceive/prove the material world, beliefs/faith originating within variable X can only cross into our material border via blind faith. By this logic, we can cross an infinite amount of beliefs/faith with perfectly equal credibility. Because we cannot perceive the truth/proof of variable X, it could be anything or nothing in the same way that we've theorized additional dimensions.

To conclude my argument, I think it is respectfully absurd to claim that any beliefs/faith originating within the near infinite possibilities of variable X to be correct or accurate.

For anyone willing, I'd love to expand a discussion on this topic :)

[Anonymous No.17984231]

>>17984225
Anon scepticism (specifically about metaphysical claims) was already invented 2,000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.17984272]

>>17984231
>Because of these and other barriers to acquiring true beliefs, Sextus Empiricus advises[11] that we should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs; that is to say, we should neither affirm any belief as true nor deny any belief as false.
Based

[Anonymous No.17984275]

>>17984225
>originate from beyond the material world (variable X), making them un-traceable/provable.
Unprovable by the current methodologies of bunch of hairless bipedal apes, yeah. Not unprovable per se.
>religion/spirituality must be accepted as belief or faith
You are presenting a dichotomy of naturalist induction and blind faith. That's not how we operate as incarnated human beings. There are dozens of propositions I (and everyone else) believe based on my own private experiences, without ever having confirmed them scientifically.
>I think it is respectfully absurd to claim that any beliefs/faith originating within the near infinite possibilities of variable X to be correct or accurate.
Multiplicity does not infer invalidity. That there is a huge amount of answers to choose from doesn't make a particular answer incorrect.

[Anonymous No.17984293]

>dirty materialist is dirty materialist
nothing to see here move along

[Anonymous No.17984325]

*dry cough*

[Anonymous No.17984413]

>>17984225
>making them un-traceable/provable.
what makes atheists addicted to the atheist fad of provability?
also why those who are obsessed with proof never proved a single in their life?

[Anonymous No.17984421]

>>17984413
>single
single thing

[Anonymous No.17984424]

>>17984225
>materialism(our reality)
i would disagree with this premise on the grounds that qualia are not reducible to anything material

[Anonymous No.17984433]

>>17984225
>Because variable X is not within the border of our material based perception, religion/spirituality must be accepted as belief or faith
Thats not really what the claim is at all

[Anonymous No.17984440]

>>17984424
Based

[Anonymous No.17984443]

>>17984424
/thread

[Anonymous No.17984462]

>>17984225
Anon logical positivism is a meme. We logically believe in many things that are not empirically verifiable. We have knowledge for example of universals, of causation etc.
Your argument reminds me of A.J Ayers "God talk is evidently nonsense" which has been refuted by Hick, Swinburne and a number of others.

[Anonymous No.17984479]

>>17984462
>We have knowledge for example of universals

[Anonymous No.17984532]

>>17984225
t. literal child

Imagine thinking anything you said was novel or even worth adressing, couldn't be me

basically: "we can't know so it could be anything" which presumes countless things, such as "the metaphysical can't affect the physical in ways that are unexplainable within the physical".

come back when you've watched this and actually have an argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=4

[Anonymous No.17984832]

>>17984225
thats a lot of pointless assumptions you got there, too bad its all just gibberish you spouted.
tell me, all this that you wrote, i can guarantee you you are not 100% certain.
so just give it a rest, will you
here is an example of how you sound.
"Oh gee, i have no knowledge about what im saying so i will make up some random numbers or some random formula to ascertain what is the reason that this particular thing exists"

[Anonymous No.17985436]

Guys give him a break, guy put naturalism and theism against each other and argued for the one he knows better, he's not the first, not the last and definitely not a retard for doing so.

[Anonymous No.17985450]

This is why you read half a philosophy book before you think you came up with a brand new idea that’s been around for centuries.

[Anonymous No.17985579]

>>17984225
Materialism usually doesn’t just arise under the pressure of intellect. It often also arises, ironically, along with material conditions, for instance, at the beginning of the Axial Age, with the usage of coinage, and the power that came with it.

My point is, much of what you’re talking about isn’t just an intellectual story, but also a story of power, and who wields it. Many people don’t believe what they believe for intellectual reason, but much more often for reasons of power

[Anonymous No.17985682]

>Neither of us can cross the border to prove each other right or wrong
>As we can only perceive/prove the material world, beliefs/faith originating within
>Because we cannot perceive the truth/proof of variable X
>respectfully absurd to claim that any beliefs/faith originating within the near infinite possibilities of variable X to be correct or accurate

You think this is somehow profound? All you did is give an example of why God is hard to be proven my the limited human brain.
Theologians already replied to this thinking on the necessity of faith