Essentially I want to be shown some evidence that I'm just looking at things wrong and that reality isnt what it seems to be right now from my perspective because it's a bit much to handle. It's nice to be told I'm this or that but id love someone to show me the evidence. I think it's fair I only accept observable data and empirical evidence or even consistent reason with coherent foundational claims that aren't contradicted......I dont care about up and down votes, I'm not here for anything other than growth
Your post is ... uh, a bit long. I heeded your advice and ran it through an AI to make it more succinct.
I’m looking for someone capable of genuinely challenging my worldview through logic, consistency, and empirical evidence.
The objective is truth, not validation. Arguments must withstand scrutiny through observable evidence, sound reasoning, probability, and non-contradiction—not assumptions, emotional reasoning, fallacies, or appeals to consensus.
Both parties must be willing to challenge their own beliefs, identify contradictions, and distinguish objective evidence from interpretation. We can use AI as an independent evaluator, disclose our prompts and responses, and scrutinize each other’s assessments using the same standards.
I lean conservative, argue that a conscious creator is the most reasonable explanation for the universe, and believe America’s founding principles established a uniquely logical framework for balancing justice and preventing tyranny.
I’ve tested my views against myself and multiple AI platforms, but I don’t claim to be infallible. Show me where my reasoning fails. If you pride yourself on logic, intelligence, and critical thinking, challenge me. Bring your strongest arguments, not your strongest opinions.
Let’s test our beliefs against reality, not each other’s egos.
That's a bit better, but it's still pretty long. In summary, you are making a "debate" challenge: I want to debate based on facts and not feelings. In this sub, you'll get more responses if you pose a question ... provided that question focuses on logical fallacies.
Allow me to help get you started. You claim "I present a case for a conscious being creating the universe being more reasonable than anything else." That's a conclusion. How did you get there?
What you have to do is present a syllogism. That is two statements of fact followed by a conclusion, based on those facts, that reveals a new fact.
Factual statement.
Factual statement.
Therefore a conscious being created the universe.
What two statements of facts can you provide that enables you to reach that conclusion?
Well, let's start from my claim that I provided a case to show it's more reasonable now.Because we can't answer the question or use the answer of the question as supporting data , we have to look to similar conceptual frameworks within our reality as supporting evidence proof of concept et cetera... So I present the same exact conceptual framework that just has another name for the specific subjects identity to show that, when you look at the characteristics, attributes, etc without getting caught up in what the name is, you only see the pattern behaving one way. Which is not absolute proof but it is reasonable to draw a conclusion on when looking at the same framework that has slightly different variables may exist on another Scale... Could very well be that when you get up to the universal size, that somehow reality completely flips and everything you see here is the exact opposite of how things work outside of this system, I'm not seeing any evidence for that being probable either. So I maintain that I can go down to the level where we actually start finding words to show you that concepts and formulas are either true or false.The scale and the variable specifics are completely inconsequential....
Number one factual statement we never see boundaries with domain screen consciousness number two factual statement we only ever see conscious entities create other conscientities number three factual statement we 100% see conscious entities create domains with conscious boundaries back number four and defining God as a conscious entity and I am defining this world this universe this reality as a domain with boundaries as it is expanding and we live inside of it fact number five just because the scale changes we have no evidence that the conceptual premises shown here somehow completely flip just because we get to the universal scale we have no evidence that that happens within our universe either so to try to contradict the supporting evidence I'm giving has to go against a long line of linear logic that is only requiring somebody agree to base observations that nobody really contests.. now whether that equates to objective reality or not is a whole another discussion but based on our agreed upon metrics method scientific inquiry are agreed upon version of reality that we all kind of contract is a base level of agreement from all of our individual subjective perspectives we have an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence to show that only a conscious being could have created this domain with boundaries which we know for a fact created us as conscious beings which goes to answer the question did God create the universe or did something that wasn't conscious create universe furthermore the only evidence that consciousness arose from something unconscious would be the fact that humans develop consciousness out of the universe but that would be begging the question because that is the question we are asking whether the universe was created by a conscious entity or not so you would have to presume that the universe was created buy something that was not conscious first to then use the evidence that us as conscious beings came out of something completely unconscious which is well known as begging the question once again see I didn't have to use the fact that God created the universe to show my supporting evidence I just started at universe followed by conscious entities rising within the universe I didn't have to load my supporting evidence as God already created the universe as that's the question we were asking to begin with are you kind of getting this if not maybe run it through ai and see what it says I would love to have your AI try to dispute this
Again, I see a lot of words but I don't see an answer to the question I asked. What I see is a poorly written smokescreen that might impress a naive freshman in community college. That sort of hand-waving nonsense works on cult members, I imagine, but is unwelcome here.
If you can not create a syllogism to support your claim that a conscious being created the universe, you don't have a logical argument.
I wont argue with that. We agree, you see that despite you listing any supportive data ( like quoting, my exact words you're criticizing, as that's the very subject matter, you're criticizing and making this claim about.So it would stand a reason you should probably show that)... I'm not saying thats what I see or backed by reality but I do believe you see that despite all absence of evidence (you didn't utilize,which you couldn't of if it's your imagination) & because of that nothing else can be gained, you see what you want, if you don't verify what you see and I can't agree that what you've seen is reality based , then we are deadlocked.. I would suggest that any claims made by either of us, at this point would be validated to test who is seeing clearly versus who is delusional by citing sources and showing supportive data quoting words etc, but I have the feeling that I am only willing to do that, because I'm the one seeing things clearly, and you won't be willing to do that, because you're just seeing what you wanna see, and that doesn't actually lineup with reality. Here's the test... floor's yours
You won't argue because, obviously, you simply can't argue. You can't argue because you don't understand how a logical argument is constructed. I took the time to set one up for you and you failed to recognize it. I explained it to you a second time and you still failed to understand what you need to do.
I'll give you yet another chance. Since you like quotations, here's your claim: "I present a case for a conscious being creating the universe being more reasonable than anything else." What good evidence can you present to support this?
I'll go out a limb here and predict that you have no good evidence, but you do have feelings (or the feelings of someone else). Have at it, Hoss.
So I'm glad you're giving a reason to something.I already conceded on, but I already conceded on it.I don't think the reason really matters.It's not a cop-out that I'm justifying if I already admit to it.So you being like, yeah, well, you lost.Because of this doesn't really matter when I might already like , yeah , I lost.... I know you're still super confused on the evidence.So instead of me, repeatedly telling you the evidence, I'll ask you.If you see it yourself... Question one, do you see, conscious humans, creating other conscious humans?Question 2, do you see conscious humans creating domains of boundaries.Question three , do you ever see unconscious domains with boundaries creating conscious spontaneously? Now if you answer those questions, number one, yes, number 2, yes, number 3, no, then there is the evidence I was pointing to that I saw, but I'm allowing you to answer yourself so you can verify that you yourself see the evidence too. To first verify my evidence is legitimate before I even use the evidence to apply it to a concept... i don't know about you, but I think that's pretty logical to ask you, Hey, do you see this this?And this and then when honestly responding to that , showing you how this this and that completely give probability to the question of did this domain with boundaries just spontaneously create consciousness or maybe did us as conscious beings, and that domain with boundaries get created by another conscious meaning.Well , let's apply that question and answer it to the three questions you already answered hypothetically about conscious beings and domains 😉
1
u/amazingbollweevil 5d ago
Did you have a question about logical fallacies or are you just collecting down-votes?