There is no logical argument for the middle ground.

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Can you make a logical argument for the middle ground?

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Can you make a logical argument for the middle ground?

I don't need to make any such arguments. This all stems from your insistence that atheists are materialists (as in, they believe everything comes from the material world). I simply stated my beliefs. I do not believe in god, which makes me an atheist. And that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal.

 

[Erinwltr]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

"There are only two options which exist." Because you say so. Got it.

 

[fncceo]

The middle ground is ... we just don't know how everything we observe originated.

So, until we do know, we had better not burn anyone at the metaphorical (or actual) stake for having a differing opinion on how it did originate.

Have an opinion, but recognize the rights of others to hold a different opinion.

 

[WinterBorn]

The middle ground is ... we just don't know how everything we observe originated.

So, until we do know, we had better not burn anyone at the metaphorical (or actual) stake for having a differing opinion on how it did originate.

Have an opinion, but recognize the rights of others to hold a different opinion.

Well said!

 

[BlackFlag]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

Good grief man. You keep posting this same thread, based 100% on an assumption that has no more evidence for it than any other.

 

[BULLDOG]

What a stupid OP. It's possible the OP is correct, but nobody knows for sure how any of it came to be. It's fine to have your own beliefs, and to argue for those beliefs, but to say there can be no other possibilities is just dumb.

 

[well named]

My pet peeve: people who say "logical argument" when they mean something more like "rational argument" or "reasonable argument"

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

Logically speaking, this isn't really true. Although I think the words "material" and "incorporeal" require careful attention if you're going to try to make deductive arguments. But roughly speaking there's no logical problem with our "corporeal world" being the product of another, different, corporeal world (cf. the Simulation Argument). So that's one alternative. There's also no particular logical problem (depending on definitions) with positing that the "corporeal" world is all that exists and was not created by anything else. Here one would be interpreting "corporeal" to mean "physical" in the sense of "governed by laws of physics". This view corresponds roughly to modern cosmology. Typically, logical arguments against this possibility depend on assuming the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but the PSR is not a logical necessity: there may be brute facts, and the existence of the world may be one of them. And of course one of the weaknesses of various cosmological arguments for a deity is that they also have to abandon the PSR, by pleading that the deity is sui generis.

Which arguments are best abductively seems like an entirely different problem, but it won't be easy to reason about that if you artificially restrict the range of possibilities ahead of time by appealing to a false dichotomy.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

"There are only two options which exist." Because you say so. Got it.

The point of this thread is to allow you to make the argument for the case that I believe cannot be logically made. You can always prove my argument wrong by providing your own argument for the so called middle ground.

 

[ding]

The middle ground is ... we just don't know how everything we observe originated.

So, until we do know, we had better not burn anyone at the metaphorical (or actual) stake for having a differing opinion on how it did originate.

Have an opinion, but recognize the rights of others to hold a different opinion.

I’m not burning anyone at the metaphorical stake. If anything I am providing a platform for them to argue their case.

It would be awesome if someone would offer a different opinion and provided the basis for that opinion.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

Good grief man. You keep posting this same thread, based 100% on an assumption that has no more evidence for it than any other.

It’s a logical argument. Can me where the flaw in the logic is?

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem your face here is assuming that they are logical.

Most people aren’t logical. We have a very emotional aspect to the way we think. This is especially true among those who disbelieve in God

 

[ding]

My pet peeve: people who say "logical argument" when they mean something more like "rational argument" or "reasonable argument"

The argument is based on logic. So that’s what I called it.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.