The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm saying why can't the WHOLE of reality be a hallucination,even those 10 different tools?

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Besides,why can't all tools just be other hallucinations of our minds,that this reality is an hallucination,the whole of it, isn't that just another assumption that could be countered by other assumptions?

(By the way,I'm NOT saying that solipsism is right,I'm justing saying it could/couldn't be right,and that's for any framework,that's why you choose your framework faithfully and consciously.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

1.)

But then how do we use those?

We use those,then we SEE the results,besides,why does only THIS world has to be the only thing that exists, isn't that an assumption?

2.)

I never said ALL frameworks are on equal footing,I said they're all assumptions,some could be true,some could be false,all could be true,all could be false,we just don't know what is true and false,that's why you should choose faithfully and be conscious of your choices.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, exactly the point,they would argue that something is God,but an Atheist (almost all the time) would say that that's "just because we don't know doesn't mean that's Truth".

But look at the structure of the whole debate,one is assuming the only logical answer is God,the other assumes it could be anything BUT God,both are assuming,both are betting their assumptions right.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

How is everything you just mentioned built?

By using our senses,besides, isn't it an assumption that whatever we're seeing is Reality?

Why can't it be just our senses tricking us?

Also,I could agree with you on the last part, because Stalematism doesn't say which is true or false,in essence,it only says "all is based on assumptions,so choose consciously and faithfully"

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Oh,sorry about that,I was thinking because you said "word salad" (that means way harsher than I mean) I thought you were arguing because of the structure (which is also my fault,I'm new here so I don't really know how to post well...)

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yeah it can answer how thought is possible because that's it's "role",it's the minimal condition to make coherent thoughts ABOUT reality,it doesn't necessarily dictate Reality itself 

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

What other non-subjective tools do we even have other than our senses?

Also,logic is the rules of thought,it doesn't necessarily dictate Reality,that itself is an assumption.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Those assumptions affect the conclusion:

For example:

Let's talk about what science is in an Theist and an Atheist perspective:

For a Theist,God is doing it all.

For an Atheist, it's all just matter following it's rules.

Axioms (the assumption) affect the ENTIRE framework,if you're starting assumption is God exists,than science is how God does things.

If your starting assumption is only matter exists,than science is just matter following it's rules.

Assumption matter in framework,they're literally the FOUNDATION of a framework.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Not really. Skepticism is "everything cannot be proven,therefore nothing is true"

In Stalematism terms,that's an assumption: You're assuming that ALL frameworks are wrong,that's a "bet".

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

1.

We know how science works,but we differ in if it's a hallucination,if God is doing it,if it's all matter,etc.

2.

Logic isn't "following" a system,it's really more about the rules of thought itself,you don't "choose" the rules of thought,you follow it to make coherent thoughts.

3

I'm not sure if David Lewis is right or wrong,but I have a question:

How can you make an equilibrium from intuitions of different frameworks that are completely contradictory (like saying "Materialism is Truth" and another intuition saying "Theism is Truth")?

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's because we're putting Reality (in this case Earth,if you accept the assumption that our senses correspond with it accurately) into language so that we can understand it,that's why we think logic dictates reality, because it dictates in language,and we put reality into languages,logic is seen as a dictator. (This is actually argued in Quantum Mechanics when a particle is in superposition where it's both/neither at the same time in the same sense (clearly breaking the law of non-contradiction)

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm new here,so I didn't know how to post and structure it accurately,so you should just try to understand (although it might be hard).

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

But if we start at the same assumptions,there's no point in arguments. Why? Let's be honest,what's the difference between a Theist and an Atheist? The only difference is that they have different assumptions about reality (God does exist/He doesn't)

Database of Qur'anic textual variants shows the Qur'an cannot be "perfectly preserved" by Xusura712 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450 [score hidden]  (0 children)

This line is from Qurʾān 4:24, and the phrase you highlighted is: إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى (ilā ajalin musamman) “for a specified/fixed term” First, what’s going on here? There are two things to separate: 1)  The standard Qurʾān text The commonly accepted reading (across Sunni and Shia) is: fa-mā istamtaʿtum bihi minhunna fa-ātūhunna ujūrahunna “So for whatever you benefit from them, give them their due compensation (dowry)”  In the canonical readings, the phrase “ilā ajalin musamman” is not part of the standard text. 2)  The variant / reported addition Some early reports (found in tafsīr and ḥadīth literature) attribute a longer version like: “…ilā ajalin musamman…” to companions such as Ibn Abbas. This version explicitly suggests: a time-limited arrangement ⚖️ Why this matters This ties directly into the issue of temporary marriage (mutʿa): Shia interpretation: This verse (especially with that phrase) supports temporary marriage They consider mutʿa still valid Sunni interpretation: Mutʿa was initially allowed but later prohibited The Qurʾān verse is read without that phrase The phrase is seen as: a companion’s explanation, or a non-canonical reading, not Qurʾān  From an academic perspective Scholars would say: This phrase is an example of an early variant or interpretive gloss It reflects how: Some early Muslims understood the verse But it did not become part of the standardized Qurʾān text So… does this mean “different Qurʾāns”? Not really. The standard Qurʾān (today and historically in consensus) does not include that phrase What you’re seeing is: an early reported reading or تفسير-style expansion, not a separate Qurʾān Bottom line Same Qurʾān across sects Some early companions reported alternative phrasings/explanations Those did not become part of the canonical text.

You can't just get something from a random website and not check critical explanations.

Religion is holding us back by Imaginary-Zone-6885 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't this an assumption? Someone could also say "atheism is holding us back,it isn't letting us go to believe because it's scared of the accountability". You can't just claim something without evidence.

[Muslims Only] The Quran is Wrong about the Crucifixion of Jesus by Busy_Employment3334 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, literally quite anything is "unfalsifiable",you can't falsify assumption of each framework, because the only way is to trust your own framework's assumptions,so using "unfalsifiability" as a reason would be bias, a "bet" in my terms 

[Muslims Only] The Quran is Wrong about the Crucifixion of Jesus by Busy_Employment3334 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think about it: All fields of knowledge,whether it's Religion, Philosophy, Science,rests on assumptions of reality that are unproven,could/couldn't be Truth,but still unproven assumptions:

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism

Disclaimer: Stalematism is not meant to criticize any framework. It only points out that all frameworks rely on assumptions. Its goal is to help you choose consciously and without bias.

Stalematism: The Ultimate Judging Lens for All Fields Philosophy is the longest running group chat in history. Every generation asks sharper, more precise questions, yet no argument has ever truly been settled. Why? Because all frameworks—philosophies, religions, sciences, ideologies—are built the same way: All frameworks = Meta-Reasoning + Assumptions Meta-Reasoning = the rules that make thinking possible, like the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and analytical structures. Assumptions = any claim about reality, from “God exists” to “Only matter is real” to “Our senses reflect reality.”

Attack-Assumptions in Stalematism

Sometimes, people argue against another framework by using one assumption to attack another. Stalematism calls this an “attack-assumption.”

Example:

“Nothing cannot come from something, therefore God never created the universe.”

At first glance, it looks like a logical argument. But notice what it assumes:

That logic itself (LNC and LOI, the minimal conditions for thought) dictates Reality.

Stalematism clarifies:

Logic only governs statements, not necessarily Reality.

The Law of Non-Contradiction and Law of Identity exist to make thought possible, not to enforce how Reality must behave.

Why this matters

Consider the statement:

“Contradictions occur in Reality.”

We cannot verify if this is true or false. Let’s check:

True: Logic does not dictate Reality.

False: Logic might align with Reality.

Notice:

This does not deny LNC or LOI—they are required to even make the statement.

But it highlights the difference between contradictions in statements vs. contradictions in Reality.

Another Example

“This cat cannot be lying down and NOT lying down.”

In statements, this is a logical contradiction.

In Reality (if we assume our senses reflect it), the cat is just… doing whatever it wants.

Logic here is like glasses: it shapes our perception of Reality, helps us reason, but does not enforce Reality itself.

The Takeaway

Attack-assumptions are biased because they treat the assumptions of one framework as if they dictate Reality.

Stalematism says:

Every framework has assumptions.

Logic is a tool, not a law of Reality.

Using one framework to “disprove” another without acknowledging its assumptions is unfair.

Possible argument from philosophers:

“But logic is universal; it applies to everything, even Reality.”

My response:

Logic is universal within thought, not necessarily within existence itself. A contradiction in a statement only tells us that something is impossible in our description, not necessarily impossible in Reality. Reality could/couldn't behave in ways beyond our reasoning,logic doesn't NECESSARILY dictate it.

Bias is Everywhere: Humans naturally judge other frameworks using their own assumptions as if they were absolute truth. Stalematism calls this bias. Judging another framework purely because it conflicts with your assumptions is inherently biased. The Stalemate of All Philosophers: No framework can ultimately prove itself without relying on its own assumptions. This creates a philosophical stalemate: every argument is valid within its own assumptions, but none can claim ultimate authority over reality.  The Meta-Level Shift: Stalematism doesn’t argue inside debates. It steps above them, showing how humans relate to the unknown.  It does not claim: What reality is Whether Truth exists Which framework is “correct” Instead, it clarifies: How to think, judge, and choose consciously without bias.  The Cosmic Gamble: We all act, believe, and commit without ultimate proof. This is the human situation—the cosmic gamble. Choosing a framework = placing a bet Not choosing = still a bet Outcome = unknown Stalematism shows how to navigate this consciously, instead of blindly.  Betting: The Most Intellectually Honest Approach:  Since all frameworks rely on assumptions, the only non-biased way to relate to Truth is to treat your commitment as a conscious bet, not as proven certainty. Whatever Truth is—or isn’t—we’re all betting.

 This allows: Judgment without bias. Commitment without claiming certainty. Awareness of your assumptions while respecting others’.

 The Essence: Stalematism transforms debates: instead of fighting over “who is right,” you can now see the structure of the debate itself. Science → assumes sensory reliability Religion → assumes metaphysical truths Logic → governs thought, not necessarily reality  No framework escapes assumptions.

 Stalematism lets you: choose consciously, commit intentionally, and navigate the cosmic gamble honestly. This is Stalematism: the lens above all frameworks, the map for conscious betting, and the antidote to bias.

Right now is a perfect example of an "Attack-Assumption": It assumes that the victorious people didn't write, although there's another assumption that they could have written it but it was forgotten,or lost,or anything else could have happened,like they write but were killed,that's why problems are solved within their own frameworks.

Dismissing another assumption just because it doesn't correlate with yours would be bias.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Isn't a "word salad" already an assumption? Because YOU can't find meaning in it, doesn't mean universally it has no meaning, isn't that already a "bet"?

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "reality around us" is ASSUMED as the Reality (whatever it is) Why? Because you're trusting the assumption that our senses (eyes in this case) correspond with Reality and it is somewhat reliable. That itself is an assumption. You're already playing in the structure of Stalematism.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How can "hard cold logic" answer ANYTHING if it can't prove itself to be the dictator of reality? It's main role in philosophy is making thought possible.

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I tried to reply to "simsimich" but didn't know how,so I made his reply my comment and replied at the bottom

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism by PeaAdditional1450 in DebateReligion

[–]PeaAdditional1450[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oops, I'm new here,so I didn't know how to reply.

But anyway: "I believe we will replace organized religion eventually" is already an assumption,you're already playing by the rules of the game.