Pro
#1
Here I will argue that Meowism is a scientifically accurate religion in a sense that it is equally true as science, so if science isnt true, then Meowism isnt either, and both science and Meowism are equally scientifically accurate and equally scientifically true as well.
Is science true?
Science is observations. However, the problem with science is that it uses observations to prove observations, in other words, it uses circular logic.
You cannot prove observations with non-observations, and proving observations using observations is circular logic.
So if science uses circular logic to prove observations, then Meowism using circular logic to prove Meowbah God is equally true, both science and Meowbah God are proved in same way, by way of circular logic.
So my opponent now has to explain how are observations proved without observations. So my opponent now must either explain observations using observations, or observations using non-observations.
Can non-observations prove observations?
No. Non-observations by definition dont observe anything, and if they dont observe anything, they are not observation of anything, thus no observation is proved by them.
It is not proved that person observes anything. Person cannot prove that person observes anything.
this is not to be confused with existence of logic and definitions, which is a separate issue. Logic and definitions are always one of 3: circular, infinite or unproved.
If you think about it, all claims are made out of words, and all words out of definitions which are further made out of words.
Because of this, all definitions are circular, infinite or unproved. there is no 4th option when each word has to be defined. When each word has to be defined using other word, it is not possible to have a complete system, it is not possible to complete the definitions because in the system there is always some word which is undefined or defined with circular definition.
Because of this, all definitions are flawed, in other words, undefined, and thus all words are equally undefined and flawed. this means that science which depends on use of definitions fails because definitions fail.
then consider the logic and reasoning. In logic and reasoning, each claim requires a reason in order to be true. But each reason is also a claim which needs a reason for it to be true. this results in circular reasoning or unproved reasoning, because for each reason, a new claim is made which needs another reason.
From this, we see that person doesnt actually have any way of proving observations true, and due to this, person can never prove science of observations.
If two things cannot be proved true, then two things are equally true.
So observations, even if consistent, cannot be proved true and not a simulation.
Many people will say "theists are using Bible to prove Bible".
But many people use things outside Bible to prove things outside Bible, which is same circular logic because you eventually run out of reasons for every reason.
You cannot have reason for every reason, and reason why every reason is a reason.
Using logic to prove logic is likewise circular logic, which is logical fallacy which can be used to prove Meowbah.
