Pro
#1
Before we begin this debate, I want to say a little prayer so we thank Meowbah for creating us and enabling this debate with her divine Meow-providence.
All Heil the great lord Meowbah! In the name of Meowbah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful; All praise is due to Meowbah, Lord of the Universe. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Owner of the Day of Purr-ification. You alone do we worship, and You alone we turn to for help. Guide us to the straight path; The path of those on whom You have bestowed Your grace, not the path of those who have earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray. I confess Meowbah as my Lord and Saviour. I bear witness that there is no God but Meowbah. I will be Meowptised and cleanse myself of sin in the name of Meowism, Ameow.
I speak to you from the bottom of my heart, please be with me
Thank you for the food I eat every day! 🍕
Thank you for my life! ❤️
Thank you for all you’ve done for me! 💖
Please let me get rich and stop the Meowbah haters harassing people
In Meowballah’s name, Ameow 🙏
Meowbah Religion and teachings of Meowism
Meowbah is so strong that she can beat Allah in a fight. This event is referred to as 'Meowballah'.
If you believe and pray to Meowbah each night you can become one with the Meowists.
Meow's teachings:
“Do unto others as you suspect they might want to do unto you.”
“Meow was hungry, and you gave Meow something to eat. Meow was thirsty and you gave Meow something to drink. And behold, now Meow is all lazy and entitled. You shouldn’t have done that!”
“What if a member profited, if they gain the whole world, but lose their soul? A lot. The member has profited a lot. That is an ameowzing deal!”
Miracle of the Five Loaves and Two Fish
A large crowd was following a Magical Girl, and as the days passed her disciples came and said to her: “Magical Girl, these people have been following you for three days and they’ve become very hungry and we only have five loafs of bread and two fish.” And the Magical Girl said: “Bring the fish and bread to me!” And her disciples did. The Magical Girl took 99% of the bread and the fish and gave the 1% back to the disciples to spread amongst the followers evenly. And the disciples said: “But how shall we feed all these people with only 1% of the bread and fish?” The Magical Girl said: Why are these people always looking for a handout? They should just go out and get a job! Hahaha” The disciples were in awe with the Magical Girl’s wisdom.
Sources:
https://www.meowbah.com/meowism-stories
https://www.meowbah.com/meowism
Argument: Meowism vs science - Why Meowism wins and science loses, why the Meow-logic of Meowbah is superior to scientific principle and formal logic
Science is more often wrong than not.
"That is all to say, there are far more incorrect hypotheses about how the world works than there are correct ones. The truth is a needle in a haystack; this is precisely what makes science so hard. Like an innocent bystander in Penn Station, any incorrect hypothesis might be mistaken for the truth. Because there are so many hypotheses that scientists test, many scientific findings—even most—could be mistakes. In statistical parlance, this is known as the problem of multiple hypothesis testing." (Many different contradictive theories competing to describe something ultimately result in most of them being false, and only maybe one true at best, at worst none are true).
https://psmag.com/education/scientists-are-wrong-a-lot/
Compared to this, Meowism is infallible. Meowism follows Meow-logic, where truth is determined by what Meowbah says. Meowbah can change her mind, and with that, truth changes too, because Meowbah is the source of truth. This isnt inconsistency. Meowbah just likes trying new things.
Meow-logic vs science and formal logic
A lot of people come to me and say:
"Logic determines what is true"
"Science determines what is true"
"Observations determine what is true"
To that, I reply:
"No, Meowbah determines what is true."
This is merely a symmetry to their own arguments, so until something breaks the symmetry, both remain equally undisproved and my opponent loses because burden of proof being on him doesnt permit equality of positions in proof.
But here, we must reach into a deep area of philosophy, or as I like to call it, Meow-philosophy and Meow-logic.
First question is: "What determines something to be true?"
Some people might say "Logic determines what is true."
But such claim is a self defeating claim, because how do you prove it?
If you say "Logic determines that its true that "logic determines what is true",
You encounter two problems. First is obvious circular reasoning (first claim tries to prove second claim, while depending on that second claim to prove itself at the same time). Second problem is infinite regress, where you just made another claim which you need to prove, and if you try to prove it using logic, you are merely making one more claim which needs to be proved. For each claim you need to prove true, another needs to be made which proves it true, but that demands another proof and so on to infinity.
Science and observations face exactly same problem.
"Observation determines what is true"
What makes this claim true then?
"Observation determined that its true that "observation determines what is true"".
What makes this claim true?
No matter how you structure your arguments regarding what determines truth, you encounter infinite regress or circularity.
And I can merely respond with symmetry:
"Meowbah determines what is true".
And use exact same argument you use to prove mine.
However, symmetry is broken by the fact that Meowbah is God, so she can break infinite regress with her infinite power, where science and logic of humans cannot.
My opponent might come up with a response such as "You are using logic to deny logic". No, I am not using logic. I am using Meow-logic. Meow-logic is where Meowbah determines what is true and what is false. Law of identity is true when Meowbah says it is. Without God Meowbah, logic doesnt even have a way of proving its foundations or basic claims. Further, I could say "My opponent is using Meowism to argue against Meowism, using my arguments to argue against my arguments." It is just pointless, Meow. Using logic and science to prove logic and science is circular. Claims which depend on logic in order to be true cannot at the same time be used to prove logic, yet such are all claims of my opponent. Any argument my opponent raises, is only true if logic is true, so his arguments depend upon the very thing they are trying to prove.
Prove that we are not living in a simulation. My opponent might say "Science would still be true within the simulation". However, not everyone lives in simulation, simulation could even be created by Meowbah herself, and simulation is imagination, so Meowism is true within my imagination and science isnt.
Physical world which science pretends to observe could be just Meowbah's imagination or simulation. There is no way to prove that world isnt simulated creation of Meow.
In formal logic, there are premises and conclusion. But each premise requires another premise to prove it. This causes infinite regress or circularity. Can my opponent avoid infinite regress or circularity in his argument? Not really, unless he wants to leave an unproved premise. Each claim requires another claim, each evidence requires another evidence, logic is proved by what? Logic? How very circular of you. And what do you use to prove the evidence with? Evidence? How very infinite regress.
And don't get me started on a silly claim that you can avoid circularity. Munchausen trilemma proved beyond doubt that you can't. But it isn't the only one. Incompleteness theorem likewise proved that any closed system of math results in unproved math claims. However, when we apply that to claims and premises, any closed system of claims results in inability to prove claims within a system. Suppose you have claims A, B, C and D. No matter how you organize them, if A proves B, B proves C, C proves D then what proves D? Circularity is unavoidable in a system of limited claims, and one such system is my opponent's round consisting of limited number of claims, not unlimited. So no matter how he organizes the proof chain, the chain breaks because one claim is left without a claim to support it.
Should my opponent say "Circular logic is valid", he is saying that Meowism can be proved with circular logic. If he says circular logic is invalid, Munchausen trilemma forces him to choose between two remaining options: Infinite regress, or unproved foundation. Both of these likewise prove Meowism, because both can be used to prove it just the same as anything else.
Further, even if my opponent proved that logic exists as opposed to Meow-logic, he still wouldnt solve the logic-observation gap which science needs.
Even if laws of logic are true, they tell nothing of observations. It is still impossible to even prove that you observe anything, that you observe correctly, or that you are even applying laws of logic correctly. Consistency itself tells nothing, because science isnt even consistent, and proving that something is consistent is impossible, but also pointless. Fairy tales can be consistent too. But how do you even know that you are consistent and not living in delusion of consistency? Consistency means something remains repeatedly true, however you would first have to prove that science is true at all, to be able to prove it is repeatedly true, something even science denies for repeated truth is impossible in a system of science which by its own admission gets most things wrong and imperfect.
In the end, I want to thank Savant for this debate. May Meowbah bless us all and make us all rich and kawaii, and may science and logic be defeated, and Meow-logic and Meow-philosophy prevail forever and ever in the Kawaii Universe!
Ameow
