Cats can be taught spiritual truths

Round 3 | Final Rebuttal | by Eav | 18.10.2014 Final Rebuttal0: Concept of absolute truthPro makes a few wrong connections here. He still relies on the thinking that his base assumptions are actually true, such as that cats are or can be perfect or true. This is not a concept I proposed. I just explained how it can’t be true, by showing that if it were true it would create a conflict with reality. Cats can change. Within their biological limits. They can get older, they can get sick and they can learn tricks. What they can’t is break the limits of their breed and species. Side-Note on the shedding: If shedding would actually relate to spirituality, are non-shedding-breeds more spiritual than strongly-shedding ones? Anyway the assumption that anything is perfect, ideal or spiritually true is something that Pro introduced. Changing the definition of truth, perfection and ideals to suit the outcome is just another way to bend the facts to support a certain outcome. However is it right to say, that we perceive these three concepts sometimes differently but they are always absolutes. Other than right and wrong, where we occasionally see a grey zone, we don’t have that for the given three. Two people might differ whether something is true or not, but they either think it is or is not. That makes it in both cases an absolute concept. And a thing might be perfect only in some aspects but for these specific aspects perfection is an absolute concept. That constant growth and change are ideal, as Pro figures from the Hindu quote, is for him absolute. It is perfect. Not a grey area. That he again looked on a quote rather swiftly an literally and overlooked interpretations that are also possible and can totally change the resolution we gain from it doesn’t change that for him the concept of ideal still is a very static concept. Just as the quote could mean that perfection only creates perfection, meaning that it spreads and shares it but doesn’t change its own perfection. The possibilities here are endless. It’s just a matter of what interpretation you favour most or the acceptance that if we can’t figure out which interpretation has the better claim, we have to accept that the quote cannot be considered relevant. A source that is not conclusive cannot be the base for a decision that would require a definite answer on that matter.Pro also picked a very interesting claim about the believes of an exotic sub-sect of Buddhism without having the courtesy of providing any reference that would clarifies if that sect even exists. To take this up rationally are there too many sub-sub-sub-sects of sub-sects of a major religion that don’t cover the same ground on the same matters (already the Hindu and the Mahayana Buddhism quote don’t agree on the same matter of change and perfection) to consider all of them relevant. Picking one that suits your argument over hundreds that possibly don’t (just as the Jesus-quote from Pro in Round 2: “I am the way, the truth, and the life”) is a very selective approach and nothing to do with proper research. Math is not unrealistic. It’s basically the heart and soul of science because it’s the study of truth. It’s not science, it is what science needs most: a concept of how to determine what is true and what not. That’s why the truth concepts of mathematics are universal and apply for this debate as well as for any other matter of reality. That we sometimes are unable to figure out what is true or not is not due to a flaw in mathematical truth concept but to a lack of information or understanding.Finally, as there is good reason to believe that Scottish folds can’t be found living outside the, for mammals necessary, earthly atmosphere it’s highly unlikely that one will be found in the very center of the cosmos.Final Statement After a debate of many, many claims about religions and sects I have never heard of and which I don’t consider common knowledge, after quotes that Pro mostly has shown to interpret one-sided and literal rather than in the broad context of metaphors and parables that are often found in spiritual texts, after videos that mostly turned out to be not helpful and only slightly amusing (though that’s a personal opinion), I’d say that Con has not given one proper scientific explanation for his claims but solely relied on assumptions drawn from very selectively chosen parts of certain believes. Which means that from my point of view I’d consider Pro’s claims as not valid. To be fair, I do lack a bit of humor in this point. What can I say? I'm European.