Taoism is the One True Religon

My response to the Con's points: 1. Noted. 2. Proofs only exist in mathematics. However, there is persuasive evidence that would lead to the conclusion that Taoism is the One True Religion. To summarize, in an ethical sense, it is pro personal and civic peace, limited-government, self-reliance, and strength-through-adaptability. It supports these without imposing celibacy on anyone, dietary restrictions, or insisting on certain dogmas. It is against extremism, offensive warfare, coercive government and destabilizing emotions. In a metaphysical sense, it doesn't emphasize personal Gods and is indifferent to their existence, and views a fuzzy and indefinite kind of "mother Nature" as the source of all things (more properly, the Mother OF mother-nature). Besides, didn't I say in my prefatory statement "Or, if 'is' is too strong a word for you, 'is most likely' will be better"? This means, at the most, that Taoism (Daojia) is the most persuasive and consistent religion. 3.1 - The three books mentioned are infallibly correct because they are without moral or logical error, when viewed as a whole. Obviously, to establish this I would need to comment on every passage and cross-reference it with every other pertinent passage. To do so is beyond the scope of the debate --- however, I will say that the Con cannot provide any convincing logical or moral errors in them. 3.2 - The Con asks what reason we have to believe char-broiling in hell is a bad thing. On this basis, the Con implies that the worst thing possible - infinite torture - is something we require a sound foundation to call "bad". What is this sound foundation? If the Con is a theist, he must say God. If the Con is an atheist, he must say naturally occurring, biological empathy. Either way, neither the theist nor the atheist can explain this "sound foundation" in perfect detail, and, therefore, there is an element of mystery to it. This "mystery" is exactly how the Tao-teh-ching defines the Tao: "Tao is the mysterious secret of the universe" (TTC, 62). What Taoism does that other religions do not is that they derive *positive connotations* from this mystery. Thus there is no theology, theodicy, or adherence to a system of absolute logic. All systems of thought necessarily rest upon a self-evident mystery, and this self-evident mystery is none other than the Tao. 3.3 - I hope the Con knows something of presuppositional apologetics as they are found in Reformed (Calvinist theology). Essentially, their arguments for the Trinitarian, Reformed conception of God are my same arguments for the Tao, so do a little homework before reply, especially in regard to the "impossibility of the contrary." A very simple explanation is this: Atheist: You need logic and evidence to justify your claim. Theist: What justifies logic? Atheist: Logic justifies logic. Theist: That's circular reason. Atheist: Observation justifies logic. Theist: What justifies observation? The argument continues. Either you posit an infinite regress or you hit a wall. That wall is the Tao. It is not a personal God, however, because the universe a reflection of the Tao, and the universe is totally indifferent. Prayers go unanswered. We howl at heaven, hoping for a cookie, but no cookie comes. Ergo, we must be as self-sufficient and indifferent as the universe is --- without, however, being malicious --- if we want to secure a modicum of inner peace. And we should encourage self-sufficiency among the citizens of our country, and more non-interference in our government so it gets off our backs. The Con makes a mistake in saying "Taoism was formed in 550 B.C.". The Tao-teh-ching may have been written then, but Taoism is primoridal truth. The Three Holy and Wonderful Books of Taoism are simply the best earliest examples of people putting this truth on paper. To give an corresponding example, the Australian school of economics didn't invent the superiority of a free, competitive market, with limited government inteference. It existed *prior* to the founding of the school. The school simply described its ideas in a particularly penetrating and eloquent way. Will the Con say he avoids all circular reasoning? If not, he cannot argue against the Absolute and Self-evident Supremacy of Taoism because it uses circular reasoning. If so, I will grill him on this point. 3.4 - It is true that Nicholas Cage being a Taoist is not "real evidence", and, to be fair, I am not aware that Nicholas Cage self-identifies as a Taoist. However, not all Taoists need to self-identify. Before the Tao-teh-ching, most Taoists were rugged cave-people. I am willing to throw out this argument, however. In fact, I just wanted to give a shout-out to Nicholas Cage in case he is reading this, because I like him (despite what anyone says). I think his movies are neat and I will watch anything he's in and find enjoyment in it. 3.5 - Noted. 4.1 Cosmology: The Con would do well to consult the books I mentioned. Here is a brief account of Taoist cosmology: "Out of Tao, One is born; Out of One, Two; Out of Two, Three; Out of Three, the created universe." - (TTC, 42) Clearly, this does not mean "the universe continually recreates itself". The Tao, here, refers to the uncaused principle anterior to the cosmos from which the cosmos is born. Even then, the cosmos is born of mathematical regularity, which is itself demonstrative of a breaking in the superessential symmetry of a pre-existent equilibrium (a zeroic plenum in which all contraries are implicately balanced). As to the "five element" theory, "wood" is simply a general and ancient term to imply those principles which are inherently indicative of plant life (and, by association, animal life). That means a greater order of macro-symmetry than is present in inorganic compounds, the ability to change over time through following a genetic pattern, to persist and flourish through external nourishment, etc. It was the best term they could come up with, and it is fascinating that they saw the principle of plant-like growth as being a fundamental property of existence. But even here, Taoism is not equivalent to the five-element or five-phases theory. This was a SEPARATE PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL. Taoism made reference to it as part of a common Chinese heritage, but it also did so with Confucian ideas, the ideas of the "Hundred Schools of Thought", etc. If the Apostle Paul did not need to be a Greek Pagan to quote a line from a Greek Pagan poem (Acts 17:28) a Taoist Sage need not be a member of the Wu Xing school to refer to their ideas in a measuredly positive manner. 4.2 - The Con seems like a good fellow. So I feel a little bit guilty about what I'm going to say, so please don't take it personal, Con. Sometimes it's necessary to make an example of innocent people as a lesson to the would-be villains out there: In this refutation, the Con shows that either: A. he did not read my prefatory paragraph B. he is intentionally deceptive C. he has poor memory D. or he realizes that he cannot win using fair and honest tactics and, ergo, must resort to specious lies I am going to assume A or C, because I think he's ok. However, a lot of debaters on this website are definitely B or D. I said in my prefatory statement: "Taoism is the One True Religion, as defined solely by the Holy Scriptures of the Tao-teh-ching, the Chuang-tzu and the Lieh-tzu. (This is to distinguish Philosophical Taoism from Popular Taoism. The former is perfect. The latter is imperfect)." The Con, in describing Gods and Spirits, is describing "Popular Taoism." A simple look at a Wikipedia page on Taoism describes the difference between Daojia and Daojiao. Daojia is Philosophical Taoism. I would hope that, at the very least, my debators in the future at least take the time to read over a Wikipedia page before they start wanting to go HAM on the debating floor. Daojia only accepts the Tao-teh-ching, Chuang-tzu and Lieh-tzu as authoritative. When these books refer to Gods and Spirits, it is done in a tongue-in-cheek way. Daojiao, which accepts all sorts of weird and crazy things, is not Daojia. To use an example from the Con's own religious beliefs, Daojia is like Roman Catholicism as understood by a learned member of the Catholic clergy. Daojiao is like religious syncreticism as found in parts of Africa and Latin America, where native Gods are associated with Catholic Saints, magic rituals are performed for them, etc. They may use Catholic terminology, but their witchcraft is totally unlike actual Catholicism. 5. The Con says, "there is not a single reason to think Taoism is true", yet the opponent, being a Libertarian, already agrees with Taoist principles in terms of a minarchist, pro-freedom government. The teachings of Jesus, too, like humility, sincerity, integrity, peacefulness, joyfulness, etc. are all aspects present in Taoism, so if he agrees with Jesus, he also agrees with Taoism on these points. He may differ with Taoism in that Taoism posits an impersonal absolute which does not interfere in history or in people's individual lives, but I'm willing to bet the Con is more of a Taoist than he even realizes. To reiterate, Taoism may be summarized as: 1. There is an uncaused, impersonal, mysterious absolute that caused all things. 2. It lacks a numerically consistent definition like "oneness", "threeness", "manynenss" 3. Living in harmony with it by emulating its simplicity, patience, etc. results in a more stable, pleasurable and efficient life. 4. The best government is non-interventionist 5. We should not live in fear of the supernatural, and our attitude towards death should be one of quiet --- if not cheerful --- acceptance. 5 again. Nicholas Cage is a good actor and his filmography has many classics in it. 7. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is way under-rated.