Am I so stupid at math or did I just prove God?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 208
Topic's author
#121
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
So in order to ask for proof of anything you are already accepting at the outset that A=A. 
I want to add more to this specific claim here, as it exposes more circular logic, before I forget it.

So let me get this right.

Your proof for "A=A" claim is that I am asking for proof?

So if I ask proof for God, is God then true too?

Or your claim is that ability to prove something depends on "A=A" being true?

In that case, how do you prove "A=A", if "A=A" must be true in order to prove it?

Or is your claim that asking for proof is impossible if "A=A" isnt true?

This doesnt even prove your case. If asking for proof is impossible, then your case cannot be proved.

Or is your claim that you can only ask for proof if "A=A" is already true?

This is circular logic. If I need "A=A" to be already true in order to ask for proof for it, then the only way to prove "A=A" is with "A=A", which is fallacy. "A proves A" is a logical fallacy. If all proof in order to be true completely depends on "A=A" being true, then no proof can ever even prove "A=A".

To put it simply:
All proof = Depends on "A=A" being true in order for proof to be true
All proof = Proved by "A=A"
"A proves B, B proves A" = This is logical fallacy
All proof = Cannot prove "A=A" true.

So here, in simple words, proof can only be true if claim is true, thus proof cannot be used to prove claim.

The mere concession that there is no proof without "A=A" means that proof can never be used to prove "A=A", because proof depends on "A=A" in order to be true itself.

So here, we have a case of:
If A true, then B true.
If B true, then A true.

How does one prove A or B here?
#122
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
A=A is not subject to proof, because A=A is not a claim. It is a prerequisite for intelligible thought
Now you are just not even responding to my arguments.
Because your arguments are a jumbled mess of incoherent nonsense for which you demonstrate your utter ignorance of with every repetition.

How many sides does November have? What color is logic? What shape is anger?

Are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to dodge them by claiming they make no sense?

Asking me to prove that A=A is every bit as stupid and incoherent as the three questions above.

Once again. Proof of anything requires acceptance of A=A at the outset. It is not something that can be proved. It is not something that cannot be disproved. It is categorically outside the boundaries of proof because you cannot even conceptualized what it means to prove something without first accepting A=A and you cannot conceptualized what it means to have a problem with accepting A=A without first accepting that A=A.

This is why the laws of logic are often referred to as the laws of thought. If you do not limit your beliefs to them then you are incapable of intelligible thought, in which case any further conversation with you is futile. I might as well be arguing with the guy in a mental institution who thinks he's John Connor.

Stop asking me this stupid question, moving forward I will just defer you to the above.

My position is that logic comes before anything else.
And that is an impossible position here.
And how did you reach that conclusion?

Your position is that god comes first, then logic follows because God and only God can create logic
No, again. My position is that non-logic was first one.
Then logic created logic. No god required.

Refute that claim.
Topic's author
#123
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Asking me to prove that A=A is every bit as stupid and incoherent as the three questions above.
Well, can you prove it or?

Because there are only 2 options:
1. It can be proved
2. It cant be proved


Once again. Proof of anything requires acceptance of A=A at the outset.
If all proof needs "A=A" to be true, then no proof can prove "A=A".

It is not something that can be proved.
I know. Thats the point. If you cant prove something, then how do you know its true? All your proof so far was that without "A=A", you dont have any logic. But since logic is "A=A", that is again circular reasoning. All your reasoning here literally goes in circle.
Topic's author
#124
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Then logic created logic. No god required
If you agree that things can create themselves, then God can create himself too. It seems that all paths lead to God.
#125
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Then logic created logic. No god required
If you agree that things can create themselves, then God can create himself too.
I'm not the one arguing that things can create themselves, you are. You're claiming there is some plain of existence where non-logic applies. If so, then in this plain anything is possible no matter how incoherent. Therefore you don't need a god to explain anything because if there are no rules then nothing is necessary, which contradicts your entire point that only a god could have created logic.

Logic therefore created logic and that's how we got logic. This explanation, along with a million others is every bit as plausible under this construct as your explanation that goddidit.

This is the problem with trying to place god above logic, if there are no rules then you just cut your legs out from underneath you because it is those very rules from which your case relies upon.

Your position is every bit as problematic as you claim mine to be. The difference between us is that I limit my worldview to the assumptions that are necessary. You make unnecessary assumptions. If you believe in logic as you say you do, that's a major problem for you.

Topic's author
#126
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
I'm not the one arguing that things can create themselves, you are.
In  place without logic, they can because logical law which prevents such a thing wouldnt even exist.

You're claiming there is some plain of existence where non-logic applies. If so, then in this plain anything is possible no matter how incoherent.
Everything is possible there. That is the definition of God too. So to put it simply, such place would enable God to exist. If there are no any limits to existence, nothing prevents God then. And Gods, being all powerful, cannot be stopped by anything else either.

Therefore you don't need a god to explain anything because if there are no rules then nothing is necessary
And everything is possible and can exist, thus God can freely come into existence. The very idea that there are no rules there means that nothing can prevent God from existing at will.

, which contradicts your entire point that only a god could have created logic.
The problem is that the only other explanation is that non-logic directly created logic.


Logic therefore created logic and that's how we got logic.
Then God created God and thats how we got God.

This explanation, along with a million others is every bit as plausible under this construct as your explanation that goddidit.
God is all powerful ultimate being. Some have tried to limit God to only what is logically possible, but then logic is above God, which makes no sense because then God isnt most powerful.


This is the problem with trying to place god above logic, if there are no rules then you just cut your legs out from underneath you because it is those very rules from which your case relies upon.
My case doesnt rely upon purely logical rules. Yours does. But sadly, logic on its own cannot prove anything here.

"Non-logic, then God, then logic" is an explanation which works and is completely consistent. What other explanation even is there?

There are only 2 possible options:
1. Logic is proved by logic
2. Logic is proved by non-logic

1 is completely impossible by laws of logic, which leaves only 2.

Again, if we assume logic proves everything else, then what proves logic?

If we assume proof is defined by logic, then logic cannot be proved by any proof.

If you say "A=A" is proof of all truth, then what is proof of "A=A" here?

If you define truth as "A=A", then truth proving itself would violate "A=A", because thing which is equal to itself can never prove itself. To claim otherwise would mean "God proves God" is a valid claim now.

So you concede that "A=A" cannot be proved by "A=A".

Thus, it can only be proved by something which is not "A=A".

This is the only conclusion possible here, otherwise all logic is unproved and then there is no any true logic anyway.


Your position is every bit as problematic as you claim mine to be. The difference between us is that I limit my worldview to the assumptions that are necessary.
Again, this is circular reasoning here.

You say "A=A" is necessary for logic here. But logic is defined by "A=A". So you are saying logic is necessary for logic here. Well, God is necessary for God. Something being necessary for sonething in theory doesnt ever prove that something if both those things are unproved.
#127
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
My case doesnt rely upon purely logical rules. Yours does. But sadly, logic on its own cannot prove anything here.

"Non-logic, then God, then logic" is an explanation which works and is completely consistent. What other explanation even is there?

There are only 2 possible options:
1. Logic is proved by logic
2. Logic is proved by non-logic

1 is completely impossible by laws of logic, which leaves only 2.

Again, if we assume logic proves everything else, then what proves logic?

If we assume proof is defined by logic, then logic cannot be proved by any proof.

If you say "A=A" is proof of all truth, then what is proof of "A=A" here?

If you define truth as "A=A", then truth proving itself would violate "A=A", because thing which is equal to itself can never prove itself. To claim otherwise would mean "God proves God" is a valid claim now.

So you concede that "A=A" cannot be proved by "A=A". 

Thus, it can only be proved by something which is not "A=A".

This is the only conclusion possible here, otherwise all logic is unproved and then there is no any true logic anyway.

Pascals Wager is that beneficial argument and a very logical outcome.
Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument suggesting that it's rational to believe in God, even if there's no proof of his existence, because the potential rewards of belief (eternal life) outweigh the potential losses (finite inconveniences of believing) if God does exist. It's a form of pragmatic argument, focusing on the practical consequences of belief rather than on providing evidence for it.

Topic's author
#128
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
Pascals Wager is that beneficial argument and a very logical outcome
How do you respond that Gods which punish Christians and not atheists might exist?
#129
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
which contradicts your entire point that only a god could have created logic.
The problem is that the only other explanation is that non-logic directly created logic.
Wrong. If there is no logic than literally anything qualifies as an explanation. God created logic, the flying spaghetti monster created logic, pain created logic, yellow created logic, a triangle created logic, what rocks dream about created logic, logic created logic...

You are asserting non-logic. That's what non-logic means. And that... cannot... in any coherent sense... be used... as proof... of anything.

God is all powerful ultimate being
Only if the law of identity applies, but you're saying it doesn't apply to God, so God is also not an all powerful being, he also exists and doesn't exist, he is also infinitely evil and infinitely good, he is also a rock, and a corpse, and a cricket, and a house, he's also all of the above and none of the above.

Logic therefore created logic and that's how we got logic.
Then God created God and thats how we got God.
Sure, that's possible, so is every other combination of letters I can possibly type. So how do we determine which one it actually is? Logic doesn't apply there, so now what? 

if we assume logic proves everything else, then what proves logic?
Already explained this. See post 122.
Topic's author
#130
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
If there is no logic than literally anything qualifies as an explanation
That is very true. But the problem there is a very simple one really. The only way God can be prevented is if logic came before God. But that is impossible there, as non-logic (before logic was created) would enable God to come into existence. And nothing could even prevent that, as there is no logic to limit it. So the only explanation for why God wouldnt be created there is if logic was created first, directly from non-logic itself. The problem, however, is that non-logic enables all options equally, thus all options would come into existence. Thus, logic would not come before God then.


God created logic, the flying spaghetti monster created logic, pain created logic, yellow created logic, a triangle created logic, what rocks dream about created logic, logic created logic...
All powerful does mean being able to do anything, yes. Non-logic by definition is all powerful, because there are no any possible limits to its power.

Only if the law of identity applies, but you're saying it doesn't apply to God, so God is also not an all powerful being, he also exists and doesn't exist, he is also infinitely evil and infinitely good, he is also a rock, and a corpse, and a cricket, and a house, he's also all of the above and none of the above.
He is all powerful, yes true. He can be everything and nothing all at the same time. He is the intelligent version of non-logic.

So how do we determine which one it actually is? Logic doesn't apply there, so now what?
Non-logic applies then. That is the true answer, only answer. We know that logic exists because non-logic enables all things, including logic. Thus, non-logic proves "A=A" true here, as it allows it to exist. The Gods which were born out of void maintain laws of logic of this world. This is how we logically prove that logic is true, by admitting that by tautology, it had to be born from non-logic. All things are born from non-themselves. The meaning of born is simply coming into existence, which requires non-existence first. So logic can only be born from non-logic. Existence can only come from non-existence. Only non-logic alone can give birth to itself and enable things to give birth to themselves. Logic on its own simply cannot.
#131
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thus, non-logic proves "A=A" true here, as it allows it to exist.
You are again, talking about non-logic as a thing, with rules, capabilities, and identifiable qualities. In other words, non-logic = A. Yet non-logic by it's very own definition doesn't equal anything, that's the whole point of invoking it. Your entire case here is one huge contradiction.

You're claiming that logic justifying logic is circular and therefore invalid. Thus the only way to validate logic is by invoking non-logic. But again, non-logic is literally defined by it's invalidity, so you're trying to validate logic with invalidity. That's makes no damn sense.

Your whole construct here relies not on how showing how illogic can explain logic but by claiming that logic cannot validate logic and declaring that non-logic wins by default. Sorry, that's just wrong. If you want to invoke non-logic to explain logic then you need to make sense of non-logic as the explanation, but the thing you're trying to invoke is definitionally senseless. You're just stuck and need to accept that. You cannot escape an inescapable box.

Every attempt to explain logic in this thread rested on your use of logic. Every attempt you have made in this thread to explain why A=A began with an acceptance that A must equal A in order to begin your explanation. You used A=A in order to identify an alleged problem with accepting A=A in need of solving, and then you used A=A in order to formulate a solution to it.

In other words, you are beginning with A=A in order to explain why A=A does not come first. If you can't understand how absurd that is you're beyond help.
Topic's author
#132
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
In other words, non-logic = A. Yet non-logic by it's very own definition doesn't equal anything, that's the whole point of invoking it. Your entire case here is one huge contradiction
Non-logic means everything is possible to exist there. It both equals and doesnt equal. Our world is one world where "A=A" exists. There could be countless other worlds with entirely different laws. Non-logic enables everything, simply.
#133
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Non-logic means everything is possible to exist there
According to Logic: A=A

Therefore, non-logic by it's definition means A=/=A

"Everything is possible" is an idea. That idea can therefore be expressed as A.

So if we're applying non-logic, then A (everything is possible) =/= A (everything is possible).

How are you not seeing this contradiction?

The answer is obvious, because you are applying the law of identity to non-logic in order to describe it. In other shreds you are applying logic to something that is definitely not logic.

You're entire argument is a massive contradiction.
Topic's author
#134
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
You're claiming that logic justifying logic is circular and therefore invalid. Thus the only way to validate logic is by invoking non-logic. But again, non-logic is literally defined by it's invalidity, so you're trying to validate logic with invalidity. That's makes no damn sense.
If you define "valid" as logic, then yeah, you again end up with same. Valid cannot prove itself valid anyway. It needs something else.

If you want to invoke non-logic to explain logic then you need to make sense of non-logic as the explanation
It does make sense that logic comes from non-logic there. There are no any other options, and non-logic can create logic anyway.


Every attempt to explain logic in this thread rested on your use of logic. Every attempt you have made in this thread to explain why A=A began with an acceptance that A must equal A in order to begin your explanation. You used A=A in order to identify an alleged problem with accepting A=A in need of solving, and then you used A=A in order to formulate a solution to it.
I didnt use "A=A" alone there. I used non-logic with "A=A" together. "A=A" alone cannot work.

In other words, you are beginning with A=A in order to explain why A=A does not come first
What I begin with doesnt matter much there. I cannot prove "A=A" without using "A=A" and I cannot prove "A=A" by using "A=A" alone. The argument isnt that "A=A" cannot be used here. The argument is that it cannot prove itself true.

So yes, I am afraid the only way to prove "A=A" is by using something which is not "A=A", and the only thing which is not "A=A" is "nothing = "A=A"" or "Non-logic= "A=A"".

Non-logic is by definition not logic, so not using "A=A".

"Not-logic = logic" is not any logical equation here. In fact, it equals two completely different things. This is opposite of logic, yet it must be true.
Topic's author
#135
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
How are you not seeing this contradiction?
Contradictions dont apply to place without any logic.
#136
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I didnt use "A=A" alone there.
Yes you did, that's what you're not getting.

In order to even utter the words "non-logic" you are applying A=A to it, otherwise uttering it would have no meaning at all. Therefore anything and everything that follows automatically comes from from A=A.

You cannot escape this without applying it, which puts you right back into it. That's what I've been telling you from the start.
#137
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Contradictions dont apply to place without any logic.
But they do apply to any argument you could possibly present. Otherwise you are presenting something that makes no sense, and presenting something that makes no sense cannot possibly prove anything.
Topic's author
#138
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
In order to even utter the words "non-logic" you are applying A=A to it, otherwise uttering it would have no meaning at all. Therefore anything and everything that follows automatically comes from from A=A.
That is, again, not even true.

"Non-logic = logic" is not even "A=A".

It is true "A=/=A".

And yet it must be true.
Topic's author
#139
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
But they do apply to any argument you could possibly present. Otherwise you are presenting something that makes no sense, and presenting something that makes no sense cannot possibly prove anything
Yet something which makes no sense just happens to be the only explanation which actually makes sense.

Non-logic = logic

This violates law of identity, yet must be true anyway.

"Logic = logic"

This respects law of identity, yet cannot ever be true.
#140
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Pascals Wager is that beneficial argument and a very logical outcome
How do you respond that Gods which punish Christians and not atheists might exist?
No mention of that condition .

Pascals Wager is that beneficial argument and a very logical outcome.
Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument suggesting that it's rational to believe in God, even if there's no proof of his existence, because the potential rewards of belief (eternal life) outweigh the potential losses (finite inconveniences of believing) if God does exist. It's a form of pragmatic argument, focusing on the practical consequences of belief rather than on providing evidence for it.

#141
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Yet something which makes no sense just happens to be the only explanation which actually makes sense.

Non-logic = logic

This violates law of identity, yet must be true anyway.

"Logic = logic"

This respects law of identity, yet cannot ever be true.
This is the literal definition of unintelligible.

Making no sense is not making sense.

Non-logic is not logical.

If you can't understand that then you are by definition, too stupid to talk to. Sorry.


Topic's author
#142
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
This is the literal definition of unintelligible.
Well, non-logic isnt logic by definition.


Making no sense is not making sense.
It is in the area of non-logic.

Sense comes from nonsense.


Non-logic is not logical.
Can non-logic create logic? Yes or no then?


If you can't understand that then you are by definition, too stupid to talk to. Sorry
No need to apologize.
#143
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can non-logic create logic? Yes or no then?
No.
Topic's author
#144
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Can non-logic create logic? Yes or no then?

No.
Why no?
#145
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Why no?
Because non-logic is not a thing. Non-logic is simply the absence of logic.


Topic's author
#146
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Because non-logic is not a thing. Non-logic is simply the absence of logic.
Can absence of logical laws exist?

#147
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Because non-logic is not a thing. Non-logic is simply the absence of logic.
Can absence of logical laws exist?
You have been defending a law that doesn’t exist.
#148
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can absence of logical laws exist?
Logical laws are not things that exist. They are a set of rules that are applicable in two different ways:

1) They are the foundation of all coherent thought
2) They are the preconditions of existence itself (as we know it)

So your question needs to be rephrased: can anything exist in the absence of logical laws?

Rationally speaking, the answer is no, because that contradicts logic, and rational thinking is by definition, thinking in accordance with logic.

A more full answer: That is an unknowable proposition. If it were possible in some sense it would be beyond our ability to comprehend and would occur outside our ability to observe.

And that is the central problem with your position: you are trying to prove the unprovable by justifing the unjustifiable. That's why I brought up before that even most theologians have given up on this idea that god created the laws of logic, cause even they understand how self defeating that is.
Topic's author
#149
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Logical laws are not things that exist.
So they dont exist.

you are trying to prove the unprovable
Can you prove logic without using logic then?
#150
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can you prove logic without using logic then?
If you're asking the question you're already proving it.

See post 122