Everything what is true

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.28.2020 07:46PM

-->

@3RU7AL

It doesn't it requires justification. If someone is implying that a mind exists which created the universe that is an assertion and requires evidence to assert. All-knowing? Now the definition of knowledge is a long and arduous conversation that still isn't philosophically very stable, but we know at a bare minimum that this thing has to be able to store knowledge, therefore it is at least a supercomputer which can process all knowledge, however using Occam's Razor, that is another assumption, and therefore should be less preferred than the mind sort. Either way it isn't justified.

#32

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.28.2020 08:01PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

It doesn't it requires justification. If someone is implying that a mind exists which created the universe that is an assertion and requires evidence to assert.

A "mind" is not (necessarily) required in order to create a universe. For example, does "the big bang" imply a "mind"? It could simply be an event, like the creation of a rainstorm.

All-knowing? Now the definition of knowledge is a long and arduous conversation that still isn't philosophically very stable, but we know at a bare minimum that this thing has to be able to store knowledge, therefore it is at least a supercomputer which can process all knowledge, however using Occam's Razor, that is another assumption, and therefore should be less preferred than the mind sort. Either way it isn't justified.

Omniscient simply means "contains all knowledge" and in its simplest terms, knowledge is data.

All physical objects are necessarily data stores.

You, for example, are a record of the genetic and historical events that led you to participate in this conversation.

Your actions are evidence of a very long chain of cause-and-effect.

The cosmos (or super-cosmos) contains all data, and as such would seem to qualify as technically Omniscient.

#33

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.28.2020 10:25PM

-->

@3RU7AL

No, that's not my point, of course, something doesn't have to be a mind for it to have "created" the universe. However, these adjectives imply a mind, again, no, even if I were to buy this literal technicality, that doesn't excuse having all power, or being everywhere at once, this concept is literally everywhere, that implies a mind an agent, as what you are mistaking as being everywhere and is everywhere. That's the mistake.

#34

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.28.2020 10:59PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

So, ok, let's add "mind" to the definition of O3C god (O3CM).

That doesn't change any of Spinoza's logic.

(IFF) O3CM created everything ("no-thing" "exists" "outside" of O3CM) (THEN) everything MUST necessarily be bits-of-O3CM ("god") (THEREFORE) all events MUST necessarily be the fully intentional will of (O3CM) "god"

This is TAUTOLOGICAL.

#35

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.28.2020 11:04PM

-->

@3RU7AL

No, still not, especially if you ascribe a mind to it, an agency must be demonstrated to exist. If one is to "misinterpret" the definition of such a god without a mind, it is the same as a the universe and to rename it would be fallacious without justification, if one says that Spinoza's god has a mind then that requires demonstration. Either way it doesn't work. Spinoza's god isn't one, at least not how god is defined, and if you were to warp it how you want, then it would especially not be true.

My point is that this mind hasn't been demonstrated to exist, there is no evidence that supports that claim, and if we just have spinoza's god be the universe, then we already have a name for that, the universe.

#36

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.28.2020 11:26PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Spinoza's god isn't one, at least not how god is defined, and if you were to warp it how you want, then it would especially not be true.

Please present your personally preferred definition of "god".

#37

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.28.2020 11:32PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

My point is that this mind hasn't been demonstrated to exist, there is no evidence that supports that claim,

The point of Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata is that the entire presentation is just a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT that can be solved with LOGIC.

It certainly doesn't "demand empirical demonstration" and isn't logically-necessary, so certainly doesn't qualify as FACT (and as an explicitly conditional statement, it doesn't pretend to be a FACT).

However,

It is the very definition of logically coherent and therefore cannot be categorically ruled out.

#38

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.28.2020 11:35PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

...and if we just have spinoza's god be the universe, then we already have a name for that, the universe.

Is it perhaps conceivable that a particular individual might be simultaneously a mother, a grandmother, and a daughter and a wife all exactly at the same time?

Is it perhaps conceivable that different people might have different words for the exact same concept?

Topic's author

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 375

11.29.2020 01:42AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Do you think that perhaps it might be conceivable that SOME things might be truly TRUE and SOME things might be truly FALSE?

That is true because their is false gods and they are not true but the true god is true. Some people lies about the false god but they just dont no what is true because they think the false god is true.

#40

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.29.2020 01:46AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Except whenever we are talking of an agent, that requires evidence otherwise the logical conditional is not sound, which is as much of a test as a proposition's validity. If the presumes are not demonstrate as true, it is not true.

Whenever we are talking of definitions, before this abstract definition of god (which my preferred definition is at the very least a very powerful agent,) definitions require justification whenever there is already a word in the same language that describes it. God and universe are two separate concepts and the attempt to conflate them is at a base level dishonest.

Topic's author

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 375

11.29.2020 01:48AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Which "god" are you talking about?

What's your personally preferred definition of "god"?

I am talked about the true god who is the christian god and I do not prefer no definition because the Bible is the definition of what is the true god.

#42

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

11.29.2020 05:49AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Utanity?... Is winding you up.....They have dropped enough hints.

Topic's author

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 375

11.29.2020 07:42AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Utanity?... Is winding you up.....They have dropped enough hints.

I dont wind nobody just because you dont have the same opinions you get stropy because you dont have god and you tell others because you want to show off that you are being bad behind. But god will get you in the end.

#44

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.29.2020 11:34AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Except whenever we are talking of an agent,

Please present your personally preferred definition of "agent".

#45

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

11.29.2020 11:36AM

-->

@Utanity

I am talked about the true god who is the christian god and I do not prefer no definition because the Bible is the definition of what is the true god.

Do you believe the christian god is an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator (O3C)?

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 375

11.29.2020 01:03PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Do you believe the christian god is an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator (O3C)?

I don't believe in the O3C because they are scummy company because they have the crappy page on the web.

#47

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

11.30.2020 06:22AM

-->

@Utanity

Said Mikey to the Porpoise.

8 days later

#48

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

12.08.2020 02:36PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Yes your argument could be logically valid, but you have to demonstrate its soundness before it would be true. Do you know what that entails?

Topic's author

#49

Debates: 0

Posts: 375

12.08.2020 04:28PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Said Mikey to the Porpoise.

You dont no the lobster fone do you.

#50

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.08.2020 10:14PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

It's a bit like logic is true because it is logical.

How do we prove logic is logical without using logic?

Oops - circular reasoning - therefore it is a fallacy. therefore logic is a fallacy.

#51

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

12.08.2020 10:35PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Well... I mean, you do have to use logic in order to even get to "logic is a fallacy" so....

#52

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.08.2020 10:41PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

So we can't use logic anymore - because it is circular reasoning. Excellent.

#53

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

12.08.2020 10:47PM

-->

@Tradesecret

No.... its an axiom you presume, and a proper one, unlike a lot of posited axioms.

#54

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.08.2020 10:48PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Oh axioms.

You gotta love them - like the bible is true because the bible says it is true.

Topic's author

#55

Debates: 0

Posts: 375

12.08.2020 10:51PM

-->

@Tradesecret

How do we prove logic is logical without using logic?

We no when the logic is true just like when you no there is being evil then that means that god is true.

#56

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

12.08.2020 11:10PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Wrong. The bible does not need to be true in order to get anywhere, you do not have to use the bible to prove the bible wrong, this is a false equivalence.

#57

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.08.2020 11:35PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

I don't agree.

There are certain accepted axioms. Logic is one. So is revelation.

Some people refuse to accept logic as an axiom. Other refuse to accept revelation. But many do.

It is a nonsense - to reject someone else's axiom as a false equivalence.

And no one is suggesting the bible needs to be true to get anywhere.

The bible is the measure of right and wrong. And it is its own measure of right and wrong. This is one reason why it is quite logical to say it is inerrant.

#58

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

12.08.2020 11:42PM

-->

@Tradesecret

No, in order for something to be an axiom, it has to be contingently true, that if this isn't true a then we can't get anywhere. This applies to reality and logic, it does not apply to revelation, at least not any sort of revelation I know of

#59

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.09.2020 12:42AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

But you are using your axiom to come to this point.

And that is part of the problem. I am not dismissing logic - but it is not my axiom.

The Bible makes the claim that it is divine revelation from God.

If it was not from God, then it would not make this claim. In that sense it is a contingent truth. Cats are mammals. All cats are mammals. Cats have claws. Not all cats have claws. The latter is contingent. The former is necessary.

A Divine revelation must indicate it came from God. Yet not all books that claim Divine revelation are from God.

Christians identify the bible as their axiom. No one says you have to agree with them - but unless you engage with their axiom, then you will always walk on a different path.

Christians will be able to engage with you - in your world - but you choose not to engage with theirs in a sincere sense. quite interesting really.

#60

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457