Total posts: 1,395
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
How are you not seeing this contradiction?
Contradictions dont apply to place without any logic.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
In Torah it is written that gentiles have another way to 'the heavens' and instead of Yhwh they sometimes call their God Elohim.Elohim is pluralistic. In Genesis Father refers to himself with 'our' instead of 'my'. They clearly were confused at the time but it seems they intuited Trinity without realising it.
Jews suffered a lot throughout whole history. However, their religion connects their suffering directly to God's punishment. And God's punishment comes from abandoning principles, laws.
They see Jesus as contradiction to their laws. Like the abolishment of circumcision later in New Testament. They hold that laws given to them are eternal, and any contradiction to those laws could result in more punishment.
Further, they are supposed to be taken to promised land. By Messiah.
Created:
Who is the new Messiah they said would come?
They dont know that. They just dont believe its Jesus.
Created:
Their religious texts warn of very severe consequences on this world if they abandon their religion. Its not case that they risk nothing if they convert to Christianity.
Created:
Also, almost all religions are mutually exclusive today. They all say they are right and they all deny that others are right.
Created:
Whiteflame is a Jew also but I didnt make this as callout.I feel I am missing a key thing of why they deny Jesus and new covenant
You want to debate more than one person. Different people give different explanations for their belief.
. All our Biblical chosen except Luke and Noah were Jews. We do not deny the Jews met the Lord (yhwh) first.
I mean, God's chosen in a sense that God favors them, and if they convert to Christianity, then they fear it might result in divine punishment as they think Christianity is very corrupt.
They obviously do think Christianity is wrong here. I am not saying anything which isnt already well known.
Created:
-->
@Clausewitzian
You are a Jew, so correct me here if I said something wrong.
Created:
Well, I would prefer if they converted to polytheism, but thats even less likely.
Created:
I would prefer if Jews converted to Christianity, but its not going to happen. The main problem is that they believe they are God's chosen. Converting to Christianity would mean being equal to non-Jews then. It contradicts their teachings.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The point is that Satan is devious, and his works can be found anywhere. Trump could indeed be his agent
Well, sure, but I dont think Satan is as evil as Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
Why leave out 12th point in that image?
And why draw eye in the middle?
And write 66 under?
If you wanted a 12 point star, why leave out one point so it only has 11 points now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You attack my profile name as Sunny God.
Your profile picture is qliphoth star with 11 points and also eye in the middle, representing tree of knowledge of Satan (as opposed to tree of life).
The number below image is clearly 66.
I cant really understand why would an atheist have or know such symbol.
Care to explain that?
Is it just coincidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Thanks for proving that Holactie exists.
Created:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yes it is because that is the way it way it is
So it is the way it is because it is the way it is?
Sadly, same logic proves Holactie the creator of light.
Yes, he is because he is!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
where the question is based on an incorrect assumption
Question by definition does not make a statement, so it cannot be an assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Japanese aging population are too old to engage in crime.
Not everyone in Japan is old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
He sold Bible with the constitution embedded in it
Trump realized that adding new words to Bible is the best way to change it. So now we have Bible 2.0 new version.
People 800 years from now who find one such copy will think that US constitution is God's word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It’s japans aging population that is averse to crime
They have low birth rates because they removed focus on family and placed focus on job and studying.
Still, other countries have low birth rates too.
Created:
Posted in:
In Japan, you have free speech as well to say whatever you want there.
There is even manga promoting rape and murder.
But Japan has some of the lowest homicide rates in the world, much lower than USA and much lower than almost any country now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
The left is worried that the right wants to murder Dylan Mulvaney at some point
Well, trans are no longer safe in USA.
Elon's daughter escaped from USA saying because "It is no longer safe".
Now, speech which promotes murder or suicide is just annoying.
Sure, when people are playing video games online, some people say to other they hope he gets murdered or commits suicide or gets cancer.
Its part of this new generation where even losing at video game causes people to wish serious harm upon others.
But if we can prevent actual violence by making people focus on just words instead there, then that works for free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Why Universe and its complementary meta-space absolute truths exist eternally is incorrect question
An incorrect question!
I didnt know questions could be incorrect now.
Now, the question was asking for an explanation of specific set you are talking about here.
There either is an explanation or isnt.
And "exists eternally" is not an explanation of what made it exist as it does. In fact, it is a concession that things dont need cause in order to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For example if four men were on the gorilla he would not be pinned, his arms vs their weight; he wins
I will say this then, it greatly depends on strength, courage and weight of those men.
If we are talking about some men who weight 60 kilograms, dont work out and have no muscles, then gorilla could easily lift 30 of them all at the same time. And that is just strength of gorilla's arms. Gorilla's legs, teeth and maybe even nails mean much more than few casualties there.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Humans discover what exists eternally. Simple
So why it exists eternally in the way it does remains unexplained there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Read again, as you still dont seem to grasp the meaning of the word ' eternally existent
So no one created it then? If your position here is that things dont need to be created in order to exist, then that means anything is possible. Your explanation for existence of something is that it actually exists eternally. But that explanation fails to answer the question of why it exists the way it does. Also fails to answer what is the condition for existence there. By saying that things dont have conditions for existence now or ever, it means anything is possible then and anything can exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
4 wolves can take a gorilla down easy
Yes, some gorillas maybe. Not all species are equal in their strength. Some can lift over 2000 kilograms while some can lift only 900.
But we are not talking about wolves here. Wolves have sharp claws and teeth.
What do unarmed humans even have?
Just chase it around for an hour till it's too tired to do much of anything.
Sure, assuming that such attempt doesnt cause it to actually attack you. Again, someone would really have to be brain dead to be first one to try and scare gorilla. And someone has to be front line there. 100 people cant all fit in small area, and trying to surround gorilla would create tactical disadvantage for men there, because any side where gorilla chooses to attack would be isolated from other sides. Surrounding means spreading, and spreading means there is less power density then for men.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, which species precisely are we talking about?
Some are much stronger than others.
"Gorilla strength is estimated to be about 10 times their body weight. Fully grown silverbacks are in actually stronger than 20 adult humans combined. How strong is a Mountain Gorilla? – A Silverback gorilla can lift 4,000 lb (1,810 kg) on a bench press, while a well-trained man can only lift up to 885 lb."
So if those men can lift 50 kilograms each, it would take 40 of them in combined power to match lifting weight. But its not possible for 40 people to even combine power there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would probably take only 4 regular sized 200 pound men to restrain a gorilla
Gorilla can lift over 450 kilograms.
If men in question cant lift more than 50 kilograms, it would take over 10 of them just to match the lifting power, and that is assuming they succeed in combining power there. If they fail, then it doesnt matter if there is even 100 of them. Individually, they are all much weaker than gorilla, and combining power is not that simple there.
Now, another problem is that gorilla actually has sharp teeth and strong bite while those men dont. So men better be prepared to lose some hands and fingers there from bites as well.
Created:
Posted in:
@Adaptable
It seems that he is described as someone who tried taking throne from God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1st law of thermodynamics
Who do you think created that specific law?
Created:
Posted in:
"Both Lucifer and Satan are names for the devil, the personification of evil. Satan is seen as a fallen angel and the adversary of humanity and God in Christianity and Islam, but as an entity subservient to God in Judaism. Lucifer is a mythological figure whose name was later adopted into Christianity to refer to Satan."
Created:
Posted in:
I am not entirely convinced that Satan was Lucifer.
Well, thats a complicated one, because multiple evil entities were mentioned in the Bible. If they are all one or separate is not clear.
In Old Testament itself it never says Michael is fighting Lucifer. It says already that Michael is fighting Satan.
Well, most people consider Satan Lucifer. I have actually never met a Satanist who makes the difference between those two. In the book "Rites of Lucifer", and "Draconian Ritual book", there is no shown difference between Lucifer and Satan there. So what would even be the difference?
In general, all fallen angels become demons rather than the devil.
Well, maybe, but then how did devil came into existence?
The name Lucifer comes up 1 verse only in the entire Bible. Satan was already there and Jews have Satan as well before he was devil.
How does that 1 verse make Lucifer different from Satan?
I fully believe the devil/Satan is here and is king of the demons.
Well, that is Bible's version of the story specifically.
I disagree he was Lucifer, he was a special entity already that had powers such as turning into a snake and possessing the vulnerable.
So who was even Lucifer then?
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
Isaiah 14:12. ESV "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! NIV How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!"
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus is described in a verse with John the Baptist as ciming down to Earth as a star of the morning
Thats kinda strange, given that Satan is the morning star. Now, given that Jesus loves his enemies, and Satan is the enemy, thus Jesus actually loves Satan. Unless Satan isnt the enemy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nothing unique about Venus. She was a kid in freckles and pig tales when Aphrodite was in her Greek glory, but she isn't Satan, either. He's not a tranny
Satan can take many forms here.
What more obvious form there is but Goddess of sex and power and prostitutes, which also just happens to be called "morning star" by name of planet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
What % of the population do you think this is?
I dont know exactly. Probably under 5% or maybe 1%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Person A is party A. Person B is party B. If anyone changes their minds, then what do you think is the odds of it happening?
I have changed my mind plenty of times. But regular people almost never change their minds. It doesnt even matter which party. To put it simply, if there are tons of evidence that other side is right, and just tiny bit of evidence that they are right, they will accept tiny bit of evidence over tons of evidence. As for USA, there are 3 main types of voters: the ones which would always vote for Trump, the ones which would never vote for Trump, and the ones which just vote randomly according to media outout. The first two are majority of voters, and they almost never ever change their mind. The 3rd group is mostly made up of people who are just going with the flow. They dont change their own mind, the much better expression would be that they dont have their own mind. They just do as media guide them, voting by feelings mostly. Now, people who do have their own opinion and change it often enough are super rare, even among highly educated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Anytime someone says, "We should have a conversation about, (insert topic here)", they don't know what they're talking about
They usually mean "I talk now, and you just listen and agree".
No one starts a conversation with you with goal of changing their own mind, but goal of changing yours.
And that is true almost everywhere. Whats interesting is that people rarely even change their minds. I see people in real life constantly repeating false claims even after it was explained to them why they were clearly false.
"Some smokers live to 100, while some non-smokers die at 40." comes to mind as I hear it very often. I had to explain countless times why that is not even an argument against "smoking decreases average life expectancy" or argument that smoking is healthy.
Created:
-->
@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?
Created:
-->
@Shila
I cant read all 600 posts. Is there a shorter version, or just link to most important post there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The anti-Christ is not a person - it is a system.
Well, some persons usually make the system. I admit that comparing Trump to anti Christ might be a bit silly, but it depends on how you define anti Christ here. Is anti Christ someone who corrupts Christian faith? Usually, in order to prove something, there must be a definition of it in order to prove it now. With all the mentioned qualities, what definition excludes Trump?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Is Jesus the son of Mary flesh and blood in heaven now?
I have some theories about that, but proving where he is NOW is difficult.
Scripture mentions Jesus going to heaven.
"Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”"
If he stayed there for 2000 years after is not the burden of proof I can uphold.
As for his flesh and blood being in paradise, thats even way more difficult.
Created: