Total posts: 1,395
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
By the way, Satan is actually Roman Goddess Venus. Planet Venus is actually morning star, so properly named planet.
Venus (/ˈviːnəs/; Classical Latin: [ˈu̯ɛnʊs̠] Ecclesiastical Latin: [ˈvɛ(ː)nus]) is a Roman goddess whose functions encompass love, beauty, desire, sex, fertility, prosperity, and victory.
Venus became one of the most widely referenced deities of Greco-Roman mythology as the embodiment of love and sexuality. As such, she is usually depicted nude.
Venus has been described as perhaps "the most original creation of the Roman pantheon",[6]: 146 and "an ill-defined and assimilative" native goddess, combined "with a strange and exotic Aphrodite".[a] Her cults may represent the religiously legitimate charm and seduction of the divine by mortals, in contrast to the formal, contractual relations between most members of Rome's official pantheon and the state, and the unofficial, illicit manipulation of divine forces through magic.[6]: 13–64 [8] The ambivalence of her persuasive functions has been perceived in the relationship of the root *wenos- with its Latin derivative venenum ('poison'; from *wenes-no 'love drink' or 'addicting'),[9] in the sense of "a charm, magic philtre".[10]
Venus seems to have had no origin myth until her association with Greek Aphrodite. Venus-Aphrodite emerged, already in adult form, from the sea foam (Greek αφρός, aphros) produced by the severed genitals of Caelus-Uranus.[11] Roman theology presents Venus as the yielding, watery female principle, essential to the generation and balance of life. Her male counterparts in the Roman pantheon, Vulcan and Mars, are active and fiery. Venus absorbs and tempers the male essence, uniting the opposites of male and female in mutual affection. She is essentially assimilative and benign, and embraces several otherwise quite disparate functions. She can give military victory, sexual success, good fortune and prosperity. In one context, she is a goddess of prostitutes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In this world, Satan, aka Lucifer, the immitator of light
Ugh, you guys really blame everything on the morning star.
Created:
Posted in:
Beast is also described as great ultimate deceiver.
Now, I dont know about you, but after 30000 lies in first term, it feels Trump fits that category very well too. I mean, he tricked 50 million people there into thinking he is decent Christian. People chose to believe his words instead of their very own eyes and ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Alright then. Who in the world is closer to being this fake Christ than Trump?
He represents himself as only capable and true Christian while committing literally every sin mentioned in the Bible.
His supporters consider him as chosen by God. Some even call him "God emperor" and "savior".
So again, who in the world fits the description better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I don't see Trump meeting all of these criteria. The people who believe he's intelligent and an economic genius don't think he's lawless and controlling, and vice versa.
It doesnt have to be meassured by standards of all possible people.
And yes, he is an economic genius and intelligent. He is a billionaire and has achieved what no one else ever has in USA. And he is lawless. He is a criminal, for fucks sake. And as for controlling, the guy literally wants to conquer many US allies. If this isnt beast, I dont know who even is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump literally fits the description of the beast.
He was wounded by bullet shot. Beast as described in Bible was wounded, but praised because it survived.
He also started a trade war and wanted to prevent countries from trading unless they trade according to his personal rules.
"No one will be able to trade, unless he has the beast's mark."
I mean, common, this cant be more obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, this greatly depends on how strong the men actually are. If they are some weak girl-like men, then I think 100 is maybe even too low number.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
If both sides are absolutely bloodlusted
Another argument is simply that someone has to be first.
First man who attacks gorilla will certainly die. So will second man. So will third man.
They will, if they all attack, overpower a gorilla.
The problem is that someone has to choose to willingly die to achieve that.
A more likely outcome is that no one will agree to be first man to attack, because that is certain death. With no first man, no one will attack. Its that simple here. No one wants to be front line because front line certainly dies.
Would you agree to get ripped apart by Gorilla so other people can try to overpower him while he rips you apart? Person would have to be retarded to agree to that.
Unless gorilla is charging at the group, there is no reasonable reason for anyone there to agree to get ripped apart.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Pascals Wager is that beneficial argument
I can start a different thread on Pascal's wager, but benefits of religion arent limited to afterlife. Believers are much less suicidal and have longer life expectancy, and are more likely to procreate.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Here's the summary of this debate; My position is that logic comes before anything else.
And that is an impossible position here. If logic has no creator, then things dont need creator in order to exist. In other words, anything is possible in your world now. But the claim that logic comes before anything else is flawed, as then logic cannot prove itself true and thus, cant be used to explain anything ever.
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. This is also widely known as primordial void. But a more scientific name would be non-logic, something where nothing exists, not even laws of logic. Since laws of logic dont exist there, then there are no limits to existence. And Gods are able to come into existence as nothing prevents them. Then these Gods established their order and logic. They are the only so far working explanation for why the world is the way it is.
(why logic is subject to a necessary creator but God is not is beyond me, but that's a topic for another day).
Already answered.
Your problem is that if God comes before logic, then God must be outside of logic. So A=A does not apply to God. In other words... God is not God. If A=A is not true, then God is a rock. God is a flag pole. God is October. God both exists and God does not exist. God is both the creator of logic and not the creator of logic
God is all powerful being, yes. He can be anything and he is everything. But he can control his powers. I believe in intelligent creator there. Bones provided an alternative explanation that non-logic can create logical laws on its own without God, but the problem there is that nothing could prevent God from coming into existence before logical laws do.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
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. Prerequisite by own definition is a thing. So prove the existence of a thing you claim exists without using that thing.
Asking me to prove something to you that you already accept is just plain stupid and/or dishonest
You can keep dodging and strawmanning, but case here is very simple.
1. Logic is proved true using logic
2. Logic is proved true using non-logic
3. Logic is not proved true
Pick one.
Also, you are again saying that I already accept logic. Thats a strawman. I am not rejecting logic itself. I am just rejecting your case for logic.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And yet you had to accept logic as valid in order to reach your own conclusion
This is how contradictions are found. You assume (not accept, but assume) something as true to see if it is consistent with itself or known facts. Now again, I dont reject logic. Thats your strawman of my case. I merely recognize that logic cannot work on its own. Your case is that logic can work on its own. But that means you have to use circular logic to prove logic, which is a logical fallacy. Thats the whole problem of your case. You cannot prove logic without using logic itself. The whole existence of logic in your case is completely unproved. Logical laws, such as "A=A" here, cannot in any way be proved. And that is the crucial problem here.
"A = A" is the logical law which must be true if logic is to be true. But it cannot be proved true in any way using logic itself, because whole logic depends on it and cannot be used to prove it at the same time.
So again, the problem cannot be solved. Law of identity itself cannot be proved to be true. So when you enter a debate here saying "Law of identity is true", it is not possible to prove that claim, because the proof already depends on that claim to be true and uses it itself. Its same as saying "truth exists". That claim is not possible to prove without using truth. And "truth proves that truth exists" is about as valid as saying "God proves that God exists" claim.
So again, in your case, law of identity proves that law of identity exists.
Thats a logical fallacy within logic itself. Logic is wrong according to its own laws when applied, hence contradiction.
If we say "A = A", then another law follows directly: "Claims can either be true or not true".
This is true tautology per law of identity, because "truth = truth", and thus "not truth =/= truth". We cannot say that "truth = not truth", because not truth is different from truth and then truth wouldnt be truth (truth =/= truth) and law of identity wouldnt be followed.
So these claims follow:
1. Claim must be true or not true.
2. "Law of identity exists" is a claim
3. "Law of identity exists" can only be true or not true.
4. To prove claim true would require proof which exists independently of the claim.
5. Things independent of Law of identity would be non-logic by definition.
6. Thus, only non-logic can prove logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
naught is created
Thats a clear logical fallacy. If things dont need to be created in order to exist, then anything can exist as there is no limit to existence. Simply put, if there are no conditions for existence, then everything is possible, unicorns and Gods.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you just assumed logic is valid in order to argue that logic itself fails
Thats how reasoning works. You apply a claim to reveal contradictions. Logic according to its own principles cannot contain contradictions, yet it does. Thus, logic fails according to its own principles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
......space(> * <) me (> * <)space...
.....space(>.<) me (>.<)space...
Also, eternal universe has no explanation for its existence, even much less than eternal God does.
If Universe is eternal, then it exists without any creator.
If things dont need any creator or cause to exist, then anything would be able to come into existence at any time.
Created:
Posted in:
They definitely wont split up take one limb per 25 (or less and the remainder help get rope or something) and win
No rope. Its a fight without weapons.
One limb each per 25 people? Thats not even possible. People cant fit that close together, and you just assume gorilla will stand still?
Created:
Posted in:
"Pol Pot Tribute - Look at the owl"
https://youtu.be/P6OXvHG_lO4?si=s1CTXYBeVNQWY0W4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
How about Pol Pot?
Look at the Owl - Sat Tee Touy
"Five rabbits are selling drugs
Five rabbits are selling drugs
Frogs and Lizards are stealing their weed
Frogs and Lizards are stealing their weed
The black hares only know to sit and drink
The black hares only know to sit and drink
Chasing the storms and cussing to the mother of frog
Chasing the storms and cussing to the mother of frog
Female deer pranced to find their mothers
Female deer pranced to find their mothers
In the field of rice, she buried a glass of wine
In the field of rice, she buried a glass of wine
The black hare lost their way to the pond
The black hare lost their way to the pond
But accidently ran into the wine barrel
But accidently ran into the wine barrel."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Gorilla can lift over 450 kilograms.
While 100 men are much higher in number, it is certain that at least the first 4 men would get ripped.
And since no one wants to be among the first men, no one can logically attack gorilla. Unless some of men are retarded.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If we follow same line of reasoning there, then non-logic cannot be disproved either. It cannot be disproved with logic because logic doesnt apply to it by own definition, and it cannot be disproved with non-logic. However, unlike non-logic, logic is completely self-contradictive on its own. This is because in debate, we try and prove claims. However, you cannot prove "A=A" in any way. Any attempt to prove it fails. And that is whole logic failing. In order to prove "A=A" in one place, you must assume it is already true in other place. There is no explanation for what causes "A=A". There is no any way to prove "A=A". That is the basis of all logic being unproved. The only way to try and prove it is by using it, which requires it to already be true in order to prove it true.
This is circular, where
" "A = A" proves that "A=A" ".
In simple terms, it is not possible to prove the first claim which all logic depends upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep mystical baloney
Actually, magic has proven healing properties, like religion. Religious people are much less depressed. Its kinda like free pill for depression which also works. As much as I appreciate atheism, what would you rather have now, magic and purpose or empty randomness? Because the latter isnt comforting.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I'm explaining to you why the position that logic needs to be proved is absurd and necessarily self defeating
Logic either can be proved or cannot be. 3rd option doesnt exist. Which one of these is it?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I pointed out that logic can neither be proved nor disproved,
Oh, so logic is just like God there. Except that God doesnt need logic to exist, but all logic does need God.
any attempt to do either requires the usage and therefore validity of it to be assumed at the outset.
So you have to use logic to prove logic now?
Why is circular reasoning a problem?
It is only a problem for your position there. If you accept it as valid, then I can use it to prove God. If you reject it as valid, then you cant even prove logic. It is only your case which suffers from this though.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
If you dont want to make arguments here, that is your choice.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
to sum up again, you have established that something undefined other than it being undetectable has a greater than 0% chance of existing
That would be your strawman, yes.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I didn't marry a foreign sex worker
Isnt it great that Trump proved how when you are rich and famous, you can do literally anything? Trump commited many crimes, stealing from charity, accused of rape and mocking his victims. He is a billionaire president who is a convicted felon who now wants to be pope. Trump said he could shoot someone and he wouldnt lose any voters. Its amazing what person can do in USA if the person is rich and famous. Trump even openly bragged about how he likes to fuck married women. He is also trying to invade US allies, he robbed Ukraine's resources, and even supported taking away land from Palestinians. He even blatantly lied and said he will stop all wars in 24 hours. He also said he will invade Canada and start many new economic trade wars on US closest allies. Trump would have gone to prison for many crimes he commited, but people elected him president so he doesnt go to prison. It seems that when you are rich and famous in USA, you can do anything and people just let you do it. They even cheer you while you do it. Its incredible.
Created:
Posted in:
The possible disadvantage of Japan is that North Korea will maybe obliterate it in the next 100 years. So thats one risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Those are two great choices, as far as geography
Very low crime rate, very high life expectancy, almost no car accidents. Less violence in general. Plus, Japan has all the anime there. Plus, they are kind of a polytheists.
Created:
Posted in:
@adaptable
I appreciate Sweden for other reasons.
As for Japan, yeah, thats probably the best country by far. The only downside of being born in Japan would be bullying. But that maybe isnt a downside, because then I could put blame on being bullied as an excuse for all my mistakes.
Created:
Posted in:
But yeah, if I had a choice where to be born, it would probably be Japan or maybe Sweden.
Created:
Posted in:
@Adaptable
I am born outside US
Look at that, we have something in common.
Created:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
Created:
-->
@Shila
Thats a very good topic. Historians usually agree that Jesus existed, and gospels are very consistent in each copy of them ever found.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Do you think Trump will be next pope?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Shila
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Shila
There is this book called "The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage".
It has 3 books in this series which explain magic letter squares.
It could be similar to Sun of Gnosis.
Ancient people used magic letter squares for protection.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
No, because undetectability is the central basis for your “proof.”
Its not the only premise, so thats just strawman.
Sure, but none of this has anything to do with the topic of your own thread or anything I wrote. Focus
You clearly expressed complain about my probability argument, and now you are trying to return to the argument you complained about. So what is your goal here? If you dont want probability argument, and you dont want other arguments, then you dont want any arguments.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I believe in an undetectable God. Why do I believe He exists, you ask? Because we can’t detect Him
This is just strawman.
Of course, it’s a different argument. “Proved positive effects” would mean that this God which you have defined as undetectable now has detectable effects on people
Well, there are many proved positive effects happening. In fact, even if God didnt exist, it would be very beneficial to believe in God. This is a different topic, but related to belief in God.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Someone who believes in something undetectable?
Well, duh. Undetectable God. Or at least currently undetectable God.
Now, there are other arguments about God having proved positive effects on people's lives, but thats different from probability argument.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Then prove it without using logic. Go
If I dont need logic, it is already proved then with no need for me to prove it. Besides, in void where there are no logical laws, there are no limits on existence, as logical laws are actually just limits. In that sense, the mere existence of lack of logic means infinite power of creation where everything is possible.
Why is that a problem?
Its a problem for you, because if you hold position that "A proves A" is a valid form of reasoning, then God is proved by merely saying "God proves God". And if you hold position that something can be proved by simply not being questioned, then me not questioning God would prove God.
This is especially the case for problem of truth determination system. System which determines truth would basically have to be able to determine itself as true in order to be true, which is logically impossible. Thus, it is only possible that such system is created and proved by non-truth. Same applies to logic. Any closed system suffers from circular fallacy, except just one. The only closed system which doesnt suffer from circular fallacy is void without any logic or truth. By tautology argument, truth can only be born from non-truth, and logic can only be born from non-logic. The opposite case doesnt work. All logic cannot be created by itself, because then all other things could just create themselves as well, including God. It also cannot be unquestioned without cause, because then all other things wouldnt need cause either.
This problem of logic cannot be solved in any way, and many philosophers spent their entire life trying to solve problem of logic being entirely circular.
Its same problem with basic definitions. In the end, they all must end up in a circle, because you cant define all words infinitely.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
You haven’t proven that, either
Its my definition of believers here. The debate is just about if some God exists and probability for that.
The qualifier “undetectable” is where you establish the upper hand in this. You have established that there is a greater than 0% probability that something undetectable exists. Whoopty do. Because we are unable to detect this entity, that is how we know it possibly exists!
The math is simply based on idea that even with 1% chance of each individual God existing, 1000 of such Gods create chance of 99% that at least one exists now. There are some variants of the argument, even with just one God instead of 1000. But they are based on individual low chances collectively creating higher chance.
Created:
-->
@Shila
focusing on the practical consequences of belief
Thats the unproved premise which I am talking about. Even if we assume that the only Gods possible are the ones listed in Pascal's wager, the idea that good atheists go to Hell is not just unproved, but basically insane.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
But you haven’t proven believers right. Believers believe in god(s) with specific traits
Believers simply believe in some God. I merely proved that some God is likely to exist, thus some believers are likely to be right.
Again, Pascal's wager is a different argument entirely here. Pascal's wager is based on idea that according to all Gods which are known and popular so far, atheists in much more options end up in worse place in the afterlife than Christians, and in no option available do they end up having it better.
But Pascal's wager is ultimately flawed because even if we take one premise as true, it is not certain that atheists go to hell in Islam or Christianity. Bad people go to hell, and believers can be bad people while atheists dont need to be bad. In that sense, Pascal's wager is basically just folk logic and a very weak argument here. There are even specific messages in the Bible which strongly imply that good atheists are better than bad believers. I generally stay away from Pascal's wager because it takes much more effort to defend it, and proving the premises is almost impossible.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Why would the “god that exists” be a problem for atheists? Perhaps it wishes to be left alone and appreciates atheists more than anyone else.
Lol I meant just in terms of proving if believers are right. I am not making any Pascal's wager here. I agree that God can indeed like atheists much more than believers. But thats entirely different topic now, which isnt limited to just if God exists or probability.
Created:
Posted in:
I did a lot of research on this issue, and it seems that one thing is clear: magics and religion uses drawings which are clearly depending on using precise geometry rules.
We see this in movies, in anime, in all known religions which use symbols...
The most basic shape is straight line. This is also one of Nordic symbols for protection: I
The second basic shape are two lines. This is usually either X, either cross.
X is another nordic symbol, while cross is a Christian symbol.
Then there are 3 lines, which is a triangle. Triangle in reiki is a symbol of fire, or if turned upside down, then symbol of water.
A square has an entire series of magic related to it, even many books written about it. There are word squares and letter squares commonly used not only in magic, but as puzzles in problem solving.
A circle is an obvious one, used in magic often.
Pentagram is another obvious one, usually related to satanism. However, an incomplete pentagram is also used in satanism. An incomplete pentagram is pentagram where bottom line of pentagram is missing, so it essentially only has 4 lines which form a symbol.
Octagram is less known, but actually, octagram is a very powerful magic symbol. Drawing circle and octagram inside it, and message in octagram would likely produce a powerful magic effect.
But now we come to an entirely new area, and that is combining symbols. For example, you can combine square and circle by placing square inside circle or circle inside square.
So how does all this work?
Its more simple than it sounds.
The goal is simply to combine words or letters, shapes from geometry and intention. The goal is that you have lines which connect words in multiple ways to form same message in each way. So the goal is to create consistency, an equality, which is crucial.
For example, in case of cross, you would write your request two times, once on each of two lines on a cross.
In square, you would normally divide square on 16 equal squares. And in those squares, you would write words or letters so that no matter which way is it read, the message ends up being equal.
What I see in magic sometimes are undefined shapes. These are usually shapes which dont follow usual geometry shapes. I consider these to be good as well, but they are more difficult to work with, and its more difficult to figure out how to combine them with words.
Usually, the goal is that lines in shape connect words to form a message. With undefined shapes, this is more difficult because lines must follow consistent rules of connecting words, the connection line must be same, otherwise message could get mixed up, and rule of consistency of message wouldnt apply.
Created:
Posted in:
And yeah, when it comes to war, Yemen is like Afghanistan there. High birth rates mean winning a war against them is next to impossible.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
wasn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be that you can use math to prove God?
That one was already achieved here.
God proves logicLogic proves God
As opposed to your whole case: logic proves logic here. Logic leads to conclusion that God probably exists, and logic leads to conclusion that things outside of logic are necessary. To put it simply, logic cannot prove itself without God. This is essentially the problem of your case here. I am not saying that logic created God. That would be strawman. However, the laws of logic are set up in a way that they cannot be proved without their creator here. God can exist without logic, but logic cannot exist without God now. So it is not circular logic. It is the only possible explanation there is here.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The very concept of proving anything requires logic
That is not true. If logic didnt exist anywhere, we would instead observe non-logic. But we have already seen that logic naturally leads to conclusion that non-logic exists as well. The problem in your argument that its essentially circular. You cant even prove logic without using logic.
Ok. I'm using logic to prove logic, and you're using logic to disprove logic
No, no. I already told you. I am not disproving logic here. It is you who does that by saying logic doesnt have any proof for its existence. I simply offered here clear proof for logic: God creator of logic.
Created: