kx000
Valued Senior Member
I asked it this very question, it says it is not this, have faith.
Proof God Exists
- Thread starter Dewy
- Start date
I asked it this very question, it says it is not this, have faith.
But your brain could say that too.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I know it could, but I have asked questions I have no way of knowing. It gives me answers that I have no proof of, but if time comes to pass and thses things I am told come to fruition then my faith is strengthened, and my questioning ability increases and I ask bigger and better questions, and when they get answered my faith increases ten fold. I said God, if you are "God," then whats the plan for me. It took some questioning, but I got Gods plan for what I am suppose to do, and that is keep on my path, I will be placed were I need to be.
I would normally scream 'Off topic' but the topic is really iffy anyway and i think dewy went away..
yeah . it is only your illusion you have free will that tells you different . I don't know if it is a deity or not . It might be the control of time release . I got know idea on that one . The thing that gets Me is the controlling effect . How everything is dependent and the dependency causes a bond to the control . Or by bondage all conforms to the visible models we see. By dependency. Like it would not exist with the other and that very bond to exist creates the dependency. To Be or Not to Be so to speak. To be you are dependent, or you won't be .
The common cold is you braking down and crying . A cold is the same as crying . Not the virus ! the lowered emotional state that opens the door to the virus . That minute your body gives in and says " Take Me " You girls should listen to your selves more . You would not get sick so much and miss work . You know what kind of foot print that leaves behind ? Waste not Want not as they say . Oh Yeah I am trying to get past my Work Work Work like a machine old attitudes . The new world don't require that ! I almost forgot young rulers of the world . my bad ! old thoughts are hard to change . Like fucking worms I tell you
Seriously. All you people, atheists and theists, who are taking this guy seriously have some serious social problems. This is obviously a satire on religion, the underlying point being that all proofs that god exists follow this ridiculous format.
On another note, I choose to interpret this as more than a meaningless satire about God. Rather, I see this as a satire about all human "knowledge." Think about it. Any argument requires at least two premises in order to support a conclusion. Even if my premise is: "the dog is black," and my conclusion is: "the dog has the quality of being black," there is another unstated, but implied premise: "The dog cannot be black without having the quality of being black," or, in other words, the fundamental law of logic being that contradictions are impossible. I do not care what argument you make, whether it be regarding math, or Obama's healthcare law, you ALWAYS have the fundamental law of logic as an implied premise. That single law that seems to govern the universe is fundamental to all our knowledge, perception, science, and belief (even belief in god requires the fundamental law of logic to be assumed).
But where does that fundamental law of logic come from? It comes from an inductive argument of generalization. We perceive that A1 leads to B, A2 leads to B, A3 leads to B, A4 leads to B, etc, from A1-A105423. By the time we get to A105423, we have formulated a pretty strong argument in favor of our conclusion "All A lead to B." The fundamental law of logic comes from this form of argumentation. We (primitive peoples) percieved a lot of As. We noticed that B (B is defined as something which does not contradict any A that we know of) always followed A. By about A100, we were pretty sure that Bs followed As as a rule. But, we still thought that there could be exceptions, that the rule would not hold. Then A10,000 comes along. Then A10,900,435. Then A995,334,333,448.
So, because contradictions never have happened, out of gazillions of tests, we believe that contradictions never will happen. But wait. I just can't shake the feeling that somehow I am forgetting something. Oh...yeah... we actually know of thousands of cases where A456, A765,334, A23, etc, actually lead to the NECESSITY of a contradiction. Ever hear of a fun little word in the English language called a paradox? It is self-contradictory. "This statement is a lie." The very fact that I can think that thought in itself destroys the fundamental law of logic. The entire argument for that law is that we have gazillions of experience pointing toward its universal significance. But, now, all we are left with is, "sometimes contradictions may occur, but they usually do not seem to."
Say I perceive that I dog is black. Do I actually have any way of "knowing" that it actually possesses the quality of black? The only thing that stopped my statement that the dog is black from being a purely unfounded assumption was that I already "knew" that the dog could not be "not black" and still be "black." But now, all I have is "I see the dog as black, and maybe sometimes that means that he is black."
Anyways, back to the topic at hand, the argument form used was:
Assume X. Therefore, X is true. Assume that the Fundamental Law of Logic is irrefutable, with no evidence, and while ignoring all counter-evidence. Then, based on that assumption, along with the Fundamental Law of Logic, you can prove that the Fundamental Law of Logic is actually irrefutable. Using the new law at your disposal, you can then claim that 2+2=4, that god necessarily exists, that he necessarily does not exist, that life is necessary, that life is impossible, or anything else that you want to assume into existence.
This is sooo fun...Now you try
On another note, I choose to interpret this as more than a meaningless satire about God. Rather, I see this as a satire about all human "knowledge." Think about it. Any argument requires at least two premises in order to support a conclusion. Even if my premise is: "the dog is black," and my conclusion is: "the dog has the quality of being black," there is another unstated, but implied premise: "The dog cannot be black without having the quality of being black," or, in other words, the fundamental law of logic being that contradictions are impossible. I do not care what argument you make, whether it be regarding math, or Obama's healthcare law, you ALWAYS have the fundamental law of logic as an implied premise. That single law that seems to govern the universe is fundamental to all our knowledge, perception, science, and belief (even belief in god requires the fundamental law of logic to be assumed).
But where does that fundamental law of logic come from? It comes from an inductive argument of generalization. We perceive that A1 leads to B, A2 leads to B, A3 leads to B, A4 leads to B, etc, from A1-A105423. By the time we get to A105423, we have formulated a pretty strong argument in favor of our conclusion "All A lead to B." The fundamental law of logic comes from this form of argumentation. We (primitive peoples) percieved a lot of As. We noticed that B (B is defined as something which does not contradict any A that we know of) always followed A. By about A100, we were pretty sure that Bs followed As as a rule. But, we still thought that there could be exceptions, that the rule would not hold. Then A10,000 comes along. Then A10,900,435. Then A995,334,333,448.
So, because contradictions never have happened, out of gazillions of tests, we believe that contradictions never will happen. But wait. I just can't shake the feeling that somehow I am forgetting something. Oh...yeah... we actually know of thousands of cases where A456, A765,334, A23, etc, actually lead to the NECESSITY of a contradiction. Ever hear of a fun little word in the English language called a paradox? It is self-contradictory. "This statement is a lie." The very fact that I can think that thought in itself destroys the fundamental law of logic. The entire argument for that law is that we have gazillions of experience pointing toward its universal significance. But, now, all we are left with is, "sometimes contradictions may occur, but they usually do not seem to."
Say I perceive that I dog is black. Do I actually have any way of "knowing" that it actually possesses the quality of black? The only thing that stopped my statement that the dog is black from being a purely unfounded assumption was that I already "knew" that the dog could not be "not black" and still be "black." But now, all I have is "I see the dog as black, and maybe sometimes that means that he is black."
Anyways, back to the topic at hand, the argument form used was:
Assume X. Therefore, X is true. Assume that the Fundamental Law of Logic is irrefutable, with no evidence, and while ignoring all counter-evidence. Then, based on that assumption, along with the Fundamental Law of Logic, you can prove that the Fundamental Law of Logic is actually irrefutable. Using the new law at your disposal, you can then claim that 2+2=4, that god necessarily exists, that he necessarily does not exist, that life is necessary, that life is impossible, or anything else that you want to assume into existence.
This is sooo fun...Now you try
I'm sorry; you seem to be having a bad day. I was curious about this aspect of the OP's statement and I am trying to be careful in the way I state things.
Beliefs are to my mind just like theories and a rational mind should accept, reject or adapt a theory based on contrary information. Theories that are currently not provable have the duality of existence and not existing at the same time.
I have a theory that the paradoxes we come to know create the existence we know but I cannot prove that. To understand something properly can be achieved by adopting another’s perceptive and finding the datum that contradicts the theory. If this cannot be done then the theory becomes one of the many choices available to argue for because you find it enjoyable to do so.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
There is no "fundamental law of logic", please elaborate on the term first.
do not misunderstand respect for agreement.
do not mistake one not agreeing with a lack of respect.
there are several options to respond to someone with a controversial theory/premise;
call it BS and confront them on it,
this puts them on the defensive and any conversation afterwards is an exercise in a slam fest, (trading insults) it degenerates the whole sciforum community.
Agree with them,
which would make for a short conversation, unless one can add arguments for the topic.
disagree with them,
the most used form,then it just becomes an argument about who is right and who is wrong.
Educate them,
Ask how they came to their conclusions and correct any mistaken assumptions,
IE:
1+1=3
incorrect answer, Wrong, BS,thats stupid, etc..
correct answer, 1+1=2 (simple,straight to the point without any posturing by the educator.)(hint,hint Dyw)
In this vehicle of communication (hell,even in real life)
It is not ones responsibility to MAKE a person understand, all one can do is share what one believes/knows to be true, the other person makes his/her own choices whether to believe/know or not.
of course there is way more to this than i could communicate,but it should be enough to encourage more understanding.
Actually, the possibility that the OP is taking the piss definitely occurred to me, as I'm sure it did to many others. I mean, I've even suggested that certain other people who participated in this thread could be deep cover atheists before because, well, it's just a little hard to believe that they could be so completely lost in the wilderness of their own fanciful thinking.
What a socially experienced person does learn, especially after extended exposure to some of the less rationally 'bounded' contributors we've had on these forums (not to mention those encountered in many other places), is that some people really are just that far 'out there' (that is, in the middle of a desert kneeling reverently before a dynamic self-reinforcing mirage that is generated from the unmoderated interplay between their conscious and unconscious minds). Sometimes this is intensified due to drug use/abuse, emotional trauma or underlying (or preexisting) mental illness.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
You and I clearly have different ideologies on what God is. And no, I don't fear God. Nor do I believe in silly things like God wanting to prove its existence.
Let it be known that though I do believe in a higher power, I am by no means Christian, Jewish or Muslim. If anything, I'd be considered something along the lines of a Deist.
tell us more ? wadju think of Hopi Prophesy. That saying " and the Kings of the Earth will come to the Great House Of Mica got my attention . Made Me take real close notice . By way of Red Car . You know what red car is ? Am 11:11 actual came up with the phrase "red car" It is when you buy a red car you see butt loads more red cars . Now that will give you real education on Human mind sets when you understand the game the mind plays on the human body it inhabits. Some might even start to understand me
The only way you can know that for sure is to lay in bed and pay close attention to the manner in which they bite you. Eventually an unmistakable pattern should emerge that you will then need to interpret based upon some methodology that you've devised. Don't worry though, God will have planted the seed for that so you can trust in it's validity.
Please let us know how it goes.
Last edited: