Studies say: soul exists.
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
okay:
Uhm, okay the normally accepted implementation of logic dictates that circular logic is invalid.
The problem is that it god is taken as an axiom to those with the faith. That's basically what the whole faith part is about - "hey, this god deal is axiomatic."
So how do we test the validity of our axioms?
We can't right? Otherwise they wouldn't be axiomatic? Damnit man.
Uhm, okay the normally accepted implementation of logic dictates that circular logic is invalid.
The problem is that it god is taken as an axiom to those with the faith. That's basically what the whole faith part is about - "hey, this god deal is axiomatic."
So how do we test the validity of our axioms?
We can't right? Otherwise they wouldn't be axiomatic? Damnit man.
You don't. The point is that if you make god an axiom, you are making an assumption which can not be supported in the eyes of others.
The only way to 'test the validity of our axioms' is to develop them from a set of accepted axioms. In the case of god, this is impossible.
So, no matter what you do, God will always be an assumption you can not logically support. That's fine if it is a belief, as long as it is realized that you can't use it as a basis of discussion.
The only way to 'test the validity of our axioms' is to develop them from a set of accepted axioms. In the case of god, this is impossible.
So, no matter what you do, God will always be an assumption you can not logically support. That's fine if it is a belief, as long as it is realized that you can't use it as a basis of discussion.
Wesmorris
Uhm, okay the normally accepted implementation of logic dictates that circular logic is invalid.
Yes it its like persol theory of God :God should be created by other God which is an endless and circular theory, if you see.
Persol
The only way to 'test the validity of our axioms' is to develop them from a set of accepted axioms. In the case of god, this is impossible.
Yea its possible to make logic axioms about God, just think hard and be deep in mind instead of closing it, saying no God is possible.
Persol
So, no matter what you do, God will always be an assumption you can not logically support. That's fine if it is a belief, as long as it is realized that you can't use it as a basis of discussion.
Please dont tell that some kind of creator is an assumption, since you are ending any possibilty of matter existence if you can understand.
Uhm, okay the normally accepted implementation of logic dictates that circular logic is invalid.
Yes it its like persol theory of God :God should be created by other God which is an endless and circular theory, if you see.
Persol
The only way to 'test the validity of our axioms' is to develop them from a set of accepted axioms. In the case of god, this is impossible.
Yea its possible to make logic axioms about God, just think hard and be deep in mind instead of closing it, saying no God is possible.
Persol
So, no matter what you do, God will always be an assumption you can not logically support. That's fine if it is a belief, as long as it is realized that you can't use it as a basis of discussion.
Please dont tell that some kind of creator is an assumption, since you are ending any possibilty of matter existence if you can understand.
Last edited:
Yes it its like persol theory of God
I don't have a theory of God. My whole point is that any theory of god is unsupportable.
Please dont tell that some kind of creator is an assumption, since you are ending any possibilty of matter existence if you understand.
What about the possibility that the universe has simply always existed and that we evolved?
I don't have a theory of God. My whole point is that any theory of god is unsupportable.
Please dont tell that some kind of creator is an assumption, since you are ending any possibilty of matter existence if you understand.
What about the possibility that the universe has simply always existed and that we evolved?
Persol
I don't have a theory of God. My whole point is that any theory of god is unsupportable.
You said that in a previous post, but if it was a sarcasm, np..
Persol
What about the possibility that the universe has simply always existed and that we evolved?
Ok please persol understand...
We cant talk about the universe as a creator or being with own will and power, as previously said is a mix of alive beings, and matter of every type in existence... but it didnt made itself, as scientifics say it started from a Big bang, now think, a Big Bang its astronomic reaction, and logic(physic) says , a reaction needs and external force to be done, then again what made the big bang? what had that will? we could talk eternally about this, but its easy to assume, that theres someone powerful there with own will and the unique ability to create out of nothing, parting from the big bang to the Human race existence.
I don't have a theory of God. My whole point is that any theory of god is unsupportable.
You said that in a previous post, but if it was a sarcasm, np..
Persol
What about the possibility that the universe has simply always existed and that we evolved?
Ok please persol understand...
We cant talk about the universe as a creator or being with own will and power, as previously said is a mix of alive beings, and matter of every type in existence... but it didnt made itself, as scientifics say it started from a Big bang, now think, a Big Bang its astronomic reaction, and logic(physic) says , a reaction needs and external force to be done, then again what made the big bang? what had that will? we could talk eternally about this, but its easy to assume, that theres someone powerful there with own will and the unique ability to create out of nothing, parting from the big bang to the Human race existence.
Last edited:
but it didnt made itself
I didn't say it made itself. I said it may have always existed. The Big Bang does not preclude this, a fact you would know if you did even a tiny amount of research. Regardless, you don't know enough to make this blanket statement (nobody does)
but its easy to assume, that theres someone powerful there with own will and the unique ability to create out of nothing
You are absolutely right, and I 'think' you finally get the point. You can ASSUME anything you want.... but don't use it as a base of discussion. You know full well that many people do not agree with that assumption, and you also know that you can't convince them in any logical way... so stop relying on it. It is the sign of a weak mind to need to refer back to unsupportable assumptions to hold a discussion.
I didn't say it made itself. I said it may have always existed. The Big Bang does not preclude this, a fact you would know if you did even a tiny amount of research. Regardless, you don't know enough to make this blanket statement (nobody does)
but its easy to assume, that theres someone powerful there with own will and the unique ability to create out of nothing
You are absolutely right, and I 'think' you finally get the point. You can ASSUME anything you want.... but don't use it as a base of discussion. You know full well that many people do not agree with that assumption, and you also know that you can't convince them in any logical way... so stop relying on it. It is the sign of a weak mind to need to refer back to unsupportable assumptions to hold a discussion.
Persol said:
I'm with you. It messes me up though that in the minds of the believers, your failure to assume god exists cannot be supported. It's funky. Kind of gives me the willies a bit. It seems as if the discomfort lies in either position as it considers the other.
Theoretically correct, totally wrong in practice. It's completely possible if you think it is, if you follow me.
Bullshit. You can make it an axiom and booya.
You don't have to support an axiom to anyone but yourself or someone with power over you I guess.
Ha! Billions of people make it a basis for conversation - daily. I suppose it depends what you mean by "basis" but logical violations don't stop brains from making them unless they do and then there's nothing to complain about so... oh nevermind.
Bullshit. You can make it an axiom and booya. You don't have to support an axiom to anyone but yourself or someone with power over you I guess.
You can not support an assumption unless you can get it from accepted axioms.
I could just as easily make the axioms 'Persol is God' and 'Everyone should donate money to the cause of God'. Therefore, everyone should donate money to my cause. This isn't logical though, as the axioms are false and unsupportable.
Ha! Billions of people make it a basis for conversation - daily. I suppose it depends what you mean by "basis" but logical violations don't stop brains from making them unless they do and then there's nothing to complain about so
Hehe, point taken. I should have been more specific and said "can't be used as a basis of discussion with people who do not also accept the assumption of a god".
You can not support an assumption unless you can get it from accepted axioms.
I could just as easily make the axioms 'Persol is God' and 'Everyone should donate money to the cause of God'. Therefore, everyone should donate money to my cause. This isn't logical though, as the axioms are false and unsupportable.
Ha! Billions of people make it a basis for conversation - daily. I suppose it depends what you mean by "basis" but logical violations don't stop brains from making them unless they do and then there's nothing to complain about so
Hehe, point taken. I should have been more specific and said "can't be used as a basis of discussion with people who do not also accept the assumption of a god".
Sorry bubba. It doesn't.What is the external force in a nuclear reaction. How about in a chemical reaction? How about heat transfer?Tdmasta said:
A reaction does not require an external force. It can just as well be internal.
Yes it needs, study
Tsmasta, I am fairly confident that I am more versed in the ways of physics and logic than you... and that seems to be an easily supported belief. Now if you want to continue to claim that all reactions require an external force, back it up.
It is amusing that you feel the creation of the universe HAD to be by an act of will, are completely unable to support it, and yet claim that you can.
Wesmorris
It messes me up though that in the minds of the believers, your failure to assume god exists cannot be supported.
Just because you cant understand the previous arguments its not valid?
Persol
Sorry bubba. It doesn't.What is the external force in a nuclear reaction. How about in a chemical reaction? How about heat transfer?
A reaction does not require an external force. It can just as well be internal
Persol! im not talking about internal or external components on a reaction!, im talking about another force to make a reaction, and YES its physics rule man, check your books.
It messes me up though that in the minds of the believers, your failure to assume god exists cannot be supported.
Just because you cant understand the previous arguments its not valid?
Persol
Sorry bubba. It doesn't.What is the external force in a nuclear reaction. How about in a chemical reaction? How about heat transfer?
A reaction does not require an external force. It can just as well be internal
Persol! im not talking about internal or external components on a reaction!, im talking about another force to make a reaction, and YES its physics rule man, check your books.
Last edited:
Well no. I think will both accept that we are alive, that the universe exists, that we are typing to each other, etc. These, and other axioms like them, are accepted. Likewise, a definition of god could be agreed on (at least partially).
You can get a valid conclusion from false axioms, without the conclusion being true. He hasn't even demonstrated this though. He's made the statement 'everything must have a creator' I don't know how many times.
You can get a valid conclusion from false axioms, without the conclusion being true. He hasn't even demonstrated this though. He's made the statement 'everything must have a creator' I don't know how many times.
Persol said:
You're assuming people insist upon being reasonable... or moreso, that your idea of "being reasonable" (which I agree with) is more reasonable than someone who thinks that something else (that I would deem wholly unreasonable) is totally reasonable.
Though I would agree that you are more reasonable, that does not invalidate the correctness of someone I deem to be unreasonable, when they are deeming me unreasonable for telling me I'm unreasonable for being what I deem to be reasonable.
and stuff.
Persol
You can get a valid conclusion from false axioms, without the conclusion being true. He hasn't even demonstrated this though. He's made the statement 'everything must have a creator' I don't know how many times
You dont even read my previous posts? virtually every point you give to me its expalined there, thats the demostration of the creator existence , but if you dont want(or cant) to understand its your personal desire.
Persol
I know quite well what you mean, and you are wrong. If you disagree, provide a quote that says "all reactions must have an external force" or something simialr from a reputable site. You won't find it though.
Its the 3rd law of Newton, you study, more often!
III.- For every action(force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
You can get a valid conclusion from false axioms, without the conclusion being true. He hasn't even demonstrated this though. He's made the statement 'everything must have a creator' I don't know how many times
You dont even read my previous posts? virtually every point you give to me its expalined there, thats the demostration of the creator existence , but if you dont want(or cant) to understand its your personal desire.
Persol
I know quite well what you mean, and you are wrong. If you disagree, provide a quote that says "all reactions must have an external force" or something simialr from a reputable site. You won't find it though.
Its the 3rd law of Newton, you study, more often!
III.- For every action(force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
Last edited:
Persol
Well no. I think will both accept that we are alive, that the universe exists, that we are typing to each other, etc. These, and other axioms like them, are accepted. Likewise, a definition of god could be agreed on (at least partially).
I agree at least its a neutral conclussion.
Persol
You can get a valid conclusion from false axioms, without the conclusion being true. He hasn't even demonstrated this though. He's made the statement 'everything must have a creator' I don't know how many times.
Already said big bang(reaction) was done, and the creator exists, why? beacuse knowledge, own will and masive power was needed to make a reaction of that level, if you can imagine how complex the universe is in every one of its parts from the smallest matter to the biggest one, there is massive knowledge and intellengence of creation everywhere, including yourself, otherwise you believe "The Big Bang was done just because it wanted to explode " you cut the logic believing in that.
Wesmorris
Certainly, but again, you say "create" when the nuetral term is "happened". You are loading the argument to one side by your choice of term.
Are you talking to Newton or me? since that physic law its from him, so the need of a force to produce the Big bang(reaction) is logically valid.
Well no. I think will both accept that we are alive, that the universe exists, that we are typing to each other, etc. These, and other axioms like them, are accepted. Likewise, a definition of god could be agreed on (at least partially).
I agree at least its a neutral conclussion.
Persol
You can get a valid conclusion from false axioms, without the conclusion being true. He hasn't even demonstrated this though. He's made the statement 'everything must have a creator' I don't know how many times.
Already said big bang(reaction) was done, and the creator exists, why? beacuse knowledge, own will and masive power was needed to make a reaction of that level, if you can imagine how complex the universe is in every one of its parts from the smallest matter to the biggest one, there is massive knowledge and intellengence of creation everywhere, including yourself, otherwise you believe "The Big Bang was done just because it wanted to explode " you cut the logic believing in that.
Wesmorris
Certainly, but again, you say "create" when the nuetral term is "happened". You are loading the argument to one side by your choice of term.
Are you talking to Newton or me? since that physic law its from him, so the need of a force to produce the Big bang(reaction) is logically valid.
Last edited: