Heh. That is not answer. Answers given only by beliefs are not evidences. So this called ,,evidence" is not truth. My opinion is that we shouldn't give evidences which doesn't explain anything. Evidence must prove something for sure not prove only by ,,beliefs" that prove it. Live how you want to and you will see after your death if it what you believed was truth. Response for Christians: Not everyone have to be in Heavens xD But if God doesn't exist you wasted your whole life :P
This only proves that the laws of logic can be used to gain a reasonable understanding of things. Its the same giant leap as always to even think this has implications of a creator. logic is not the apoloegists best friend.
The laws of logic you are talking about are not conceptual, they are absolutes. Even if no minds would exist they would still apply. X would be X and NOT not X even if there wouldn't be anyone to veryfy that X is X. In any case God as a source for logic absolutes is not an explanation since God's source too would require an explanation. If you state that God does not need a source using that same logic (or lack there of) i can state that Logic absolutes do not need a source either.
Actually, 00:40 is compleatly wrong. Scientific evidence would be the best, but un-furtunetly you dont have it.
It doesnt exist, its a term that we have invented. The logical laws are objective in the sense that they are not real but cannot be broken. I dare you to break one, come on, do it.
1. No, they are not absolute truths. They are subjective.
2. People ARE the same in very important ways. Otherwise I wouldn't have any clue what you were saying.
3. The mind is a product of the universe!
4. You've experienced something OTHER than the universe to prove they are not of this universe? Of COURSE they are dependent on the existence of the universe! otherwise PROVE they are 'transcendent'.!!
YES they exist in the mind. OUR minds - which are products of the universe!!!
@Hufflewaffle You're undermining the means of logical inference. (Ex) You say laws of logic are subjective- you must believe that "Something cannot be both itself & not itself in the same sense" can be both true or false. You don't realize your response first presumes the laws of logic to be absolute to make a point that's either true or false. Then you say logical absolutes are subjective resulting in no possibility of any statement being true/false. Therefore, there's no truth to what you say.
@Hufflewaffle "Well, if they only exist in the mind then their very existence is dependent on the mind!" Based on your previous assertions, you must be referring to human minds. By your logic, if laws of logic depend on human minds, then you must assert they are NOT absolute and instead came into existence (became true) when the first human mind formed. Therefore if the laws of logic are not absolute, nothing you say is valid. Further, A=A & B=B is still true if all human minds die.
@ForJesus220 How do you come the the conclusion that nothing I say is valid? I never said the laws of logic aren't valid. They provide us with a perfectly valid picture of the universe as we know it but if our minds cease to exist then 'A' ceases to exist - the very concept of 'existence' ceases to exist! Its impossible to think about a universe with no mind thinking about it! We are inextricably locked to the universe in this sense. If we die, the universe as we know it dies with us.
@Hufflewaffle "How do you come the conclusion that nothing I say is valid? I never said the laws of logic aren't valid." You don't realize that you inadvertently did. You believe the laws of logic are subjectively true. Therefore, you have made asserting absolute validity impossible yet you attempt to assert validity. In essence you are saying, "It's absolutely true there are no absolute truths."
@ForJesus220 Of course Im not trying to assert 'absolute' validity. Nobody can. What I say is true within the realm of human experience. How could anyone possibly assert anything else? As I keep saying, logic ONLY applies to the mind and its interpretation of conscious experience. It has no existence outside of human experience, therefore it cannot be said to be 'absolute'. This 'suicide tactic' falls for its own arrogance. It ignores the fact that a mind created it!
@Hufflewaffle Yes, logic's realm is the mind. Logical absolutes are not the product of human thinking because human thinking is often contradictory. You have not logically addressed the fact if all humans & universe cease to exist the law of identity is still true, the law of non-contradiction is still true. They still exist, transcending the universe for all eternity. The laws are not created. They don't become true because someone thought of it.
@ForJesus220 I haven't addressed the 'fact' that the law of identity is still true if all humans and the universe cease to exist because it is not a fact. Please explain to me how A = A when there is no mind to identify anything and there is nothing to identify? What exactly is 'A' and whose mind is identifying it?
@Hufflewaffle Again, you would have to prove there is no God (absolute mind) & nothing to identify to assert the above as fact. It is merely your belief. You declare there is no existence of mind without humans without proving it.
@ForJesus220 Oh come on. Minds are demonstrably linked to brain/body. Alter the brain/body and the mind alters with it. If the brain changes, dies, goes into a coma or even just falls asleep, the experience of mind changes with it. This is clear (and rather obvious) evidence that the mind is ephemeral. If you make the extraordinary claim there is a mind that somehow exists without a biological counterpart its entirely up to you to prove it.
@Hufflewaffle How do you define mind? You make a distinction from the brain which is physical saying they're linked. You're not bridging the gap between how a physical, measurable universe gives rise to an abstract, non-physical mind or laws of logic for that matter.
@Hufflewaffle I said in the premise that the argument is not proof for God but a logical argument as evidence He exists. You haven't proven the argument invalid mainly because you assert there's no other mind outside humans which you cannot prove but simply say is so. This argument doesn't require proof God can exist.
@Hufflewaffle Consider that if laws of logic are products of the universe, how does the universe of matter and energy produce something (laws of logic) that cannot be measured or weighed? You believe that "something cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time in the same way" AND "something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense" is no longer true if all minds cease to exist tomorrow.
@ForJesus220 1. WE are products of the universe. The laws of logic are products of consciousness. How does matter and energy produce consciousness? Well, how does the matter and energy of a sunset produce 'beauty'? Consciousness is a subjective experience. We 'measure' experience with aesthetic and moral values. 2. Yes, the very idea of 'true and false' ceases to exist without the mind. It ceases to be 'real' if there is no mind to 'real-ize' it.
@Hufflewaffle Can you prove we are products of the universe? Any other options? Do you deny God's existence/involvement? " The laws of logic are products of consciousness." Again, you are implying a time when laws of logic did not exist. (Before humans)This is impossible. The law of identity is ALWAYS true, ALWAYS exists. Humans DISCOVERED this to be true. Using your logic: " Consciousness is a subjective experience." " The laws of logic are products of consciousness."
@ForJesus220 I'll try and explain this more clearly. The laws of logic - fe. Identity, exclusion, non-contradiction, require a logical MIND to literally identify, exclude, and contradict, they require an ACTIVE mental process. The word 'logic' itself means 'thought'. Logic doesn't exist in a rock, it exists in our THOUGHTS about a rock. If there is no mind there is no logic. If there is no mass, there is no gravity. Since minds are NOT absolute entities, logic itself is not absolute.
@Hufflewaffle Yes- logic is a process of the mind- not the material world. Here it means "a system of valid inference using laws of logic." The logical explanation: An absolute, eternal God of absolute mind exists. (Not created as laws of logic aren't. They're a part of His eternal mind. We discover these thoughts from God. It's impossible for the law of identity to not exist- grammar & syntax humans use are merely communication methods of what is absolutely always true/always existing.
@ForJesus220 Again, you cannot bring God in as an explanation for the laws of logic when you are using the existence of laws of logic to provide evidence for Him. We don't discover these laws just like we didn't discover the universe. We were born of it. We are literally made of the stuff of the universe and our minds are the minds of the universe. Logic grows from our consciousness linking us to our environment. Please explain how its impossible for the law of identity to not exist?
@Hufflewaffle You're misunderstanding the argument. If you watch the video, we don't start out with God but logically conclude God. How are we "born of it" [laws of logic]? Consciousness, beauty, are of the mind. How does the universe of matter and energy give rise to these abstract things? Really complex physicality? Illogical. You can't measure/weigh laws of logic, beauty, consciousness, or the mind. "Our minds are the minds of the universe." What? The universe has a mind!? Logic grows!?
@ForJesus220 Yes you logically conclude God under the faulty premise that laws of logic exist 'absolutely' You state that laws of logic exist as a conceptual reality but don't seem to understand that this clearly (and logically) means they only exist for as long as the mind makes them real. You cannot fix this problem by introducing an absolute (God) mind without first proving He exists.
@Hufflewaffle You have to prove God does not exist to claim "no (human) minds, no logical absolutes." You are making this statement- you have to prove it. Since you can't, it's simply your belief. I'm afraid you fail to understand if laws of logic do not exist 'absolutely' then truth cannot be known. You can try to make statements but there is no truth value because one day there's truth and another there's not. Or it can change because other minds say so.
@Hufflewaffle Again this is a logical argument that points to God. There are only 2 options to account for human existence: personal or impersonal. Negate one and the other is valid. Yet there's no requirement to prove HOW the other is valid. Since the laws of logic point to a mind, logically the personal option accounts for humans.
@Hufflewaffle "How its impossible for the law of identity to not exist?" Essentially absolutely nothing existing would have to be reality in order for your view to be valid. (Including God) No matter, energy, universe- literally nothing. This is impossible because we live in a universe of "something." Logically, something cannot be derived from absolute nothingness.
@ForJesus220 "Logically, something cannot be derived from absolute nothingness" Yet you seem to be claiming God and the laws of logic WERE derived from nothing. When I die, nothing will exist for me because I will cease to exist. This is not only possible, its inevitable. Its what death is.
@Hufflewaffle No- neither God nor logical absolutes are "derived." God always was and always will be. How do you know you won't exist beyond physical death?
@Hufflewaffle Therefore, something has always existed. If something exists, it has an identity. It reflects the law of identity- not properties of that thing but properties of what it simply is. Yet it takes a mind to realize the existence of identity. Just because a human mind may not be around doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist- it is simply a potential realization that exists.
@ForJesus220 'therefore something has always existed" Look. If something has always existed then logically NOTHING created it!! This is the paradox that we brush up against. Existential beginnings are only boundaries of comprehension. "It takes a mind to realize the existence of identity" You just proved my point. It takes a mind to realize (make real) the existence of identity. Without a mind it simply isn't real and there can be no 'potential' because there is no mind to realize that either.
@Hufflewaffle "It takes a mind to realize the existence of identity... . It takes a mind to realize (make real)" No, 'realize' means "become aware of" not to make something real. It takes a mind to realize (become aware of) what ALREADY true and ALREADY exists- like the law of identity. How does a physical brain "make real" a non-physical law of logic?
@Hufflewaffle " Without a mind..." God is the answer. He is not created. God makes it logical. There's no paradox here. It doesn't necessitate that we need to explain God as I said before. I cannot prove God the way you want because I predict your proof requirement is illogical or impossible.
@Hufflewaffle Therefore the laws of logic must be subjectively true. Therefore " Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not" is subjectively true. It can be true or false or both or neither. This is your logic. This is why anything you say has no real validity because you reduce the laws of logic, the means to make logical statements impossible.
@ForJesus220 How on earth do you get the idea that if something is subjective it can be true, false, both or neither? Subjective simply means 'of the mind' We experience a consistency in the behavior of the universe which allows us to derive laws of logic that describe this behavior. You said it yourself: "they are CONCEPTUAL realities" Otherwise please go ahead and demonstrate their 'absolute' truth without using your mind to identify, exclude or contradict.
@Hufflewaffle Terms need to be defined. When you first explained "subjective" you spoke of "beauty" and it seemed by "subjective" you meant "what's true for you is not for me." My apologies. Logical absolutes are self-validating but doesn't explain their existence. If the universe doesn't exist, it is absolutely true the universe does not exist. In this case human minds are non-existent. The existence of God's mind explains the existence of these conceptual laws of logic.
@ForJesus220 If the universe does not exist YOU do not exist, and therefore you cannot say it is absolutely true. You can ONLY say this now because you and the universe DO exist. If you didn't, you simply wouldn't be able to assert or infer or identify ANYTHING. This is my point.
@Hufflewaffle I understand what you are saying but it is flawed. I don't need to say, assert, identify it's true. It already is- it's not dependent on me. If I am the last person on Earth and before I die, I write on a piece of paper the laws of logic, then die, are they no longer true? No. "Something is what it is and not what it is not" cannot be both true and not true depending on human verification. You can't verify what is already true.
@ForJesus220 "If I am the last person on Earth...write down..the laws of logic, then die, are they no longer true?" They are no longer true NOR false. The Aristotelian true/false dichotomy dissolves with the mind as it fades. YOUR active mind imagining a rock being a rock in an otherwise empty universe, is getting in the way. Take away your mind and the rock simply ceases to exist because YOU cease to exist.
@Hufflewaffle As soon as there are no minds to perceive the universe, it stops existing within the binary framework of true/false reasoning. There is no frame (mind) within which to hold it. You must see the cognitive paradox here? It is literally impossible to imagine a rock existing without your mind imagining it!
@Hufflewaffle Your premise seems to be founded on a belief that there is some kind of perpetuation of mind after we die. Entirely understandable given your obvious religious worldview but you must understand there is no evidence for this. Your claim that the laws of logic somehow remain real without anything to realize them is simply not possible due to the paradox I have just described.
@Hufflewaffle " no evidence... perpetuation of mind after we die." Thousands of personal accounts exist from people claiming the contrary via near-death experiences. You can't cite "no evidence." You REJECT the evidence. "Your claim that the laws of logic somehow remain real without anything to realize them." Misrepresenting: I logically infer God exists as something to realize them. You cite paradox without proving God's non-existence.
@Hufflewaffle You believe (read carefully) that it is absolutely true that absolute truths do not exist absolutely. See the problem? Your argument falls apart. Absolute logical laws transcend the human mind.
@Hufflewaffle Think of it this way. If no humans existed, it would still be absolutely true that something cannot be both itself and not itself because in reality, there are literally no other options for 'anything' to exist. It becomes physically impossible. A human mind doesn't create that reality. Law of identity was already true-we discovered it. Another human mind can come along and declare it not true. Humans are contradictory and not logically the source of absolute laws of logic.
@Hufflewaffle I hope you don't mean literally that if humans cease to exist, so does the universe. We can conclude then you agree that logical absolutes are products of the brain (ultimately the universe.) If they are products of the brain, we should be able to measure/weigh laws of logic. The huge problem for you is that the brain is physical. Logical absolutes are not physical- can't be measured. You cannot logically bridge the huge gaping gap. I challenge you to do so.
@Hufflewaffle How do you know our minds are products of the universe? Before humans (minds) existed, was it already true that something is what it is and not what it is not? (law of identity)
@ForJesus220 1. because our minds are products of our bodies and our bodies are products of the universe. 2. How can I possibly answer a question if I don't exist? Identity requires identification.
@Hufflewaffle Who said you had to answer any questions if you didn't exist? "Identity requires identification." False. A rock still has an intrinsic identity or nature even if all humans vanish. No indentification required. The laws of logic are valid without humans- logically because God's mind exists.
@ForJesus220 Sorry but the very definition of identity implies the action of a conscious mind. Identity is a process, not a quality.
"The laws of logic are valid without humans- logically because God's mind exists" Well, firstly, you have just implied that 'identity' DOES require a mind. But, secondly, you can't use God's mind as evidence for the existence of 'absolute logic' and then use 'absolute logic' as evidence for the existence of God's mind. Surely you see the circularity.
@Hufflewaffle You missed the point. The laws of logic do point to a mind but yet they are still valid, still exist if human minds cease to exist. How can this be? I never used " God's mind as evidence for the existence of 'absolute logic'. Absolute logic is not what we are trying to prove here.
@ForJesus220 The existence of absolute logic is your assertion not mine. I'm saying Logic can only be subjective due to the fact that it is derived from, and applies only to the mind. If the mind isn't absolute, logic isn't either. If the mind disappears ALL actions, languages and its frames such as syntax, grammar, logical inference derived from the mind, disappear with it! (along with God btw)
@Hufflewaffle " If the mind isn't absolute..." Huge premise there. Faulty premises lead to like conclusions. You would have to prove there is no absolute mind. " If the mind disappears ALL actions..." You mean human minds. If all human minds disappear, it would still be absolutely true (of the [God] mind) that no human minds exists. You can deny God's mind but the previous statement is still true & you cannot logically account for its existence. God is absolute and cannot not exist.
@ForJesus220 Are you not aware of death? Ok Im being facetious but its true. How many minds have you come into contact with that have lived forever? "If all human minds disappear it would still be true of the God mind that no humans exist." Once again you are holding up the existence of God as proof of absolute logic while using absolute logic as evidence for the existence of God. This is circular thinking. You must prove one without using the other.
@Hufflewaffle You again are misstating the argument. Absolute logic is NOT proven. (Assuming you mean laws of logic) You don't verify the laws of identity. There is no other possibility. God is the conclusion and accounting for the existence of logical absolutes- not the premise. If laws of logic are not absolute then they are rendered true or not true depending on humans. No truth standard exists. Therefore you cannot logically argue for or against God.
....so the question stands. im sure as a god fearing christian you'll be able to make a case for god. i trust you have studied to 'show thine self approved' as the bible commands.
@live4pce Did you not learn from the featured video on your channel? Even though the atoms are separated the energy between body and lost limb still exists. In reality, the amputee's limb still exists- it's just in an array of multiple universes. Wait, the reality is there is no reality, so the issue of missing limbs is merely an illusion. The problem that an amputee's limb needs healing is merely in your mind. No healing necessary.
@ForJesus220 1st off the vid on my page is not my video nor do i share the views presented. its on my page becuz i watched and saved it to finish later.I think its important to inform yourself with all view points wether u agree or not. 2nd, as i suspected did not answer the question.The REALITY is u dont have a good answer.3rd if ur gonna stalk my page then get ur facts st8.That reality gibberish shouldnt be to far fetched for sum1 who believes in takn snakes n an infinite uncreated being.
@live4pce answering a question with a question. knew that would come next lol. well i figure since god so graciously cure, cancer, cripples, aids, common cold,ext.....yet something as undeniable as a limb growing back seems to be the only miracle that doesn't occur. kinda makes ya wonder lol c'mon. think about it. obviously god doesnt have a problem healing people. there are whole faith healing crusades with thousands of ppl all in need of healing and they claim to get healed by god. hmmm
atheist just think millions of years ago nothing was everywhere so nothing created a explosion and created a universe full of nothing then nothing made the earth and the earth made dinosaurs out of nothing then nothing turned into monkeys and monkeys turned into humans and millions of years later BAM!....here we are!...thats the belief of an atheist lol
@koolkidJavon Not really. An elementary level of education would provide you with more than enough knowledge to know that everything you just said, about something you have no concept of no less, is borderline retarded,
@PaleHorseWC2 no,you ARE retarded if you think there is no Higher Power since im borderline..i mean what the hell...you really think there wasnt a mastermind behind everything that exist?..if we came from evolution then how do we know right from wrong...where did evil and good come from,i think athiests used to believe but there were many things you didnt understand and unanswered questions that you just gave up and became an unbeliever,I Dnt Believe In Religion But i Beleive in a supreme being
@koolkidJavon Right from wrong are judgments which come from people. Good and evil are judgements that come from people. If I need to turn right, and the guy behind me needs to turn left. Me turning right is the WRONG way for him, but the RIGHT way for myself. They are not absolutes given to everyone by "something". Children, and the mentally ill don't know right from wrong, so are they no longer given "Right and Wrong" from someone? No, they can just no longer judge it for themselves.
@PaleHorseWC2 ok..so how did PEOPLE come up with right and wrong?..how did PEOPLE come up with the choice of good and evil?....i understand when u say children and mentally ill dont know right from wrong...The Adult Knows right from wrong thru life experiences right?...so what experience happened for the first man to even know what right and wrong is?...to pass that knowledge on the next until today? something HAD to have happened in order for Man to know what right and wrong is...am i right?
@koolkidJavon People come up with right and wrong and good and evil every moment of every day with every decision they make. If I want to type the word "God", typing the letter "d" before the letter "g" is wrong. Early man judged it would be right to kill an animal and feed his family, and wrong to return home empty handed. You know that it would be wrong to hold your breath until you pass out and die, so you do the right thing and keep breathing. Mass agreement on what is right and wrong come
@koolkidJavon about because people come together and collectively judge similar things as being right and wrong to themselves. People are exposed to the difference between right and wrong, they didn't "inherit" it. A person who grows up unsocialized, in the wild or whatever, will have no concept of the good and evil you speak of. So life experiences, a natural source, breeds this knowledge of established judgement of right and wrong, which itself is only a collection of natural manmade judgement
@PaleHorseWC2 well...its all good...i respect your thoughts bro, dont think of this as an arguement..just tryna get a bit of understanding....you got your beliefs i got mines u know?...you take it easy
So the laws of logic are man created ideas based on the fact that they haven't been proven flawed. If they one day were in reality and not in some purely hypothetical situation, then maybe this argument would hold some water, but until that day I see no reason to believe in a god.
Logic is the by-product of the observable, and yes, we can't observe the unobservable, but then as far as we know it doesn't exist and there's no reason to believe it does. There is of course an assumption that all th
One of the basic things any high school science teacher will tell you is that nothing is proven in absolute certainty because to be proven with certainty you would have to know literally everything about everything absolutely, or for all you know a counter example could pop up just as you're saying something that would be in conflict with whatever fuckin event that was going on in this hypothetical. Sorry, that last sentence was a train-wreck of sorts
Hahahah dude you're retarded. Just because the laws of logic are absolute doesnt mean shit. There are tons of absolute ideas in the world, and these don't provide evidence for any god, they are simply ideas that have yet to be shown a counter example, and so we say they are absolute. The laws of logic are absolute because they have yet to be shown not absolute. We have never seen the exact same matter be one kind of matter and another kind at the same time in the same place.
I dont see how this is evidence of god. You contradict yourself. Ex. you said that because god is true and absolute, therefore the absolute laws of logic are true and absolute, but if that is the case, then the 2. law you pointed out refutes the trinity...so you are in a pickle. you said .god is absolute>that's why laws of logic are absolute(including the second law), but the second law refutes the trinity, therefore god is not absolute... that's the message of this video
#1 Xtians spread the Word cuz it's in their credo to do so and many make money of it. #2 Do not presume to know what atheists need as far as evidence. To say that any evidence for atheists must not involve human responsibility is not only an insult but SUCH hypocrisy! #3 The TAG argument has been argued out over n over. Absolutes do not prove any god exists.
what an utter load of excrement, sciences as it stands has many of the greatest minds fighting each other while also co-operating with each other to move toward a better human understanding of everything around us and a belief in a personal sky daddy and creationism does nothing but delay that understanding by switching of the minds of followers IE no dont think about things just read this fairy tale and dont question it so the clergymen never have to explain all the blood on their hands
universes; we could imagine another universe with different physical laws (or similar, but with different strengths), while a universe without the same importance of arrangement seems more unlikely.
As we see, "physical & abstract" is no dichotomy. It is not obvious that a mind is needed involved in order for such debatably physical aspect to be true.
"...it is simply an absolute truth and truth’s realm is the mind" Truth is another non-physical aspect, but not therefore abstract or mental.
@Pomme843 (1) “Truth is another non-physical aspect, but not therefore abstract or mental.” What? Truth is a “non-physical aspect” YET not abstract/mental? Did you really say that? Law of logic #1: “Something is what it is & isn’t what it isn’t” is an absolute truth. Is it not? Logical absolutes are absolute truths. This is not mental? Really? Not abstract either? Really? You can discuss “dynamics, etc.” but logical absolutes are independent of physicality.
@Pomme843 (2) Therefore, please stop appealing to the physical universe or “not entirely physical” (illogical term) to explain logical absolutes. The nature of logical absolutes therefore can ONLY be mental or abstract.
are other things to be reckoned, such as arrangement (which I wrote of), causality, identity, fundamental interaction (in the field of physics), other physical laws (that's the proper term). Whether these dynamics/aspects are all physical per se, one could always debate. If they're not entirely physical, that doesn't mean they're necessarily abstract. I didn't mean to filibuster.
Arrangement is more metaphysical than laws of physics, I dare say, as it would probably be more common of different
@Pomme843 Again the laws of logic do not depend on the physicality or existence of the universe, nor the physics of how the universe works. “Whether these dynamics/aspects are all physical per se, one could always debate. If they're not entirely physical that doesn't mean they're necessarily abstract.” You are again equivocating between physical and abstract “dynamics/aspects” (logical absolutes.) Logical absolutes are NOT PHYSICAL. How can something be “not entirely physical?” Makes no sense.
"Something is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. What “dynamics” does this describe?" The dynamic, or aspect, or attribute of being oneself. No need for God to invent or validate that. I hope I don't need to explain why something is what it is.
"...“Now, physical traits are different from the "traits" that absolutes describe.” Ah, now you tell me. You are equivocating." The point I was making is that aside from space/time and matter/energy, there
@Pomme843 “’Something is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. What “dynamics” does this describe?’ The dynamic, or aspect, or attribute of being oneself.” Yes, but it doesn’t necessitate the physical-absolutes don’t rely on physical. It’s a truth. Truth is of the mind. Because absolutes exist if the physical doesn’t, “dynamic” & aspect” here can only be valid in an abstract manner. Plus, “dynamic” & “aspect” are merely truth descriptions about the physical which last I checked, requires a mind.
or consisting of biological compounds, characteristics? And are these characteristics not fully physical? Or does some god illude us as we observe these characteristics, or traits? You seem to have missed out some basic secondary school knowledge here. Traits are obviously physical.
Now, physical traits are different from the "traits" that absolutes describe. Regrettably, I think it would be smart of us to redefine what logical absolutes describe, "dynamics" or something like that. Perhaps.
@Pomme843 (1) “Traits are obviously physical.” “Now, physical traits are different from the "traits" that absolutes describe.” Ah, now you tell me. You are equivocating. You spent a lot of text describing physical objects- once again appealing to the physical to account for abstract logical absolutes. I know what you mean when you say rocks have traits. I was only trying to show you the difference between the mind and physical. Let’s look at law of logic #1:
@Pomme843 (2) Something is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. What “dynamics” does this describe? (As you put it) Look, it is simply an absolute truth and truth’s realm is the mind. Forget about the physicality of the universe. Throw away the bricks and rocks. Throw away the universe which includes human minds. Logical absolutes still exist; they don’t stop being true; they don’t depend on the universe. Where do they reside? How is it they exist?
@ForJesus220 I would say that logical absolutes describe a physical "dynamic", if you could call it that. The fact that this dynamic always "works", does not necessitate the existence of a logical absolute to describe it. Again, duality. Like a rock does not need anyone to be itself (which would be the case if logical absolutes were dependent on a mind), a dynamic does not need anyone to postulate it in order for it to "work", or be valid. You are drawing a bridge between the physical and the
@Pomme843 “I .. say..logical absolutes describe a physical "dynamic.” False- logical absolutes don’t depend on the physical. They’re true & exist if the universe doesn’t. Even if no humans exist to express it- the truth still exists. It’s absolute. You build on this fallacious premise-absolutes don’t need rocks to exist for us to look at rocks to validate logical absolutes. All you’re saying is logical absolutes “always work” & they exist because they do. This is an illogical account for them.
arrangement has a wholly physical application. Even if there was no orderly arrangement, particles would still have a spatial relation and a certain distance between them at any given time. Arrangement could be seen as a dynamic between space and matter/energy, but is undeniably a physical attribute.
"...“traits” are defined as characteristics something possess (which is an abstract concept)." Characteristics is an abstract concept? Isn't being an apple, or have a smooth, sphere-like surface,
arrangement has a wholly physical application, and is dire in order for something to be what it is. Arrangement is physical. You write: "...“traits” are defined as characteristics something possess (which is an abstract concept)." Characteristics is an abstract concept? Isn't being an apple, or having a smooth surface, or consisting of biological compounds, fully physical attributes? Of course they are. You seem to have missed out on some basic middle school knowledge here.
How can something be itself without God? How can two and two be four without God? The fact that logical absolutes exist in our minds does not mean that someone is need present in order for a brick to be a brick.
@Pomme843 (1) “Traits” reside in the mind because “traits” are defined as characteristics something possess (which is an abstract concept). Abstract concepts are not physical. Rocks contain that which we call “smoothness” and we call that a “trait.” Why am I being painfully specific? Because I am trying to help you be consistent. And here you are not. You say rocks contain traits. And you say the laws of logic contain traits. Are logical absolutes physical? We can only speculate what exactly is
@ForJesus220 Traits reside in the mind? Wow. I'll have to say no, not all traits are in the mind. Although our universe consists of time/space and matter/energy, there are other things here that do not need minds to be true. Arrangement of matter is one dire attribute. An apple consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, and these particles must be arranged in a certain way in order to account, or make up, an apple. Now, if you re-arrange these particles, you could make a rock. So, as we see,
@Pomme843 (2) outside the universe but we can use logic to get an idea. The Bible is evidence that talks about who God is and His realm which does not defy logic. What you cite as the core of the argument is actually the conclusion we reach. “The fact that logical absolutes exist in our minds does not mean that someone is need present in order for a brick to be a brick.” This is illogical. Why? The BIG mistake you make is you consider the ABSTRACT (logical absolutes) exist but then look to
@Pomme843 (3) the PHYSICAL (bricks) and because things are what they are, you draw a conclusion about the abstract. Logical absolutes exist if everything in the universe disappears now. If that happened where do logical absolutes reside?
no wonder you believe there's need for a god involved on order for something to be itself.
You seem to know alot about everything that's outside our universe. Ever been there? Let's say there are absolutes "outside" our universe. What makes you think a god it required in order for a transcendent rock in oder to be itself? Do you not see the similarity between this, and saying that absolutes "point to" His mind? "No God=No Absolutes"?? Really? Why, exactly?
I have to ask you the same; where do traits reside? If two people can touch the same stone and agree that it's smooth, then the trait must of course be physical. If a stone has a flat or seemless surface, then it's smooth. If there's minute holes in it, or microscopic spikes or points on it, then it's not smooth. People look to the world and extract information from it; or do you think it's God who makes the rock feel smooth through an illusion? If you think that traits are not physical,
"2+2=4" is a statement of logic. That does not mean that a mind is required involved in order for two helium atoms to fusion to one beryllium atom. Two protons plus two equals four protons, no matter if a god thought "2+2=4" to himself at an earlier point of time or not. A brick is a brick, no matter what mind is involved. Logical absolutes need minds to be conceived of, but not in order to be true, that is to say, in order for its "content" to be valid. I call this "duality".
@Pomme843 (1)God’s existence is RELATED but IS another topic. God doesn’t “acquire” traits nor “made” eternal. God’s mind would be SOMETHING. Therefore SOMETHING made SOMETHING (the universe). You seem to assume God is limited as we are & needs to make things as we do by 1st acquiring “materials.” God’s realm is different/separate from our universe. “..one cannot deny..the world at least seem to have traits to us humans.. ones that are always true, can be described in absolutes.”
@Pomme843 (2) Where in the world are traits? “Whether logical absolutes 'exist' is, in a way, a matter of definition.” No- their existence isn’t dependent on human minds or subject to human decision. If so, we could later decide absolutes no longer exist : absurd because we would declare the absolute truth they no longer exist- contradictory. “..define "logical absolutes" as the understanding of the traits of the universe..” No, they are the laws of logic which in themselves are absolute truths.
@Pomme843 (3) They transcend the universe & aren’t dependent on it. “If the traits that absolutes describe are dependent on a mind to think it up.., then a god-universe cannot have such absolutes, which seems impossible.” First, why would a god-universe not have absolutes? Second, God didn’t “think it up” because it implies a prior non-existence. The premises are flawed. Logically, an absolute God creating a god-universe would reflect these absolutes in our minds.
@Pomme843 (4) “logical absolutes do apply to things, too, & not just statements, right?” Logical absolutes can be used to construct logical truth statements about things. “Likewise, the smoothness of a rock is both a physical trait ..” “a rock, which needs no mind, & the notion of a rock..” I agree that a rock exists without the need for human notion of it. You misunderstand my position & don’t realize (human) minds are required to ascribe “traits” to rocks. “Smoothness” isn't a physical trait.
@Pomme843 (5) “Smoothness” is not physical. It possesses properties that we agree to call “smooth.” Rocks don’t contain “traits” of smoothness, etc. These descriptors (traits) are human constructs that require a mind. Rocks SIMPLY EXISTS. They don’t need humans to ascribe “smoothness, etc..” Traits are defined as characteristics that something possesses. These aren’t physical. But a mind is required to ascribe traits (or logical truth statements) to something (rock).
@Pomme843 (6) You can expound on logical absolutes using “traits”& “info” but you can’t escape the necessity of mind. Take it a step further. We know absolutes exist and they do so without the universe. Absolutes are used to create logical truth statements which require a mind. If the universe is non-existent, logically, these absolutes must be part of an eternal mind. “Either, you must think that a universe without a god would contain things that are not themselves…” False dichotomy.
@Pomme843 (7) No God = No absolutes. BUT that is impossible- absolutes exist. And 2+2 always =4. Given the video argument this leads to God logically existing. In another topic I would argue it’s impossible for God not to exist. Again, God doesn’t “think up” 2+2=4 because it implies prior non-existence. “Logical absolutes need minds to be conceived of, but not in order to be true, that is to say, in order for its "content" to be valid.” You are AGAIN making category mistakes.
@Pomme843 (8) You are AGAIN making category mistakes. The question is accounting for the existence of absolutes- not their validity. The idea that 2+2=5 is not valid but yet it exists in the mind. I understand your perspective trying to separate “content” from “conception” but it is illogical because you are saying “traits/info/absolutes” cannot be “sent” (they just exist) but can be received (read) via conception. How can you cite “traits, info, content” when the nature of these descriptors
@Pomme843 (9) are based on logic which is a process of the mind? Saying that rocks, atoms, bricks, exists without the need for minds does not account for the fact that logical absolutes exist whether or not these items or the universe for that matter exist at all. Can you see that these objects are consistent with the laws of logic? Can’t you see that 2+2=4 (and logical absolutes) reside only in the mind and no where else? Where do traits reside?
By duality, I mean the simple fact that we use the same word to describe two different things: a rock, which needs no mind, and the notion of a rock, which need a mind.
If absolutes need a god to exist, would our universe be without absolutes if there was no god? Either, you must think that a universe without a god would contain things that are not themselves, or that add up to different sums from time to time, or you cannot have a reference point to show that our absolutes are god-made.
: you mix up truth with logic, traits with conception. A log. abs. has to sides to it, the truth it describes, which is there regardless of what minds are present, and its notion, which is of the mind. Likewise, the smoothness of a rock is both a physical trait, and a notion we can express, understand. Now, our conception of smoothness is not essential in order for something to be smooth. If you are too emotionally attached to your religion to accept this duality, then I have no business here.
"They (log.abs.'s) deal with truth, logic, and are applied to statements. How can a mind not be involved here?" You are here using several different concepts. Truth is quite obviously not dependent on a mind. A twig does not need a mind in order to be a twig. Logic is obviously an activity of the mind. Side question: logical absolutes do apply to things, too, and not just statements, right? I'm just wondering if we have different definitions of "logical absolutes".
The reason I use this hypothesis, is to see if it is possible that our universe is god-less, concidering your argument of logical absolutes stemming from the mind (I say it is merely their conception that is of the mind.) If a trait-less universe is impossible, then there really is no reason to argue that a god must exist on the ground that our universe has traits, because there is no reference point by which to see whether the alternative (a godless universe) is possible or not.
define "logical absolutes" as the understanding of the traits of the universe, or the understanding of traits of objects, then they are dependent on minds. If logical absolutes are these traits themselves, then they are not dependent on mind.
Let's follow the consequences of your logic. If the traits that absolutes describe are dependent on a mind to think it up or something, then a god-universe cannot have such absolutes, which seems impossible; a universe without absolutes seem impossible.
, then one could think that traits exist but in an ideal world, or that traits do not really exist at all. No matter, one cannot deny that the world at least seem to have traits to us humans, and that some of these traits, the ones that are always true, can be described in absolutes, and that traits, including absolutes (their truths, their 'content', not their conception) are true, no matter what mind are involved.
Whether logical absolutes 'exist' is, in a way, a matter of definition. If you
traits (here in a wider definition then when describing the content of absloutes). He couldn't have decided for himself to be eternal, so who made him eternal?, one could equally ask. Why does God exist?
Even if God made the universe out of his mind, he did still, make it 'out of nothing', didn't he? ;D
"If something exists, it must reside “somewhere"." That depends. By this logic, traits reside within an object or an entity. If one insists, on the other hand, that traits do not reside here
Space/time and matter/energy is the what, when and where of our universe. Traits (what I earlier called "information") is the who, why and how. That does not mean that a mind is required in order for something to be itself. You're implying that without a mind involved, these traits cannot be neither valid nor existant.
If a tree falls over, and no one's present - do you think it did still fall? By your logic, one could just as well argue that it couldn't, because stating it requires a mind.
@Pomme843 (1) You are jumping to another topic of how God can exist. If God is uncreated and exists eternally- no infinite regression. What is a “godless god?” “Religious people are the ones who argue that the universe came out of nothing, by God's will.” Is God’s will “nothing?” No. Think! “What makes you think that traits need to be "somewhere"?” If something exists, it must reside “somewhere.” Name one thing that exists but resides nowhere. How are logical absolutes who, why, and how?
@ForJesus220 The question of whether a god can exist is of course heavily related and dire for your argument, when you claim that I have to validate how a god-less universe is possible. If the existence of a god is equally impossible, then why even bother; we do exist.
"If God is uncreated and exists eternally- no infinite regression". Firstly, first we need to validate your premise of God being uncreated and existing. Second, the quality of eternality does not explain how this god got his/her
@Pomme843 (2) What are the “traits” of logical absolutes? I’ll help you. They deal with truth, logic, and are applied to statements. How can a mind not be involved here? “You're implying that without a mind involved, these traits cannot be neither valid nor existant.” That’s right. But if God can exist eternally, then this scenario is impossible. Why be concerned with impossibilities? “If a tree falls over,…” Category mistake.
@Pomme843 (3) Confusing the truth (statements about the event) with the actual event. “if a statement is either true or false” Let’s stay focused- you’re running away from the problem. This is called a paradox and only affirms the law of excluded middle is absolute and logical absolutes exist. What are the “traits” of logical absolutes?
The validity of an absloute is, furthermore, connected to its existence. If it was invalid, then it would not exist but in the possible form of a notion, would it?
Speaking of notions, you keep clinging to the notion that notions have some sort of manifestation in the real world. "Where do these “traits” exist?", you ask. What makes you think that traits need to be "somewhere"?? You said yourself that the universe only holds matter and space. Look at it this way:
@ForJesus220 Well, how do you account for the existence of a god, without infinite regression and circular reasoning? A godless god is no less impossible than a godless universe. You would have to validate how a godless god is possible. Besides, religious people are the ones who argue that the universe came out of nothing, by God's will. I don't think that's possible.
I did not question the validity of 2+2=4 in our universe; it is you who insist that without a god, this absolute would not be.
You call such absolutes "of the mind". But there doesn't have to be a mind present or involved in order for something to be itself, or for 2 and 2 to equal 4.Here's how it is:
1: The conception, understanding and expression of universal truths require a mind.
2: The traits that these truths regard, their "content", do not require a mind in order to be true.
You could just as well ask: "How do words of the mind exist without a God?" The word "rock" is not essential for the existence of rocks.
@Pomme843 (1) “..a god-less universe surely would be completely without absolutes, which seems impossible.” You are right, it would be impossible for logical absolutes to exist in a “god-less universe.” You would have to validate how a “god-less universe” is possible. How does matter and energy bring itself into existence by itself (from nothing) How do you solve the infinite regress problem? If God did not exist, logical absolutes do not either but this scenario is impossible.
@Pomme843 (2) Look at your #2 “The traits that these truths… do not require a mind in order to be true.” We are not concerned about the validity of 2+2=4 but rather accounting for its existence. Where do these “traits” exist? How is it they exist if humans don’t? 2+2=4 is a logical statement. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes are the building blocks of logic. How can they logically exist without a mind?
@Pomme843 (3) You still haven’t accounted for the existence of logical absolutes but rather have appealed to their validity (not the issue) and basically assert they just exist which is circular reasoning.
and "information". But, you insist that information requires a sender/reciever. So I will now call what I did call information, "traits".
When you ask how absolutes exist without minds, you base your question on the premise that without a mind to express the absolute, the absolutes would somehow be suspended. You need to make up your mind; are logical absolutes dependent on a god or not? If they are, then a god-less universe surely would be completely without absolutes, which seems impossible.
I don't see why the universe being eternal would make past, present and future impossible.
The reason I "dodge" the question "How do logical absolutes of the mind exist void of any mind", is because it is based on false premises. You're implying that logical absolutes would be absent in a universe with a god, but that's unthinkable. A universe without absolutes? Come on.
I repeat: you are confusing the information of an absolute, which exists anyhow, with it's conception, which is of the mind.
@Pomme843 (1) I already showed you the illogical problems of a godless universe. How logically, does something “bring itself” into existence? How does something come from nothing? What caused it to exist? How do you escape the infinite regress of causes for this universe? How can you use something illogically impossible to see how it compares to a god-made universe? “If a hypothetical, godless universe must have the same logical absolutes as ours…”
@ForJesus220 How do you escape the illogical problems of a godless god? A god-less universe is no more impossible than a god-made. Why does God exist?
It is unthinkable that a god-less universe does not have the absolutes of identity etc. Can you imagine a universe where adding 2 with 2 gives you different outcomes, or no outcome at all, every time?
I will now use a different typology to lecture you regarding what you call "logical absolutes of the mind." I disected the term into conceptions..
@Pomme843 (2) How do you know it must have the same absolutes as ours? “You're implying that logical absolutes would be absent in a universe with a god, but that's unthinkable.” Do you mean “without” a god? If so, how do you know? Saying it’s “unthinkable” and “no it’s not” is hardly a logical refutation. Where do logical absolutes exist if they don’t exist in the mind? Please don’t say in the universe!
@Pomme843 (3) You say I am “confusing the information of an absolute, which exists anyhow, with it's conception” but your terms presume the existence of a mind. Information is only so if there is a sender and a reader. How does this occur with no mind? Our conception of absolutes is the reading from the sender. The absolutes themselves are abstract concepts.
@Pomme843 (4) If you assert these can exist in a universe without an existence of God then you must give a logical account of how absolutes can be conceived by a mind, realized to exist only in the mind but do not require a sender or do not originate from another mind but rather from a universe of matter and energy where no absolutes can be found.
The reason I said to hypothesize a certainly godless universe, outside of your own, was to see whether things would be otherwise or different. That's called making an analogy for comparison, not excluding the possibility of a god altogether.
Whether or not God is outside or "inside" the universe is irrelevant; if a hypothetical, godless universe must have the same logical absolutes as ours, then there's no point in argumenting for a god with such absolutes in our universe.
If these laws are eternal, and the human mind is capable of discovering them, there is no need for God to justify the laws throught existing. Obviously, this is weak argumentation, fallacious to the end, but the worst part is: the guy who made this actually thought he was being clever. A Christian who can pull some pieces of "proof" out of his ass, now there's something new.
@Pomme843 Since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God. And plus, you will not find any "Proof" except for what God gives you, but he will not reveal to you if you deny him, it is hard to find truth when you read what you only want to hear.
Premise2: Logical absolutes are not dependent on human minds
Conclusion: An absolute transcendent mind authors all logical absolutes"
Do you not see how much of a fail you are? In order to prove a non-axiom, you need to show it is not otherwise. How are you going to prove that logical absolutes require a mind to author or govern them? Why do logical laws need to be created? Could be have been any different? Assumptions, assumptions...
@Pomme843 (1) Truth applies to statements. Statements are conceptual and require a mind because that is their realm. The mind is where they are realized. Logical absolutes are always true. They are not created and do not become true or they are not absolute. God is not created and eternally exists. Logically, eternal logical absolutes of the mind point to an eternal, absolute mind- God. Every time you post a response you assume the validity of logical absolutes.
P2. Statements are conceptual and require a mind because that is their realm
C: Truth requires a mind?
You've entangled yourself in terms and concepts of which dynamics you do not fully understand, in order to propose the existence of a higher mind. The amusing thing is that from this entangled argument, you commit a series of leaps of faith to get to Christianity; your name gives you away. Your argument is ridden with fallacy.
Anybody can cry fallacy but you are not showing how. You are offering no logical explanation or counter-argument. I am waiting for you to explain how logical conceptual truths can exist in a universe of mere matter and energy without a mind. Logic is a process of the mind. We must conclude that you agree that processes of the mind can exist with no mind anywhere.
@ForJesus220 Truth does not need minds to be true. I believe yours is the burden of evidence.
As you said; "Logical absolutes are always true. They are not created..." If they are not created, why would need a God to exist? 2 and 2 is 4, no matter what minds do or do not exist. A circle is circlular no matter what. You don't need a god to "invent" such tautologies. Sorry, you won't get too far with that line-of-thought of yours.
@Pomme843 (1)The evidence is the logical argument presented. “If they are not created, why would need a God to exist?” Because 2+2=4 is a logical, conceptual reality of the mind. It is NOT logical to say concepts whose realm is the mind can exist void of any mind anywhere. God is not created; logical absolutes are not created. The logical solution is they are a part of God’s eternal mind. Humans are the readers. Completely logical.
Heh. That is not answer. Answers given only by beliefs are not evidences. So this called ,,evidence" is not truth. My opinion is that we shouldn't give evidences which doesn't explain anything. Evidence must prove something for sure not prove only by ,,beliefs" that prove it. Live how you want to and you will see after your death if it what you believed was truth. Response for Christians: Not everyone have to be in Heavens xD But if God doesn't exist you wasted your whole life :P
graffikart 3 months ago
This only proves that the laws of logic can be used to gain a reasonable understanding of things. Its the same giant leap as always to even think this has implications of a creator. logic is not the apoloegists best friend.
crkerdreads 4 months ago
The laws of logic you are talking about are not conceptual, they are absolutes. Even if no minds would exist they would still apply. X would be X and NOT not X even if there wouldn't be anyone to veryfy that X is X. In any case God as a source for logic absolutes is not an explanation since God's source too would require an explanation. If you state that God does not need a source using that same logic (or lack there of) i can state that Logic absolutes do not need a source either.
theamzer 5 months ago
Actually, 00:40 is compleatly wrong. Scientific evidence would be the best, but un-furtunetly you dont have it.
It doesnt exist, its a term that we have invented. The logical laws are objective in the sense that they are not real but cannot be broken. I dare you to break one, come on, do it.
gulbirk 5 months ago
logic does not "exist", it is just a mental construct man has made to make sense of the world, and so far it has been useful.
UnboundPromethean 7 months ago 3
Comment removed
natosh187 3 months ago
Respond to this video... and how was the mentality of a man constructed?
natosh187 3 months ago
1. No, they are not absolute truths. They are subjective.
2. People ARE the same in very important ways. Otherwise I wouldn't have any clue what you were saying.
3. The mind is a product of the universe!
4. You've experienced something OTHER than the universe to prove they are not of this universe? Of COURSE they are dependent on the existence of the universe! otherwise PROVE they are 'transcendent'.!!
YES they exist in the mind. OUR minds - which are products of the universe!!!
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@Hufflewaffle You're undermining the means of logical inference. (Ex) You say laws of logic are subjective- you must believe that "Something cannot be both itself & not itself in the same sense" can be both true or false. You don't realize your response first presumes the laws of logic to be absolute to make a point that's either true or false. Then you say logical absolutes are subjective resulting in no possibility of any statement being true/false. Therefore, there's no truth to what you say.
ForJesus220 8 months ago
@ForJesus220 1:52 "The laws of logic are not dependent on people's minds"
3:01 "The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind"
Well, if they only exist in the mind then their very existence is dependent on the mind!
"Something cannot be itself and not itself in the same SENSE" - Think about this statement. Who exactly is doing the sensing?
We make sense of the universe through models of reality, not reality itself.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@Hufflewaffle "Well, if they only exist in the mind then their very existence is dependent on the mind!" Based on your previous assertions, you must be referring to human minds. By your logic, if laws of logic depend on human minds, then you must assert they are NOT absolute and instead came into existence (became true) when the first human mind formed. Therefore if the laws of logic are not absolute, nothing you say is valid. Further, A=A & B=B is still true if all human minds die.
ForJesus220 8 months ago
@ForJesus220 How do you come the the conclusion that nothing I say is valid? I never said the laws of logic aren't valid. They provide us with a perfectly valid picture of the universe as we know it but if our minds cease to exist then 'A' ceases to exist - the very concept of 'existence' ceases to exist! Its impossible to think about a universe with no mind thinking about it! We are inextricably locked to the universe in this sense. If we die, the universe as we know it dies with us.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@Hufflewaffle "How do you come the conclusion that nothing I say is valid? I never said the laws of logic aren't valid." You don't realize that you inadvertently did. You believe the laws of logic are subjectively true. Therefore, you have made asserting absolute validity impossible yet you attempt to assert validity. In essence you are saying, "It's absolutely true there are no absolute truths."
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 Of course Im not trying to assert 'absolute' validity. Nobody can. What I say is true within the realm of human experience. How could anyone possibly assert anything else? As I keep saying, logic ONLY applies to the mind and its interpretation of conscious experience. It has no existence outside of human experience, therefore it cannot be said to be 'absolute'. This 'suicide tactic' falls for its own arrogance. It ignores the fact that a mind created it!
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Yes, logic's realm is the mind. Logical absolutes are not the product of human thinking because human thinking is often contradictory. You have not logically addressed the fact if all humans & universe cease to exist the law of identity is still true, the law of non-contradiction is still true. They still exist, transcending the universe for all eternity. The laws are not created. They don't become true because someone thought of it.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 I haven't addressed the 'fact' that the law of identity is still true if all humans and the universe cease to exist because it is not a fact. Please explain to me how A = A when there is no mind to identify anything and there is nothing to identify? What exactly is 'A' and whose mind is identifying it?
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Again, you would have to prove there is no God (absolute mind) & nothing to identify to assert the above as fact. It is merely your belief. You declare there is no existence of mind without humans without proving it.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 Oh come on. Minds are demonstrably linked to brain/body. Alter the brain/body and the mind alters with it. If the brain changes, dies, goes into a coma or even just falls asleep, the experience of mind changes with it. This is clear (and rather obvious) evidence that the mind is ephemeral. If you make the extraordinary claim there is a mind that somehow exists without a biological counterpart its entirely up to you to prove it.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle How do you define mind? You make a distinction from the brain which is physical saying they're linked. You're not bridging the gap between how a physical, measurable universe gives rise to an abstract, non-physical mind or laws of logic for that matter.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle I said in the premise that the argument is not proof for God but a logical argument as evidence He exists. You haven't proven the argument invalid mainly because you assert there's no other mind outside humans which you cannot prove but simply say is so. This argument doesn't require proof God can exist.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Consider that if laws of logic are products of the universe, how does the universe of matter and energy produce something (laws of logic) that cannot be measured or weighed? You believe that "something cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time in the same way" AND "something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense" is no longer true if all minds cease to exist tomorrow.
ForJesus220 8 months ago
@ForJesus220 1. WE are products of the universe. The laws of logic are products of consciousness. How does matter and energy produce consciousness? Well, how does the matter and energy of a sunset produce 'beauty'? Consciousness is a subjective experience. We 'measure' experience with aesthetic and moral values. 2. Yes, the very idea of 'true and false' ceases to exist without the mind. It ceases to be 'real' if there is no mind to 'real-ize' it.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Can you prove we are products of the universe? Any other options? Do you deny God's existence/involvement? " The laws of logic are products of consciousness." Again, you are implying a time when laws of logic did not exist. (Before humans)This is impossible. The law of identity is ALWAYS true, ALWAYS exists. Humans DISCOVERED this to be true. Using your logic: " Consciousness is a subjective experience." " The laws of logic are products of consciousness."
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 I'll try and explain this more clearly. The laws of logic - fe. Identity, exclusion, non-contradiction, require a logical MIND to literally identify, exclude, and contradict, they require an ACTIVE mental process. The word 'logic' itself means 'thought'. Logic doesn't exist in a rock, it exists in our THOUGHTS about a rock. If there is no mind there is no logic. If there is no mass, there is no gravity. Since minds are NOT absolute entities, logic itself is not absolute.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Yes- logic is a process of the mind- not the material world. Here it means "a system of valid inference using laws of logic." The logical explanation: An absolute, eternal God of absolute mind exists. (Not created as laws of logic aren't. They're a part of His eternal mind. We discover these thoughts from God. It's impossible for the law of identity to not exist- grammar & syntax humans use are merely communication methods of what is absolutely always true/always existing.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 Again, you cannot bring God in as an explanation for the laws of logic when you are using the existence of laws of logic to provide evidence for Him. We don't discover these laws just like we didn't discover the universe. We were born of it. We are literally made of the stuff of the universe and our minds are the minds of the universe. Logic grows from our consciousness linking us to our environment. Please explain how its impossible for the law of identity to not exist?
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle You're misunderstanding the argument. If you watch the video, we don't start out with God but logically conclude God. How are we "born of it" [laws of logic]? Consciousness, beauty, are of the mind. How does the universe of matter and energy give rise to these abstract things? Really complex physicality? Illogical. You can't measure/weigh laws of logic, beauty, consciousness, or the mind. "Our minds are the minds of the universe." What? The universe has a mind!? Logic grows!?
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 Yes you logically conclude God under the faulty premise that laws of logic exist 'absolutely' You state that laws of logic exist as a conceptual reality but don't seem to understand that this clearly (and logically) means they only exist for as long as the mind makes them real. You cannot fix this problem by introducing an absolute (God) mind without first proving He exists.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle You have to prove God does not exist to claim "no (human) minds, no logical absolutes." You are making this statement- you have to prove it. Since you can't, it's simply your belief. I'm afraid you fail to understand if laws of logic do not exist 'absolutely' then truth cannot be known. You can try to make statements but there is no truth value because one day there's truth and another there's not. Or it can change because other minds say so.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Again this is a logical argument that points to God. There are only 2 options to account for human existence: personal or impersonal. Negate one and the other is valid. Yet there's no requirement to prove HOW the other is valid. Since the laws of logic point to a mind, logically the personal option accounts for humans.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle "How its impossible for the law of identity to not exist?" Essentially absolutely nothing existing would have to be reality in order for your view to be valid. (Including God) No matter, energy, universe- literally nothing. This is impossible because we live in a universe of "something." Logically, something cannot be derived from absolute nothingness.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForJesus220 "Logically, something cannot be derived from absolute nothingness" Yet you seem to be claiming God and the laws of logic WERE derived from nothing. When I die, nothing will exist for me because I will cease to exist. This is not only possible, its inevitable. Its what death is.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle No- neither God nor logical absolutes are "derived." God always was and always will be. How do you know you won't exist beyond physical death?
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Therefore, something has always existed. If something exists, it has an identity. It reflects the law of identity- not properties of that thing but properties of what it simply is. Yet it takes a mind to realize the existence of identity. Just because a human mind may not be around doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist- it is simply a potential realization that exists.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 'therefore something has always existed" Look. If something has always existed then logically NOTHING created it!! This is the paradox that we brush up against. Existential beginnings are only boundaries of comprehension. "It takes a mind to realize the existence of identity" You just proved my point. It takes a mind to realize (make real) the existence of identity. Without a mind it simply isn't real and there can be no 'potential' because there is no mind to realize that either.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle "It takes a mind to realize the existence of identity... . It takes a mind to realize (make real)" No, 'realize' means "become aware of" not to make something real. It takes a mind to realize (become aware of) what ALREADY true and ALREADY exists- like the law of identity. How does a physical brain "make real" a non-physical law of logic?
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle " Without a mind..." God is the answer. He is not created. God makes it logical. There's no paradox here. It doesn't necessitate that we need to explain God as I said before. I cannot prove God the way you want because I predict your proof requirement is illogical or impossible.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Therefore the laws of logic must be subjectively true. Therefore " Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not" is subjectively true. It can be true or false or both or neither. This is your logic. This is why anything you say has no real validity because you reduce the laws of logic, the means to make logical statements impossible.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 How on earth do you get the idea that if something is subjective it can be true, false, both or neither? Subjective simply means 'of the mind' We experience a consistency in the behavior of the universe which allows us to derive laws of logic that describe this behavior. You said it yourself: "they are CONCEPTUAL realities" Otherwise please go ahead and demonstrate their 'absolute' truth without using your mind to identify, exclude or contradict.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Terms need to be defined. When you first explained "subjective" you spoke of "beauty" and it seemed by "subjective" you meant "what's true for you is not for me." My apologies. Logical absolutes are self-validating but doesn't explain their existence. If the universe doesn't exist, it is absolutely true the universe does not exist. In this case human minds are non-existent. The existence of God's mind explains the existence of these conceptual laws of logic.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 If the universe does not exist YOU do not exist, and therefore you cannot say it is absolutely true. You can ONLY say this now because you and the universe DO exist. If you didn't, you simply wouldn't be able to assert or infer or identify ANYTHING. This is my point.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle I understand what you are saying but it is flawed. I don't need to say, assert, identify it's true. It already is- it's not dependent on me. If I am the last person on Earth and before I die, I write on a piece of paper the laws of logic, then die, are they no longer true? No. "Something is what it is and not what it is not" cannot be both true and not true depending on human verification. You can't verify what is already true.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 "If I am the last person on Earth...write down..the laws of logic, then die, are they no longer true?" They are no longer true NOR false. The Aristotelian true/false dichotomy dissolves with the mind as it fades. YOUR active mind imagining a rock being a rock in an otherwise empty universe, is getting in the way. Take away your mind and the rock simply ceases to exist because YOU cease to exist.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle As soon as there are no minds to perceive the universe, it stops existing within the binary framework of true/false reasoning. There is no frame (mind) within which to hold it. You must see the cognitive paradox here? It is literally impossible to imagine a rock existing without your mind imagining it!
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Your premise seems to be founded on a belief that there is some kind of perpetuation of mind after we die. Entirely understandable given your obvious religious worldview but you must understand there is no evidence for this. Your claim that the laws of logic somehow remain real without anything to realize them is simply not possible due to the paradox I have just described.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle " no evidence... perpetuation of mind after we die." Thousands of personal accounts exist from people claiming the contrary via near-death experiences. You can't cite "no evidence." You REJECT the evidence. "Your claim that the laws of logic somehow remain real without anything to realize them." Misrepresenting: I logically infer God exists as something to realize them. You cite paradox without proving God's non-existence.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle You believe (read carefully) that it is absolutely true that absolute truths do not exist absolutely. See the problem? Your argument falls apart. Absolute logical laws transcend the human mind.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Think of it this way. If no humans existed, it would still be absolutely true that something cannot be both itself and not itself because in reality, there are literally no other options for 'anything' to exist. It becomes physically impossible. A human mind doesn't create that reality. Law of identity was already true-we discovered it. Another human mind can come along and declare it not true. Humans are contradictory and not logically the source of absolute laws of logic.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle " There is no frame (mind) within which to hold it." You must prove God doesn't exist for this to be true.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle I hope you don't mean literally that if humans cease to exist, so does the universe. We can conclude then you agree that logical absolutes are products of the brain (ultimately the universe.) If they are products of the brain, we should be able to measure/weigh laws of logic. The huge problem for you is that the brain is physical. Logical absolutes are not physical- can't be measured. You cannot logically bridge the huge gaping gap. I challenge you to do so.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle How do you know our minds are products of the universe? Before humans (minds) existed, was it already true that something is what it is and not what it is not? (law of identity)
ForJesus220 8 months ago
@ForJesus220 1. because our minds are products of our bodies and our bodies are products of the universe. 2. How can I possibly answer a question if I don't exist? Identity requires identification.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@Hufflewaffle Who said you had to answer any questions if you didn't exist? "Identity requires identification." False. A rock still has an intrinsic identity or nature even if all humans vanish. No indentification required. The laws of logic are valid without humans- logically because God's mind exists.
ForJesus220 8 months ago
@ForJesus220 Sorry but the very definition of identity implies the action of a conscious mind. Identity is a process, not a quality.
"The laws of logic are valid without humans- logically because God's mind exists" Well, firstly, you have just implied that 'identity' DOES require a mind. But, secondly, you can't use God's mind as evidence for the existence of 'absolute logic' and then use 'absolute logic' as evidence for the existence of God's mind. Surely you see the circularity.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
@Hufflewaffle You missed the point. The laws of logic do point to a mind but yet they are still valid, still exist if human minds cease to exist. How can this be? I never used " God's mind as evidence for the existence of 'absolute logic'. Absolute logic is not what we are trying to prove here.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 The existence of absolute logic is your assertion not mine. I'm saying Logic can only be subjective due to the fact that it is derived from, and applies only to the mind. If the mind isn't absolute, logic isn't either. If the mind disappears ALL actions, languages and its frames such as syntax, grammar, logical inference derived from the mind, disappear with it! (along with God btw)
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle " If the mind isn't absolute..." Huge premise there. Faulty premises lead to like conclusions. You would have to prove there is no absolute mind. " If the mind disappears ALL actions..." You mean human minds. If all human minds disappear, it would still be absolutely true (of the [God] mind) that no human minds exists. You can deny God's mind but the previous statement is still true & you cannot logically account for its existence. God is absolute and cannot not exist.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
@ForJesus220 Are you not aware of death? Ok Im being facetious but its true. How many minds have you come into contact with that have lived forever? "If all human minds disappear it would still be true of the God mind that no humans exist." Once again you are holding up the existence of God as proof of absolute logic while using absolute logic as evidence for the existence of God. This is circular thinking. You must prove one without using the other.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
@Hufflewaffle You again are misstating the argument. Absolute logic is NOT proven. (Assuming you mean laws of logic) You don't verify the laws of identity. There is no other possibility. God is the conclusion and accounting for the existence of logical absolutes- not the premise. If laws of logic are not absolute then they are rendered true or not true depending on humans. No truth standard exists. Therefore you cannot logically argue for or against God.
ForJesus220 7 months ago
Comment removed
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
Wow...somebody thinks that Matt Slick is on to something.
Can God both exist and not exists simultaneously? God is subject to the laws of logic, he cannot, therefore, be their author.
Besides, the entire thing is a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance. "You can't explain 'X', therefore, God."
So, when are you going to present any evidence?
MrFungus420 8 months ago
we're supposed to READ?!?!?!??!! Blasphemy!
OMEGATHENIETZCHIAN 9 months ago
Wow, still trying to flog the dead TAG horse eh?
SpookyAction123 10 months ago 2
....so the question stands. im sure as a god fearing christian you'll be able to make a case for god. i trust you have studied to 'show thine self approved' as the bible commands.
live4pce 11 months ago
@live4pce Why does God need to heal amputees?
ForJesus220 11 months ago
Question for you: why wont God heal amputees? specifically amputees.
live4pce 11 months ago
@live4pce Did you not learn from the featured video on your channel? Even though the atoms are separated the energy between body and lost limb still exists. In reality, the amputee's limb still exists- it's just in an array of multiple universes. Wait, the reality is there is no reality, so the issue of missing limbs is merely an illusion. The problem that an amputee's limb needs healing is merely in your mind. No healing necessary.
ForJesus220 11 months ago
@ForJesus220 1st off the vid on my page is not my video nor do i share the views presented. its on my page becuz i watched and saved it to finish later.I think its important to inform yourself with all view points wether u agree or not. 2nd, as i suspected did not answer the question.The REALITY is u dont have a good answer.3rd if ur gonna stalk my page then get ur facts st8.That reality gibberish shouldnt be to far fetched for sum1 who believes in takn snakes n an infinite uncreated being.
live4pce 11 months ago
@live4pce answering a question with a question. knew that would come next lol. well i figure since god so graciously cure, cancer, cripples, aids, common cold,ext.....yet something as undeniable as a limb growing back seems to be the only miracle that doesn't occur. kinda makes ya wonder lol c'mon. think about it. obviously god doesnt have a problem healing people. there are whole faith healing crusades with thousands of ppl all in need of healing and they claim to get healed by god. hmmm
live4pce 11 months ago
@live4pce How do you know God won't heal an amputee?
ForJesus220 11 months ago
This video really proves nothing except that the person that created it is very good at spinning nonsense in circles
RTKFilms 1 year ago
atheist just think millions of years ago nothing was everywhere so nothing created a explosion and created a universe full of nothing then nothing made the earth and the earth made dinosaurs out of nothing then nothing turned into monkeys and monkeys turned into humans and millions of years later BAM!....here we are!...thats the belief of an atheist lol
koolkidJavon 1 year ago
@koolkidJavon Its a lot more complicated than that, but to believe that we came from adam and eve is truly ignorant
RTKFilms 1 year ago
@RTKFilms im j/k buddy..i respect your beliefs
koolkidJavon 1 year ago
@koolkidJavon Not really. An elementary level of education would provide you with more than enough knowledge to know that everything you just said, about something you have no concept of no less, is borderline retarded,
PaleHorseWC2 1 year ago
@PaleHorseWC2 no,you ARE retarded if you think there is no Higher Power since im borderline..i mean what the hell...you really think there wasnt a mastermind behind everything that exist?..if we came from evolution then how do we know right from wrong...where did evil and good come from,i think athiests used to believe but there were many things you didnt understand and unanswered questions that you just gave up and became an unbeliever,I Dnt Believe In Religion But i Beleive in a supreme being
koolkidJavon 1 year ago
@koolkidJavon Right from wrong are judgments which come from people. Good and evil are judgements that come from people. If I need to turn right, and the guy behind me needs to turn left. Me turning right is the WRONG way for him, but the RIGHT way for myself. They are not absolutes given to everyone by "something". Children, and the mentally ill don't know right from wrong, so are they no longer given "Right and Wrong" from someone? No, they can just no longer judge it for themselves.
PaleHorseWC2 1 year ago
@PaleHorseWC2 ok..so how did PEOPLE come up with right and wrong?..how did PEOPLE come up with the choice of good and evil?....i understand when u say children and mentally ill dont know right from wrong...The Adult Knows right from wrong thru life experiences right?...so what experience happened for the first man to even know what right and wrong is?...to pass that knowledge on the next until today? something HAD to have happened in order for Man to know what right and wrong is...am i right?
koolkidJavon 1 year ago
@koolkidJavon People come up with right and wrong and good and evil every moment of every day with every decision they make. If I want to type the word "God", typing the letter "d" before the letter "g" is wrong. Early man judged it would be right to kill an animal and feed his family, and wrong to return home empty handed. You know that it would be wrong to hold your breath until you pass out and die, so you do the right thing and keep breathing. Mass agreement on what is right and wrong come
PaleHorseWC2 1 year ago
@koolkidJavon about because people come together and collectively judge similar things as being right and wrong to themselves. People are exposed to the difference between right and wrong, they didn't "inherit" it. A person who grows up unsocialized, in the wild or whatever, will have no concept of the good and evil you speak of. So life experiences, a natural source, breeds this knowledge of established judgement of right and wrong, which itself is only a collection of natural manmade judgement
PaleHorseWC2 1 year ago
@PaleHorseWC2 well...its all good...i respect your thoughts bro, dont think of this as an arguement..just tryna get a bit of understanding....you got your beliefs i got mines u know?...you take it easy
koolkidJavon 1 year ago
Things are observable to some degree, but how can anything unobservable exist in any meaningful way? If it's unobservable, even if
it exists, it might as well not exist because it cannot have any effect on anything that affects us or that we can see or it'd be observable.
captainabrhamlincoln 1 year ago
So the laws of logic are man created ideas based on the fact that they haven't been proven flawed. If they one day were in reality and not in some purely hypothetical situation, then maybe this argument would hold some water, but until that day I see no reason to believe in a god.
Logic is the by-product of the observable, and yes, we can't observe the unobservable, but then as far as we know it doesn't exist and there's no reason to believe it does. There is of course an assumption that all th
captainabrhamlincoln 1 year ago
One of the basic things any high school science teacher will tell you is that nothing is proven in absolute certainty because to be proven with certainty you would have to know literally everything about everything absolutely, or for all you know a counter example could pop up just as you're saying something that would be in conflict with whatever fuckin event that was going on in this hypothetical. Sorry, that last sentence was a train-wreck of sorts
captainabrhamlincoln 1 year ago
Hahahah dude you're retarded. Just because the laws of logic are absolute doesnt mean shit. There are tons of absolute ideas in the world, and these don't provide evidence for any god, they are simply ideas that have yet to be shown a counter example, and so we say they are absolute. The laws of logic are absolute because they have yet to be shown not absolute. We have never seen the exact same matter be one kind of matter and another kind at the same time in the same place.
captainabrhamlincoln 1 year ago
I dont see how this is evidence of god. You contradict yourself. Ex. you said that because god is true and absolute, therefore the absolute laws of logic are true and absolute, but if that is the case, then the 2. law you pointed out refutes the trinity...so you are in a pickle. you said .god is absolute>that's why laws of logic are absolute(including the second law), but the second law refutes the trinity, therefore god is not absolute... that's the message of this video
cuevasdecamuy 1 year ago
#1 Xtians spread the Word cuz it's in their credo to do so and many make money of it. #2 Do not presume to know what atheists need as far as evidence. To say that any evidence for atheists must not involve human responsibility is not only an insult but SUCH hypocrisy! #3 The TAG argument has been argued out over n over. Absolutes do not prove any god exists.
julzabro 1 year ago
what an utter load of excrement, sciences as it stands has many of the greatest minds fighting each other while also co-operating with each other to move toward a better human understanding of everything around us and a belief in a personal sky daddy and creationism does nothing but delay that understanding by switching of the minds of followers IE no dont think about things just read this fairy tale and dont question it so the clergymen never have to explain all the blood on their hands
cjhmmp 1 year ago
You are trying to argue that logic is evidence for gods existence, yet your logic is fundamentally flawed. How very droll.
gdavies000 1 year ago 2
universes; we could imagine another universe with different physical laws (or similar, but with different strengths), while a universe without the same importance of arrangement seems more unlikely.
As we see, "physical & abstract" is no dichotomy. It is not obvious that a mind is needed involved in order for such debatably physical aspect to be true.
"...it is simply an absolute truth and truth’s realm is the mind" Truth is another non-physical aspect, but not therefore abstract or mental.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) “Truth is another non-physical aspect, but not therefore abstract or mental.” What? Truth is a “non-physical aspect” YET not abstract/mental? Did you really say that? Law of logic #1: “Something is what it is & isn’t what it isn’t” is an absolute truth. Is it not? Logical absolutes are absolute truths. This is not mental? Really? Not abstract either? Really? You can discuss “dynamics, etc.” but logical absolutes are independent of physicality.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) Therefore, please stop appealing to the physical universe or “not entirely physical” (illogical term) to explain logical absolutes. The nature of logical absolutes therefore can ONLY be mental or abstract.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
are other things to be reckoned, such as arrangement (which I wrote of), causality, identity, fundamental interaction (in the field of physics), other physical laws (that's the proper term). Whether these dynamics/aspects are all physical per se, one could always debate. If they're not entirely physical, that doesn't mean they're necessarily abstract. I didn't mean to filibuster.
Arrangement is more metaphysical than laws of physics, I dare say, as it would probably be more common of different
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 Again the laws of logic do not depend on the physicality or existence of the universe, nor the physics of how the universe works. “Whether these dynamics/aspects are all physical per se, one could always debate. If they're not entirely physical that doesn't mean they're necessarily abstract.” You are again equivocating between physical and abstract “dynamics/aspects” (logical absolutes.) Logical absolutes are NOT PHYSICAL. How can something be “not entirely physical?” Makes no sense.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
abstract, a bridge which needs justification.
"Something is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. What “dynamics” does this describe?" The dynamic, or aspect, or attribute of being oneself. No need for God to invent or validate that. I hope I don't need to explain why something is what it is.
"...“Now, physical traits are different from the "traits" that absolutes describe.” Ah, now you tell me. You are equivocating." The point I was making is that aside from space/time and matter/energy, there
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 “’Something is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. What “dynamics” does this describe?’ The dynamic, or aspect, or attribute of being oneself.” Yes, but it doesn’t necessitate the physical-absolutes don’t rely on physical. It’s a truth. Truth is of the mind. Because absolutes exist if the physical doesn’t, “dynamic” & aspect” here can only be valid in an abstract manner. Plus, “dynamic” & “aspect” are merely truth descriptions about the physical which last I checked, requires a mind.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
or consisting of biological compounds, characteristics? And are these characteristics not fully physical? Or does some god illude us as we observe these characteristics, or traits? You seem to have missed out some basic secondary school knowledge here. Traits are obviously physical.
Now, physical traits are different from the "traits" that absolutes describe. Regrettably, I think it would be smart of us to redefine what logical absolutes describe, "dynamics" or something like that. Perhaps.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) “Traits are obviously physical.” “Now, physical traits are different from the "traits" that absolutes describe.” Ah, now you tell me. You are equivocating. You spent a lot of text describing physical objects- once again appealing to the physical to account for abstract logical absolutes. I know what you mean when you say rocks have traits. I was only trying to show you the difference between the mind and physical. Let’s look at law of logic #1:
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) Something is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. What “dynamics” does this describe? (As you put it) Look, it is simply an absolute truth and truth’s realm is the mind. Forget about the physicality of the universe. Throw away the bricks and rocks. Throw away the universe which includes human minds. Logical absolutes still exist; they don’t stop being true; they don’t depend on the universe. Where do they reside? How is it they exist?
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@ForJesus220 I would say that logical absolutes describe a physical "dynamic", if you could call it that. The fact that this dynamic always "works", does not necessitate the existence of a logical absolute to describe it. Again, duality. Like a rock does not need anyone to be itself (which would be the case if logical absolutes were dependent on a mind), a dynamic does not need anyone to postulate it in order for it to "work", or be valid. You are drawing a bridge between the physical and the
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 “I .. say..logical absolutes describe a physical "dynamic.” False- logical absolutes don’t depend on the physical. They’re true & exist if the universe doesn’t. Even if no humans exist to express it- the truth still exists. It’s absolute. You build on this fallacious premise-absolutes don’t need rocks to exist for us to look at rocks to validate logical absolutes. All you’re saying is logical absolutes “always work” & they exist because they do. This is an illogical account for them.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
arrangement has a wholly physical application. Even if there was no orderly arrangement, particles would still have a spatial relation and a certain distance between them at any given time. Arrangement could be seen as a dynamic between space and matter/energy, but is undeniably a physical attribute.
"...“traits” are defined as characteristics something possess (which is an abstract concept)." Characteristics is an abstract concept? Isn't being an apple, or have a smooth, sphere-like surface,
Pomme843 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
arrangement has a wholly physical application, and is dire in order for something to be what it is. Arrangement is physical. You write: "...“traits” are defined as characteristics something possess (which is an abstract concept)." Characteristics is an abstract concept? Isn't being an apple, or having a smooth surface, or consisting of biological compounds, fully physical attributes? Of course they are. You seem to have missed out on some basic middle school knowledge here.
Pomme843 1 year ago
The way I see it, the core of your argument is:
How can something be itself without God? How can two and two be four without God? The fact that logical absolutes exist in our minds does not mean that someone is need present in order for a brick to be a brick.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) “Traits” reside in the mind because “traits” are defined as characteristics something possess (which is an abstract concept). Abstract concepts are not physical. Rocks contain that which we call “smoothness” and we call that a “trait.” Why am I being painfully specific? Because I am trying to help you be consistent. And here you are not. You say rocks contain traits. And you say the laws of logic contain traits. Are logical absolutes physical? We can only speculate what exactly is
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@ForJesus220 Traits reside in the mind? Wow. I'll have to say no, not all traits are in the mind. Although our universe consists of time/space and matter/energy, there are other things here that do not need minds to be true. Arrangement of matter is one dire attribute. An apple consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, and these particles must be arranged in a certain way in order to account, or make up, an apple. Now, if you re-arrange these particles, you could make a rock. So, as we see,
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) outside the universe but we can use logic to get an idea. The Bible is evidence that talks about who God is and His realm which does not defy logic. What you cite as the core of the argument is actually the conclusion we reach. “The fact that logical absolutes exist in our minds does not mean that someone is need present in order for a brick to be a brick.” This is illogical. Why? The BIG mistake you make is you consider the ABSTRACT (logical absolutes) exist but then look to
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (3) the PHYSICAL (bricks) and because things are what they are, you draw a conclusion about the abstract. Logical absolutes exist if everything in the universe disappears now. If that happened where do logical absolutes reside?
ForJesus220 1 year ago
no wonder you believe there's need for a god involved on order for something to be itself.
You seem to know alot about everything that's outside our universe. Ever been there? Let's say there are absolutes "outside" our universe. What makes you think a god it required in order for a transcendent rock in oder to be itself? Do you not see the similarity between this, and saying that absolutes "point to" His mind? "No God=No Absolutes"?? Really? Why, exactly?
Pomme843 1 year ago
I have to ask you the same; where do traits reside? If two people can touch the same stone and agree that it's smooth, then the trait must of course be physical. If a stone has a flat or seemless surface, then it's smooth. If there's minute holes in it, or microscopic spikes or points on it, then it's not smooth. People look to the world and extract information from it; or do you think it's God who makes the rock feel smooth through an illusion? If you think that traits are not physical,
Pomme843 1 year ago
"2+2=4" is a statement of logic. That does not mean that a mind is required involved in order for two helium atoms to fusion to one beryllium atom. Two protons plus two equals four protons, no matter if a god thought "2+2=4" to himself at an earlier point of time or not. A brick is a brick, no matter what mind is involved. Logical absolutes need minds to be conceived of, but not in order to be true, that is to say, in order for its "content" to be valid. I call this "duality".
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1)God’s existence is RELATED but IS another topic. God doesn’t “acquire” traits nor “made” eternal. God’s mind would be SOMETHING. Therefore SOMETHING made SOMETHING (the universe). You seem to assume God is limited as we are & needs to make things as we do by 1st acquiring “materials.” God’s realm is different/separate from our universe. “..one cannot deny..the world at least seem to have traits to us humans.. ones that are always true, can be described in absolutes.”
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) Where in the world are traits? “Whether logical absolutes 'exist' is, in a way, a matter of definition.” No- their existence isn’t dependent on human minds or subject to human decision. If so, we could later decide absolutes no longer exist : absurd because we would declare the absolute truth they no longer exist- contradictory. “..define "logical absolutes" as the understanding of the traits of the universe..” No, they are the laws of logic which in themselves are absolute truths.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (3) They transcend the universe & aren’t dependent on it. “If the traits that absolutes describe are dependent on a mind to think it up.., then a god-universe cannot have such absolutes, which seems impossible.” First, why would a god-universe not have absolutes? Second, God didn’t “think it up” because it implies a prior non-existence. The premises are flawed. Logically, an absolute God creating a god-universe would reflect these absolutes in our minds.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (4) “logical absolutes do apply to things, too, & not just statements, right?” Logical absolutes can be used to construct logical truth statements about things. “Likewise, the smoothness of a rock is both a physical trait ..” “a rock, which needs no mind, & the notion of a rock..” I agree that a rock exists without the need for human notion of it. You misunderstand my position & don’t realize (human) minds are required to ascribe “traits” to rocks. “Smoothness” isn't a physical trait.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (5) “Smoothness” is not physical. It possesses properties that we agree to call “smooth.” Rocks don’t contain “traits” of smoothness, etc. These descriptors (traits) are human constructs that require a mind. Rocks SIMPLY EXISTS. They don’t need humans to ascribe “smoothness, etc..” Traits are defined as characteristics that something possesses. These aren’t physical. But a mind is required to ascribe traits (or logical truth statements) to something (rock).
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (6) You can expound on logical absolutes using “traits”& “info” but you can’t escape the necessity of mind. Take it a step further. We know absolutes exist and they do so without the universe. Absolutes are used to create logical truth statements which require a mind. If the universe is non-existent, logically, these absolutes must be part of an eternal mind. “Either, you must think that a universe without a god would contain things that are not themselves…” False dichotomy.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (7) No God = No absolutes. BUT that is impossible- absolutes exist. And 2+2 always =4. Given the video argument this leads to God logically existing. In another topic I would argue it’s impossible for God not to exist. Again, God doesn’t “think up” 2+2=4 because it implies prior non-existence. “Logical absolutes need minds to be conceived of, but not in order to be true, that is to say, in order for its "content" to be valid.” You are AGAIN making category mistakes.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (8) You are AGAIN making category mistakes. The question is accounting for the existence of absolutes- not their validity. The idea that 2+2=5 is not valid but yet it exists in the mind. I understand your perspective trying to separate “content” from “conception” but it is illogical because you are saying “traits/info/absolutes” cannot be “sent” (they just exist) but can be received (read) via conception. How can you cite “traits, info, content” when the nature of these descriptors
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (9) are based on logic which is a process of the mind? Saying that rocks, atoms, bricks, exists without the need for minds does not account for the fact that logical absolutes exist whether or not these items or the universe for that matter exist at all. Can you see that these objects are consistent with the laws of logic? Can’t you see that 2+2=4 (and logical absolutes) reside only in the mind and no where else? Where do traits reside?
ForJesus220 1 year ago
By duality, I mean the simple fact that we use the same word to describe two different things: a rock, which needs no mind, and the notion of a rock, which need a mind.
If absolutes need a god to exist, would our universe be without absolutes if there was no god? Either, you must think that a universe without a god would contain things that are not themselves, or that add up to different sums from time to time, or you cannot have a reference point to show that our absolutes are god-made.
Pomme843 1 year ago
: you mix up truth with logic, traits with conception. A log. abs. has to sides to it, the truth it describes, which is there regardless of what minds are present, and its notion, which is of the mind. Likewise, the smoothness of a rock is both a physical trait, and a notion we can express, understand. Now, our conception of smoothness is not essential in order for something to be smooth. If you are too emotionally attached to your religion to accept this duality, then I have no business here.
Pomme843 1 year ago
"They (log.abs.'s) deal with truth, logic, and are applied to statements. How can a mind not be involved here?" You are here using several different concepts. Truth is quite obviously not dependent on a mind. A twig does not need a mind in order to be a twig. Logic is obviously an activity of the mind. Side question: logical absolutes do apply to things, too, and not just statements, right? I'm just wondering if we have different definitions of "logical absolutes".
I think the problem lies here
Pomme843 1 year ago
The reason I use this hypothesis, is to see if it is possible that our universe is god-less, concidering your argument of logical absolutes stemming from the mind (I say it is merely their conception that is of the mind.) If a trait-less universe is impossible, then there really is no reason to argue that a god must exist on the ground that our universe has traits, because there is no reference point by which to see whether the alternative (a godless universe) is possible or not.
Pomme843 1 year ago
define "logical absolutes" as the understanding of the traits of the universe, or the understanding of traits of objects, then they are dependent on minds. If logical absolutes are these traits themselves, then they are not dependent on mind.
Let's follow the consequences of your logic. If the traits that absolutes describe are dependent on a mind to think it up or something, then a god-universe cannot have such absolutes, which seems impossible; a universe without absolutes seem impossible.
Pomme843 1 year ago
, then one could think that traits exist but in an ideal world, or that traits do not really exist at all. No matter, one cannot deny that the world at least seem to have traits to us humans, and that some of these traits, the ones that are always true, can be described in absolutes, and that traits, including absolutes (their truths, their 'content', not their conception) are true, no matter what mind are involved.
Whether logical absolutes 'exist' is, in a way, a matter of definition. If you
Pomme843 1 year ago
traits (here in a wider definition then when describing the content of absloutes). He couldn't have decided for himself to be eternal, so who made him eternal?, one could equally ask. Why does God exist?
Even if God made the universe out of his mind, he did still, make it 'out of nothing', didn't he? ;D
"If something exists, it must reside “somewhere"." That depends. By this logic, traits reside within an object or an entity. If one insists, on the other hand, that traits do not reside here
Pomme843 1 year ago
By the way, if a statement is either true or false, then how can the statement "A statement is either true or false." be either true or false?
Pomme843 1 year ago
Space/time and matter/energy is the what, when and where of our universe. Traits (what I earlier called "information") is the who, why and how. That does not mean that a mind is required in order for something to be itself. You're implying that without a mind involved, these traits cannot be neither valid nor existant.
If a tree falls over, and no one's present - do you think it did still fall? By your logic, one could just as well argue that it couldn't, because stating it requires a mind.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) You are jumping to another topic of how God can exist. If God is uncreated and exists eternally- no infinite regression. What is a “godless god?” “Religious people are the ones who argue that the universe came out of nothing, by God's will.” Is God’s will “nothing?” No. Think! “What makes you think that traits need to be "somewhere"?” If something exists, it must reside “somewhere.” Name one thing that exists but resides nowhere. How are logical absolutes who, why, and how?
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@ForJesus220 The question of whether a god can exist is of course heavily related and dire for your argument, when you claim that I have to validate how a god-less universe is possible. If the existence of a god is equally impossible, then why even bother; we do exist.
"If God is uncreated and exists eternally- no infinite regression". Firstly, first we need to validate your premise of God being uncreated and existing. Second, the quality of eternality does not explain how this god got his/her
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) What are the “traits” of logical absolutes? I’ll help you. They deal with truth, logic, and are applied to statements. How can a mind not be involved here? “You're implying that without a mind involved, these traits cannot be neither valid nor existant.” That’s right. But if God can exist eternally, then this scenario is impossible. Why be concerned with impossibilities? “If a tree falls over,…” Category mistake.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (3) Confusing the truth (statements about the event) with the actual event. “if a statement is either true or false” Let’s stay focused- you’re running away from the problem. This is called a paradox and only affirms the law of excluded middle is absolute and logical absolutes exist. What are the “traits” of logical absolutes?
ForJesus220 1 year ago
The validity of an absloute is, furthermore, connected to its existence. If it was invalid, then it would not exist but in the possible form of a notion, would it?
Speaking of notions, you keep clinging to the notion that notions have some sort of manifestation in the real world. "Where do these “traits” exist?", you ask. What makes you think that traits need to be "somewhere"?? You said yourself that the universe only holds matter and space. Look at it this way:
Pomme843 1 year ago
@ForJesus220 Well, how do you account for the existence of a god, without infinite regression and circular reasoning? A godless god is no less impossible than a godless universe. You would have to validate how a godless god is possible. Besides, religious people are the ones who argue that the universe came out of nothing, by God's will. I don't think that's possible.
I did not question the validity of 2+2=4 in our universe; it is you who insist that without a god, this absolute would not be.
Pomme843 1 year ago
"...there is no possibility of God (His mind) not existing given His eternal nature." Now, what is this supposed to mean?
Pomme843 1 year ago
You call such absolutes "of the mind". But there doesn't have to be a mind present or involved in order for something to be itself, or for 2 and 2 to equal 4.Here's how it is:
1: The conception, understanding and expression of universal truths require a mind.
2: The traits that these truths regard, their "content", do not require a mind in order to be true.
You could just as well ask: "How do words of the mind exist without a God?" The word "rock" is not essential for the existence of rocks.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) “..a god-less universe surely would be completely without absolutes, which seems impossible.” You are right, it would be impossible for logical absolutes to exist in a “god-less universe.” You would have to validate how a “god-less universe” is possible. How does matter and energy bring itself into existence by itself (from nothing) How do you solve the infinite regress problem? If God did not exist, logical absolutes do not either but this scenario is impossible.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) Look at your #2 “The traits that these truths… do not require a mind in order to be true.” We are not concerned about the validity of 2+2=4 but rather accounting for its existence. Where do these “traits” exist? How is it they exist if humans don’t? 2+2=4 is a logical statement. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes are the building blocks of logic. How can they logically exist without a mind?
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (3) You still haven’t accounted for the existence of logical absolutes but rather have appealed to their validity (not the issue) and basically assert they just exist which is circular reasoning.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
and "information". But, you insist that information requires a sender/reciever. So I will now call what I did call information, "traits".
When you ask how absolutes exist without minds, you base your question on the premise that without a mind to express the absolute, the absolutes would somehow be suspended. You need to make up your mind; are logical absolutes dependent on a god or not? If they are, then a god-less universe surely would be completely without absolutes, which seems impossible.
Pomme843 1 year ago
I don't see why the universe being eternal would make past, present and future impossible.
The reason I "dodge" the question "How do logical absolutes of the mind exist void of any mind", is because it is based on false premises. You're implying that logical absolutes would be absent in a universe with a god, but that's unthinkable. A universe without absolutes? Come on.
I repeat: you are confusing the information of an absolute, which exists anyhow, with it's conception, which is of the mind.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) I already showed you the illogical problems of a godless universe. How logically, does something “bring itself” into existence? How does something come from nothing? What caused it to exist? How do you escape the infinite regress of causes for this universe? How can you use something illogically impossible to see how it compares to a god-made universe? “If a hypothetical, godless universe must have the same logical absolutes as ours…”
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@ForJesus220 How do you escape the illogical problems of a godless god? A god-less universe is no more impossible than a god-made. Why does God exist?
It is unthinkable that a god-less universe does not have the absolutes of identity etc. Can you imagine a universe where adding 2 with 2 gives you different outcomes, or no outcome at all, every time?
I will now use a different typology to lecture you regarding what you call "logical absolutes of the mind." I disected the term into conceptions..
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) How do you know it must have the same absolutes as ours? “You're implying that logical absolutes would be absent in a universe with a god, but that's unthinkable.” Do you mean “without” a god? If so, how do you know? Saying it’s “unthinkable” and “no it’s not” is hardly a logical refutation. Where do logical absolutes exist if they don’t exist in the mind? Please don’t say in the universe!
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (3) You say I am “confusing the information of an absolute, which exists anyhow, with it's conception” but your terms presume the existence of a mind. Information is only so if there is a sender and a reader. How does this occur with no mind? Our conception of absolutes is the reading from the sender. The absolutes themselves are abstract concepts.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (4) If you assert these can exist in a universe without an existence of God then you must give a logical account of how absolutes can be conceived by a mind, realized to exist only in the mind but do not require a sender or do not originate from another mind but rather from a universe of matter and energy where no absolutes can be found.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
The reason I said to hypothesize a certainly godless universe, outside of your own, was to see whether things would be otherwise or different. That's called making an analogy for comparison, not excluding the possibility of a god altogether.
Whether or not God is outside or "inside" the universe is irrelevant; if a hypothetical, godless universe must have the same logical absolutes as ours, then there's no point in argumenting for a god with such absolutes in our universe.
Pomme843 1 year ago
If these laws are eternal, and the human mind is capable of discovering them, there is no need for God to justify the laws throught existing. Obviously, this is weak argumentation, fallacious to the end, but the worst part is: the guy who made this actually thought he was being clever. A Christian who can pull some pieces of "proof" out of his ass, now there's something new.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 Since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God. And plus, you will not find any "Proof" except for what God gives you, but he will not reveal to you if you deny him, it is hard to find truth when you read what you only want to hear.
meeene4 1 year ago
@meeene4
"Premise1: Logical absolutes are always true
Premise2: Logical absolutes are not dependent on human minds
Conclusion: An absolute transcendent mind authors all logical absolutes"
Do you not see how much of a fail you are? In order to prove a non-axiom, you need to show it is not otherwise. How are you going to prove that logical absolutes require a mind to author or govern them? Why do logical laws need to be created? Could be have been any different? Assumptions, assumptions...
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1) Truth applies to statements. Statements are conceptual and require a mind because that is their realm. The mind is where they are realized. Logical absolutes are always true. They are not created and do not become true or they are not absolute. God is not created and eternally exists. Logically, eternal logical absolutes of the mind point to an eternal, absolute mind- God. Every time you post a response you assume the validity of logical absolutes.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@ForJesus220
P1: Truth applies to statements
P2. Statements are conceptual and require a mind because that is their realm
C: Truth requires a mind?
You've entangled yourself in terms and concepts of which dynamics you do not fully understand, in order to propose the existence of a higher mind. The amusing thing is that from this entangled argument, you commit a series of leaps of faith to get to Christianity; your name gives you away. Your argument is ridden with fallacy.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843
Anybody can cry fallacy but you are not showing how. You are offering no logical explanation or counter-argument. I am waiting for you to explain how logical conceptual truths can exist in a universe of mere matter and energy without a mind. Logic is a process of the mind. We must conclude that you agree that processes of the mind can exist with no mind anywhere.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@ForJesus220 Truth does not need minds to be true. I believe yours is the burden of evidence.
As you said; "Logical absolutes are always true. They are not created..." If they are not created, why would need a God to exist? 2 and 2 is 4, no matter what minds do or do not exist. A circle is circlular no matter what. You don't need a god to "invent" such tautologies. Sorry, you won't get too far with that line-of-thought of yours.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (1)The evidence is the logical argument presented. “If they are not created, why would need a God to exist?” Because 2+2=4 is a logical, conceptual reality of the mind. It is NOT logical to say concepts whose realm is the mind can exist void of any mind anywhere. God is not created; logical absolutes are not created. The logical solution is they are a part of God’s eternal mind. Humans are the readers. Completely logical.
ForJesus220 1 year ago
@Pomme843 (2) “A circle is circlular no matter what.” All you are asserting is logical absolutes exist because they do.
ForJesus220 1 year ago