Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Constructive/Intuitionistic logic 101

That's not what I said. My opinions don't have primacy over the principle of identity or over the ground of existence. You seem to think your opinions do without a shred of evidence.

I think no such thing. I keep pointing out that you philosophy is incomplete because you insist that untested assumptions from classical logic trump newer schools of logic that acknowledge that it is actually possible to tell the truth and still be lying.

No. Let me point something out to you. Neither organic logic nor any additional/alternative forms of logic are in and of themselves philosophy. They're tools used by scientists, philosophers, theologians, engineers, mathematicians, linguists. . . . The fundamental nature of philosophy is the indispensable business of metaphysical definition premised on the delineations of the organic principle of identity. Unlike the vast majority of system-building philosophy, What is it? can be objectively and universally weighed, tested or falsified as it most immediately goes to conceptualization and linguistics. As for as system-building philosophy goes . . . if it's not directly based on natural law as delineated by the principle of identity and affirmed by scripture: I've got no use for it.

What you have failed to share with the others as you make this assertion for the third time is that the identity of constructive logic is an artificial analytic tool predicated on the organic principle of identity, as any other form of logic must necessarily be, that merely precludes double negation elimination and the law of the excluded middle from its set of axioms.


Ultimately, it's a microcosmic, alternate-world-model of logic within the macrocosmic real-world-model of organic logic. Notwithstanding, it’s a very useful tool as it provides a means of evaluating propositional formulations in terms of direct evidence about the real world. Also, in alternate-word mathematics, especially, this model serves to amplify organic logic's power in very much the same way that various technologies amplify our senses. It also provides an alternative way of looking at the real world that can divulge new possibilities, albeit, from a negative perspective that goes to some real-world positive.

The foundational law of the principle of identity, the discrete law of identity as considered separately from its elaborations, and the law contradiction still operate. It cannot be otherwise. But instances of excluded middles or double negation eliminations cannot be generally demonstrated, only discretely demonstrated.

In organic logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA), for example, is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies! For its logical proof is unassailable.

But in constructive logic it cannot be assigned a truth value in terms of ultimacy because the substance of its Object does not assert any direct material
evidence, only inferential evidence, namely, the cosmological order, and the inferentially apparent synchronization of our minds the cosmological order's properties and mechanisms (more on this vital distinction below). In other words, we've all been talking about the MPTA in terms of constructive logic all along, most of you unawares. Instead, the MPTA would be assigned an unknown truth value, as it' not inhabited by a proof of direct evidence. It would be regarded as being valid, though not in the same sense as in organic logic, until it was disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.

In other words, the MPTA cannot be falsified in either of the respective worlds of logic, but for different reasons.

As I said before, because the principle of identity, which is the basis of the MPTA, is organic, one can never escape it or opt out of it. In fact, even in doing constructive logic, one is never actually not aware of the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination. We simply enter into a world of logic where those aspects of organic logic are not presupposed to be axioms.

An analogy that assumes God's existence in terms of ultimacy for the sake of illustration:

From this side of heaven, under the rules of organic logic, God exists! But under the rules of constructive logic/mathematics, God might or might not exist. But the observer beyond this mortal coil can safely assert that God exists under the rules of both organic and constructive logic, as he has direct evidence, not merely inferential evidence.​

In short, QW has never really been alluding to anything that constitutes a game changer as far as the principle of identity is concerned. He's simply making the very same rather unremarkable observation that all of us with an IQ above that of a gnat have made all along: the existence of God, beyond the rules of logic and evidence of the organic principle of identity, is not demonstrable/provable in terms of ultimacy, as the proofs for God's existence are based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence, in spite of the fact that the cosmological order arguably constitutes direct evidence under the terms of organic logic.

As for the vitally important distinction in the above: the organic laws of logic (comprehensively, the principle of identity) evince two distinct levels of being.

One of them is a scientifically falsifiable: the laws of human apprehension/thought are intrinsically organic or universally hard-wired by nature in our brains. Most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true. Hence, in constructive logic this would be assigned a truth value.

The other is a theological proposition: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God, as He is universal the Principle of Identity on Whom they are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Atheists do not believe in God because they see no physical, spiritual, or any type of evidence at all that would support a belief in the supernatural especially as promoted by delusional and irrational people who make absurd assertions that contradict well known and long established facts about reality and have confused faith with obstinate stupidity. Present some evidence. Its not up to the skeptical to believe first before they can see. Its up to the one making the claim to provide convincing evidence that can be seen or even just perceived before belief is even possible.

You have failed miserably.

You make ridiculous claims that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves and even call it God and when I show that such is not the case, and in fact what they worshiped is not God, you act as if that was irrelevant, claim to never have said any such thing and meant something else, start all that you fucking idiot talk, and then go on to clarify your position by saying the exact same thing you said in the first place.

Does Alzheimer's run in your family?

You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?

You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.

Now you can sit here and reel off one lie after another about what you think I've said, and I can spend all day correcting you on that and setting the record straight, but what is the point? You have proven that you want to deliberately misconstrue things I've said and pretend I've said something absurd, so that you can strut around acting like a genius. Honestly, I just don't have time for your nonsense. We can either have an honest discussion about the topic or we can't, and at this point, we're not having that honest discussion.

You obviously either don't know what constitutes evidence, or you know and refuse to accept it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's just that the conversation has shifted a little bit into the Bible because of the kind of question that's being addressed, free will. For me that's just not something you can understand from just the things that the thoughts of origin give you. All I'm saying is that there's never any reason to put alimit on what God can do or how God can make it logically possible for Him to know all and for there to be free will at the same time. I don't get the logic that tries to say that logic doesn't work while trying to use the very same logic, though wrongfully ignoring the perfectly logical concept of infiniteness, to say that logic doesn't let both fully exist. Huh? The only thing that logically works is that both fully exist without conflict, and that's what the Bible says. I don't get the attack on organic logic from Christians.

Actually, philosophy has pretty much settled into the position that free will does not exist.

Materialist philosophers have, but not most idealists or rationalists, not even most empiricists, and organic logic is not philosophy.

 

[Boss]

You obviously either don't know what constitutes evidence, or you know and refuse to accept it.

And you obviously aren't comprehending that all evidence is subjective to the given evaluator. What you might consider as evidence, I might consider as a load of shit that means absolutely nothing... and visa versa. Evidence becomes what is accepted as evidence by the individual.

Evidence is not proof. That's another great misnomer. Evidence may support a belief that something has been proven, but again, what is "proven" is subjective. If you aren't comprehending this, I can't help you, it's a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend. In with the new, out with the old. When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand. All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend. In with the new, out with the old. When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand. All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.

Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?

An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.

You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!

 

[sealybobo]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend. In with the new, out with the old. When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand. All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.

Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?

An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.

You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!

Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours. And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Along this same axiom, I would like to interject something for your consideration. The root of this can be found in the famous "double-slit experiment" where it was discovered that light has both wave-like properties and particle properties. It is also found in some quantum theory as well as theory of relativity, but to me it's very fascinating stuff.

It seems that the act of observation has an effect on actual matter and physics. Does matter behave differently because it is being observed? As bizarre as that may sound, it does appear to be the case with the double-slit experiment.



The video is a simplified version of my point, but simple is good for some of this bunch. I was just wondering what QW and Justin's take on this is?

I actually mentioned this earlier in the thread to demonstrate why classical logic doesn't apply to the universe. In logic, there would be no way for an inanimate object to do something different simply because someone, or something, was watching. It would have to do the same thing every single time. Some people have a problem with admitting this because they have spent way to much time immersing themselves in logic instead of looking at the real world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

Wow, you do not comprehend even the most basic elements of science, do you? First you argue that science tells us how everything came from nothing, when it doesn't, now you claim that matter is eternal, which is even more absurd.

If matter has no end, how do you explain Hiroshima?

 

[sealybobo]

Along this same axiom, I would like to interject something for your consideration. The root of this can be found in the famous "double-slit experiment" where it was discovered that light has both wave-like properties and particle properties. It is also found in some quantum theory as well as theory of relativity, but to me it's very fascinating stuff.

It seems that the act of observation has an effect on actual matter and physics. Does matter behave differently because it is being observed? As bizarre as that may sound, it does appear to be the case with the double-slit experiment.



The video is a simplified version of my point, but simple is good for some of this bunch. I was just wondering what QW and Justin's take on this is?

I actually mentioned this earlier in the thread to demonstrate why classical logic doesn't apply to the universe. In logic, there would be no way for an inanimate object to do something different simply because someone, or something, was watching. It would have to do the same thing every single time. Some people have a problem with admitting this because they have spent way to much time immersing themselves in logic instead of looking at the real world.

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

 

[sealybobo]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

Wow, you do not comprehend even the most basic elements of science, do you? First you argue that science tells us how everything came from nothing, when it doesn't, now you claim hat matter is eternal, which is even more absurd.

If matter has no end, how do you explain Hiroshima?

Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years. Next question?

 

[Boss]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend. In with the new, out with the old. When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand. All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.

Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?

An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.

You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!

Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours. And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.

LMAO... Oh, your theory is good alright... if any science journal has a joke page for toilet humor, your theory would fit in rather nicely there. You may even be able to pitch it to SNL or Jon Stewart. As for being a credible scientific theory, it's just simply not that.

It seems to loosely be based on outdated Singularity theory but then, combined with the more recent and contradicting quantum string theory to form something that doesn't even comport with logic. You've now avoided giving any further explanation as to how this convoluted theory can work, but you're insisting it is legitimate.

I've still not heard you explain how matter can have entropy but has always existed. Another contradiction in logic that you failed to explain.

And neither one of us knows...

Well that's at least HALF true, you certainly don't have a clue. However, this is where I have a distinct advantage over you because I do know. Spiritual nature created physical nature. How that happened, I am not sure of, maybe one day it will be discovered.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic. My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself. That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way. Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else. I don't know now. What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view. Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all. The only people putting limits on him are you guys.

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

That is a flat out lie! You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities. You confounded the law of the excluded middle. You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle. According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.

Stop presses!

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us. It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.

God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science. dblack understands that and so does Justin. You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense. Enough of your obtuse philosophizing. Jesus Christ is the Logos! He is the universal Principle of Identity in whom the cosmological order, respectively, lives and moves and has its being!

Your beef is with someone else, I never said what you quoted.

Not all philosophy is bullshit, just "philosophy that attempts to ignore facts by claiming they are something else", like how the Majorana particle is conceptually A and ~A, as if that meant it were A or ~A, by the way, splitting the predicate, and not A = A (X and Y simultaneously). We don't split wholes of a single predicate into halves that would necessarily become two different things as analyzed separately and then claim that the whole of the single predicate is not what it was. Or did you not follow the sarcasm after I dissected the conflation in your head in the first post touching on this matter, i.e., what you're actually thinking when you write A and ~A . . . simultaneously. You're writing A and ~A, but you're thinking A or ~A. The Majorana particle is not matter or antimatter. That would constitute its third value, though as rightly rendered by me there's no excluded third to eliminate because we're talking about an A of a single predicated. It's always both at the same time!

Hence, A (positive A) and ~A (negative A) is in reality the same things as A = A (X and Y simultaneously).

Do you get the sarcasm now? You're writing, correctly, the very same thing I am, only you keep thinking of it or arguing it as A or ~A.

A and ~A = A (X and Y simultaneously).​

Or more accurately expressed in terms of classic notation:

The Majorana particle as a whole of a single predicate = A: X and Y, wherein X is positive and Y is negative.​

That's the whole of its identity! It's not rocket science.

Further, it has always been understood as I have clearly shown that the organic laws of thought hold that any given A can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously. That's the whole of that apprehension's identity! Any such existents are perfectly rational, just as God is perfectly rational. For example, according to the Bible, God is three Persons. The identity of the Triune God is not Father + Son + Holy Spirit = three Gods. Rather, G = {Father, Son, Holy Spirit simultaneously} in terms of expressional set logic. That does not violate the comprehensive principle of identity either.

You keep saying that, and then you resort to bullshit to attempt to prove you are right.

It ain't working because, As I have already explained, there are other ways of looking at the universe and how we perceive it than classical thought. None of these methods require me to slam a square peg into a round hole and pretend it fits.

Thanks for sharing that. We agree. Where have I ever asserted anything contrary to that . . . aside from those voices fallaciously impersonating me in your head?

You haven't said it, and I never said you did. You do, however, continue to argue that the laws of thought, which are not universal axioms, mean we cannot see the real universe because you refuse to see anything that contradicts them.

Because I can't follow? "Based on the assumption that people thousands of years ago knew more than we do now"?

What they knew is that any given A can be X and Y simultaneously in accordance with the principle of identity, as you yourself have written, A and ~A, the whole, though you keep thinking of this as A or ~A, spitting the predicate. The Majorana particle is not merely it's own opposite or it's own antimatter; it's also it's own positive or it's own matter. That's the whole of its identity. Dude. We don't apprehend it's identity to be matter OR apprehend it's identity to be antimatter, though we apprehend that any given A could be either one of these things. What we apprehend about this particular A (the Majorana particle) is that it is both matter and antimatter. That's the whole of its identity as distinguish from a bed bug.

And now we know that they were wrong. At least, those of us who can look at the real world do.

No. One's ignorance ≠ I don't have a point. "Just like the universe is [not] run by our thoughts." The truth is what it is.

Actually, I provided you scriptural proof of this, but you dismissed it out of hand on the basis of the well-known fact that YHWH's name carries connotations of action and/or unknown connotations in addition to those that go to being due to the ritualistic tradition of the transcription of His name clouding its etymology. But what you're not aware of is that the bulk of Prophetic and Apostolic authority asserts His name in terms of being and the universal ramifications thereof, including the action of sustaining the universe via His very own being as the universal Logos or first principle of identity.

I'm not going to research it all over again now. I don't have my "white book" with me. It's loaned out. But I'll provide you a list of those scriptural references after Sunday when I see the brother who has it. I'll ask him to bring it and I'll make copy of the pertinent pages.

In the meantime contemplate on these: John 1:1-4, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 1:18-23 (again) and the post in the above again.

The truth is you said something that is not true.

 

[sealybobo]

What happened to your dead cats matter? The maggots are eating it. A chicken eats the maggot. You eat the chicken. Some day you die. Maggots eat you body. A chicken eats that maggot, repeat the process until this planet blows up and then we're just drifting in space.

Where does all the mass/matter of a star go when it burns out? We see a shooting star. What happens to all the rocks on a sun? Maybe a sun is like a fire ball and when it burns out there is nothing left.

But ultimately, the earth is a ball of rock and that rock will never just disappear. Right? Even if this planet and everything in this solar system dies with the sun, this rock we exist whether in pieces or fully in tact, will still exist somewhere in 100 billion trillion zillion years, right? It may not be floating here but it will be floating somewhere out in space, right? It won't just disappear, right?

 

[sealybobo]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend. In with the new, out with the old. When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand. All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.

Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?

An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.

You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!

Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours. And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.

Spiritual nature created physical nature

Can you provide one link of anyone else who backs up this theory?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years. Next question?

Can you prove that using actual math and observed data?

Didn't think so.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing. And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see have always existed in one form or another. In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed. No beginning, no end.

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.

In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend. In with the new, out with the old. When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand. All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.

Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?

An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.

You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!

Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours. And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.

LMAO... Oh, your theory is good alright... if any science journal has a joke page for toilet humor, your theory would fit in rather nicely there. You may even be able to pitch it to SNL or Jon Stewart. As for being a credible scientific theory, it's just simply not that.

It seems to loosely be based on outdated Singularity theory but then, combined with the more recent and contradicting quantum string theory to form something that doesn't even comport with logic. You've now avoided giving any further explanation as to how this convoluted theory can work, but you're insisting it is legitimate.

I've still not heard you explain how matter can have entropy but has always existed. Another contradiction in logic that you failed to explain.

And neither one of us knows...

Well that's at least HALF true, you certainly don't have a clue. However, this is where I have a distinct advantage over you because I do know. Spiritual nature created physical nature. How that happened, I am not sure of, maybe one day it will be discovered.

Corinthians 15:46 says you are wrong. LOL

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

Then you ask how can all of our universe fit in your hand? How can this be true? All physical things are made of atoms which are mostly empty space. If the nucleus is the size of a marble, the electrons would be specks of dust a half mile away. Every physical thing has that much empty space in it.

We can come from nothing! Why? Because Nothing is really something.

Einstein's general relativity equations show that space bends and prove that nothing is really something with substance. Supposedly, empty space is shaped, and it is the shape of space that creates the gravity that controls and creates the whole universe. It holds the planets in orbit, makes the sun and other stars burn, and it is empty space, nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

Value of general relativity: I always wondered what the practical benefit of general relativity was, and now I know. It proves that nothing is something, and in fact controls and creates the whole universe.

Nothing causes everything to happen. It creates gravity, gravity creates planets and stars, stars concentrate and release all energy and matter. Thus everything physical comes from and is created by nothing. 0 = 2