Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2016, 10:03 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2016 10:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(17-10-2016 09:28 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  But I'm somewhat put-off by the instantaneous dismissal of ideas.

Too bad. We know what you're up to.

Quote:Approaching the question of the gods from logic, is a waste of time.

Quote:This is one claim that I think needs some rationale. The power of logic may not be underestimated, given its governing power over the universe, despite being a seemingly abstract concept. Furthermore, I wasn't arguing directly for or against God, rather I was countering an argument that dealt with the possibility of God, which can be determined through logic, as I showed.

No you didn't. You haven't even defined what it is you think you're talking about (a"god").
The fundamental Reality of this universe has been proven to be what is seen to be non-intuitive to the human mind, ("illogical" if you will).
Is Quantum Physics "logical" ? Is Relativity "logical" ? Is Uncertainty "logical" ? Is the math of Dirac "logical" ?
Nope.

Reality is not "governed" by logic.
Logic "governs" nothing. It is a method, when used, may lead to certain correct conclusions IN SOME CASES, with some very obvious and important exceptions.
You also have no evidence or indication it is effective anywhere other than in this universe, in this locality.

The logic you worship is necessary, but not sufficient.
You need something else.
Care to guess what that is ?

(BTW, the gods cannot be "proven". If there were any such "logical proof" then faith would be unnecessary. No theist would claim they do not need faith.)
As I said, you're wasting your time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2016, 12:22 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(17-10-2016 09:28 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  This is one claim that I think needs some rationale. The power of logic may not be underestimated, given its governing power over the universe, despite being a seemingly abstract concept. Furthermore, I wasn't arguing directly for or against God, rather I was countering an argument that dealt with the possibility of God, which can be determined through logic, as I showed.

(17-10-2016 09:28 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  The power of logic may not be underestimated, given its governing power over the universe,

No, seriously.... what 'power' exactly does logic have over anything? Consider

I am not understanding where this comment is going/meaning

(17-10-2016 09:52 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(17-10-2016 08:39 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Except... your example is not equivalent to your statement.

If something exists and 'We' (Reality) has no way of interacting with it... and it has no way of interacting with 'Us'(Reality)... then, effectively... it doesn't actually exist... Consider

(A)Remember the analogy:
Horses do not exist in chess, but they exist in our universe. We can imagine our universe standing in for chess, where something, perhaps "God", does not exist within it, but exists as part of a system encompassing our universe. Given such a system, we could define an "ultimate existence" to mean everything that exists in the parent universe. This would mean God ultimately exists, as well as everything in our universe ultimately exists. Now, as I believe I addressed, should we care about things that don't exist in our universe? Depends on you, maybe, but in terms of what I was discussing, yes, God "ultimately exists".

Quote:Um... if it can't be 'confirmed'? Then how might one even know it 'Does' exist'? Consider

(B)Maybe we can't know, but it doesn't stop us from theorizing. I like to theorize and try to find a consistent and hopefully accurate model of reality, which may go beyond what we can know. Mathematicians often deal with purely theoretical concepts that may not be applicable to our physical universe, but it sometimes they do find their way into a science. I'll let scientists discover what is, I like to use their findings to theorize what may be.

Okay, (A) and (B) are verging off into two different directions.

In (A) the problem with your analogy is that it in no way help or matches the proposition of 'Outside reality'. You are conflating one object for another (Chess piece horse=/=animal horse) simply on both object's descriptive name/title. You are then adding another 'Noun' into the conversation seeming from no where.

The game of chess is not just within our reality, it is a part of and shaped/created/interacted with within the bounds of the reality. Saying we are 'outside' the game of chess is, given the way you are then interpolating it, disingenuous. We are not 'Gods' in respect to the pieces of chess as, on the whole, the reality encompasses all. Again the whole 'Outside reality' is pointless unless we can figure out a way to interact with this 'other' (I am now trying to remove the connotation of 'Outside' fro the conversation as I feel it is not helping since, as others have pointed out, there is no 'Outside space and time'. There is currently "We do not know".

As for (B)? People wander off into thinking about lots of random things all the time. People create literature, animation, movies, music to such flights of fancy adding to such things complexity. Such things can then 'stand alone' from the original creator but in the sense that this line of posting is going the things (Music, movies, art, etc) are still not real.

As for the science side of the conversation, I'll happily let some one better versed add thoughts to your comments about such but I do not think 'science' is working/practiced in the way you are using the word above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 07:47 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 08:17 AM by unknowndevil666.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(17-10-2016 10:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Too bad. We know what you're up to.

You're right, I am wasting my time. You don't seem interested in discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 12:22 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, seriously.... what 'power' exactly does logic have over anything? Consider

I am not understanding where this comment is going/meaning

It's difficult because this is yet another large topic pertaining to "physical reality" vs "mathematical reality". I, and I'm not alone, happen to think, although not incredibly strongly, that the "physical" is something of an illusion. The "power" that logic has refers to the fact that mathematics seems to be embedded in the structure of the universe. That's as far as I'm going to go into it now.

Quote:In (A) the problem with your analogy is that it in no way help or matches the proposition of 'Outside reality'. You are conflating one object for another (Chess piece horse=/=animal horse) simply on both object's descriptive name/title. You are then adding another 'Noun' into the conversation seeming from no where.

When I used "horse" as an example, I wasn't actually referring to the knight in chess, it was just the first thing that popped into my head! And I'm not sure what noun you're referring to....God?

Quote:The game of chess is not just within our reality, it is a part of and shaped/created/interacted with within the bounds of the reality. Saying we are 'outside' the game of chess is, given the way you are then interpolating it, disingenuous...(I am now trying to remove the connotation of 'Outside' fro the conversation as I feel it is not helping since, as others have pointed out, there is no 'Outside space and time'. There is currently "We do not know".

Perhaps "outside" is a poor term. What I mean when I say "outside" is "not part of the relationships established by the rules of the system". A frog is not part of the rules of the game of chess, nor can it be derived from the rules, so it does not exist in chess. Not existing in chess, but existing in our universe, means the frog exists "outside" of chess. "Outside" as I'm using it doesn't have a spatial or temporal component. I'm not sure what other term should be use.

Quote:We are not 'Gods' in respect to the pieces of chess as, on the whole, the reality encompasses all. Again the whole 'Outside reality' is pointless unless we can figure out a way to interact with this 'other'

You're right, we are not "gods". I didn't say we were. For now, it might be helpful to remove "God" from the conversation, since we're not really talking about such a thing right now. And perhaps it is pointless, you're more than justified to believe that. But even if it is, I like to do pointless things sometimes.

Quote:As for (B)? People wander off into thinking about lots of random things all the time. People create literature, animation, movies, music to such flights of fancy adding to such things complexity. Such things can then 'stand alone' from the original creator but in the sense that this line of posting is going the things (Music, movies, art, etc) are still not real.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think perhaps the analogy was not explained properly. I've sort of reached the limit on how much I'm willing to think right now, so I'll just leave it off with this:

Quote:Okay, (A) and (B) are verging off into two different directions.

Indeed. Like I've been saying since the very beginning, worldviews are holistic. They gather information from everything we experience and learn. If you're still curious, I'm willing to continue the conversation, but I'd rather try to focus on one thing. That is, rather than giant posts responding to several different points brought up, focus on a single one of those points. I've been enjoying the discussion though, it really gets the brain pumping. I've had more energy the past couple of days than I've had in weeks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 08:39 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 07:47 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(17-10-2016 10:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Too bad. We know what you're up to.

You're right, I am wasting my time. You don't seem interested in discussion.

I would be if you had the intelligence to conduct it.
So far, all you've done is perpetrate the same old tired bs, and you have not defined ANY of your terms, or acknowledged your assumptions.
You are not special, and your idea is not unique.

You have answered NONE of the objections raised to your presentation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2016, 08:54 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 08:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I would be if you had the intelligence to conduct it.
So far, all you've done is perpetrate the same old tired bs, and you have not defined ANY of your terms, or acknowledged your assumptions.
You are not special, and your idea is not unique.

You have answered NONE of the objections raised to your presentation.

Mm-hm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Okay. I promise to eventually return to the question in the OP. But first:

(17-10-2016 09:28 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  The power of logic may not be underestimated, given its governing power over the universe,

That's like saying Cervantes governed Quixote's windmills. .. Wait, bad example. That's like saying f=ma imposes constraints on force,mass, and acceleration rather than just describing their observed interaction. While that is an interesting perspective I am currently out of my stock of psychedelics. Further, which logic will you choose? There are many. All on solid ground. It's almost like asking which God is real. I mean except for the "solid ground" business.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 08:54 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 08:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I would be if you had the intelligence to conduct it.
So far, all you've done is perpetrate the same old tired bs, and you have not defined ANY of your terms, or acknowledged your assumptions.
You are not special, and your idea is not unique.

You have answered NONE of the objections raised to your presentation.

Mm-hm

Thanks for demonstrating you are not up to this.
I'll say a little prayer for you. Laugh out load

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 09:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Okay. I promise to eventually return to the question in the OP. But first:

(17-10-2016 09:28 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  The power of logic may not be underestimated, given its governing power over the universe,

That's like saying Cervantes governed Quixote's windmills. .. Wait, bad example. That's like saying f=ma imposes constraints on force,mass, and acceleration rather than just describing their observed interaction. While that is an interesting perspective I am currently out of my stock of psychedelics. Further, which logic will you choose? There are many. All on solid ground. It's almost like asking which God is real. I mean except for the "solid ground" business.

As Sean Carroll pointed out in his debate with WLC, there are many impeccable systems of logic which lead to a conclusion that, in reality does not obtain.

But I guess they don't teach that at Liberty U. or Biola. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(18-10-2016 09:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 09:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Okay. I promise to eventually return to the question in the OP. But first:


That's like saying Cervantes governed Quixote's windmills. .. Wait, bad example. That's like saying f=ma imposes constraints on force,mass, and acceleration rather than just describing their observed interaction. While that is an interesting perspective I am currently out of my stock of psychedelics. Further, which logic will you choose? There are many. All on solid ground. It's almost like asking which God is real. I mean except for the "solid ground" business.

As Sean Carroll pointed out in his debate with WLC, there are many impeccable systems of logic which lead to a conclusion that, in reality does not obtain.

In a fit of irony, those are the only ones which are real. .... hehehehhehehe

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: