Title: Incessance PDF link: Incessance (Incesancia) Topic: The foundation of philosophy is the utter certainty that God is existence. A certainty not derived by faith, but by logic. If you properly regard the human body - this biological organism - as a many-valued logical system with abstract attributes, we can prove that the earthly (and ultimately universal) environment is not only stable, but evolving across all scales of activity. A human body which self-regards as a MV-logic and self-proves that the environment we call "reality" is stable, evolutionary, and unified, knows...that this environment can be called God, whose global selectional properties can be logically deduced (stability, evolution, unity, etc.) from cosmology and whose fundamental selectional properties can be deduced from quantum mechanics. Bottomline: God does not exist, as some kind of entity. God is existence. This fundamental philosophical truth will one day, and hopefully very soon, be widely understood. It is the secret key to understanding paranormal activities and actualizing magical abilities.
The problem with logic is that it's only a relative truth, meaning it's subjective, therefore any attempt to derive objectivity from logic will be flawed. Deriving a logic to verify any truth, a certainty about God, reality or existence will always be flawed from its premise. Teleological arguments always end up a failure because the burden of proof is put upon the believer and God either winds up filling the gap or the argument is circular. Maybe a true believer finds it unnecessary to prove God's existence.
Well, the laws of physics - which hold reality stable and consistent - are necessarily formulable in terms of logic, so...it does appear that logic is objective as well. No?
Most experiments in physics are not reproducible. What is so disconcerting to physicists is how many simple questions are unanswered. Physics tries to make "laws" that attempt to A. distinguish patterns that arise by chance from B. patterns that are independent of particulars of a situation. Physicists generally try to back up these laws with math. Here is the problem that bothers theoretical physicists, it's impossible to discern the difference between the two (A or B), a chance pattern and an inherent one. Also, when trying to theorize laws of physics you're talking about something that is applicable to the entire universe, and then to borrow a rhetorical question from philosophy, why only the entire universe, is there not more? This causes a really big problem. Physicists use controlled experiments, which by their very nature, look for patterns that are contingent upon specific conditions. For example, falling apples on earth to "prove" the law of gravity which then fails to work under other specific conditions, say planets in orbit. It is impossible to create any law of physics without taking specific conditions into account (relative to the specific condition and also related to the subjectivity of the physicist's mind). Physics, like every other science is tool dependent, and when there are new tools available there are new discoveries made, which often contradict previous discoveries. Physics, like theology share a problem, which is that our minds are shaped by the physical world, as are our thoughts, we have no other way of observing phenomena, and that's one of the reasons why in physics there is no final or universal theory--theology differs in that theologians often adhere to the premise that God exists (a final universal theory that remains constant under all conditions). Laws of physics are simply there to attempt to make reliable predictions, but as any physicist on the cutting edge of theory will admit, even the most elementary predictions are often unachievable. There is nothing about the subjectivity of "reality" covered by physics, that is the realm of philosophy and possibly psychology (in both of those fields the flaw of logic is also explored), and nothing is stable or constant (as explained above) in physics unless it is controlled by the specific conditions of an experiment, which as also stated above, is often not reproducible.
Yeah I get it mate. I'm an atheist but I'm happy to admit that god exists. Just that god isn't what the religious people believe. It isn't an intelligent force that's making decisions. It's an energy. A vibration. Its something that connects us all in a 'spiritual' way but that doesn't make it device spirit. We are god. You are god. I am god. The space between us is god. I practice reiki which is a form of meditation that allows you to access the energy's around us. Different forms of spiritualism, religion and even martial arts all use the energy in different ways. The shaolin monks use it to make their bodies impenetrable to spears. People like myself use the energy to heal. I've been practicing maybe 10 years but still limited to using it on myself. more experienced people can do weird shit with it though. Can't fix broken bones but I've seen dislocations being fixed. Had my own wrist done too. Its the same energy religious people feel when they go to church and they all come together. It is a physical force, an actual living energy that connects them when they all get together but their faith in "god" blinds them from it so they can't use it for themselves. There's a few science dudes have started proving it too with electromagnetic sensitive cameras, heat cameras, brainwave monitoring type stuff. Shit bairns up now be back later dudes.
If I pass by a tree one day and it is standing and the next day it is on the ground. Logic would tell me that it fell. But are there other possibilities. Maybe I have entered a new dimension where the tree was always down. Maybe my mind just made up the previous day or the idea of the standing tree to rectify the idea of a fallen tree. All of these could be logical in a sense depending on what assumptions I am willing to make. That being said it all hinges on attention. If I had not placed my attention on the trees existence or orientation the logical systems would never even come into play. So I guess I mean logic is subordinate to attention. Personally I feel we as human are reality generating beings. We take objects and/or events that are disjoint and use logical systems to make bridges. I would call this process perception. I feel there is Truth and reality. Truth being like raw data and reality being the information derived from data by applying processes. I think God is more akin to Truth. I think this is just a rewording of the idea that God does not exist but is existence. It was also stated something to the effect that we fill in the blanks or gaps. I've tried to pay close attention to decipher what is true and what is reality that I've created. It can be entertaining but also lead to madness. I guess in the end I find pragmatism to be superior. I know (virtually) that we all live in somewhat different realities, so I spend little of my time trying to convince people that my views are right. I personally believe in God but realize that is my perception is only one out of an infinity of possible perceptions. All that being said I appreciate reading all of your thoughts.
I feel like expounding on my previous comment...for some reason. I feel a crucial point in forming the prevailing modes of perception/logic is time. The common view on time is that it is directional, linear, and continuous. This aids in forming a simple model of truth, otherwise refered to as reality, but time itself is not true. It is only a bridging concept that serves to aid us in forming perception and logic. It helps arrange ideas and concept in a neat fashion, but it does not have to be directional, linear, and has been proven to be discrete units and therefore not continuous.
OP calls the mechanisms of creation, maintaince, and destruction, "God" End of thread Sent from my SM-A102U using Grasscity Forum mobile app
The whole “logic is subjective or a human-construct” fails & falls in on itself for several reasons. 1.) If logic is subjective, then that very premise itself would be self-defeating; & your statement can’t be taken to be objectively true, i.e., you can’t use to logic in order to disprove the logic's validity. So, so much for proving, rather than merely opining, that logic is subjective; &, in fact, you’ve actually inadvertently presupposed its objectivity instead. 2.) If logic is subjective, then its main law (that of identity) either would differ, or would be capable of differing, from person-to-person (such as taste preferences do). Yet, since this is impossible, & no one can possibly contradict the law of identity (no one can either imagine or draw a “square-circle”), it should be evident that logic can’t be subjectively conditioned, i.e., either by any individual or set of them; & it’s therefore objectively or universally valid, i.e., its validity isn’t limited to any subject/individual or set of them. 3.) If logic is subjective then mathematics must be regarded as such, too; since mathematics, with its axioms & deductions, is ultimately a subset of logic, such as it merely pertains to quantity. In other words, accepting that mathematics is objectively true or valid, then, ipso facto, logic must be accepted as such too; thus logical deductions are as certain as mathematical ones, such that they should be attributed the same level of certainty.