Religion

[pudding]

Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

 

 

Laws of Logic

Basic Logic sequences

 

Are these what you are looking for? Reasonings can be verified just like Calculus problems. It's all about Ps and Qs. The world is just one big mathematical proof.

[Awdz]

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

 

 

Laws of Logic

Basic Logic sequences

 

Are these what you are looking for? Reasonings can be verified just like Calculus problems. It's all about Ps and Qs. The world is just one big mathematical proof.

Logic is always interesting and fun to play with. One thing to remember, though is that those equations use variables - and if you are not using the same starting references as me, we will come to very different conclusions.

 

For example, what is 3x4? Some would say 12, others might say 14, others might say B, and still others might say 22. All are correct answers, depending on what base you use for counting (10, 8, 16, 5).

 

What you consider to be chaos may be smooth functionality to me, and vice versa. What do you use as an absolute reference? Yourself, as you are in the center of everything you experience? How then do you related to others who come from a very different place? And if not yourself, then what? How do you know you can rely on it as an absolute standard reference?

[pudding]

Logic is always interesting and fun to play with.  One thing to remember, though is that those equations use variables - and if you are not using the same starting references as me, we will come to very different conclusions.

 

For example, what is 3x4?  Some would say 12, others might say 14, others might say B, and still others might say 22.  All are correct answers, depending on what base you use for counting (10, 8, 16, 5).

 

What you consider to be chaos may be smooth functionality to me, and vice versa.  What do you use as an absolute reference?  Yourself, as you are in the center of everything you experience?  How then do you related to others who come from a very different place?  And if not yourself, then what?  How do you know you can rely on it as an absolute standard reference?

If 3x4 equals anything but 12, you have some serious math-related problems. 3 times 4 is ONLY EVER going to equal 12. I'm in Calculus 2 and never has 3x4 ever equaled anything but 12. You might want to review your times tables.

 

The point of logic is that, like a mathematical proof, it must be proven 100% of the time. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2. You're trying to argue semantics here but logic has very strict principles and must be proved, otherwise it is false. The absolute reference is its validity and soundness. No matter how you use it, logic is meant to ensure that whenever you multiply 3x4, you get 12. Otherwise, it is not logical.

[High Lord November]

Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?

Past a certain point, does it matter? Do we absolutely need some sort of ulterior being to compare our values to in order for them to be valid, or can we just observe cause, action, and effect? Because, really, in the end, that's all that matters.

 

The point of logic is that, like a mathematical proof, it must be proven 100% of the time. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2. You're trying to argue semantics here but logic has very strict principles and must be proved, otherwise it is false. The absolute reference is its validity and soundness. No matter how you use it, logic is meant to ensure that whenever you multiply 3x4, you get 12. Otherwise, it is not logical.

 

Are we arguing logic in terms of humans? It's quite possible for logic to lead to two or more different conclusions, depending on what you weigh more and why. Humans and situations aren't as clear-cut as computer systems or numbers.

Edited March 4, 2014 by High Lord November

[Awdz]

If 3x4 equals anything but 12, you have some serious math-related problems. 3 times 4 is ONLY EVER going to equal 12. I'm in Calculus 2 and never has 3x4 ever equaled anything but 12. You might want to review your times tables.

 

The point of logic is that, like a mathematical proof, it must be proven 100% of the time. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2. You're trying to argue semantics here but logic has very strict principles and must be proved, otherwise it is false. The absolute reference is its validity and soundness. No matter how you use it, logic is meant to ensure that whenever you multiply 3x4, you get 12. Otherwise, it is not logical.

You might want to learn to count in a base other than 10. Then you might pick up on my real calculation error, that 3x4 should be C (not B, because A is 10) in base 16. But I'm not very familiar with counting in base 16, so I'm more prone to making an error there. In base 8, 3x4 becomes 14 (1x8 +4x1); in base 5, it becomes 22 (2x5 + 2x1). And if you apply more advanced equations, the numbers become even more difficult to follow.

 

My point is that the point of reference that you start from is critical to how you interpret something. What you consider order may be total chaos to me, and vice versa. I do not care what universal logic you use; if you start upside down or backwards relative to me, your reasoning will not carry me in the same absolute direction as it will you. That is why I keep asking what your absolute reference is.

 

You can think of it as orientation in a space defined by infinite dimensions. If everyone must have the same absolute reference, how is it defined? And if it is difficult to describe someone in terms of that absolute reference, should we be terrified of them or interested to learn about them?

 

Once the reference is known, then the scaling/counting base becomes the next question. Some like to work with imaginary numbers, some always describe things in a negative direction, some always use positive, some encompass both positive/negative, and some like to go off in infinite directions. You've said you use chaos/order; does it matter if someone uses preservation of furry critters as their measure? Or if someone uses how actions impact feelings, instead of how it impacts herd survivability? Definitely.

 

In the train scenario, if the people on the train do not know what is coming but the mother and child can see it, someone trying to prevent fear might destroy the train instead. Trains have been stopped to rescue kittens, causing the inconvenience of hundreds of people. Some argued that the kittens should just have been run over. What does the chaos theory say about those kittens?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[pudding]

You might want to learn to count in a base other than 10.  Then you might pick up on my real calculation error, that 3x4 should be C (not B, because A is 10) in base 16.  But I'm not very familiar with counting in base 16, so I'm more prone to making an error there.  In base 8, 3x4 becomes 14 (1x8 +4x1); in base 5, it becomes 22 (2x5 + 2x1).  And if you apply more advanced equations, the numbers become even more difficult to follow.

 

My point is that the point of reference that you start from is critical to how you interpret something.  What you consider order may be total chaos to me, and vice versa.  I do not care what universal logic you use; if you start upside down or backwards relative to me, your reasoning will not carry me in the same absolute direction as it will you.  That is why I keep asking what your absolute reference is. 

 

You can think of it as orientation in a space defined by infinite dimensions.  If everyone must have the same absolute reference, how is it defined?  And if it is difficult to describe someone in terms of that absolute reference, should we be terrified of them or interested to learn about them?

 

Once the reference is known, then the scaling/counting base becomes the next question.  Some like to work with imaginary numbers, some always describe things in a negative direction, some always use positive, some encompass both positive/negative, and some like to go off in infinite directions.

But no matter what base you are using, the answers are still equal. That's like saying the cup is half full is not equal to the cup is half empty. You're saying that with different bases, you'll get different answers. But those answers are all equal and simply expressed in different matters.

 

In base 10, we have 12. In base 3, we have 110. But those are still the same thing and that's the point. They're different languages used to express the same term. Using a different language does not make the meaning of the word any different. Blue=Azul=Bleu.

 

You're trying to prove that the point of reference somehow makes the numbers different when they aren't. You're argument is, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove since using these different language terms gives you the same relative answer. You need a better example of this point of reference you keep talking about since this math base only furthers my point that you'll get the same answer if you derive things logically. What you're trying to say now is that Blue does not equal Azul when they have the same meaning, only expressed in different words.

 

I've already stated that humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thoughts. Whenever I talk about logic, I cast aside my human emotions to answer the problem. Emotions are not logical. You cannot use them in a logic argument. Without emotions, it doesn't matter if the person getting killed is a child or an adult or whatever. All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources. Even if those resources are kittens.

Edited March 4, 2014 by pudding

[Awdz]

But no matter what base you are using, the answers are still equal. That's like saying the cup is half full is not equal to the cup is half empty. You're saying that with different bases, you'll get different answers. But those answers are all equal and simply expressed in different matters.

 

In base 10, we have 12. In base 3, we have 110. But those are still the same thing and that's the point. They're different languages used to express the same term. Using a different language does not make the meaning of the word any different. Blue=Azul=Bleu.

 

You're trying to prove that the point of reference somehow makes the numbers different when they aren't. You're argument is, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove since using these different language terms gives you the same relative answer. You need a better example of this point of reference you keep talking about since this math base only furthers my point that you'll get the same answer if you derive things logically. What you're trying to say now is that Blue does not equal Azul when they have the same meaning, only expressed in different words.

 

I've already stated that humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thoughts. Whenever I talk about logic, I cast aside my human emotions to answer the problem. Emotions are not logical. You cannot use them in a logic argument. Without emotions, it doesn't matter if the person getting killed is a child or an adult or whatever. All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources.

But the language absolutely matters if you are going to communicate with someone.

 

So I interpret what you say as, your god (what you revere most) is human life, and you will always choose whatever preserves the most human lives.

 

How do you factor in quality of life to that? If the people on the train were all suffering from stage 4 cancer, would that make a difference in whether or not you wipe out the mother and child? Or is that a bad example, because in terms of preserving human life, terminally ill cancer patients are a waste of resources already?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[philpot123]

What's your reasoning for this? If you have one, how do you know your reasoning is valid? xP

I'm not the one making logic claims and value judgments at the moment, I'm just asking questions ^.^ but if you'd like to know what I consider the basis for all human reason, you're welcome to PM me and I can discuss it further.

 

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

 

 

Laws of Logic

Basic Logic sequences

 

Are these what you are looking for? Reasonings can be verified just like Calculus problems. It's all about Ps and Qs. The world is just one big mathematical proof.

I'm aware of what the laws of logic are, I was trying to determine whether or not you believed they exist and are universal. Based on your response, I'll assume yes and work from there. It's lovely that you believe in logic, that makes conversation so much easier. If these laws of logic are universal and immutable, that is they apply to everyone and don't change from person to person, where did they come from? Also, are the laws of logic physical or non-physical? You seem to believe they exist, but can you touch them or see them?

 

Past a certain point, does it matter? Do we absolutely need some sort of ulterior being to compare our values to in order for them to be valid, or can we just observe cause, action, and effect? Because, really, in the end, that's all that matters.

While you're observing cause, action, and effect, how do you know you can trust your observations?

Edited March 4, 2014 by philpot123

[BlitzDrake]

I'm not the one making logic claims and value judgments at the moment, I'm just asking questions ^.^ but if you'd like to know what I consider the basis for all human reason, you're welcome to PM me and I can discuss it further.

Oh whoops. Didn't read the past couple posts. x3. Perhaps then.

[philpot123]

Oh whoops. Didn't read the past couple posts. x3. Perhaps then.

Not a problem! I'm usually going around making those types of assertions, so your assumption was reasonable

[pudding]

But the language absolutely matters if you are going to communicate with someone.

 

So I interpret what you say as, your god (what you revere most) is human life, and you will always choose whatever preserves the most human lives.

 

How do you factor in quality of life to that?  If the people on the train were all suffering from stage 4 cancer, would that make a difference in whether or not you wipe out the mother and child?  Or is that a bad example, because in terms of preserving human life, terminally ill cancer patients are a waste of resources already?

Mmmmm no. Not even close. I think I've said this before but I am a Nihilist. This means that I think that no matter what humans or anything else do, we will never accomplish anything worthwhile. We won't make an impact on the universe and nothing we can ever hope to accomplish will do anything meaningful. This applies for everything, not just humans.

 

But more than anything, I do not want this opinion. It's the one I have but I hate it with ever fiber of my being. What I value most of all is resources because I hope that something out there can actually accomplish something something of value and leave some sort of impact on the universe.

 

 

Throwing additional factors into the train factor is meaningless. What if the people on the train were all criminals? What if the baby was going to turn into a serial killer? These are things you can't possibly know and must evaluate at face value. I see multiple lives vs two lives. Not specifically human lives, just lives. The greater number of lives outweighs the lesser.

 

My grandfather had stage 4 lung cancer and lived for five years with it. During that time, he never stopped working until a week before he died. He made millions of dollars working. He functioned better than quite a few younger, healthier people I know. Your argument here about human life is like saying that... old people are a waste of resources because they aren't as physically fit as others and will likely die before others when there are many elderly people who are fitter than younger people these days (Especially with out obesity problem in America). Was his life worth less than someone else because of his age? Because of his illness? Because of things you couldn't possibly know just by looking at him?

 

~~~

 

Laws of logic are not subjected to the whims of individuals. They exist outside of the individual mind-frame and instead views are subjected to them (Instead of them being subjected to views). They have always existed (like other laws) and were simply discovered and defined in terms that humans understand. It is not like humans invented logic and before that it didn't exist. They existed always and humans simply translated them into words they can understand and comprehend. In short; they did not come from anywhere. They always existed.

[philpot123]

Laws of logic are not subjected to the whims of individuals. They exist outside of the individual mind-frame and instead views are subjected to them (Instead of them being subjected to views). They have always existed (like other laws) and were simply discovered and defined in terms that humans understand. It is not like humans invented logic and before that it didn't exist. They existed always and humans simply translated them into words they can understand and comprehend. In short; they did not come from anywhere. They always existed.

"They have always existed." Wow. You're sounding almost like you believe in a deity, you're just calling it logic.

 

Did the laws of logic preexist before the universe's beginning, or was there ever a point when they did not exist? How do you know these laws of logic exist?

Edited March 4, 2014 by philpot123

[pudding]

"They have always existed." Wow. You're sounding almost like you believe in a deity, you're just calling it logic.

 

Did the laws of logic preexist before the universe's beginning, or was there ever a point when they did not exist?

You misunderstand. Matter has always existed and it is not a deity. Here is an example of logic:

Matter cannot be created from nothing. (Scientific law)

We have matter now. (Observable fact)

Therefore, matter must have always existed.

 

 

I believe in a theory where our universe is in a constant state of swelling and cooling. It grows hot and expands (Our current state) until it expands so far that it begins to cool. In its cooling, it begins to retreat back into its original state. It condenses, grows hot and then explodes again.

 

Basically, multiple big-bangs happening in an indefinite loop because matter always existed.

 

Logic began with matter, as did the concept of attraction and repulsion. These are things that do not rely on humans to be created. They are not cars or toys to be altered at a whim. They are laws of the universe.

[Awdz]

Mmmmm no. Not even close. I think I've said this before but I am a Nihilist. This means that I think that no matter what humans or anything else do, we will never accomplish anything worthwhile. We won't make an impact on the universe and nothing we can ever hope to accomplish will do anything meaningful. This applies for everything, not just humans.

 

But more than anything, I do not want this opinion. It's the one I have but I hate it with ever fiber of my being. What I value most of all is resources because I hope that something out there can actually accomplish something something of value and leave some sort of impact on the universe.

 

 

Throwing additional factors into the train factor is meaningless. What if the people on the train were all criminals? What if the baby was going to turn into a serial killer? These are things you can't possibly know and must evaluate at face value. I see multiple lives vs two lives. Not specifically human lives, just lives. The greater number of lives outweighs the lesser.

 

My grandfather had stage 4 lung cancer and lived for five years with it. During that time, he never stopped working until a week before he died. He made millions of dollars working. He functioned better than quite a few younger, healthier people I know. Your argument here about human life is like saying that... old people are a waste of resources because they aren't as physically fit as others and will likely die before others when there are many elderly people who are fitter than younger people these days (Especially with out obesity problem in America). Was his life worth less than someone else because of his age? Because of his illness? Because of things you couldn't possibly know just by looking at him?

 

~~~

 

Laws of logic are not subjected to the whims of individuals. They exist outside of the individual mind-frame and instead views are subjected to them (Instead of them being subjected to views). They have always existed (like other laws) and were simply discovered and defined in terms that humans understand. It is not like humans invented logic and before that it didn't exist. They existed always and humans simply translated them into words they can understand and comprehend. In short; they did not come from anywhere. They always existed.

I really do not relate to your perspective at all. I feel like I'm asking how someone in spells in Chinese or hieroglyphs (a picture-based language that does not use letters).

 

You don't think human life is to be revered, but you revere resources, which in the train example you seem to define as human lives. What then do you consider to be these resources? How do you determine what is a resource and what is not?

 

Interesting, the "always existed" paradox is one of the defining facets of God. So I guess your god is truly logic.

[philpot123]

You misunderstand. Matter has always existed and it is not a deity. Here is an example of logic:

Matter cannot be created from nothing. (Scientific law)

We have matter now. (Observable fact)

Therefore, matter must have always existed.

 

 

I believe in a theory where our universe is in a constant state of swelling and cooling. It grows hot and expands (Our current state) until it expands so far that it begins to cool. In its cooling, it begins to retreat back into its original state. It condenses, grows hot and then explodes again.

 

Basically, multiple big-bangs happening in an indefinite loop because matter always existed.

 

Logic began with matter, as did the concept of attraction and repulsion. These are things that do not rely on humans to be created. They are not cars or toys to be altered at a whim. They are laws of the universe.

You're genuinely the first person I've ever interacted with who has confessed the eternal existence of matter so readily. I thought you guys were gone after secular origins theories developed.

 

That's a nice syllogism, a little deviant from the typical aristotelian model but workable. I guess you didn't see my edit, so I'll ask again. How do you know that logic exists? For all I know your syllogism makes as much since as the sky is brown, monkeys wear hats, therefore egg. How am I to discern the existence of these eternal, immaterial things?

 

Logic "began with" matter? You're saying that something immaterial came from that which is material, something universal came from that which is particular, and something immutable came from something which is in a "constant state of swelling and cooling." All of which are logical impossibilities. Shew. Or perhaps you simply mean that logic began at the same time as matter - that is, didn't have a beginning at all. If that's the case, I'll wait for you to clarify before any more questions.

Edited March 4, 2014 by philpot123

[Awdz]

Matter cannot be created from nothing. (Scientific law)

We have matter now. (Observable fact)

Therefore, matter must have always existed.

The thing about that scientific law is, it's not really provable. We do not currently know of any way to create matter from nothing. The reality we know depends on conservation of energy. However, by matter/energy merely existing, it raises many, many more questions.

 

If there must be a net neutral energy balance in the universe, what is the opposite of matter (don't just say "antimatter", define/characterize it)? Is there an opposite for every type of energy? How many different forms can it take, that we have not yet discovered? How did the energy split come to be? Could someone/something have created matter from nothing, by also forming antimatter at the same time?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[edwardelricfreak]

Dunno if I would ever agree that logic exactly lasted forever and began with matter...I guess if you're defining logic by the rules and laws of the universe and how it functions, then okay. That makes sense.

 

I can see matter existing forever, too. We can't prove it's never existed, at least yet.

[pudding]

I really do not relate to your perspective at all.  I feel like I'm asking how someone in spells in Chinese or hieroglyphs (a picture-based language that does not use letters).

 

You don't think human life is to be revered, but you revere resources, which in the train example you seem to define as human lives.  What then do you consider to be these resources?  How do you determine what is a resource and what is not?

 

Interesting, the "always existed" paradox is one of the defining facets of God. So I guess your god is truly logic.

God |gäd|

noun

1 [ without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 ( god )(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.

• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

• used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.

3 ( god )an adored, admired, or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.

 

I do not see how logic is being put into this definition of god. Things do not need to be put into religious boxes to be understood. If it was a god, I would not be an Atheist.

 

 

Moreover, always existed is not a paradox in this case. The problem with god always existing is that it defies laws of science and matter. My proposition for the origin of the universe (or lack of, I suppose), defies no laws.

 

It is not revering, it is preserving. Think of a car. How long does it take to make that car functional from basic tools? Now think of a doctor. How much longer does it take to make that doctor? Life (Quit focusing solely on humans) usually takes longer to manufacture and nurture than other resources. A train can be more easily rebuilt than a group of adults, mos likely one of which (at least) attended college. This is why the resource of life here dominates that of the train and the other lives. They took longer to create.

 

I think the feeling is mutual in that regard as I cannot relate to anything you are saying at all. In fact, I'm getting the feeling you're grasping at straws in an attempt to religi-fy my viewpoints.

 

~~~

 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, I'm still secular. It's just my own personal opinion based upon scientific laws that I know and what can be observed. Show me information that proves my theory false and I will quickly remedy the fault.

 

Logic has no beginning is what I am saying. We can hardly prove the existence of anything (I struggled to prove the existence of pants to my friend, once) so asking how we know logic exists is like asking how we know colors exist. It's an observable something we take for granted. But, assuming that the universe is real and logic is real, it has no beginning. Can you, perhaps, tell me when colors originated? It's the same idea (Only colors are a result of a physical process of wavelengths but you get my idea since it is difficult to imagine color suddenly cropping up from no color at all.)

[philpot123]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, I'm still secular. It's just my own personal opinion based upon scientific laws that I know and what can be observed. Show me information that proves my theory false and I will quickly remedy the fault.

 

Logic has no beginning is what I am saying. We can hardly prove the existence of anything (I struggled to prove the existence of pants to my friend, once) so asking how we know logic exists is like asking how we know colors exist. It's an observable something we take for granted. But, assuming that the universe is real and logic is real, it has no beginning. Can you, perhaps, tell me when colors originated? It's the same idea (Only colors are a result of a physical process of wavelengths but you get my idea since it is difficult to imagine color suddenly cropping up from no color at all.)

It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings.

 

So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?

[pudding]

It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings.

 

So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?

I'm just following the conservation laws, that's all. If matter cannot be created and destroyed and we have matter, it must have existed forever and will exist forever. There is a point of origin (The site of the repeated big bangs), but not a "birthing" point, per-say. The eternal existence of matter is difference from the eternal existence of a deity because deities (or at least the Christian god) went on to make matter. That's a big no-no for conservation laws.

 

It seems redundant to put it that way but since there is no other way to prove things, logic shall have to be proved that way as well. Unless there is some other manner for proving things that I was not aware of but those seem to be the only two.

 

 

[Awdz]

God |gäd|

noun

1 [ without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 ( god )(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.

• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

• used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.

3 ( god )an adored, admired, or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.

 

I do not see how logic is being put into this definition of god. Things do not need to be put into religious boxes to be understood. If it was a god, I would not be an Atheist.

 

 

Moreover, always existed is not a paradox in this case. The problem with god always existing is that it defies laws of science and matter. My proposition for the origin of the universe (or lack of, I suppose), defies no laws.

 

It is not revering, it is preserving. Think of a car. How long does it take to make that car functional from basic tools? Now think of a doctor. How much longer does it take to make that doctor? Life (Quit focusing solely on humans) usually takes longer to manufacture and nurture than other resources. A train can be more easily rebuilt than a group of adults, mos likely one of which (at least) attended college. This is why the resource of life here dominates that of the train and the other lives. They took longer to create.

 

I think the feeling is mutual in that regard as I cannot relate to anything you are saying at all. In fact, I'm getting the feeling you're grasping at straws in an attempt to religi-fy my viewpoints.

 

~~~

 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, I'm still secular. It's just my own personal opinion based upon scientific laws that I know and what can be observed. Show me information that proves my theory false and I will quickly remedy the fault.

 

Logic has no beginning is what I am saying. We can hardly prove the existence of anything (I struggled to prove the existence of pants to my friend, once) so asking how we know logic exists is like asking how we know colors exist. It's an observable something we take for granted. But, assuming that the universe is real and logic is real, it has no beginning. Can you, perhaps, tell me when colors originated? It's the same idea (Only colors are a result of a physical process of wavelengths but you get my idea since it is difficult to imagine color suddenly cropping up from no color at all.)

See, this is where the language barrier comes up again. You are looking at a dictionary definition of "god" where I am referring to a religious description of God. I (and many others) happen to believe God is the only thing that has no beginning; it is a defining facet of what God is to us.

 

"Always existed" is a paradox, no matter what it is applied to. There is always the question of where "it" came from.

 

Your proposition defies no known laws, given the starting point of matter already existing. But just as Newton's laws of motion do not hold as the speed of light is approached, your proposition does not hold as the origin of matter/energy is approached.

 

I took "What I value most of all is" to mean "revering" because you hold it above everything else. I went with human life because you dismissed the lives of the kittens in favor of human convenience. Maybe I misread something when I took "All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources. Even if those resources are kittens." to mean people's lives matter more than kittens do.

 

Colors are energy wavelengths. They came to be when energy/matter did.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[High Lord November]

While you're observing cause, action, and effect, how do you know you can trust your observations?

So we are going in the direction of "how do you know you exist? No but really, how do you know you exist?" I hate these discussion points. I find them useless and irrelevant to what actually matters.

 

Because I know, in the realm of things that matter and are relevant, that I exist. There needs to be some base point. I can trust my observations because electromagnetic waves reach my eyes, which are reflected or emitted off of objects, which convey information about what the object is, which my brain decodes. I can use past actions and results to predict future ones, and, using said light, as well as my brain, which draws connections between various similar things, such as memory and information, can think and relate patterns and therefore produce a reasonable assumption of what will happen. If the parameters and conditions the observations were done in were reasonable, and not afflicted by too many variables, I can usually trust the observation unless new information comes up, in which case I will revise my thoughts and predictions based upon new proof. That is the basis of science. I don't need a deity to tell me "trust your observations. This is what is moral, according to me. This is what is logical, according to me. This is what is reasonable and valid, according to me. Here is what and what not to do, according to me. I am the law. No thinking is involved; do what I say, because it is law."

 

 

I'm just following the conservation laws, that's all. If matter cannot be created and destroyed and we have matter, it must have existed forever and will exist forever. There is a point of origin (The site of the repeated big bangs), but not a "birthing" point, per-say. The eternal existence of matter is difference from the eternal existence of a deity because deities (or at least the Christian god) went on to make matter. That's a big no-no for conservation laws.

That's assuming the conditions before the universe follow the conditions existing in and of the universe, which is, as far as I'm aware, a completely baseless assumption.

Edited March 4, 2014 by High Lord November

[edwardelricfreak]

Eh, but revering is...different I dunno, I value life above all else usually, but I wouldn't say I revere life... I think it's important.

 

Revere is sort of like...you admire/respect it? You show devotion and honor to it. I guess I honor life but revere just seems weird. I don't think it's incorrect, and I get why you use it, but it's not the best word to use for that context.

[pudding]

See, this is where the language barrier comes up again.  You are looking at a dictionary definition of "god" where I am referring to a religious description of God.  I (and many others) happen to believe God is the only thing that has no beginning; it is a defining facet of what God is to us.

 

"Always existed" is a paradox, no matter what it is applied to.  There is always the question of where "it" came from. 

 

Your proposition defies no known laws, given the starting point of matter already existing.  But just as Newton's laws of motion do not hold as the speed of light is approached, your proposition does not hold as the origin of matter/energy is approached.

 

I took "What I value most of all is" to mean "revering" because you hold it above everything else.  I went with human life because you dismissed the lives of the kittens in favor of human convenience.

 

Colors are energy wavelengths.  They came to be when energy/matter did.

Why is eternal existence a paradox? In the case of matter, it cannot be created or destroyed. You talk about known laws but the entire function of matter is that it cannot be created or destroyed. If it could, the universe would probably deflate like a balloon with a hole in it (Another part of my multiverse theory but I'll get back to that later). In the case of matter, this does not defy any scientific laws. In fact, origin for the universe defies scientific laws. You need to measure things in known laws because they can be proven to exist. If you refuse to respect them despite this, you don't really don't have a place to be talking about science. Don't say matter can be destroyed simply because we haven't done it yet. That's idiotic and counter productive.

 

Again, I do not value human live as something to be revered. They just happen to take the most time to create out of other things while still having a proper function (Diamonds take eons to form but are limited in application). I think the sun is something greater than humans since it is far more useful and will most likely outlast us. Things do not have to be revered. They can simply be valued in a scale of usefulness. And I never said I dismissed the kittens. You need to stop assuming things, silly.

 

 

[Awdz]

Why is eternal existence a paradox? In the case of matter, it cannot be created or destroyed. You talk about known laws but the entire function of matter is that it cannot be created or destroyed. If it could, the universe would probably deflate like a balloon with a hole in it (Another part of my multiverse theory but I'll get back to that later).  In the case of matter, this does not defy any scientific laws. In fact, origin for the universe defies scientific laws. You need to measure things in known laws because they can be proven to exist. If you refuse to respect them despite this, you don't really don't have a place to be talking about science. Don't say matter can be destroyed simply because we haven't done it yet. That's idiotic and counter productive.

 

Again, I do not value human live as something to be revered. They just happen to take the most time to create out of other things while still having a proper function (Diamonds take eons to form but are limited in application). I think the sun is something greater than humans since it is far more useful and will most likely outlast us. Things do not have to be revered. They can simply be valued in a scale of usefulness. And I never said I dismissed the kittens. You need to stop assuming things, silly.

Eternal existence is a paradox because if it cannot be created from nothing, but it exists, where did it come from? The fact that it exists without a known source goes against your cardinal law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

It would be helpful if you did not assume the meaning of your wording is as clear to others as it is in your head, "silly". You spoke of "people who die", but the kittens were just "resources". To me, that sounds like the kittens are considered as worth less than people.

 

Do you understand yet why I keep saying a standard of reference is important?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins