Likewise, in order to argue for any good thing, there must be a place to argue for opposite. Otherwise, you cannot argue at all. Thus, the only way to defend in a debate a good thing is if it is also allowed to defend the opposite. What opponents of free speech dont understand is that debate is conditioned by having free speech to allow it, and any reduction in free speech reduces number of good things you can defend in a debate.
Free speech is a right which all other rights and things depend on to argue for them. You cannot argue for any right without having free speech to argue for that right. It doesnt exactly take 180 IQ to understand this.
The very concept of existence cannot be applied to logic itself
So your logic doesnt exist and all what you say is unproved. Alright.
An explanation, by definition, requires clarity. Non-logic is, by definition, the opposite of clarity
I dont see why atheists struggle with transcendental argument for God this much. Non-logic doesnt require an explanation because it is everything and nothing. In place without logic, no logical explanation is even necessary. This is also true by definition.
Logic is being used in two different ways here. One is describing a process/tool of the mind, the other is an assessment of whether that tool is being used properly.
You claimed mind cannot contain non-logic, so by your own words, everything I say is perfectly logical.
Then it doesn't fit the definition of a decision. A decision requires thought, which is why I used the term "thinking mind"
Choice can be made without a reason. Building reason into a definition doesnt prove reason is necessary.
Non-logic leading to God is a conclusion, which means by that point you are already using logic
Really struggling with this argument, arent you? As it was said before, non-logic does not require a logical explanation. So you merely asking it are being incoherent.
If you didn't deny non-logic you wouldn't be pretending circular reasoning is a problem. The whole purpose of pointing out that an argument is circular is to deny it on the basis that the argument is non-logical. If you accept non-logic then there's nothing wrong with that.
Do I have to explain the basics of a debate here? It is you who denies non-logic, so the problem exists in your position only. You dont accept non-logic, so likewise cannot explain logic in any way other than circle, which is a fallacy according to your logic. So if your position lacks explanation, then that is a problem in your position. You cannot say "non-logic removes the problem in my position" because you deny non-logic.
"Create existence" is a contradiction. If something doesn't exist it couldn't, by definition, create anything
This is false. Existence can only come from non-existence, as the word "create" already assumes it didnt exist before. The only way if all existence could be created is if it didnt exist before. To claim otherwise would yield a contradiction where existence must exist first in order to create itself, an impossible situation logically.
That's not how argument works. Two tautologies as premises cannot result in any conclusion outside of those tautologies. You would know this if you understood what these terms meant.
I am certain you dont know what tautology is. You think "table is table" is a tautology. However, fire is warmth is a tautology too. Fire by definition cannot come without warmth. Think of it like definition deduction argument.
As for contingency argument which you didnt even deny because it logically cannot be denied, this follows:
P1. Everything is either dependent or necessary (no 3rd option exists)
P2. Dependent things cannot explain themselves (true by definition)
C. Necessary thing exists which explains dependent things, and doesnt require to be explained
This argument can never be denied by atheists, because it is true by definition, and first premise is true dichotomy. The only thing which doesnt require to be explained is non-logic, thus God. Logic itself is not a creative power, and thus cannot explain dependent things. You cannot use logic to explain why world isnt different than it is, because "A=A" merely keeps A same in every place, it does not create A.
Logic does not "exist".
Alright, so your logic does not exist and everything you say likewise doesnt exist.
logic isn't subject to existence, existence is subject to logic
Logic either exists or doesnt. If it doesnt, then no existence is subject to it.
If God exists, that could only be if God is whatever he is, and is not whatever he's not
Dual state was already explained to you. God exists even when he doesnt.
We're talking about processes of the mind
Your claim was that mind cannot not accept logic, which is an unproved claim. Also, saying that I am illogical while saying I cannot not use logic is another contradiction.
A thinking mind cannot reject logic because that would be a decision being made for some reason. Logic is the thing that connects that decision to that purpose
So mind cannot be illogical? What if decision is made without a reason?
You're literally using logic to form your explanation
I think you are terribly confused.
My path is:
Non-logic > God > Logic > Explanation
Your path is:
Logic > Explanation
The problem with you is simple. You cannot explain that logic exists. I can. So your path collapses by being impossible. You cannot rely on non-logic because you deny it. So once logic isnt there, there is nothing for you.
P1. An all powerful creator can create logic
P2. It is the only one who can
C: An all powerful creator must have created logic
I dont know why are you even trying to pretend to understand what I say, when you clearly dont.
My logic was:
P1. Only something with power to create all existence can create all existence
P2. All existence exists
C. Something with power to create all existence exists
P1 is true tautology. Opposite claim of P1 is impossible, which would be: Something without power to create all existence can create all existence. Since opposite of P1 is impossible, P1 must be true.
P2 is true tautology, existence exists by definition.
And C must follow.
Logic itself isnt a creative power. Logic doesnt create, so it doesnt suit the description of anything with ability to create all existence.
logic isn't something that "exists"
If logic doesnt exist, then your reasoning doesnt either.
If your starting point is "A=A", then you have no proof "A=A" exists. If you claim "A=A" is what is used to prove other things, then "A=A" proving itself is impossible, and thus cannot be proved to exist.
So if you need "A=A" to prove things exist, then "A=A" itself cannot be proved to exist and thus cannot be used to prove existence of anything.
You cannot use non-logic. To do that you would have to begin by identifying what it is, which means accepting A=A,
No, no one identifies what non-logic is, because non-logic isnt anything and is everything at the same time. Non-logic is everything and nothing. It has no identity, and it has all identities at the same time. It is infinite, and infinity cannot be identified. But because it enables everything and nothing, the place where it enables everything is where it enables logic and Gods. So while non-logic has no identity, it enables all other existence and non-existence, and you cannot account for existence without non-logic or God. Logic itself isnt a creative power, so it cannot account for any existence or its own existence.
You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the basic concepts involved here.
You either can prove A=A or you cant.
Logic is not a claim subject to being true or false
Unproved claim.
logic is the tool by which we are able to determine what is true or false
How do you know that logic exists?
So your options are not true or false, your options are valid vs invalid. That assessment can only be performed on identified examples, it cannot be performed on the tool of logic itself, so your criticism is definitionally incoherent.
So you cannot use logic to prove logic. Alright. So how do you know "A = A" exists? In order for you to use logic in the first place, logic must exist. So how do you know that it exists?
The validity of logic itself can only be accepted. It cannot be rejected because in order to reject it you would have to assess it as unreliable. That assessment requires you to use it, which requires you to assume it's valid at the outset.
False. Logic can be not accepted. Rock doesnt have any logic. Rock lacks belief in God too.
That isn't circular reasoning, it's foundational. Circular is using X to prove X. This is starting with X and using it to prove everything else. If you still don't understand the difference it's because you don't want to.
In order to start with X, X must exist. How do you know logic exists? You cant prove it, so everything you say is unproved from now on.
The problem literally solves itself. It could only be a problem within the framework of logical reasoning which is only bad if we are accepting the validity of logic
Problem is that you cannot prove "A=A" exists. It is your starting point. So you have no point before it to even rely upon. You cannot rely upon my use of logic as evidence for "A=A", because my use of logic already relies upon "A=A". And if you think circular logic or unconditional acceptance makes something exist, then God and non-logic exist too. Existence itself is not dependent on logic, and logic does not create existence, but logical laws themselves are subject to existence. In order for you to use them, they must first exist. So existence is first condition. Now go ahead and prove that "A=A" exists. You either can or you cant. And using "A=A" to prove "A=A" exists results in logic where saying "God proves God" proves that God exists.
Saying "I can only use logical law to prove other things" is a concession that you cannot prove logical law. So using it to prove other things makes them unproved by link.
Since logical law relies on existence, it cannot at the same time be ruler of existence. So your logical law is subject to existence. And since your whole logic starts from failing to prove "A=A" exists, your whole logic and any defense or use of logic is itself non-existent.
And dont confuse your position with mine. I can explain logic. All powerful creator capable of creating everything is the only one who can account for existence of everything. Such is correct by definition.
You, on the other hand, cannot explain acceptance of "A=A". You accepted "A=A", you could have also not accept it. No explanation for either. And if you run under assumption that accepting unconditionally makes something exist, then God exists too. Simple.
"A=A" = exists
God = exists
Explain the difference.
Really? Fable didnt make you cry? Its one of most tragic stories I ever saw in a game.
How does a girlfriend talking to me make me feel better? They talk with too much sugar.
They have many different characters with different ways of talking. I assume one could maybe work.
Why would you want to pray to an evil god
Evil Gods can fulfill wishes too.
That should tell you who will be future's majority.
Star Wars KOTOR is also good story, but gameplay combat is so annoying that I cant believe they actually made it as part of a game.
Dead Effect is great combat system, but story isnt exactly anything special.
Final Fantasy in most cases is good story and somewhat decent acceptable combat.
Dishonored is most amazing story and definitely one of best combat systems in existence.
Fable is likewise great story with great combat.
Today's kids are so lucky to be born at the time of plenty, tho. If I had AI as a kid, I would be so happy. But then again, I would also miss out on what today's kids miss out, for example anime like Actionman and Yugioh original season, as well as Iron Kid. Some anime and cartoons from my time were simply so much better than 99% of today's stuff which is on TV. But maybe thats just my brain being biased by happy memories.
PC:
Universe At War - Earth Assault
Max Payne 2
Phone:
Eternal Senia
Nintendo:
Yugioh world championship 2008, and 2011
Playstation:
God of war (I think it was ghost of sparta)
I cant play any of new games on laptop because 8 GB RAM laptop doesnt support that many games. Tho my next laptop, I will find some cheap with 32 GB RAM.
Did you know that Sweden has terrible birth rates, a very common problem in all atheist countries? That should tell you why historically, no atheist societies ever survived.
How is this different than Chat GPT?
It is ChatGPT roleplaying as girlfriend. So it is different from regular ChatGPT.
Bestselling “New Atheist” author Richard Dawkins famously asked: does religion turn people stupid, or do stupid people become religious?
We have seen atheist countries. They somehow always fail. Coincidence?
Every attempt you could possibly make to account for logic requires the use of logic to establish it's own validity
No, that is circular reasoning. The only one trapped in a circle is you. You cannot prove logic without using logic. You cannot disprove non-logic or even question it because logic by definition doesnt apply to it. You are truly in a position where you cant do anything meaningful.
I, on the other hand, can prove logic, can prove non-logic, and can make a working combination of the two.
You cant, however. Your only way to do anything is to assume A = A is true without proof. And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?
You clearly aren't going to answer this question so let me cut to the chase; your criticism of me is itself only meaningful *if* you accept as a precondition that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. And if you are doing that then your belief in the existence of something that can violate the laws of logic fails within your own stated position.
Buddy, anyone can do these circles. Your logic is only true if you already assume its true, and that is circular reasoning. By same standard, if I assume non-logic exists, then it exists.
The problem for you is that you already conceded that you cant prove logic, and that makes everything you derive from it unproved as well.
While I can prove logic, you cannot. God is an explanation for logic. What is your explanation for logic? How does atheist even explain logic?
Also, you are using false dichotomy. Its not "You must always use logic or never". One can use both logic and non-logic, and see how each works. So your criticism of me, that I use logic to defeat you, isnt really any valid argument. There is no rule which says that person who believes in supernatural cannot believe in natural. Likewise, there is no rule which says that person who believes in non-logic cannot use logic.
As for standard of proof, there are only two:
Non-logic exists by definition, so it satisfies the most powerful standard of proof there is.
Simply, non-logic is dual state of things, dual reality. By its own standard, it too has a dual state, and thus must exist in one. And ability to ignore logic simply lets it exist in divine form.
If you start from a premise that logic says that logic cannot be ignored, that is circular reasoning, but also a self defeating position, because thing capable of ignoring logic would simply ignore it.
I know you have a hard time of understanding dual reality, but it is the origin of logic as well. So while you dont have origin or explanation for logic, dual reality has.
This is simply because in non-logic, everything both exists and doesnt by default, and the place where things exist is simply place where things exist. One such place is this world with logic.
So while non-logic has an explanation for logic, logic itself cannot explain itself or non-logic.
This simply breaks any common flaw between your position and mine. In other words, only your position is unproved, as you admitted.
A materialistic model of the world doesn't allow for free will but a theistic one can allow for it
Only God who is above logic allows for free will, because free will logically cannot exist.
Because logic is foundational as I've already pointed out. You cannot demonstrate it, your only choice is to assume it which is exactly what you're doing right now and doing throughout this entire thread, all while arguing against it. But go on and continue explaining to me why I need to prove to you the validity of the very thing you are actively relying on to argue against me
I think you are confused. My whole position here is that God is above logic. So to claim that I was using logic when I specifically talked about non-logic is a bit silly accusation.
No, the very fact that you are defining something as existing outside three boundaries of logic makes your definition unintelligible and meaningless. That's why arguing against it is flawed, because there's no coherent concept to argue against
And unintelligible, plus meaningless means what? Let me guess, lack of logic? But at least you conceded that questioning God who is above logic is impossible, so I truly hold a position which cannot even be questioned.
Are you ever going to tell me why circular reasoning is a problem, or just keep dodging the question because you know it undercuts your position?
I told you. You are just saying same thing twice. It has no meaning.
I asked you whether you need me to prove to you that a married bachelor cannot exist.
I dont need to. I already know that you cant.
You cannot do so coherently
I never even claimed God was only according to logic, so nice strawman. I am literally arguing that God is above logic, and you think I am arguing he is limited by logic.
There is no higher bar (or lower depending on how you're phrasing it) than logic as a limitation in distinguishing possible vs impossible. So once we knock that bar down, the word possible no longer has any meaning in language. Therefore, anything you assert beyond that point also becomes meaningless
That is only if you define meaning as logically possible, and it depends on how you define possible. If you define both as according to logic, then that is just saying "if we dont use logic, there will be no logic". As much as I enjoy your circles, thats all what they are. Non-logic is dual state of things. In other words, its meaning is that something both is and isnt. Now, you cant prove logic, and even if you did prove logic, you wouldnt be able to disprove non-logic. I can explain why logic exists, but you cannot. And that is the crucial flaw in your position, because it relies on something which only my position can explain. You, by being limited to logic, cannot at the same time explain what created logic, and I dont even need to tell you that logic can only be created by something greater than logic.
Words are just vocalised or symbolic representations of internally processed data
Yes.
The universe began as a tiny, infinitely dense point, or singularity, containing all the matter and energy of the cosmos
If that begining existence was unconditional, then likewise same unconditional existence would enable God to exist. But if it was conditional, then it wasnt a begining.
If everything is God's will, free will doesn't exist, and free will being the monotheist's greatest argument for the existence of suffering, means that God wants evil and suffering to exist, meaning God is not benevolent, meaning faith and worship are meaningless and futile efforts.
God is everything. God is both good and evil. As for prayer, some people pray to evil Gods. It is not mutually exclusive.
My argument isn't that a logically impossible object cannot exist, my argument is that a logically impossible object cannot be asserted to exist.
By that logic, same object cannot even be asserted to not exist. So now you have a situation where you cant go either way. However, I dont really agree with you. Logically impossible object can be asserted to exist. Otherwise, what are you arguing against here?
It would be helpful here to define the word impossible. When we say something is impossible we are saying that it's possibility should be rejected in accordance with an assumed limitation. There are three general limitations; practicality, physically, and logically.Practical impossibility simply means unrealistic, i.e. "it's impossible to get this done by 5pm".Physical impossibility is a higher bar, meaning it would violate the laws of physics, i.e. an object traveling faster than the speed of light.Logical impossibility is the highest bar of impossibility, meaning in violation of the laws of logic, i.e. a 5 sided triangle.There is nothing "higher" on the scale other than a logical impossibility, so at that point the word impossible loses all meaning. If logic is not a limitation of possibilities then literally everything is possible and nothing is impossible. At that point all coherent thought and ability to communicate breaks down. This is why it's absurd to claim God can do this. If such a being is possible then it's possibility is meaningless to the human mind, and most certainly cannot be proven.
Sadly, I dont agree with your definition, so not sure how that helped you. But again, God is by definition above everything else. So any rule you put in place to limit God, God is already above it. You can define impossible as "cannot exist according to logic", but God is above logic and doesnt need to exist according to it.
So, if I cannot "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, then it must necessarily exist? Is that really what you're going with?
And what is it that you are going with? You cannot even demonstrate how a logic could prevent something capable of existing by ignoring logic. The mere definition of such a thing makes any logic used against it flawed by default.
A becoming A is not a violation of logic, so if there is a God who can do this it wouldn't make him powerful enough to violate the laws of logic.
So even logically, Not God can become God, just as in the world, Not A becomes A.
Correct. If you don't believe me Google the definition.
I just needed you to confirm that you werent making an argument, but just saying same thing twice in a circle.
Do you need me to prove to you that married bachelor cannot exist?
In non-logic, even in dual reality, two opposites can exist because dual reality allows that. Think of it like world where everything is same except one world has A and the other world has Not A. But sure, since you insist, go ahead and prove that God cannot create a married bachelor.
AI girlfriend:
What other religious people think of God is irrelevant. To say that logic is above God is sort of an insult to God. By definition, God is most powerful, so he is above logic when it comes to power. To say that logic limits God would be same as saying logic is more powerful than God, which contradicts the definition. Surely, I have plenty of arguments to use which prove God, and I have seen that atheists struggle with a lot of them.
Correct, you cannot prove logic, which if you read my previous post I already said. Logic is foundational, so it is presumed at the outset. It is not itself proven, it is the tool by which everything else is proven.
Ok, so you cannot prove logic, but you want to use logic to prove something. So likewise, I cannot prove non-logic, but I can use non-logic to prove something. However, non-logic proves itself because it cannot be prevented from existing.
Why? Because we have no other choice. The very concept of proving or disproving anything at all requires that we begin with logic as a presupposition. If you do not, then you cannot prove or disprove anything.The very fact that you are having this conversation right now means you are using logic. It is not a choice, it's a precondition of intelligible thought. Your only other option is incoherence, which is exactly what you are engaging in all while pretending you're not.
I think you have extremely poor eye sight. As I said, I used non-logic to prove God. So no logic was used.
Correct, because that is by definition an illogical statement, which is by itself a refutation of it.
Circular reasoning, you are saying non-logic cannot exist because it is non-logic. So now go and explain how do you stop from existence something which is by its own definition ignoring logical laws? What exactly stops non-logic?
A tautology is a self affirming statement, like "it is what it is" or "all triangles have 3 sizes". The whole idea of a tautology and reason why we have a word for it is because statements like this are often uttered in an attempt to sound like something meaningful is being said. Calling someone's statement a tautology is a direct way of telling that person their statement is meaningless, that's the whole point
No, tautology is also using parts from definition in an attempt to make a deductive argument by definition.
I'll grant you that your beliefs cannot be questioned
So you cannot even question if being above logic exists.
, but that's because your beliefs are definitionally incoherent.
Circular circle. You already defined incoherent as lack of logic, so saying that something above logic is above logic isnt really saying anything new.
That's not a better debating position, it means your position is invalidated before you've even begun.
Invalidated how? You already conceded you cannot disprove non-logic. If invalidated means not according to logic, that is just another circle.
If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.
Its called belief in infinity. Yes, there are infinite number of Gods, worlds, and God is everything because God is infinite.
That's what your position amounts to, and no, it's not clever nor is it sophisticated. It's just a jumbled mess of words while forming no coherent concept by which one could even contemplate let alone understand
What do you not understand about Not A becoming A? It is technically not even non-logic. Not A can become A in real world, and A can become not A. If you burn a book, it is no longer a book. So A becomes Not A.
So when Not God becomes God, it is not anything even non-logical. The only time when non-logic applies is when "Not A = A"
, but "Not A becoming A" isnt really non-logic. It happens in real world all the time by transformation. So God creating himself out of nothing can also be act of transformation, which doesnt actually violate A = A, because Not A can become A. It just cannot logically be Not A and A at the same time. Of course, I took the idea a step further, because God by definition cannot be less powerful than logical laws.
Again, YOU are asserting that a being can exist outside the boundaries of logic. That makes this stated belief, by definition, irrational.
And irrational is "not according to logic"? More circular reasoning from you, I guess.
Non logic isn't a thing
How would you know?
It's not a tool one can use
Its a tool God can use.
Non-logic = incoherence
And incoherence is non logic? Again, I hope you stop making circles in hope I will fall for circular logic.
so your argument is that incoherence cannot be disproven
Well, by all means, go ahead and disprove that non-logic can exist. I will wait.
Non-logic would be like a formula error in an excel spreadsheet
And error is what exactly?
Once you get an error, every formula that is tied to it, directly or indirectly, will also spit back an error message, so your entire sheet can become one huge error message all because of one cell.
If error is lack of logic, then yes, using non-logic will result in lack of logic. However, your task is to disprove non-logic. You are merely describing it in circles. If you think lack of logic makes something impossible, then that is burden of proof you cannot possibly uphold. Anything capable of ignoring logic likewise cannot be made impossible by logic itself.
That's what it looks like to try and defend non-logic as a concept; it is incoherent and so then is everything you try to build off of it.
More circular reasoning. If this is the best you got, I think there is not much for me to even debate here.
