Existence of a god or gos

I think it is a matter of how one views god. In my case I vew god as the laws of physics or the lack of chaos. That makes the existence of god pretty obvious.

If your view of god is something with human attributes then you go beyond the realm of observation to the realm of belief. Beliefs are beliefs. They are personal and not universal.

 

Even solipsism, your favoured horse to ride into the void of semantics, acknowledges and follows the basics of logic.

The "anything goes" approach to logic, language or anything else is your very own invention, and it lacks meaning, even on a subjective level, as well as credibility.

Some may refer to it as "trollery".

 

An excellent advice. Probably not an option, but an excellent advice nonetheless.

 

If Math is numerology, then every time you turn on and use your computer, you are committing blasphemy against your God. Computers work via "mathematical manipulations.

Let me guess, you self taught yourself "logic" didn't you?

 

Sorry, no indication of god, but I found a lizard.

 

Typical atheist maneuver... instead of offering any type of evidence in support of an assertion, you just slide in here on that gooey slime trail left by the snails, ridiculing others.

The "anything goes" approach to logic, is whipping you like an ole timer would have whipped a mule pulling a plow, because you know that I am not subject to that form of philosophy and its subsequent form of logic. Poor little thing; is somebody picking on you?

Some others might even refer to it as "kick butt yankee engineering".

 

If the information is "probably not an option", then why do you suppose you could consider it "an excellent advice" while knowing that it is 'probably' useless?

 

Couple things wrong with your suggestions:

1: In order for you to make an assertion regarding a God or gods, you first have to presuppose the existence of a God or gods. Are you asserting that a God or gods do exist?

2: That thing about computers working 'via mathematics'.... well... last time I looked, they required some type of electrical energy... ya know battery else plug it into the wall outlet. No amount of math knowledge or math material is going to make them work without that electrical energy. Why do you suppose that is?

Wrong. The philosophy I use and its subsequent form of logic was developed by Jesus and is made available to all those that will open their minds and hearts to the voice of the Holy Spirit. Very good teacher the Holy Spirit is; you ought to give Him a try some time.

 

Obstinancy does not render valid advice useless.

 

Oh my goodness. Look at that red letter word up above. Yet another indicant that suggests there is a god.

 

I'll worship that.


Incorp: I'm willing to apologize for my semantic fouls and agree that there are indicants of God, as there are indicants of anything the human mind can produce and communicate ideas about.

However, can we also agree that indicants do not constitute evidence?

 

I assert that you believe a God exists.

When debating a philosophical point, you don't have to believe that it exists in order to discuss its properties. It's called a Thought Exercise.

In philosophy you can say "IF something exists, then...". You don't have to actually assert that it exists. You can suppose what might be if it did exist.

Analog computers don't require any kind of electricity and yet they still function, so that point is bunk.

And even still, once the electricity flows, the operations are all dictated by "mathematical manipulations", what you call "Numerology".

Last time I checked, Numerology is a form of magic and magic is Blasphemy against the Christian God. Therefore, you are committing blasphemy every time you use your computer.

I hope you enjoy Hell.

So the voice in your head taught you logic? Schizophrenia usually isn't a good teacher of anything.

 

Computer programming works via logic gate, where mathematical algorithms dictate whether a gate is open or closed.

Rinse and repeat a few trillion times and you have some applications going on.

 

Right, and according to Incorp., mathematical manipulations (for instance, algorithms) are Numerology, a form of magic.

He is a sorceror and is committing blasphemy against his God every time he uses his computer.

 

Among other unknown blasphemies, I'm sure.

 

There you go folks. We have one on the accounting list now that admits that he worships a lizard.

Making deals, usually incorporates the making of compromises. Compromises usually look for a happy medium... a safe haven somewhere in between. With God, there is no compromises. Either you believe or you don't believe.

As I stated before, your apologies are not necessary.

No. We cannot make such an agreement. Does science hold a formal listing of its rules of evidence? Well of course they do. On the other hand, scientific evidence (which is sometimes used in the courts) also falls under the scrutiny of the courts when such evidence is necessary in making a determination of facts within a case at bar. As seen in the following document, not all scientific evidence is acceptable in the courts who make such determination. One of specific interest is that of the "Eye Witness" or Observer (one who makes observations). You might say that the court is in recess on that issue.. due to differences of opinion from the judiciary.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/425/lecture02.htm

 

Interesting. It seems that you are not aware that electricity works based on atomic theory. So how does your computer get powered up if atomic theory is nothing but a "religion of numerology"?

 

Why are you discussing the legal system in a discussion about science, logic and truth? You know as well as I that someone found guilty or innocent in court can be convicted or acquitted wrongly.

So please stick to logic - real logic, not the kind that the voices in your head tell you - and empirical evidence.

 

Because evidence depends on the philosophy that one is using. The legal system has its own form of logic and also sometimes relies on the logic system of science. My discussion relating to Jurisprudential logic and what types of evidence are acceptable to the judiciary clearly shows that the evidence acceptable to scientists is not necessarily acceptable in another form of philosophy and its own system of logic. You see, you are locked in a box that only allows one form of evidence and intentionally disregards those other forms that do not meet your agenda. The system of logic you use is one consisting of an extreme degree of bias and prejudice and subsequently does not consider all of the evidence.

As you pointed out about a wrongful conviction in a court of law; that same thing applies to other groups who wrongfully convict (persecute or ridicule) when you also do not consider all of the evidence.

 

Because evidence depends on the philosophy that one is using. The legal system has its own form of logic and also sometimes relies on the logic system of science. My discussion relating to Jurisprudential logic and what types of evidence are acceptable to the judiciary clearly shows that the evidence acceptable to scientists is not necessarily acceptable in another form of philosophy and its own system of logic. You see, you are locked in a box that only allows one form of evidence and intentionally disregards those other forms that do not meet your agenda. The system of logic you use is one consisting of an extreme degree of bias and prejudice and subsequently does not consider all of the evidence.

As you pointed out about a wrongful conviction in a court of law; that same thing applies to other groups who wrongfully convict (persecute or ridicule) when you also do not consider all of the evidence.[/QUOTE]

Some methods of logic and philosophy do not apply to other areas. The judicial system's method of logic cannot be used to prove scientific/physical phenomena.

 

And the form of logic used in science cannot be used to either prove nor disprove the existence of God. In other words, the logic used by science should be kept in the laboratory unless invited to attend other areas such as the judiciary or ecclesiastical matters.

 

The matter of God's existence is definitely a physical, and therefore scientific, inquiry.

 

Some people wish to make it such, but investigating a supernatural being which is everywhere at the same time and is not bound by any natural laws lies outside the territory of science.
The described properties and occurences said to have been caused by God are not testable, and thus do not fulfill the criteria for scientific investigation.

An interesting take on Intelligent Design in this respect here.

 

That is a lie....Gravity has been proven, and so has motion, which is why they are known as laws. Science that has not been proven to be true is called a theory.

 

What are the limitations that you place on existence? In the philosophy which I use, there are no such limitations.