nice, didn't know :up:

Personally I find ‘prayer’ hard to categorise. Seems like a very loose concept — I like sushi

1) You can pray to people (ex. random persons), sometimes your prayer will be considered and fulfilled and sometimes not.
2) You can pray to God, same way sometimes your prayer will be considered and fulfilled and sometimes not.

I would categorize it as passive way of survival, ex. not doing anything and gaining stuff. :smile:

But there is no reason as to why people exist?
And similarly, there is no reason as to why dark mater exists?

There is no reason for many things, but this does not imply nonexistence, people do exist, and dark mater does exist.

Are you saying if there is no reason for existence of an entity then such entity could not exist?

I think the laws don't govern but describe some idealized abstract features. — Hillary

OK, here is an argument, existence does not imply a physical thing:

1) A red car exists
Q) Where is red car?
A) You can easily find a red car
Conclusion: Therefore a red car exists

2) Physical laws govern\describe material world
Q) Where are physical laws?
A) It's impossible to find them anywhere
Conclusion: Therefore physical laws don't exist

conclusion 1 is logical truth and conclusion 2 is logical false because premise 2 is true:
Therefore we do not need to locate non material things to claim their existence.

yes

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them? — Hillary

Can you please construct an argument about God from example I gave above?

Logic (LNC) — 180 Proof

How would you apply it to non material things such as dark matter and physical laws, is following valid?:

1) Dark matter has an effect on the universe
- This statement implies that both dark matter and universe exists

2) Physical laws govern how universe behaves
- This statement implies that both physical laws and universe exists

Premises 1 and 2 are logical truths, therefore existence of concluded entities is true.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — ArmChairPhilosopher

I think the answer is #2:
"Is he both able and willing"

So the question is "Then where does evil come from?"

Nice interest, I didn't mean to insult you :victory:

What actions of Stalin makes him a leftist? — Jackson

He was anti-right.

Isn't left and right born out of WW2?

Hitler: far right
Stalin: far left

Ideologies are dead ofc. my point is that since then left and right changed but mention of right\left started with WW2 and cold war narrative.

Agree, this applies only to beings, specifically to me, to self.


sure, but there must set of rules to differentiate real from unreal.

Mass psychosis. Your brain is washed clean to the bone marrow. — Hillary

I know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist but I'm trying hard not to turn this conversation into a God debate or to limit conclusions to ontology :smile:

btw. here is one quote I like from wikipedia:

Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

Put it another way:
left wing cares about social equality.
right wing cares about rich.

This is the case in almost any country in the west, including:
1. US - Democrats vs Republicans
2. France - Marine le Pen vs Macron
3. Undefeated hungarian Orban vs opposition

etc..

Countries such as Russia and China are one sided, there is no strong opposition.
China and Russia are "capitalist left wing" of some sort, a hybrid of it's own.

I think far left are socialists and far right are nationalists.

I don't need proof to provide a posit which is easily the equal of the god posit and more rational. — universeness

Friend, you indeed don't need a proof, but a definition would suffice, however unfortunately you don't have that either.
You're talking about something that is a complete unknown.

Contemplation=meditation? — Hillary

No, it works by thinking in addition to praying, but more focused on thinking, focusing on something ex. religious and thinking how this was and trying to get meaningful message out of it.

ex. you can contemplate over certain verses from the bible for extended period of time, trying to grasp it's most deep secrets, correlating the verse with other passages or books.

there are also other ways of contemplations, including non-religious ones.

In short it's about focusing on something and thinking about it for extended period, ex an hour or 2.

Contemplation is old-fashioned way of trying to get close to God, it was introduced as a countermeasure to meditation movements in western world.

see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplation

Compare that to the Ukraine war: Moscow is invading Ukraine, the rest of Europe is anti-Russia, but are also buying Russian gas for their homes. This is just the tip of the iceberg as regards the complexity I was referring to. Gone are the days when telling friend from foe was easy peasy. — Agent Smith

aka. "business as usual" :smile:

Another example:
war in Syria, Turkey shot down Russian plane - Turkey and Russia sign gas deal.

ahahah :grin:
funny but true.

That spark came from nothing and I accept that something can come from nothing WITHOUT INTENT.
If you can't accept that then in my opinion, the theistic delusion will continue to fog you. — universeness

Fine, I have nothing to add to your choice.
For me this is insufficient\incoherent conclusion.

I personally see it as meditation being the east's "discovery" of whatever it is and prayer being the west's. — Paulm12

In wester way of life (that is, not meditation life) there is thing called "contemplation"

How far back does your first cause (mindless spark/god posit) have to be sent before your ego is satisfied that to us, this meaningless first cause is just that, meaningless. — universeness

First cause is logical explanation, otherwise you must accept "eternal existence" is real.
There is no way out of this dilemma.

But I'll be permissive with you and say that "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" has exactly one logical explanation, which is "God" that sacrificed itself to create everything that we know about today.
This means such "God" is dead for good, and if you accept this proposal. this means it cannot come to existence anytime again because it's dead, therefore not possible multiple "first causes" could happen, therefore there must have a beginning.
If you don't agree with that, please solve infinity or give an alternative example with same value.

I taught at the college level for many years and never thought of the subject or my teaching strategies as racist, but I know only a little of how math is taught K-9. Here is an article that is disturbing, at least for me, an old retired prof. What do you think? — jgill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

A key CRT concept is intersectionality—the way in which different forms of inequality and identity are affected by interconnections of race, class, gender and disability.[6] Scholars of CRT view race as a social construct with no biological basis. One tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.

This has nothing to do with math, instead math is being used as a tool to mathematically prove something which victims of racism do not like.

The question is, can victims of racism make CRT mathematical formula wrong?

Assume (p & ~p); anything follows.

Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void. — Banno

Your formula does not apply:

(Virtual particles pop into existence & ~Virtual particles pop out of existence) = virtual particles do not exist = false

Nope. It only questions the ability to degrade it's power. And, according to your attempt at logic, god doesn't have that ability. Thus it isn't omnipotent. — ArmChairPhilosopher

No, that's not the logic I was presenting.

Here is an example:
1. I'm able to kill myself
2. I love myself therefore I will not kill myself
3. Does that make me unable to kill myself?

A:) No it doesn't, I'm still able to kill myself, I hold that power.

Now apply same logic to God degrading it's power.
Omnibenevolence doesn't mean reduction or lack of omnipotence.

Then where does the physical law come from?
— Hillary

Who can say. But it is fallacious to argue they must come from a lawmaker, because they are laws. — hypericin

Not because they are "laws" but because physical laws exist.
physical laws could not have caused them self to start existing.

It doesn't make sense physical laws are self-caused out of no physical laws.
What ever must have caused physical laws to start existing, that is, to manifest them self, to be observable.

Where exactly do you see the fault in the logic? I don't see it. — ArmChairPhilosopher

The question of heavy stone demands God to degrade it's power:

1. God is superior being.
2. Superior being means there is no grater or more powerful being.
3. If God degrades it's power (with heavy stone) this would make him inferior being.
4. If God is inferior being this means it's not God, instead true God is some other God that is superior to God that degrade it's power.
5. If there is superior God to God that degrade it's power then the question is directed toward wrong God.
6. If question is directed toward wrong God this begs the question "Who is God"?
7. God is according to definition a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.
8. If God is omnibenevolent then God doesn't harm anyone including itself.
9. If God doesn't harm itself then it would not degrade it's power.
10. Therefore God would not make such a stone because it's contradictory to it's nature.

This obviously doesn't make God not omnipotent because God isn't only about omnipotence, all properties of a God must be taken into account for correct answer.

After all, at least according to the Christian doctrine, they are already three persons in the Trinity, and they all love each other; what’s the problem with making everybody God? We would be all happy, all loving each other, maybe even all being one God, like the Trinity is considered. — Angelo Cannata

Trinity is one and same God (one sprit) revealed in 3 persons, but we each represent our self and we are all individual spirits. (many spirits)

So the paradox becomes: has God the power to make all of us Gods as well? — Angelo Cannata

That's indeed paradox but already solved one, do you know Jesus said "you are Gods"? :wink:

And that is what you do when you dismiss the argument of the
stone — ArmChairPhilosopher

I think T Clark gave perfect example of what this argument of stone is:

Can God make 1 + 1 = 47? — T Clark

In other words, it's an illogical question, nonsense question which forces illogical answer.

Why is the god posit a more acceptable first cause or prime mover than 'a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence?' — universeness

because "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" is terrible explanation.
First of all we know absolute nothing of that mindless spark and it's very likely we'll never do.

Being unable to fathom God's wisdom is evil, so it leaves us with the same question: why doesn't he delete the evil of our inability to fathom his will? — Angelo Cannata

if we fathom God, that is, God's wisdom, it would make us gods because we would have all the knowledge God has, making us omniscient.

Therefore why do you consider evil to fathom God? because it would not make us Gods or something else?

Or, in other words, my god isn't limited by logic.
That, for me, is the ultimate conversation stopper. Because, if you don't accept reason, why should I reason with you? — ArmChairPhilosopher

I accept reason but do you know logic can be wrong?
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

if god is omnipotent can he make a square circle? Again - you could argue god can't do what is logically impossible, so this is also a meaningless question. — Tom Storm

Nice, therefore God making stone so heavy it cannot be lifted again is logically impossible because similar question is:
can God limit himself? (limit his power)

And I think the answer to both questions is, what would be the reason for God to do it? ...

Ultimately, the paradox can be reduced to the fundamental problem of theodicy: does God have the power to destroy all evil now, immediately? — Angelo Cannata

... Therefore yes, it can but there is a reason why it doesn't, but we don't the reason because we can't fathom God's wisdom.

Which leaves us with the question, why can't it have a beginning? — Hillary

You example is an example of "ordinal infinity":
https://tomrocksmaths.com/2022/02/21/5-types-of-infinity/

Therefore is universe is of ordinal infinity magnitude, that is infinitely large and timeless with a beginning then the problem is solved which is God created infinitely large universe.

Otherwise if God did not create universe, then we are not talking about ordinal infinity but rather about "Infinite Series", and we are back to infinity problem, that is there is no beginning as well as no end.

It stays infinite, but why can't infinity have a beginning? — Hillary

No, infinity cannot be use in mathematical operations.
I suggest you watch this video, skip to @18:00 for direct answer (infinite hotel example)

Why can't infinity have a beginning infinitely far away? — Hillary

What is the result of summing up 2 infinities?
infinite + infinite = ?

Or any other mathematical operation (not just sum)?

This is old philosophical question which cannot be answered philosophically, and the reason why not is because philosophical definition of a God lacks certain properties of a God.

In theology there is an answer, all wisdom comes from God and people cannot fathom the wisdom higher than that of God.
I could quote some verses about this wisdom to back up this, but basically the answer is that we cannot fathom the wisdom of God.

Why can't infinite space and time be created by God? — Hillary

Because creation implies beginning.
To create means to create rather than it was there since ever.

But where did the space and particles in it come from? God? — Hillary

If space and particles are not eternal, that is, not infinite then God is logical explanation.

Otherwise you have problem of infinity which cannot be solved, ie. what's was there before cannot be answered because the question repeats itself no matter how far you go.

Therefore either there is God or infinity (that is, we don't know).

#2 because in most cases there are multiple ways to be wrong and only one way to be right. — ArmChairPhilosopher

you're genius :smile:

A tree is known by its fruits

old timeless wisdom which doesn't go out of scope :smile:
What we are witnessing is social and moral degradation.