One of The points of a philosophy forum is to discover how others think and make their arguments?yes of course....you can see that I didn't utter any bad word on the forum and didn't reply to words like "garbage","rubbish"... etc
I just said that these words shouldn't belong here on the forum and I'm right about that according to the forum rules.... I'm interested to view your thread by the way.

Couldn't you say from the beginning that you're materialist?
Now I see why you're forced to believe that I'm having a false memory.you just need to believe so.

1) what if other people world-wide verified the same experience? isn't that enough for reducing the probability of it being a false memory?
2) Remembering something that hasn't happened yet and then witnessing it happening is a remarkable event by itself.

I will ignore the fact that you've gradually started to utter words that don't belong to a philosphical forum or at least an open-minded debate.

In order to avoid any chance for anything against the modern materialism belief system:
1)You've tried to make memory look like it's not even 80% trusted,not even 70%
2)you've even tried to make it can't be trusted even if world-wide witnesses have experienced the same shocking phenomenon (are they all having false memories about the same phenomenon?this can't work,dude)
3) you've stated that I have only my own memory but you've said nothing about how can I have a false memory of something that many people have said it happened to them too(unless you believe there is a good probability that all of them are misremembering their events too)
4) beside all that you used expressions like "hopelessly unreliable" and "this might be enough to persuade anyone with even a bit of critical capacity" which verifies you're taking the debate personally and as a must-win war.
5)let alone saying that just being non-material is enough to make something unreasonable in your opinion.
6)let alone that you've never provided a source verifying your claims about the memory being very untrusted to the point of "hopelessness" according to your words.

I just have one question for you:
Would you have reacted the same if the topic was about anything that doesn't have a chance of refuting materialism ideology?I don't think so.

Yep. I'm looking for the mot reasonable explanation. But you want to believe an unreasonable explanation... — Banno

Let's talk about reason...the probability of misremembering a specific event is inversely proportional to the importance, remarkableness and hugeness of that event and therefore an event that's very important,very unique, very remarkable and very huge(let alone its psychological impact) is very unlikely to be misremembered....
And again, you've shown that just not being material is enough for you to consider it "unreasonable".... materialism-biass is detected.

I have no idea, I'm new to the forum.

Your conviction is not going to convince anyone else.

Memory is hopelessly unreliable; especially so when it serves mythology. — Banno

"hopelessly"?!!!....... "Serves mythology"?!!!

Hmmmm..... honestly,those words seem to express your emotions more than your thoughts..... you have all rights to believe and express your interpretation...you have all rights to believe it's just a false memory..... but it looks like it isn't the case...... you're trying to dismiss any logical possibility for a non-material explanation to be true,let alone calling it and presupposing it's a myth.the case is you refuse to consider any chance at all for something not materialist-biased
to come true.

I've heard all scientific explanations for deja vu but in fact I'm asking about another phenomenon.... it's how can the brain remember a memory seconds before it actually happens and then waits for it to happen till it happen in real life?

....I think it's not very safe and sound to say that I can misremember such a huge, very unique, shocking and extraordinary event which I would never ever have expected something like it to happen to me in my life...nope, It isn't something that can work for me(although I know false memories exist)....I think many people are putting a huge effort to try making any material explanation for the phenomenon possible... they're dealing with any beyond-material explanation like a ewww thing (you're not necessarily one of them)

Thanks for the clarification....now I understand your point of view, thanks

You've put a lot of effort to make an explanation for deja vu which isn't what I asked about its explanation in the first place,the phenomenon which I asked about was knowing and remembering what was going to happen after a few seconds which isn't what's commonly known by "deja vu"....my question is how can the brain remember a memory seconds before it actually happens and then waits for it to happen and then it happens?
reading your reply, your answer to this question seems to be "science doesn't know yet but it has to be some sort of a hallucination, illusion or a biological defect"...thanks very much for your opinion

It's not always the right choice to defend the material side by making any thing that doesn't seem very related to a material interpretation eitther a not-eplained-yet by science or a coincidence in the worst cases.... because even if you don't believe in God,soul,a religion or a non-physical world, don't at least forget the logical possibility of something beyond-matter to exist...
So,in the end of your reply you suggested the phenomenon to be a coincidence,thanks for your opinion

He wrongly assumes that if something exists contingently, then it has a cause of its existence (and conversely, that if something exists of necessity, then it doesn't have a cause of its existence). Such assumptions are demonstrably false. So the argument fails. — Bartricks

I have NO comment......

The debate really has to stop after this quote...and don't ask me why....have fun!

Please make us a favor by not replying.

Okay that's it.....if omnipotence is being able to do anything even if illogical therefore God can not be omnipotent if this what the word omnipotence means.....and if you want to know which premise I'm denying.... it's the one which states that God must be omnipotent (being able to do anything weather logical or not).

Excuse me!...
You seem to forget what your premise really was....your premise stated that God can't be necessary because if so He won't be able to destroy Himself (assuming God has to be able to break logic)....but if we really assume that God can break logic therefore the premise is false... because it stated that He wouldn't be able to destroy Himself if He was necessary while in fact He would still be able to break the logic law that prevents Him from destroying Himself if He chooses so.......as shown.....the premise is negated.

No, God can create such a creature. But if he did, he wouldn't be God anymore. — Bartricks

I'm sorry.... here's another argument:
You say that God can't be necessary because if He is necessary he won't be able to take Himself out of existence but you've forgotten that it's only said that He won't be able to do so because it's just """"'''logically""""""'''' impossible for the necessary being to be able to destroy Himself but if you believe God is above logic in the first place then there's no good reason for avoiding believing He is necessary,in other words,you can still believe that God is necessary but still can break the logical law that prevents Him from destroying himself.....so your very first premise that stated
That if God is necessary then he doesn't exist is totally unjustified when you believe that God can break logic.

Again your first premise is false because if God can do anything even if logically impossible,therefore He can create a being that's immune to God therefore God won't be able to destroy that being.

If you're right therefore the word God must be meaningless because if we know what entity does the word God stand for therefore God is logical....in fact if logic doesn't apply to God therefore there is no argument in the world that can be made to prove He is real (since logic doesn't apply to God therefore Logic doesn't apply to God's existence)

Your first premise is false and that's due to the fact that God by definition is absolute and contingency is an obvious lack of absoluteness unless you think that an existen might be neither necessary not contingent.

Logic is the mirror of absolute certainty that can be used to show weather a statement is true,false or just possible.

You said you're not christian but you sound jus like an extremist who refuses to think that his version of omnipotence is illogical....and no...a big No... I'm not deflecting,I just found that you believe that laws of logic are disposable and not absolute and thus I knew there can't be any common ground between us to built our arguments on cuz what ground is remaining when you believe logic is disposable!!!!!
So in order to slowly getting you back to logic I ask you a question:
Do you believe that a necessary existent exists?(not necessarily believe that this existent is God)

I think our debate is on its way to become pointless so to end the whole thing....
Do you believe a necessary existent exists(not necessarily believe that this existent is God)?

Infinite regress isn't obviously any more counterintuitive than an uncaused thing. — Kenosha Kid

So you're actually saying that if infinite regress is impossible so has to be a necessary existent or in other words it's safe to say that you view the necessary existent as something that its existence isn't truly explained therefore it lacks meaning/explanation just the same as an infinite regress of contingent things does... I'd like to highlight the contradiction in your equalization and this contradiction is that a necessary existent is an existen which is self explanatory or in other words it's the existent which exists by essence of the entity and therefore it's totally logically sound to say it's completely different from the infinite regress because unlike the necessary existent,the infinite regress just delays the explanation without actually giving a true and sufficient cause for the existence and therefore it's absurd and meaningless.

My point was that how you originally arrived at this is logically invalid. Any given thing may be caused by any number of things, each of which may be the partial cause of any number of other things. There's no path from this to a single initial thing that causes everything else. — Kenosha Kid

In fact, Avicenna's point of this proof was to prove that one or more necessary beings have to exist so yes I agree with you,this proof alone doesn't prove the uniqueness (oneness) of that being.... it's very important to mention that after this proof he immediately began showing arguments for the attributes of the necessary existent and these attributes include uniqueness, eternity, omnipotence, free will, knowledge and others...
you can search for "the proof of the truthful" in islamic philosophy and have a nice trip in a new rich dimension of philosophy you probably never experienced "islamic philosophy".

This appears to conflate objects and events. 'cause' is used synonymously with 'thing', but the cause of a thing isn't another thing: it is an event. — Kenosha Kid

I don't need to prove that an event necessarily has to have a begining otherwise it won't be an event at all so, either we'll have an infinite regress which is impossible or there will be a first event and since it will necessarily has to be caused(since it has a begining), therefore its cause is not an event.

Does the book you linked revolve around arguing for instrumentalism?

What if I define omnipotence as the ability to do things expanded to its maximum?...and of course this maximum is logical...... therefore God is omnipotent without any need for breaking logic.....and I think my definition of omnipotence is congruent to the popular definition which is having absolute power because what makes the absolute absolute is of course logic and thus being able to break logic doesn't fall under having "absolute" power or in other words it's not omnipotence it must be something else....maybe fantasy.

'Instrumentalism' in philosophy of science is rather like that. It's not to claim logic isn't effective, but that it is limited in its scope as a matter of principle, and that it's innacurate to claim that it has any kind of absolute referent in the so-called 'real world'. — Wayfarer

And this always let me very confused and sad...... Like HOW ON EARTH they can't realize that they should abandon science if they believe such a thing..... science is literally meaningless if accompanied by having such a belief.

How is a god who is bound by laws more powerful than one who is not? — Bartricks

Omnipotence is completely achieved if a being is able to do any logically possible thing and since doing a "logically" impossible thing is a "logically" impossible thing (I don't know how you don't get that),therefore this version of "logically" impossible omnipotence is "logically" impossible to be achieved by any being.
Therefore God being above logic is """""""logically"""""""" disproved and therefore this belief can never be accepted by the human mind.

Well.... I'll be honest with you....I can't imagine how anyone can refuse accepting that believing in a being that's above logic is "logically" refuted.

Let me reform my previous reply to you......
A necessary existent is the existent which its very self is sufficient for explaining his existence or in other words it's the existent which exists by the essence of entity.
After that we can see that this truth is not negated if this existent is alone.

I hope you can see that you have to prove first that God has to be omnipotent (your version of omnipotence)..and since you believe that omnipotence requires being able to break laws of logic (according to your previous claims not mine)
Therefore what you actually have to prove is that breaking laws of logic may happen or in other words you gotta use logic to prove the diposability of logic....this is very bad maaan....
Unless you find a way to prove your premise(that God has to be above logic), then you can't use it in a discussion.

the necessary existent is necessary if an only if there is at least one chain of contingent existents — Daniel

Actually no...the necessary existent is a necessary existent even if it exists alone and I can't see why you're thinking otherwise.

if the existence of contingent existents causes the chain of existents to exist, why would it need an additional cause to exist (the external cause)? — Daniel

I can not not agree with you... actually Avicenna's strategy for proving the existence of the necessary existent was trying to put the the idea of infinite regress on the possibilities' table while he could have easily eliminated the infinite regress depending on it being a fallacy or a logical impossibility...and if he did so he could just say that the starting point of this chain is contingent and needs a cause which of course not contingent.....so... after all, Avicenna did an extra unneeded work on his proof which could easily be avoided.

And in addition to the above ...your whole thing approaches and revolves around a single idea which is logic being somehow not so correct in all cases or that questioning the existence of ourselves is somehow illogical !!

.

Well...I disagree with you and I'm sure logic does too...because unless you believe that logic is imperfect or that it's not always correct you have to see that the chain is either truly and externally exist or it's somehow an illusion....if it's an illusion then it certainly can't be necessary because it doesn't even exist and if it's real then logic will treat it the same as every other existent which leads us to look weather it's necessary or not keeping in mind that there are multiple valid proofs of the impossibility of it being necessary by proving it must have a starting point depending on the logical impossibility of infinite regress.

it occurs. Because quantum. — Banno

You're trying to explain an event while arguing against causality.you accept causality or not?make a decision

.

A contingent existent is by definition the existent which its very self is not sufficient for existence. Now we can see that this truth will not change if the cause necessarily has to produce such existent...so yes a contingent thing can logically exist by necessity if this is what you meant....now if you believe God is of this kind then you're actually saying that God is caused by a cause that necessarily caused God and then you'll have to accept that God would lack sufficiency, absoluteness,unlimitedness,greatness and glory....do you believe in such God?

We are suffering from a category error here... let's clarify that existing by necessity isn't always the same as being a necessary existent by nature,ok?

Let's assume that God necessarily creates the universe.

Now, the universe will exist of necessity, won't it? — Bartricks

No,even if God necessarily has to create the universe,this can never change the core truth of the universe's entity...the universe will remain contingent forever.