Please enlighten us!! Oh wait, you're just trolling again. LOL — 3017amen

Natural is what exists and either is or gives rise to our experiences.
— substantivalism
Which is full of paradox and uncertainty, and are provably incomplete and inconsistent (Godel). And so how does your natural experiences help you in your argument? — 3017amen

Challenge: Paradox and uncertainty are not the same thing. What is an example of a paradox in nature? (Noun, not adjective.)

And nothing natural about Godel's undecidability proof. He described systems that meet certain criteria and proved that within that (those) systems it is possible to create a proposition, often called G, that from within the system neither it nor its negation are provable, thus undecidable from within the system. This is, however, far from being undecidable, and indeed G is easily decided, from outside - it's true.

Godel's ideas, then, or those that make it to public awareness, are for the ignorant, apparently yourself, a kind of snake oil/voodoo in the same sense that many other difficult ideas are for people who cannot or will not understand them but like to ignorantly use them to attempt to prove nonsense.

So, no. I am not trolling, but rather calling out the ignorant troll, you! Lol.

That explanation doesn't seem to square with the laws of nature themselves, nor does it square with the existence of a conscious being known from history as Jesus. — 3017amen

What laws of nature? You mean the regularities or patterns in our experience because if that is what we value to navigate our experiences then contradictions explicitly would put a wrench in doing anything if we didn't pay attention to what predictably occurs or is.

For instance, we've already agreed that the laws of nature are paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete. And we also know that the nature of consciousness is outside the parameters of formal logic, thus also paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete (unconsciousness, consciousness and subconsciousness all working together). — 3017amen

The model would be contradictory or incomplete but to say consciousness is paradoxical or doesn't abide by formal laws of logic would be childishly over the top nearly violating the explicit wall there is between our experiences and the nature of what gives rise to them.

And so either Platonism, mathematics, or something that transcends the natural laws of existence must be considered. — 3017amen

There is nothing above the regularities in of and the experiences we have. . . period. To jump into platonism is too commit oneself to asking questions about the nature of our experiences which cannot be answered without skepticism and Descartes tearing it down to arbitrariness.

Otherwise, we are back to simple wonderment, and the physicists questions that help him discover things from asking: 'all events must have a cause' as a means to his end. Accordingly, you said that a similar sense of wonderment is in itself, from consciousness, and thus is mysteriously unknown. — 3017amen

Depends on your definition of what you would mean by consciousness or what precise concepts could describe it to the best of our semantic abilities. . . putting that aside.

What have I been saying this whole time? That our experiences are the only data we can use and speculate about the experience of the unexperienced (skeptical scenarios) will result in arbitrariness. Only that which informs us of what may happen next or what happens in the case of this collection of experiences or questions about or within our abstract models themselves are all that seems to matter here.

So why and how did we get here? Everything seems mysterious or unknown(?). And from what you are telling me, all we have are metaphysical abstracts and ideas (mathematics) which in turn are incomplete and paradoxical. — 3017amen

It seems that way but we're (especially you) asking meta-questions about our system and we can only remain within this system to ask questions with the system. Were stuck in F,

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

It's pretty much as conventional as our consciousness would allow. The model would consist of the historical account of Jesus, the mystery of Love and consciousness, and inductive reasoning (the religious experience) to say the least. Most of which includes metaphysics and phenomenology. And of course all of which exists/existed. — 3017amen

Why you would add anything as such is up to you and your arbitrary/restricted preferences.

Okay, you don't know some features or attributes from your own conscious existence. Is self-awareness something that just is? What about Love and other sentient/metaphysical attributes from consciousness, how do they confer any biological advantages? — 3017amen

It's right now (however we've defined it to be) and if I didn't give rise to them ("features or attributes from your own conscious existence") then what isn't me did.

There seems to be a lot that you don't know that is seemingly natural. — 3017amen

All that gives rise to our experiences or is those experiences I consider natural.

Paradox and uncertainty are not the same thing. What is an example of a paradox in nature? (Noun, not adjective.) — tim wood

Time. Do your homework Timmy!! LOL

And nothing natural about Godel's undecidability proof. He described systems that meet certain criteria and proved that within that (those) systems it is possible to create a proposition, often called G, that from within the system neither it nor its negation are provable, thus undecidable from within the system. This is, however, far from being undecidable, and indeed G is easily decided, from outside - it's true. — tim wood

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you may want to study him a bit more. I'd recommend the book The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies.

Godel's ideas, then, or those that make it to public awareness, are for the ignorant, apparently yourself, a kind of snake oil/voodoo in the same sense that many other difficult ideas are for people who cannot or will not understand them but like to ignorantly use them to attempt to prove nonsense.

So, no. I am not trolling, but rather calling out the ignorant troll, you! Lol. — tim wood

Hiding behind ad hominem again? Are you going to drop the F-bomb too? This topic seems to be really emotional for you, LOL

Time. Do your homework Timmy!! LOL — 3017amen

I'd also preface that you do not seem to note the difference between that which is merely undecidable and that which is paradoxical with both being rather distinguished ideas.

Observe 3017's manner of discussion: ignore, avoid, evade, deflect, non sequitur. Abandon hope of reason or courtesy if engaging 3017.

Here is the proof for the existence for God:

Definition of God:

All knowledge exists; ominiscience
All power exists; omnipotence
Everywhere exists; omnipresence

God IS by definition omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

I'd also preface that you do not seem to note the difference between that which is merely undecidable and that which is paradoxical with both being rather distinguished ideas. — substantivalism

You could read too! I said noun, not adjective. Agreed there is much that seems paradoxical in nature. But the question was to provide an example from nature of a paradox. You misread - happens to all of us. 3017, however, long ago wore out any presumption of innocence.

God IS by definition omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. — nyimislam

But not, thereby, all good. Right? If you aver that too, you run into a contradiction.

What laws of nature? You mean the regularities or patterns in our experience because if that is what we value to navigate our experiences then contradictions explicitly would put a wrench in doing anything if we didn't pay attention to what predictably occurs or is. — substantivalism

Mathematics. You know, mathematical abstracts, Platonism, etc..

The model would be contradictory or incomplete but to say consciousness is paradoxical or doesn't abide by formal laws of logic would be childishly over the top nearly violating the explicit wall there is between our experiences and the nature of what gives rise to them. — substantivalism

Great. we agree! Logic can't help us!!! Does that mean super-natural is an alternative?

What have I been saying this whole time? That our experiences are the only data we can use and speculate about the experience of the unexperienced (skeptical scenarios) will result in arbitrariness. Only that which informs us of what may happen next or what happens in the case of this collection of experiences or questions about or within our abstract models themselves are all that seems to matter here — substantivalism

Sounds like existential angst of some sort. No exceptions taken.

It seems that way but we're (especially you) asking meta-questions about our system and we can only remain within this system to ask questions with the system — substantivalism

In other words, you don't know the nature of your own existence. I gotcha.

Why you would add anything as such is up to you and your arbitrary/restricted preferences. — substantivalism

Is that another form of a subjective truth or objective truth?

It's right now (however we've defined it to be) and if I didn't give rise to them then what isn't me did. — substantivalism

Okay?

Only what I experience as all that gives rise to our experiences or is those experiences I consider natural. — substantivalism

But if what is natural is an experience that is unknown, how do you know that experiences are real?

You could read too! I said noun, not adjective. Agreed there is much that seems paradoxical in nature. But the question was to provide an example from nature of a paradox. You misread - happens to all of us. 3017, however, long ago wore out any presumption of innocence. — tim wood

Ah, yes.

:up: :up:

Observe 3017's manner of discussion: ignore, avoid, evade, deflect, non sequitur. Abandon hope of reason or courtesy if engaging 3017. — tim wood

Archetypical Dunning-Kruger specimen. Even gives "trolls" a bad name.

I'd also preface that you do not seem to note the difference between that which is merely undecidable and that which is paradoxical with both being rather distinguished ideas. — substantivalism

Oh, well let's also then add to Gödel, Heisenberg (uncertainty principle). LOL

Oh, well let's also then add to Gödel, Heisenberg (uncertainty principle). LOL — 3017amen

You endlessly confuse models and descriptions of nature with nature itself. Why do you do that?

Hey 180, come join the party! Or, are you another one of those angry atheists that Einstein talked about LOL. Gee, what a paradox, an atheist who doesn't believe in God sure seems upset about these things...or is it an irony, or contradiction?

Time is noun, no? LOL Gosh, trolling, trolling trolling...are you angry too?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=time+definition&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR3A

It's come down to a bizarre game. You make nonsense, and when challenged go off the rails.

Hiding behind ad hominem again? Are you going to drop the F-bomb too? — 3017amen

Might as well, it's all you seem to want or understand: Fuck you, 3017. Glad to engage at your level. LOL.

Might as well, it's all you seem to want or understand: Fuck you, 3017. Glad to engage at your level. LOL. — tim wood

Hahahahahaha

Time is noun, no? LOL Gosh, trolling, trolling trolling...are you angry too? — 3017amen

Non-sequitor, fool. No one asked you about time.

God is not his definition. He is his freewill and is multidimensional. He shows his aspects according to your beliefs. He shows to be all perfectly good God to those who believe it and to those he don't he chooses to show them his multidimensional aspects which are mysterious in nature and you can never find out. He is an evil piece of shit; uses righteous lies and stuff to get what he wants. A fucking dumb ass of the highest order!

There are many God's who are all actually creatures; but there is one who is the Most High who is above all known as the Creator called God the Father of All. That's the one everybody is trying to understand. From my understanding, this motherfucker is an evil piece of shit who uses his all intelligence to fuck with his creatures in infinite ways without his creatures being able to ever find out because they are simply creatures. He can take on all creation at the same time because no one is his equal in power.

Mathematics. You know, mathematical abstracts, Platonism, etc.. — 3017amen

Yes, descriptions of our reality and further arbitrary abstractions to model its behvaior.

Great. we agree! Logic can't help us!!! Does that mean super-natural is an alternative? — 3017amen

I can't remember again what it's that you've defined super-natural as but you seem to have glossed over the distinction between our experiences, abstractions of those, and what gives rise to our experiences. In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. Further, para-consistent logic or any non-classical logic is not a complete abandonment of everything that is classical logic but an adjustment to it. . . true and false still exist within those.

Sounds like existential angst of some sort. No exceptions taken. — 3017amen

Okay.

In other words, you don't know the nature of your own existence. I gotcha. — 3017amen

Ahem, are we on repeat now?

Is that another form of a subjective truth or objective truth? — 3017amen

I state it and believe what i've stated so it's objective. . . what would make it subjective?

Okay? — 3017amen

Reality exists and if I didn't explicitly result in its existence then clearly something which isn't what I am had to.

But if what is natural is an experience that is unknown, how do you know that experiences are real? — 3017amen

Experiences are what they are. . . recall the mirage of palm trees out in the distance with a pool of water. Whether or not our abstract models makes such an experience consistent with previous ones and the meanings of the words involved the experience of said mirage is as real as you'll get. What gives rise to experiences is truly unknown but the experiences themselves and the relationships they have to each other are not. It's just as real to experience an imaginary friend as your actual friend but while they are just as "real" it would be a rather large lapse in judgement to designate them as the same experiences simpliciter.

Oh, well let's also then add to Gödel, Heisenberg (uncertainty principle). LOL — 3017amen

Yes, Heisenberg uncertainty principle from a certain abstract model of quantum phenomenon among many others. . . instrumentalism anyone.

Non-sequitor, fool. No one asked you about time. — tim wood

Challenge: Paradox and uncertainty are not the same thing. What is an example of a paradox in nature? (Noun, not adjective.) — tim wood

My answer was Time. And time is a noun. I don't understand, I answered your question, how is that a non sequitur...or did I box you into the corner , again?

Or, maybe you're trolling, again. Oh well, maybe sequit this:



LOL You angry atheists are more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

My answer was Time. — 3017amen

All right. Assuming that time is in nature, how is it a paradox?

Yes, descriptions of our reality and further arbitrary abstractions to model its behvaior. — substantivalism

In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. — substantivalism

But mathematics is an objective truth. I don't understand how they can be arbitrary? Please explain!!

In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. — substantivalism

Does that mean consciousness may be explained in one person's mind, but not in another person's mind?

Ahem, are we on repeat now? — substantivalism

Well, not sure what your argument is then, or do you have one?

state it and believe what i've stated so it's objective. . . what would make it subjective? — substantivalism

Yourself perceiving it's objectiveness.

Experiences are what they are. . . recall the mirage of palm trees out in the distance with a pool of water. Whether or not our abstract models makes such an experience consistent with previous ones and the meanings of the words involved the experience of said mirage is as real as you'll get. What gives rise to experiences is truly unknown but the experiences themselves and the relationships they have to each other are not. It's just as real to experience an imaginary friend as your actual friend but while they are just as "real" it would be a rather large lapse in judgement to designate them as the same experiences simpliciter. — substantivalism

Ok, great!

But mathematics is an objective truth. I don't understand how they can be arbitrary? Please explain!! — 3017amen

It's arbitrary what axioms you accept and while the conclusions you draw given a previously system within which to do so is not if you choose to precisely abide by said systemic rules.

Does that mean consciousness may be explained in one person's mind, but not in another person's mind? — 3017amen

I was talking generally about the categories of our experiences, the nature of them, and the abstractions covering them in which perhaps a contradiction does reveal itself to one but not to all nor pervades an entire category. Though, it isn't too far a stretch to say that other conscious experiences could be so distinct to the point that even the logical structure of them was different (different axioms are accepted).

Well, not sure what your argument is then, or do you have one? — 3017amen

I've been more clarifying my positions rather than using it or diverging from it.

Yourself perceiving it's objectiveness. — 3017amen

What?

Ok, great! — 3017amen

Okay.

All right. Assuming that time is in nature, how is it a paradox? — tim wood

Gosh, are you assuming Time is not in nature? Jeez, you atheists not only like to drop F-bombs (are angry), you're really unsophisticated too LOL!

Might as well, it's all you seem to want or understand: Fuck you, 3017. — tim wood

Back when I wasn't alive and William Lane Craig didn't seem as much of a dunce.

It's arbitrary what axioms you accept and the conclusions you draw given a previous system within which to do so. — substantivalism

But math itself is an objective truth, just like Platonism and abstract ideas. How does that square your circle?

I was talking generally about the categories of our experiences, the nature of them, and the abstractions covering them in which perhaps a contradiction does reveal itself to one but not to all nor pervades an entire category. Though, it isn't too far a stretch to say that other conscious experiences could be so distinct to the point that even the logical structure of them was different (different axioms are accepted). — substantivalism

But those logical structures seem illogical once axioms are applied to them.

Okay. — substantivalism

Great God exists then. Or did I get that wrong?

Back when I wasn't alive and William Lane Craig didn't seem as much of a dunce. — substantivalism

Are you reincarnated?

But math itself is an objective truth, just like Platonism and abstract ideas. How does that square your circle? — 3017amen

True in the sense that it can be shown to come logically given a certain set of accepted axioms. True in that classical logic inexorable without issue or arbitrariness derives the same theorems or conclusions.

But those logical structures seem illogical once axioms are applied to them. — 3017amen

That depends on what axioms you are applying especially since many axioms of your own experience aren't exactly able to be swapped out as easily as can be done to go from classical to para-consistent logic. I cannot make myself think in a way that is not what i'm now.

Great God exists then. Or did I get that wrong? — 3017amen

Depends on how god is defined if this goes in line with yours then yes. Do not however (beyond being consistent with your definition of god) apply further aspects of your worldview without elaboration as to how they do apply to me lest a straw-man is created.

Are you reincarnated? — 3017amen

:rofl: , no i've just seen later examples of William Lane Craig in his arguments or snippets of debates along with external knowledge as to his character that haven't exactly made me appreciate him as much. Perhaps in years previous he was more appreciable.

Perhaps then if you are interested in the dissolution of the Eternalist/Presentist debate you could read this.