I know without a doubt there is no god

Go ahead believe there is no God if you want to



That just leaves more GOD for me!!!!

 

I hope I never meet a psycho who believes that crap.

 

nobody knows anything about god, and whether one exists or not.

 

Better stay away from God then, or at least keep your head in the sand like an ostrich. Good job (so far) avoiding the truth.

 

"I know without a doubt there is no god"

Stripping yourself from doubt (as a tool) may (I doubt) result with dogmatism.

 

Heheh.. try telling all this to the judge.

Truth! Ha! You think that your buddy christ over here is putting that gun in your hand, telling you to kill, you my friend are fucked in the head. Hard. I've never heard of a real christian who believes that, besides the infamous killers.

You are in complete control. Isn't this why catholics go confess sins? Definately. God doesn't sin. God is no hyprocrite. Logic (or lack thereof) determines your response to a situation like that. Hey, Dahmer--that voice in your head isn't the word of god. Seek help.

[/EndRant]

 

i don't get this^, if god has a "face" then what does it look like? the only place i heard it say that god had a face was in the bible, and i then it also said that if you were to see gods face you'd die. and if god is supposed to be everywhere at the same time, what kinda face can be all over the place?

 

TheHammerSpeaks

So what phenomena have you observed that proves the existence of the mind? You could use the cogito, but that's a deduction, not a phenomenon.

Brains that do not function ..result in NO mind
Brains that do..always result in a mind.
Conscious awareness..And subconscious..ONLY occur as a result of living, functioning brain.

'Gogito ergo sum' is A PHENOMENA. [i reason therefore i exist]
The phenomena of reason saying 'i exist'
because it can.
And IT CAN..ONLY because IT EXISTS.
It is not deduction based on sensory input...
It is a PHENOMENA saying I EXIST..because it DOES.
If it did not ..It could NOT say it.

Fair enough, I guess.

You GUESS?

What exactly is the difference between understanding and control? I don't mean control of other people either (necessarily), I mean control of our environment. Isn't truth (that which is to be understood) just a way of staying in control of our lives? And if truth is really just about control, then wouldn't the most powerful ideas be the real truths?

The difference is..Gratuitous controll of other bings to satisfy the whim of ego.
Manipulation and control.
You know EXACTLY what occam means.

Understanding and wisdom...Allow correct responses to problems with the least harm to any.
The least control.

You want an example of control..
Look at the catholic church in south america some 300 years back...
Slaughter..desease. terror..fear...
The church had a thousand years to sort out it's methods and thinking...
To find the path of christ.
It did no such thing.
The result...
ABSOLUTE HORROR.

The deduction..Organised religion has no controlling method.
Other than control of others.

Occam

 

lol - oh please, and every single idea that you hold is entirely original, huh? Give me a break. When I say that my thinking is the same as their's, I mean that I support everything that they are saying.

The more important question is rather why I should bother talking to you, when you have such a gross misunderstanding of logic. Obviously you did not read the links I provided, otherwise you wouldn't continue standing by this idiocy.

Firstly, a universal negative can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself. Contradictions cannot exist. Secondly, a universal negative can be proven if an idea comes into conflict with what we already know is true - and in that case, it does not correspond with what has been established as reality, and may be rejected. Thirdly, we can prove a negative via route of hypothesis - a good example of this would be phlogiston. And lastly we can disprove a universal negative by "carefully looking and observing" - as said by the II.

Once again - the role of logic is to weed out contradictions from our thinking. To say that a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic. Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this, I recommend you read a thing or two (perhaps the links I provided before, since if you had read them, you wouldn't have responded back with something so retarded).

- Laz

 

You sound like one that would do very well as a philosophy major. There is little I can say that I find fault with in your post except the tone, which I find classless. I like your grasp of the methodology of scientific experimentation, and logical deduction re: disproving through contradiction.
Critical thinking skills will take you far in life, and are far too rare amongst the general population.
Occam is a wise person. I agree with most all that he has posted, and this is comforting to me. Logic is a very important quality to have a strong grasp of, but it has its limitations. In my world, anyway. For example, I have had precognitive dreams more than once. Logic dictates that this cannot be so, yet it is. I have found that my life experiences have often defied logical explanation.
I should have been killed a couple of times at least, yet walked away unharmed. Also, I have a strong belief in the power of love to overcome anything. It is only my belief, and I expect no one to change their beliefs except by their own research and decisionmaking.
If you and I disagree, I feel we can both still be right, so I have no wish to make others believe as I do.

 

Lazarus

Logic is all around us.
Occam learns from it..
More so than the formal logic of human books..
They give some insight...
But are not LAW.
Just human perspective. [on law]

Yes..MOST of occams understanding is from others.Their efforts,
their thinking...
And he assumes that as rational beings...
They would be happy to have occam use their understanding as he saw fit.
And he does..
His understanding is a collation/deduction of all he has read and experienced.
And he fears not the saying of it..
He never said his ideas are original...ever.
Just that his ideas may be valid variations of others thought.

What occam was commenting on..Was that YOU should speak the words.
Your words..For the concepts others devise.
And put your stamp of variation on them.
By saying them.

Occam will not read OTHERS words..to find out what you think...
You have to work ...
You have to make an effort to compile and propose...
Otherwise..you are a mouthpiece.

Your statement
"A universal negative can be proven if that thing contradicts itself"
and
" to say a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic."

You must first...
Understand the TOTALLITY OF REALITY.
To prove a negative...
Only with total understanding and knowledge.
Can it be done.

Occam is a pragmatist...he does not think such is possible for any individual or race..or god..
For any to know ALL..they must be greater than ALL
A contradiction
Thus to prove a negative is a contradiction...hmmmmm?

Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]

And also..dont make assumptions about how much occam has read...
It may backfire.
You are 19 yes...
A great age.. [but any age is a great age]
Occam has read more books than you have had meals. at 3 a day.
And he has NO reason to brag...reading is... a bloody slow way to get information. Occam knows this..empirically. And he is a speed reader.
And somewhat idetic.
And you might call this personal?
Occam would recall
Your statement
"Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this...I reccomend you read a thing or two"

Occam

 

reading is... a bloody slow way to get information. Occam knows this..empirically. And he is a speed reader.

lol

how true. I have found the same.
Wouldn't it be nice to get it from the source, ie: God, which it appears happened with a friend of mine. She reads little becuz she is a poor reader. Can't spell, and has not finished highschool.
Yet, she has described many things to me that I only learned from years of study.

Oh well, we all have our own path......

I agree with what you say about totality of reality too. Any time I was certain of something, I was proved wrong. Nothing is for certain, nothing is 'fact'......to me.

 

Blackguard

Yah...Occam has met those who have little education..and do not read...
Yet they are wise of the ways of us...

They have a gift to understanding...
Not of events..but of humans,,,ands subsequently the causes of human events..
A different perspective

Occam takes the long path..He tries to understand us..By learning what we were and may be..

Information is benign
People are volatile..unpredictable..

As he said before...There is nothing to fear in reality..But people.

Occam

 

I do not fear people. For over 15 years I thought I feared nothing. I was wrong. When my fiance was clinging to life, and her survival was unknown, I was terrified. More than ever in my life. What a wake up call.
People seem to try to scare me, but it has no effect on me, to some of them quite a surprise. One man grabbed my throat while describing a fight to me, and I could see his confusion in his eyes when I did not respond. It did not raise my pulse one beat. Though he was a stranger, he went on to tell me I was now a good friend of his.

Occam has met those who have little education..and do not read...
Yet they are wise of the ways of us...

They have a gift to understanding...
Not of events..but of humans,,,ands subsequently the causes of human events..
A different perspective

I agree, but the case I referred to was one where a woman described in quite specific detail, scenes from the Tibetan Book of the Dead. She also described other historical events quite clearly, though did not know the names of the characters involved. I told her their names.
I just wanted to clarify what I meant.

Information is benign, unless it is presented in a manner to instill hatred.
In Israeli and Palestinian primary schools, the curriculum is mostly the same, but where it differs, the information is biased and anything but benign.

I agree that people are unpredictable, yet, I feel not as much so as they would like to believe. Skinner's conditioning research does have some merit.

 

Blackguard

Well said.

As to fear...Occam said in an earlier post a few weeks back
[antiquity ]
That human evil can strike at the ones he loves and cares for..
That is fear.

As to your friends abillity to describe details from such a book.
Another in a HUGE list of unexplained phenomena that humans have
experienced..
This list is a potent reminder that we dont know it all.

Occam supports totally your refference to information taught in schools that is not impartial. The teaching of 'opinion' or outright lies to children.
Dressing it as fact...
Is abhorrent..
And also,,must agree that infomation shaped by MIND as it also shapes bullets..can be just about as benigh as one of those bullets.
He badly expressed the concept that MIND is what chooses to harm.
The method of doing so is then of small issue...

Correct
Should have been
people 'can be' volatile, unpredictable....
Or do a 180..
'mostly halmless' ....[d.Adams]

Have to sleep now...

Bye

 

Logic is not an entity that it may be "all around us" - rather, it is a system of laws which describe the things around us, and helps us to discard irrational ideas.

Further, to say "You cannot prove a universal negative" is a universal negative. Your position is self-defeating.

Secondly, no, omniscience is not necessary to realize that something is a contradiction. To say "My first name is James and not James both simultaneously" is not a statement that requires one to know what kind of music Occam likes in order to reject it as false. To say "New Zealand is both South and not South of China" is not a statement that requires one to know the colour of BlackGuard's shoes in order to recognize it as false.

"Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]"

What is this, if not proving a negative? That's precisely what proving a negative is - disproving an idea or a proposition as untrue.

Obviously you have *not* read much on logic at all, considering that if you did you wouldn't be holding to such an absurd idea. Your claim that you read often is irrelevant to my recommendation that you read something on this particular topic. You can read tens of thousands of books on the philosophical views of the Vienna Circle, and not know one thing about the life of Ayn Rand. Similarly, you can read all the books you like on any number of topics - but if they are not about logical process, then your statement is irrelevant to this discussion.

The point of my post was not to tell you "what I think" about any particular issue - but rather to provide you information so you could recognize yourself as wrong and then correct yourself. Once again - if you have no desire to do this, then you are no different than the common religionist.

So, once again, I find myself recommending you read a thing or two - like the links that I originally provided.

BlackGuard - you might have found my post "classless", which is fine. But I have no patience for an individual who holds to a common myth and then discards attempts to help him, continuing to spout nonsense. You might have the tolerance to bear their company - I don't.

- Laz

 

Lazarus

The method of science
It is invalidating a proposed positive... or dont you believe that is possible?

And my friend..get of the
"you have not read much logic' wagon

Do you suggest logic only exists in books?
That books are the only way to understand logic...

Logic IS the human interpretation of the process of reality.
It existed in human minds FIRST

Not in books. They are just interpretave perspectives on human logic..
Not the thing itself
[conceptual structure underpinned by observed reality]

The more you tell occam to read the links you forward..
The less likely he is to do it...
For if you cannot say it yourself...in your own words
Then you obviously dont understand it.
Or have so little faith in YOU..that you cannot trust yourself to speak the words you say are truth.

In the 10th book occam read..was a character such as yourself.
10thousand books latter..that character had popped up here and there...

The sycophant to the written word.

Occam

 

Duh. If you invalidate an idea you are establishing it's negation. To invalidate the idea that the sun is green is to establish that the sun is NOT green - a negative. You're already conceding my point.

No - you can gain an understanding of what logic is by observing reality - but actually reading about the system itself formally goes a long way in weeding out your misunderstandings of logic - and this is obviously something you need to do - so no, I'm not "getting off that wagon" - because you actually need to do it.

If you don't want to read the links I provided - that's your problem. I don't have to suffer your life as an idiot, only you do.

Thank you for conveniently ignoring half of my writing on this page of this thread. I've already said it "in my own words" a million times over. Here:

And here:

So it seems that not only are you not reading the links I provided, but you're not reading my posts sufficiently either, and you're still spouting nonsense.

I also note with interest that you haven't responded to a single criticism I've provided of your support for this myth. You haven't responded to my pointing out that you don't need omniscience to disprove something, you haven't responded to my pointing out that your position is self-defeating, and you haven't responded to the numerous ways I've shown that it is possible to prove a negative.

- Laz

 

God makes fools too (because they are necessary).

You have no clue. Thoughts happen like breathing, or any other automated process. Actions that you contemplate arise like breathing as well. Consciousness of breathing allows us to control our rate of breathing to a certain extent, however this consciousness is a directed process as well. Are you in control of the neurons in your brain? Are you in control of the molecules in your veins? Are you in control of the thoughts in your mind? No. However, as the mind develops and becomes more fully functional it becomes more aware of the automation it experiences and is designed to experience.

 

Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel.
God helps those who help themselves.

I dislike the notion that I can foist the punishment for my sins off onto the messiah so he can pay the price. I refuse to agree to that, I will accept the punishment myself thank you. And I also will not excuse my acting improperly by stating that it was God's will, or the devil made me do it. I did it, and I want to take the blame, the blood is on my hands. If God wants to argue with me about it, by all means, but he better have a better reason than he made me.