It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Illogical or Logical? Is Proof of God a Fact or Fallacy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:30 AM
This is an experiment in Philisophical Communication for any and all who'd like to try. Nobody will be found to be Right or Wrong by the answers they give. It is relatively quick and easy so I hope others will give it a shot. (It was either overlooked or avoided by others in the original thread for reasons unknown to me. I've made some attempts to clearify certain sections in case it was too confusing as well.)

First, Clear your mind of Any Preconcieved Ideas about 'Atheism & God and any Logical/Illogical arguements for or against them'.
Next, Read the following sections, allowing each one to add a part to their collectively similar Idea & Overall Point. (Re-Read them as much as is needed)
Then, Give a short yet Complete Answer to the Questions at the end.
That's it, Start when ready...

1: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind;
"the triumph of the rational over the animal/natural side of man"
2: having its source in or being guided by the intellect
(distinguished from experience or emotion)
3: Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation; logical.
4: Mathematics: One that can be expressed without the use of a radical sign, or in exact parts of unity.

1: Not according to reason;foolish.
2: Mathematics: real but not expressible as the quotient of two integers, or by fraction

1: One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social conformity in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth:
2: of the common powers of understanding; a natural.
3: from Latin word follis:meaning “a bag or sack, a large inflated ball, a pair of bellows.”

The History of the Fool Card - Tarot
In the antique decks, the Fool is almost always unnumbered, even though the rest of the major arcana bear roman numerals I through XXI.
There are exceptions: two old decks label the Fool with a "0" and "XXII". So although the Fool is almost always completely apart from the sequence of trumps in the historic decks, there is historic precedent for regarding it as the lowest trump and as the highest trump!

In the game of tarot, the Fool has a unique role, similar to that of a "wild card" (Joker) but different in interesting ways. Whereas a wild card assumes the identity of a card to player would like to have, helping the holder win the hand, the Fool is an "excuse"--it can be played at any time, but it never beats any of the other cards. Playing the Fool is like momentarily exempting yourself from the rules of the game.

The fool or simpleton was unabashedly mocked and scorned on the one hand, but on the other hand became a vehicle for many profound ironies. In Shakespeare, it is the Fool who speaks the most profound truth. And the man in poverty represented the Franciscan ideal of godliness. So, in a delightful reversal reminiscent of the Roman Saturnalia, the Fool becomes both wiser and holier than the Pope!

Of the trumps, only three are worth points in the game: The Fool, the Magician, and the World. But whereas the World beats every other card in the deck, the Fool beats none! It is a very strange thing, really, a card that brings the holder a great reward, but does so by losing! A card exempt from the usual rules, and a card you can never lose to another player.

The Fool makes a profound statement, it seems to me, dropped in amongst the kings, queens, and powers of the cosmos. All the other cards are in competition with each other in the game; each player hopes their card will "triumph" over those of others, and much distress results if a valuable card is beaten and taken. But the Fool alone is not in competition; he's outside the game. In every hand he appears once, somewhere, unpredictably, never taking anything and never being taken. He just is. Total humility bestows invulnerability.

Ok, that's it. Now take a moment to reflect on what you've read.
Then with the above material in mind answer the following:
(All of them are Optional. Once again, there's no Right or Wrong answer. I'm interested in what this means to others & why, that's it!)

1.) Who is The Fool?

2.) What's the reasoning behind The Fool being '0, 22, or No Number'?

3.) Is Theism 'Rational or Irrational'? Explain?

4.) Is Atheism 'Rational or Irrational'? Explain?

5.) 'Proof' For or Against 'God' is? (Rational/Irrational, Foolish/Reasonable, Possible/Impossible, Knowledge/Experience, Other)

6.) Any other comments you'd like to add about what you thought about this experiment. If it did or did not make sense to you, if it was too easy or difficult, if you think you know the point of it or where you've read similar ideas to these, etc...

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 05:37 AM
I hate to see a post go unanswered.

Firslty from the section posted in, and the use of god in the title, makes it hard not to think of the questions in a religious manner.
Secondly I would be interested to know where the interpretation, seeing as they are not necessarily descriptions, of the terms are from. There is some inclination and resemblance to the use of “involuntary directional thought”, using word association.

A1. The fool is a wind bag (inflated sack) who likes to shout about and be heard (pair of bellows), especially when they are shouting about views contrary to popular believe (part one). Whether they actually believe what they are saying or not.(part two).

To sum up, a fool is some one who shouts about views they do not necessarily believe in, but fight the cause just to be different.

A2. There is no value to a fool’s action. In general you start out as fools or end up as fools.
A3. A4 – Both a stalemates. There is no answer to the question, they are both rational and irrational. As to which side it lays depends solely on the idividual. The view of rational is obtained through thought, and experience, both of which are individual. The view of irrational requires a knowledge of reason, which in turn is a personal attribute.

A5. All

A6. The questions cannot be answered without personal thought. The fact you ask at the start.

First, Clear your mind of Any Preconcieved Ideas about 'Atheism & God and any Logical/Illogical arguements for or against them'.

negates the ability to answer the question.

With it being an experiment in Philosophical Communication, and it maybe me interpreting the instruction wrong, you may be better asking people to apply their own thoughts, belief etc to the questions.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by mOjOm
1.) Who is The Fool?


What's the reasoning behind The Fool being '0, 22, or No Number'?

Apparently thats up to whoever designed the tarot game in the first place and assigned its values.

3.) Is Theism 'Rational or Irrational'? Explain?

Irrational. Because its not rational

4.) Is Atheism 'Rational or Irrational'? Explain?

Rational, becuase it only accepts rational thought.

5.) 'Proof' For or Against 'God' is? (Rational/Irrational, Foolish/Reasonable, Possible/Impossible, Knowledge/Experience, Other)


6.) Any other comments

The fool or trickster as a god is often a creator god or sometimes that god which brings man technology/fire/etc. But why the long digression about the tarot deck? its just the creation of one particular cultural-historical perspective, not necessarily an insight into univseral 'truth'?

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:04 PM
the oldest standing definition of a fool is in an ancient book that even to this day is still the absolute authority on human behaviour. this book is so accurate and exact, so pieceing and true to its very core that it makes more recent ideologies on human behaviour (such as modern psychology - Freud etc) look infintile.

In this book are many sentences about fools, let me quote a few now:

Prov 10:18
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Prov 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Psa 53
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God

More on the definition of a fool :

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:18 PM
Point of Order!

How can a fraction be mathematically irrational. A fraction i.e. 1/4 is the ration of one part to four.

How can a ratio be irrational, thats an oxymoron...

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
Point of Order!

How can a fraction be mathematically irrational. A fraction i.e. 1/4 is the ration of one part to four.

How can a ratio be irrational, thats an oxymoron...

Irrational numbers are the ones that CAN'T be fully represented by a fraction. They can only be Approximated by fractions. For example:

Phi = 1.6180339887...

13/8 = 1.625
21/13 = 1.615
34/21 = 1.619...
55/34 = 1.617...

Does that make more sense?

What it's really saying is that Irrational Numbers do not have the ability to change from from Decimal to Fraction and remain Mathematically Equal. The Fraction will only Approximate the Decimal to some degree of accuracy.

new topics

top topics

log in