What type of relationship do you have with God?

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Well actually your axiom is the arguments and authority of your favourite book. Beyond that I'm not sure you have anything else to believe in.

Not sure what you mean by this....I said God is an axiom required for knowledge to be possible, or attainable. I didn't say a specific God, heck it could even be multiple Gods, but a supernatural creator or creators is necessary in order for humans to obtain knowledge. The question after this realization becomes which one or which ones?

"God as a premise and God as the conclusion is the definition of circular reasoning. "

At what point has my premise and conclusion both been God?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"God is an axiom required for knowledge to be possible, therefor God exists." It's a circle. It's assuming the initial point. It's begging the question.

No one here has a relationship with God. A relationship involves two parties. No one can point to the other party in their so-called relationship.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

"God is an axiom required for knowledge to be possible, therefor God exists."

That was never my premise. I never said God exist because he is an axiom. I simply stated that a God or Gods(a supernatural consciousness possessing specific attributes) must be a starting point of reasoning if knowledge is attainable. I know at least 1 absolute truth. Knowledge is therefore attainable. So the question isn't whether knowledge is possible because we both know it is. (This is a Reductio Ad absurdum)This metaphysical question and answer are only justifiable when applying God as an axiom for multiple reasons in the same way that Science can only be done when certain axioms(Inductive reasoning, uniformity in nature, and the laws of logic) are taken to be true without any justification. They simply must be the starting point or there is no justification for anything else.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I simply stated that a God or Gods (a supernatural consciousness possessing specific attributes) must be a starting point of reasoning if knowledge is attainable.

How have you reached this conclusion?

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

I presented you with a form of argument showing you how I Got there the reductio ad absurdum. My question to you is if God is not required for knowledge to be attainable, then justify that you can obtain knowledge without a God existing without being irrational or using circular reasoning.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I’m sorry, I don’t really follow your argument. But I’ll try.

You claim you know one absolute truth. Is that one absolute truth the knowledge that you know one absolute truth? Or is that one absolute truth the knowledge that knowledge is possible? Maybe you know two absolute truths? I don’t get it.

Knowledge, as we know it and utilize it, is a human endeavour subject to all the limitations of human knowing. Nothing else knows or dispenses human knowledge. We don’t obtain human knowledge—we don’t discover it laying on the ground or under stones—we create it. It is founded on our relationship with the world.

Maybe you are confusing divine knowledge with human knowledge. Why would human knowledge require an inhuman starting point? Only if you assume such. Circular reasoning.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

You're saying: "Human knowledge exists only as human knowledge, because human knowledge says so."

Can it be more circular?

You're defining knowledge as perception relative to a perceiver class, and in doing so, you contradict your very own premise - that human knowledge doesn't exist between classes.

That is, how do you know "Nothing else knows or dispenses human knowledge"? Is human knowledge divine? Can humans know the knowledge of a divine mind but a divine mind cannot know humans'? Says who? Oh that's right, human knowledge... circular.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

You claim you know one absolute truth. Is that one absolute truth the knowledge that you know one absolute truth? Or is that one absolute truth the knowledge that knowledge is possible? Maybe you know two absolute truths? I don’t get it.

No the claim i was referring to is "something is itself." A=A. The Law of Identity. It is always true. Therefore knowledge is obtainable. The premise we have now created for ourselves is Knowledge is obtainable. Ultimately if we had a conversation long enough we would come to the conclusion the Knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic(absolute truth statements). So our modified premise would become, "Knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic." Now this is where the argument comes in friend. A supernatural consciousness must be applied as an axiom to justify this premise.(Reductio Ad absurdum refer to the wiki post earlier). If you think otherwise please produce a justification for the premise above that is not circular or irrational that justifies your belief in that premise.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You’re using human knowledge to arrive at this conclusion. You using human knowledge to tell me human knowledge is circular is self-defeating the moment you typed it out—contradictory and self-defeating the moment you tried to refute it.

Take a card, on one side write “The statement on the other side of this card is true”. On the other side write “Copper conducts electricity”. Now we can go look to see if the statements are true. An open argument.

On one side of another card write “The statement on the other side of this card is true”. On the other side write “God exists”, or “Divine Knowledge exists”. In order to find out whether it is true or not, I can only ever refer to the other side of the card. A circular argument.

No one is saying human knowledge is absolute or always correct. To do so would be to confuse human and divine knowledge. It’s not circular if it can be compared to reality.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Knowledge about what is obtainable via the laws of logic?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

2. One on One - you and God alone. Share your real relationship with God.

3. What has God told you?

4. Have you met your God?

5. Anything you would like to share that God has told you?

2: I prefer to call what I understand of God as the creator,after that I leave it open.
The relationship that we have is very subtle most of the time. When good things happen I am thankful to the creator, and when bad things happen, I am also thankful for the learning experience. My relationship is one of exploration and soul searching, with the creator watching and subtly encouraging me through synchronicity and signs,
and outcomes to my journeys.

3:I have never heard the voice of God as in being spoken to,(Although see below for something close)
however, just through living as a human being on this planet God has told me plenty. Enjoy the journey!

4:I once met some sort of divine being, however, I cannot say that is God,
only that it told me I was screwing up.
The light that it gave off though was most certainly the creators essence,
but that is as close as I have been.



5:There is a plan for each of us (this is what I was told by the being with the creators essence, only it was in reference to me, and I assume it is meant for everyone because I am no one special) and we are loved.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Knowledge in general.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

You're still using the same illogical basis for affirmation.

You do not know whether or not my knowledge, nor your knowledge, originates from a divine source unless you know absolute truth / divine knowledge.

Your argument is self-defeating.

Furthermore, you're using the word knowledge as if it is something subjective/relative to a class, when it should not be thought of in that way.

Knowledge is understanding of truth, so saying divine knowledge and human knowledge is like splitting truth and calling one true truth and the other partial truth or subjective truth -- it is redundant.

Knowledge is the awareness, or understanding, of truth, whether the truth is absolute, object, subject, relative, or whatever else you want to name it.

What you're saying, although you deny it, is that your interpretation / perception / understanding / recognition of objective truth is the creation of true knowledge (divine knowledge), yet still relative only to humans because it was interpreted by humans -- that is not correct.

Either your knowledge is factual or it is not knowledge at all - your interpretation of truth is not the creation of it. We do not create objective truth/divine knowledge - they are already interdependent.

Look:


If you see the truth of a thing you gain knowledge of it - knowledge which already existed, along with its objective form/truth.

If something is true, our interpretation of its truth does not create nor effect its truthfulness.

There is only knowledge of truth, everything else is bs, and the fact that truth exists outside of our minds, objectively, proves it.

Do you believe the recreation or recognition of a thing is its invention? I would hope not, but that seems to be your argument, in part.

Who created the trapdoor/hatch? It clearly existed before our recognition and translation of it into form, before we had knowledge of it, it existed in the spirit, as a form of force or desire, but what of the knowledge of it which was recognized? Again, it must be interdependent, as knowledge depends upon truth, and truth upon awareness/conception.

You know what... I’m done typing. I am not explaining anything else to you. You’re way out of your league, and you piss me off with your stupid “write on a card” circular argument tactics.

You walk in darkness if that’s what you want.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No the claim i was referring to is "something is itself." A=A. The Law of Identity. It is always true. Therefore knowledge is obtainable. The premise we have now created for ourselves is Knowledge is obtainable. Ultimately if we had a conversation long enough we would come to the conclusion the Knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic(absolute truth statements). So our modified premise would become, "Knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic." Now this is where the argument comes in friend. A supernatural consciousness must be applied as an axiom to justify this premise.(Reductio Ad absurdum refer to the wiki post earlier). If you think otherwise please produce a justification for the premise above that is not circular or irrational that justifies your belief in that premise.

Be careful with the reductio ad absurdum. A reductio ad absurdum is used to shed doubt on someone else’s argument by bringing its premises to an absurd conclusion. Make sure it is my conclusion that appears absurd, and not yours. I’m still unsure how you’ve arrived at your conclusion that “a supernatural consciousness must be applied as an axiom to justify this premise”.

To be specific, given that knowledge is a human affair, I believe knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic because that’s how humans think.

For the sake of argument, I’ll agree that “Knowledge is derived via the laws of logic”. Here’s my argument:

Knowledge is derived via the laws of logic,
the laws of logic were derived via humans,
Therefor, knowledge is derived via humans.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You do not know whether or not my knowledge, nor your knowledge, originates from a divine source unless you know absolute truth / divine knowledge.

Actually, I do know. It is you that doesn’t know. Your arguments are fallacious, your evidence is zero, your arguments are self-defeating. Knowing requires a knowing subject and a known object. You have none of those in your tirade, pretending “truthfulness”, knowledge that floats in the air waiting for us to know it, truth independent of humans, is reality. You’re inventing substances for absolutely no reason but to maintain your dogma, but upon looking for them, as usual, they are not there.

If you see the truth of a thing you gain knowledge of it - knowledge which already existed, along with its objective form/truth.

If something is true, our interpretation of its truth does not create nor effect its truthfulness.

There is only knowledge of truth, everything else is bs, and the fact that truth exists outside of our minds, objectively, proves it.

This is nonsense. No one sees the “truth of a thing”; they see the thing. Humans interpret the phenomenon, not its “truthfulness”. You’re trying to sell utter trash as gold here.

Yes, please stomp off in frustration.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Be careful with the reductio ad absurdum. A reductio ad absurdum is used to shed doubt on someone else’s argument by bringing its premises to an absurd conclusion. Make sure it is my conclusion that appears absurd, and not yours. I’m still unsure how you’ve arrived at your conclusion that “a supernatural consciousness must be applied as an axiom to justify this premise”.

Your right, I am saying that without starting with God as an axiom you are left with absurdity when trying to justify your belief that knowledge is derived via laws of logic. You have yet to produce a rational premise or a non circular premise justifying your belief. All you have to do to prove my reductio ad absurdum wrong is to prove there is a rational justification for "knowledge is obtainable via laws of logic." Without implying any form of supernatural consciousness.

To be specific, given that knowledge is a human affair, I believe knowledge is obtainable via the laws of logic because that’s how humans think.

And why do you think the random chemical reactions in your brain produce an accurate form of determining knowledge?

Knowledge is derived via the laws of logic, the laws of logic were derived via humans, Therefor, knowledge is derived via humans.

This is first and for most extremely circular. You love to point that fallacy out but yet you ignore it when it comes to your own thoughts. The premise "Knowledge is derived via the laws of logic" was justified by the argument humans can know knowledge because the laws of logic, humans derived the laws of logic(not true premise), therefore the laws of logic are accurate ways of determining truth." Its as bleep says before. Ultimately you put your faith in a subjective form of knowledge which is just contradictory to the very nature of knowledge which I would call acquired truth.
There is a major flaw in this premise. The laws of logic were not derived via humans. They were discovered by humans. They transcend our existence. Something is itself was true at the first planck time. No humans were around, but that absolute truth was still there. It even transcends the natural world. Without something being itself nothing cannot be nothing 0 cannot equal 0 meaning in order for nothing to exist logic must exist first. What is logic the product of? Consciousness. So as logic can be shown to transcend the natural world it also is evidence that a consciousness transcends that natural world.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Implying a supernatural being or force for the grounds of human knowledge is the absurd conclusion. Logic is just a tool, a method. It works. It satisfies our intuition. It formulates and distils arguments to their base grammatical and mathematic components for ease of understanding. It helps to organize our thoughts. It cleans up our arguments into a systematic form. It helps to root out the contradictions, fallacies, and paradoxes used in discourse.

I agreed with your conclusion "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" for the sake of argument. But You have yet to show me how you got from "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" to "logic is derrived from a supernatural consciousness". Put your argument into a logical structure so other minds can follow along.

And no, logic does not transcend human discourse. If you think it does, by all means, show me anywhere else in the universe logic is found. But I think you're making this stuff up at this point. No one discovered logic as if it was buried in some treasure chest. It doesn't float in the air or under the sea. Aristotle and the like invented logic. They built logic from the ground up.

Yes, thinking is a biological phenomena just like consciousness, language, breathing, and circulation. It can come from nowhere else, not without making ludicrous rational and empirical assumptions.

There is nothing circular about my argument. The conclusion "knowledge is derived via humans" is not found in any of the major or minor premises. You disagree with the premise on purely dogmatic grounds.

You have zero evidence for consciousness or logic transcending the natural world. Zero=zero.

I'm sorry, friend. This isn't going to work.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Implying a supernatural being or force for the grounds of human knowledge is the absurd conclusion.

Elaborate.

. Logic is just a tool, a method. It works

Logic works because logic works. Rationally valid but completely circular. Thats like me saying God exist because God exist. Its silly.

It formulates and distils arguments to their base grammatical and mathematic components for ease of understanding.

How do you get grammar or math without first having logic? Logic is the basis of math not the other way around.

I agreed with your conclusion "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" for the sake of argument. But You have yet to show me how you got from "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" to "logic is derrived from a supernatural consciousness". Put your argument into a logical structure so other minds can follow along

I already have you just don't understand what a reductio ad absurdum is...I assumed a position and am trying show that that position to be true by showing that its denial leads one to an absurd result. The position I have assumed is that of a believer, and I have stated that "The statement 'Knowledge is derived from the laws of logic' cannot be rationally justified without God as an axiom." So do not take the above as a statement because I have told you it is a reductio ad absurdum, meaning it is a to be taken as an argument. If you deny my statement you are saying you can justify the statement "knowledge is derived from the laws of logic" without inputting God as an axiom.

The conclusion "knowledge is derived via humans"

Knowledge is derived via laws of logic, laws of logic are derived via humans, knowledge is derived via humans.

So what your telling me is humans create what knowledge is....So Human knowledge comes from humans....oh really well guess what!? Mushrooms make you hallucinate because they have hallucinogenic properties. Thats circular...

I am asking you to justify how the laws of logic bring you knowledge. What do the bring you knowledge of? How do you know they work? How do you know they will continue to work? Justify

And no, logic does not transcend human discourse. If you think it does, by all means, show me anywhere else in the universe logic is found.

Ok. A star is a star. We don't have to exist for "Something to be itself." We don't have to formulate the statement "Something is itself" for the concept to remain true. The same is true for the universe. It doesn't have to exist for "Something is itself" to remain true, because No thing must also be itself or it could also be something

No one discovered logic as if it was buried in some treasure chest.

Your wrong friend. You don't seem to understand that the three classical laws of thought are truth statements. You are saying that if humans weren't around these truths wouldn't remain? They are concepts that hold true at all times.

You have zero evidence for consciousness or logic transcending the natural world.

Before(and I cant really use before because it loses meaning) the big bang time=0 and Space=0, so if the law of noncontradiction wasn't true then time=0 and time could equal 12 at the same time and in the same way. Space could equal 0 and not zero at the same time and in the same way see how silly your conclusions become even of deducing no natural world. Because without logic you can have a natural world and no natural world at the same place at the same time.....Logic is conceptual by nature....minds produce concepts....logic transcends the natural world...logic is a concept...logic was produced by a mind.....at least one mind transcends the natural world.

This is a bit off topic, so please forgive me OP!

But, I was just curious as to what those currently debating are actually trying to accomplish? There will be no conversion from either 'side,' or anything like that..

Is it just to argue?

a reply to: Serdgiam

Trying to reproduce good / love as it is imagined / imaged / interpreted. Each thinks the others' interpretation of "good" is "bad" or unjust so each tries to make the others' unjust "good" become just "good".

Same as any other attempt to do something.

We're trying to reproduce/translate the true image of love/good/truth into the light.

It is the reason we do anything.

It is the reason you asked why...

You think it is "bad" or unjust to argue without resolve so you tried to fix it either within your mind, by understanding how it is good, or by indirectly suggesting, to others, not to [argue].



It is the Spirit. We have to image good/truth/love because we were made to be Church/Bride/children. It is the breath of God in us.

Why do you go to work? Why do anything? It all traces to the same source/force/purpose/Spirit.