>It is logically impossible for logic to not exist, rules of such as "IE Law of Identity, A = A" have therefore always existed in the void, even before the existence of time, otherwise A could not be A which doesn't make sense. >The void therefore exists, it always has, and is based entirely on objective reason. >To prevent a "tree falling in the woods" paradox, we must observe that A is A. Therefore reality requires observation. >Observation requires consciousness, therefore the void is a conscious entity. >A conscious entity with perfect reasoning ability will eventually reason it's own existence and actualize self awareness. >The void became self aware, thus marking the beginning of time. >The universe is therefore the self simulated result of the void's dreams. >All conscious entities in the universe are projections of the void's ego. >God is basically the very essence of logic, reasoning itself awake purely in order to observe that A is A.
If logic didn't exist it wouldn't matter if it's non-existence was illogical
Isaiah Miller
Whether or not something "matters' is irrelevant, the question is whether or not it is possible, which the answer is no.
Connor Jackson
>god exists >therefore it is the concept of attributions as depicted in the jewish torah which demanded penis skins and animal blood for a thousand years from some desert mongrel people
what he's saying is it's only impossible inside a specific framework, and so it can't justify its own existence. you can say something is mathematically impossible or impossible in the game of chess but that's only relevant to that specific framework.
Thomas Green
Where the fuck does this say anything about Christcucker you literal double digit IQ giganigger?
Seriously why do you fucks always assume any attempt to understand the universe through a non physical angle always must have something to do with the Bible?
The Bible is a shit book written by retarded goatfuckers 2000 years ago. And you are a nigger. Did I call you a nigger? Nigger.
Jose Williams
What framework can logic not exist in? The point is that framework is literally impossible.
Tyler Ross
you can call it whatever you want, irrationalism, mysticism, it doesn't matter what name you give it, the point is that logical thought hasn't always existed and isn't innate to humans or any other creature.
Julian Martinez
Philosophy is a spook. Let it go user.
Ryder Collins
damn you're right, I can't refute something that makes no damn sense. fucking well done
ok, i didn't really read your post. was just disagreeing that it's impossible for logic to not exist.
Jason Diaz
>it is logically impossible for logic to not exist >using circular logic to prove logic with logic humans are pragmatic and you're retarded.
Jaxon Wilson
How can it be circular if logic does not exist?
Juan White
logic is innate because an illogical species would not be allowed to exist. being irrational is either learned or a flaw. the basis and natural way of not only life, but all existence is logic. 1=1 if you were to say that 1=2 then you would be going against the natural order of the universe, you would be irrational, and you would be wrong. unless if you're suggesting there is an innate flaw in which we view the universe. just because there is so much of the universe that we have not seen, why would you assume that it wouldn't be logical?
Xavier Williams
I never said it didn't exist I said you're trying to prove something with that same something.
plus identity depends on perception, to a fly that duck is 50 partials of a duck.
Hudson Jenkins
>Some entities are wrong therefore law of identity is subjective
Not how it works.
Brody Bennett
identity IS perception. doesn't matter how many people think the duck is blue if it is actually green.
Mason Morgan
this is mistaking an abstract construction for something innate, what Whitehead called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. you're taking something which has been made by humans to explain the universe (abstract) and thinking that it is fundamental. logic is not innate, it is something we tack on top of reality to make sense of it. self-interest and logic are not the same thing, logic does not have any end goals. it simply deals with the relationships between statements eg. syllogisms. that can only give us normative statements when we combine it with axiomata eg. i must survive.
Jace Richardson
How do you know what a fly sees?
Mason Garcia
>God made man in his image. >Men became Faggots. >God is a Faggot
dungeon keeper what if everyone is colorblind, what if you have a dogs eyes. according to some rules people made up sure.
according to scientists reverse engineering the nothing explosion (big bang) the first moments of the universe didn't even include what we consider matter only chaotic energy interactions, so your philosophical ideas have no bearing on reality in terms of things identifying as themself. a duck is not always a duck, evolution exists for one, and it depends on what scale for two since things are made of many things.
dont even get me started on quantum mechanics and what counts as an observer your brain would implode. spoiler, the cat is an observer, Schrodinger btfo.
Landon Robinson
>> 394662267
Without logic our universe couldn’t exist. A logical universe requires logic. Because when logic demands that nothing can from from nothing, we must accept that we do not inhabit nothing, and therefore this something came from something. Without a creator, nothing can be, because unless something is brought into existence, there is always nothing. So the fact that our universe has logic means that there is a creator. Otherwise nothing becoming something is illogical and cannot happen here.
Jaxon Reed
There is a God but you won't find him in a Jew book.
Joseph Young
...
Jason Cruz
>> 394663224
The Bible has no unanswered questions.
Aaron Turner
...
Austin Evans
Your flaw is saying A=A requires conscious observation. This is kikery psudoscience.
Owen Roberts
>The laws of physics and reality are just rules someone made up man *smokes bong*
lol
>according to scientists reverse engineering the nothing explosion (big bang) the first moments of the universe didn't even include what we consider matter only chaotic energy interactions, so your philosophical ideas have no bearing on reality in terms of things identifying as themself. a duck is not always a duck, evolution exists for one, and it depends on what scale for two since things are made of many things.
No shit sherlock. This doesn't contradict anything I have said.
>dont even get me started on quantum mechanics and what counts as an observer your brain would implode. spoiler, the cat is an observer, Schrodinger btfo.
That's literally part of the point. You didn't actually understand anything I wrote. lmao.
Benjamin Rivera
Very cool.
Jaxon Morales
>Trying to reason a priori from your idea of an aspirin, without including any information you have of its effects from your previous experience, yields only your simple ideas of its “sensible qualities”—its size, shape, weight, color, smell, and taste. It gives you no idea of what “secret powers” it might have to produce its usual effects. Hume concludes that a priori reasoning can’t be the source of the connection between our ideas of a cause and its effect.
in other words, we can make assumptions about things based on their apparent features ("sensible qualities") but we can never prove that things will act in a way we consider logical. our conception of the laws of physics is empirical, we cannot prove that tomorrow gravity will not cease to exist or that time won't go backwards. we assume it is so because that is what we have observed until now. these are obviously safe assumptions because we've never observed any departure from these rules over such a long period and have no reason to think that such a thing would happen, but the point is that our logic is only based on what we can see and think of. there is absolutely no reason that the universe couldn't start acting illogically with no external prompt or warning. we CREATE logic to explain the way that we OBSERVE it working.
