What is the need for God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a thing can be thought but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real

This is false because what may be empirically impossible now may not be so in the future
There should therefore be no temporal imposition on what is or is not empirically possible

What is non-empirical [empirically impossible] cannot be empirical now or in the future, note the Law of non-contradiction.

Point is'
What is empirically-based and not possible to be empirically verified now maybe possible to be verified empirically in the future when the empirical evidence are available.

I can speculate there are plants [bushes] on Planet Pluto, these are all empirically-based which is not possible to be verified empirically now but it is possible to be verified empirically in the future when we have the space-ship to reach Pluto and there are real empirical evidence of plant-bushes there.

On the other hand I cannot start of speculate there are square-circles in planet Pluto for any time now or in the future because it is empirically impossible for square-circles to exists as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a thing can be thought only but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically, it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real.

Horseshit. That's literally how creativity/invention works.

First you imagine it. Then you manifest it. Mere thoughts become empirical reality.

All the above qualifications are necessary to avoid rhetoric and equivocation with a universe and a creator that is impossible to be verified to be real empirically and philosophically.

If you accept empiricism/science, then you necessarily accept induction as a valid method of justification.
If you accept induction as a valid method of justification, then through induction you can justify that the universe is created.

If humans can create/invent universes ( computer simulations/virtual realities ), then there is every reason to induce that the universe we live in is created also. There is absolutely non reason to dismiss the hypotheses that you and I are Sentient Artificial Intelligences.

Yours are bollocks!

Just this once,
What is empirical is related to the senses.
Only the empirical thoughts can be imagined i.e. it can appear an "image" [basis of imagine and imaginations].

Non-empirical thoughts e.g. square-circle cannot be imagined, there is no way one can conceived of an image of a "square-circle" in the mind.
What is going on with the thoughts of square-circle [two words] in the brain are merely real firing of neurons that support that thought.

[surreptitious57]

What is empirical is related to the senses

This is indeed true but it is also more than just this

What is empirical must be inter subjectively agreed upon and capable of demonstration by proof or evidence
It cannot be something that is only true to one because there is no way of knowing whether it is true or false

The greater the degree of inter subjectivity there is then the more likely that it is to be true
Though it should be noted that it could be wrong anyway because of the problem of induction

Even so inter subjective consensus is still way more reliable than single person subjective interpretation

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is empirical is related to the senses

This is indeed true but it is also more than just this

What is empirical must be inter subjectively agreed upon and capable of demonstration by proof or evidence
It cannot be something that is only true to one because there is no way of knowing whether it is true or false

The greater the degree of inter subjectivity there is then the more likely that it is to be true
Though it should be noted that it could be wrong anyway because of the problem of induction

Even so inter subjective consensus is still way more reliable than single person subjective interpretation

Agree.

What is critical with the objectivity [intersubjectivity] is it repeatable and consistent most of the time and reliable within its qualified limits, thus has value.

[Dontaskme]

Eternity can only mean a discriptive of NOW. And now is all that is ever known.

No. Eternity means a duration that has no beginning or end. Now is just an instant.

A duration has a time limit. A duration is not a time without beginning or end. Time is an artifical conceptual imposition upon the blank screen of being which is always NOW this instant. Right NOW there is only this instantaneous NOW

''Now'' is not a duration.
Now is not separated by time and space, now is always without beginning nor end.

You are NOW - you have never not been NOW

Eckhart Tolle speaks about the power of NOW. check out the ultimate guru,aka the internet. It's all here for you, anything you want to know, it's all written down somewhere.

GOD is NOW

The need for God is the same as the need for oxygen. For life to be there needs to be. And at the same time, no need to be at all, but who gets to decide the need or not need to be? ...the answer is.. no one knows.

All that is known is that even when you are not . . you ARE. . because you can never not be...else you wouldn't be.



.

[Skepdick]

Only the empirical thoughts can be imagined i.e. it can appear an "image" [basis of imagine and imaginations].

More nonsense.

1. Imagination is not constrained to images. I can imagine sounds, tastes and smells also.
2. Imagination needs not be empirical - I can imagine unicorns, mythical creatures and aliens. Nobody has ever experienced those before.
3. Imagination includes abstract ideas. I can imagine 5-dimensional objects, even though I have never experienced them.

Non-empirical thoughts e.g. square-circle cannot be imagined, there is no way one can conceived of an image of a "square-circle" in the mind.
What is going on with the thoughts of square-circle [two words] in the brain are merely real firing of neurons that support that thought.

This is probably the 4th or 5th time I keep pointing out that you are wrong. I posted this in like 6 comments above (if you ever bother to read)

It depends on what you mean by a"circle" and a "square". You can re-define the semantics of both words so that a circle becomes a square.

Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

[Dontaskme]

There is only one ORIGINAL shape ( A CIRCLE ) O


All shapes are formed from one shape....The shapeless shaper.

Zero, the formless former.



G O D is the zero in the form.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yours are bollocks!

Just this once,
What is empirical is related to the senses.
Only the empirical thoughts can be imagined i.e. it can appear an "image" [basis of imagine and imaginations].

Non-empirical thoughts e.g. square-circle cannot be imagined, there is no way one can conceived of an image of a "square-circle" in the mind.
What is going on with the thoughts of square-circle [two words] in the brain are merely real firing of neurons that support that thought.

This is probably the 4th or 5th time I keep pointing out that you are wrong. I posted this in like 6 comments above (if you ever bother to read)

It depends on how you define a "circle" and a "square". You can change the definitions so that a circle becomes a square.

Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

Nope it cannot be re:

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p)
  -wiki.

There is a change to a different sense in this case, from general geometry to Taxicab_geometry.

I had mentioned before we can have hard-soft diamond gem but that would involved two different senses.

Thus the point is a square cannot be a circle in the same sense [basic geometry] at the same time. Thus no empirical square-circle in the same basic geometry and empirical sense.

[Skepdick]

Nope it cannot be re:

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p)
  -wiki.

Well, you need to make up your mind. Either empiricism trumps logic, or logic trumps empiricism.

Here is an empirical demonstration of a logical system where ¬(p ∧ ¬p) => True

https://repl.it/repls/LightgrayHonoredTerabyte

Code: Select all

require './universe.rb'

# p ∧ ¬p
puts p and (not p)
=> true

Either you believe what you are seeing. Or you believe what you are told.

Choose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

The empirical example would be the English sentence "It is both raining and not raining outside".
And the direct example where this true contradiction is empirical is in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjXvkIzUTtk

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope it cannot be re:

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p)
  -wiki.

Well, you need to make up your mind. Either empiricism trumps logic, or logic trumps empiricism.

Here is an empirical demonstration of a logical system where ¬(p ∧ ¬p) => True

https://repl.it/repls/LightgrayHonoredTerabyte

Code: Select all

require './universe.rb'

# p ∧ ¬p
puts p and (not p)
=> true

Either you believe what you are seeing. Or you believe what you are told.

Choose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

The empirical example would be the English sentence "It is both raining and not raining outside".
And the direct example where this true contradiction is empirical is in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjXvkIzUTtk

In all the above cases, the sense is different, thus no contradiction.

"It is both raining and not raining outside" but in this case, it is at 'different spots'.
It cannot be both raining and not-raining outside at exactly the same spot [same sense] i.e. pari-passu.

[Dontaskme]

"It is both raining and not raining outside" but in this case, it is at 'different spots'.
It cannot be both raining and not-raining outside at exactly the same spot [same sense] i.e. pari-passu.

Yes it can be raining and not-raining at exactly the same spot.

It's known to be raining cannot be known to be not-raining. There is no knowledge of that which is not happening.

Knowing of happenings could not be known if not for the opposite in the same instance of knowing.

What knows it is raining? - the answer can only be known as a mental input on the matter, therefore only the mind is raining, as the actual rain can never tell itself it's raining.

The mind is the unmoved mover, any difference between the knower and the known is illusory as knower and known exist in the exact same spot.

The sense that something is happening and the knower of this sense of something happening (the known) have to be in exactly the same spot at the same time..for one very good reason.



.

[surreptitious57]

It depends on what you mean by a circle and a square
You can re define the semantics of both words so that a circle becomes a square

Descriptions may not be prescriptive but that does not automatically make them interchangeable

A two dimensional shape with every point on the circumference equidistant from the radius is
definitely not the same as a two dimensional shape with four equal sides and four right angles

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to re define the circle and the square
Everyone knows that square circles and circular squares are simply not possible

When the definitions of words becomes entirely arbitrary that is when they cease to have any meaning at all
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength - are rendered invalid by their incomprehensibility

[Skepdick]

A two dimensional shape with every point on the circumference equidistant from the radius is
definitely not the same as a two dimensional shape with four equal sides and four right angles

For a given non-Euclidian geometry - it is EXACTLY the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to re define the circle and the square
Everyone knows that square circles and circular squares are simply not possible

There is every practical reason to re-define it - the real world doesn't correspond to Euclidian geometry. Just ask taxi drivers! That's literally why it's called the Taxicab metric.

When your GPS calculates travelling distance from your current location (centre) to your desired destination, it doesn't measure that distance in a straight line (e.g radius) - it considers the distance given the valid roads you can travel on.

When the definitions of words becomes entirely arbitrary that is when they cease to have any meaning at all

No. When the definitions of words become entirely arbitrary that is when they begin to have multiple, overlapping and diverging meanings.

Language is ambiguous - it evolves.

War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength - are rendered invalid by their incomprehensibility

Clearly you have very low tolerance for poetry.

However - yes. That is the world you find yourself in. Words mean whatever you want them to mean. Choose them wisely.

This is why Philosophy is predominantly sophistry. If I deliberate to disagree with you - I can do that. If I deliberate to agree with you - I can do that also. It's but a matter of choice.

[Skepdick]

It cannot be both raining and not-raining outside at exactly the same spot [same sense] i.e. pari-passu.

You mean Schrödinger's cat cannot be both dead and alive at the same time? A photon cannot be both a particle and a wave at the same time?

Again....

Either you value empiricism over logic, or you value logic over empiricism. Choose your values.

Maybe you value empiricism on Mondays and Wednesdays, and logic on Tuesdays and Fridays? I don't know...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

[bahman]

By logically impossible I mean an objective idea that cannot be objectively real, like squire circle.

1. The phrase 'objective idea' is an oxymoron - all ideas originate within the subjective.
2. To make square circles a logical possibility, one simply needs invent a logic which allows for it.

Here is a geometry which allows for square circles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

Q.E.D

Sorry for using the objective in the objective idea. I also meant square circle is not possible in Euclidian geometry.