A reason for existence of God

[Lacewing]

But in the most fundamental point about the universe, which is Logic and its 1 and 0, there is no argument, or it is not muting me in any way.

It is what you make of it, that is imagination.

There are many ways to look at it.

Everyone thinks they are using reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What can be a better reason for the mathematical Logic to be in command of the whole universe but there is a Loving God.

Your above is very messy which enable you to be rhetorical and deceptive in your conclusion that God exist.

Logic and Mathematics are both merely tools to enable humans to grasp reality.
Logic is based purely on the abstractions from reality, thus its conclusions are unrealistic.
Mathematics relies on logic, thus fundamentally unrealistic.

If you rely on Mathematics as using 1 & 0, and if 0 = nothing, then 1 is something.
If 1 is something, why should it be 'good' absolutely, unconditionally and the likes?

It is impossible for the absolutely-absolute to exist as real.
What is 'good' is always complementarily 'evil' depending on contexts, thus relatively.
As such, no matter how good or loving you want your God to be, God will logically be evil complementarily.

Most theists will claim their God to be absolutely-absolute, unconditional, of supreme-perfection, independent of all human conditions, and the likes.
But such claims are impossible to be real,

It is impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

God is merely a useful illusion invented by humans psychologically to soothe the inherent existential crisis.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=39204

[K1Barin]

But in the most fundamental point about the universe, which is Logic and its 1 and 0, there is no argument, or it is not muting me in any way.

It is what you make of it, that is imagination.

There are many ways to look at it.

Everyone thinks they are using reason.

Ya! I am saying the same thing to you.

But as a word of common sense, if Loving God is imagination, well imagine. There is not any thing as peaceful and pleasing and relieving as a Loving God. And if there is good reason for his existence, it would be pure hell to deny him.

[K1Barin]

What can be a better reason for the mathematical Logic to be in command of the whole universe but there is a Loving God.

If 1 is something, why should it be 'good' absolutely, unconditionally and the likes?

True but consider it when it is the most fundamental, and the overall possitive weight of 1 and 0, against neutral weight of 1 and -1, and negative weight of -1 and 0.

[Lacewing]

if Loving God is imagination, well imagine.

Is that what you are claiming is logic? Logic is using your imagination in the most pleasing way?

That's fine... as long as you don't insist that your imagination (or logic) exists as a reality that other people should see.

There is not any thing as peaceful and pleasing and relieving as a Loving God. And if there is good reason for his existence, it would be pure hell to deny him.

Well, human beings don't actually see that. We see many other things. And a god is not necessary for a person to live a peaceful and pleasing and relieving life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

[K1Barin]

Life reproduces in such abundance that most of it perishes horribly in a very short time due to hunger or being eaten, life lives upon the lives of other creatures, a horrific reality there is no escape but through death. This god of yours, he is a real fuck up! There is no reason for the existence of a god given the nature of nature.

According to you and your view of nature, even if God doesn't exist, the reality is a real fuck up! With that view, it doesn't help that much for God not to exist. Then why bother?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What can be a better reason for the mathematical Logic to be in command of the whole universe but there is a Loving God.

If 1 is something, why should it be 'good' absolutely, unconditionally and the likes?

True but consider it when it is the most fundamental, and the overall positive weight of 1 and 0, against neutral weight of 1 and -1, and negative weight of -1 and 0.

You have not substantiated and justified why whatever must be 'good' in the real sense.

You merely assumed and you have not justified why the overall weight of 1 and 0 must be positive which must be good in an absolute sense.
As I had stated what is positive could be in reality as favored actions.
E.g. what is positive to the Nazi is 'good' from their framework and perspective.

As such, logically, what is 'good' to your God could be the same as 'good' to the Nazi.

If you insist that your God is that which is defined typically by theists,
then such a god is impossible to be real, i.e.
it is a mere useful illusion [of salvific value] to soothe the existential angst.

[K1Barin]

if Loving God is imagination, well imagine.

Is that what you are claiming is logic? Logic is using your imagination in the most pleasing way?

That's fine... as long as you don't insist that your imagination (or logic) exists as a reality that other people should see.

There is not any thing as peaceful and pleasing and relieving as a Loving God. And if there is good reason for his existence, it would be pure hell to deny him.

Well, human beings don't actually see that. We see many other things. And a god is not necessary for a person to live a peaceful and pleasing and relieving life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

if Loving God is imagination, well imagine.

Is that what you are claiming is logic? Logic is using your imagination in the most pleasing way?

That's fine... as long as you don't insist that your imagination (or logic) exists as a reality that other people should see.

There is not any thing as peaceful and pleasing and relieving as a Loving God. And if there is good reason for his existence, it would be pure hell to deny him.

Well, human beings don't actually see that. We see many other things. And a god is not necessary for a person to live a peaceful and pleasing and relieving life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

the reason which is;

the idea of God is a mere useful illusion [of salvific value] to soothe the existential angst.

[K1Barin]

If 1 is something, why should it be 'good' absolutely, unconditionally and the likes?

True but consider it when it is the most fundamental, and the overall positive weight of 1 and 0, against neutral weight of 1 and -1, and negative weight of -1 and 0.

You have not substantiated and justified why whatever must be 'good' in the real sense.

You merely assumed and you have not justified why the overall weight of 1 and 0 must be positive which must be good in an absolute sense.
As I had stated what is positive could be in reality as favored actions.

This may explain:
In verbal Logic (not mathematical Logic), we translate 1 as true, which is related to truth, which is an absolute good.

But ofcourse we translate 0 as false, which has a negative weight. While 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call it 'not true'.

That is why I emphasize on the mathematical Logic not the verbal Logic.

[K1Barin]

Is that what you are claiming is logic? Logic is using your imagination in the most pleasing way?

That's fine... as long as you don't insist that your imagination (or logic) exists as a reality that other people should see.


Well, human beings don't actually see that. We see many other things. And a god is not necessary for a person to live a peaceful and pleasing and relieving life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

the reason which is;

the idea of God is a mere useful illusion [of salvific value] to soothe the existential angst.

What is wrong with soothing the existential angst, in a absolute sense?

[K1Barin]

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

the reason which is;

the idea of God is a mere useful illusion [of salvific value] to soothe the existential angst.

What is wrong with soothing the existential angst, in a absolute sense?

Moreover, is it like "you shall not soothe the existential angst"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

True but consider it when it is the most fundamental, and the overall positive weight of 1 and 0, against neutral weight of 1 and -1, and negative weight of -1 and 0.

You have not substantiated and justified why whatever must be 'good' in the real sense.

You merely assumed and you have not justified why the overall weight of 1 and 0 must be positive which must be good in an absolute sense.
As I had stated what is positive could be in reality as favored actions.

This may explain:
In verbal Logic (not mathematical Logic), we translate 1 as true, which is related to truth, which is an absolute good.

But ofcourse we translate 0 as false, which has a negative weight. While 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call it 'not true'.

That is why I emphasize on the mathematical Logic not the verbal Logic.

What is verbal logic? Common sense or primal logic?

I don't think you understand Mathematical Logic fully when you merely assign its fundamental to 1, -1 or 2.

Note Mathematical Logic;

Mathematical logic is the study of formal logic within mathematics.
Major subareas include model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory. Research in mathematical logic commonly addresses the mathematical properties of formal systems of logic such as their expressive or deductive power. However, it can also include uses of logic to characterize correct mathematical reasoning or to establish foundations of mathematics.

Suggest you forget about using Mathematics as an argument for the existence of God as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

the reason which is;

the idea of God is a mere useful illusion [of salvific value] to soothe the existential angst.

What is wrong with soothing the existential angst, in a absolute sense?

Moreover, is it like "you shall not soothe the existential angst"?

I did not imply it is wrong to soothe the existential angst.

In fact is a critical necessity for the majority to soothe the existential angst through various means.
The secular relies on all sorts, e.g. pain killers [nb: the current favorite fentanyl], drugs, evil habits, etc. to deal with their inherent existential angst.
The Abrahamic theists rely of the idea of God as a salvific balm to soothe their existential angst.

God is merely an illusion as a salvific balm which is critical to soothe the existential angst as a pro but it has its cons.
In the past, despite all the terrible evils, violence, sufferings theism has brought to mankind, it is still a net-pro in soothing the existential angst else the majority will be paralyzed with the fears to mortality.

Whilst Christianity is a pacifist religion, many Christians in the past has abused God's name to commit terrible evil and violence upon non-believers and believers.
The present potential evil is, theistic Islam is evil-laden and will continue to impose on Muslims to commit terrible evils, violence and sufferings upon non-believers.
To defend one from sufferings from existential angst, even the drawings of cartoons will trigger certain Muslims to kill non-believers with the sanction of God.
Muslims in the history of Islam had killed more than 200 million [?] people purely to protect the salvific balm that is soothing their existential angst.

The fact is whilst the illusory idea of God has salvific values and critical in the past and even present with its net-pros, the trend is the cons of theistic religions are outweighing its pros as we move into the future.
Fanatical Muslims will have no hesitations to press the 'red button' when they get access to easily available and cheap WMDs as sanctioned by their God to gain their salvific rewards with a bonus of 72 virgins.

Given that the cons of theism are outweighing its pros towards the future, it is time now to critique theism severely for humanity to research on foolproof no possible-violent and evil laden approaches to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

[K1Barin]

You have not substantiated and justified why whatever must be 'good' in the real sense.

You merely assumed and you have not justified why the overall weight of 1 and 0 must be positive which must be good in an absolute sense.
As I had stated what is positive could be in reality as favored actions.

This may explain:
In verbal Logic (not mathematical Logic), we translate 1 as true, which is related to truth, which is an absolute good.

But ofcourse we translate 0 as false, which has a negative weight. While 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call it 'not true'.

That is why I emphasize on the mathematical Logic not the verbal Logic.

What is verbal logic? Common sense or primal logic?

I don't think you understand Mathematical Logic fully when you merely assign its fundamental to 1, -1 or 2.

Note Mathematical Logic;

Mathematical logic is the study of formal logic within mathematics.
Major subareas include model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory. Research in mathematical logic commonly addresses the mathematical properties of formal systems of logic such as their expressive or deductive power. However, it can also include uses of logic to characterize correct mathematical reasoning or to establish foundations of mathematics.

Suggest you forget about using Mathematics as an argument for the existence of God as real.

What I mean by verbal Logic is use of Logic in speech. True and False and all that.