godelian talks shite wiv veritas

[Age]

..go away idiot. If I refer to "GOD" as an AI it does not render GOD akin to current man's tech of AI..comprehende..

If you, still, refer to God, Itself, as an 'artificial intelligence', Itself, then you are, still, being Truly IDIOTIC.

To be ANY 'artificial intelligence' MEANS, irrefutably, that 'it' has been created BY something else. And, to ALSO be 'trying to' claim that an 'artificial intelligence' is, ALSO, the creator, causer, controller, and/or manipulator of ALL things is BEYOND ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY and INSANITY. Which is, EXACTLY, what you have been 'trying to do', within this forum. And, this one calls me the IDIOT.

[Fairy]

God is self-evident.

In the same context “you”are self-evident. You that cannot directly experience your own birth, death, absence or presence.

God is all. And all is God.

Solipsism is the final truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is self-evident.

In the same context “you”are self-evident. You that cannot directly experience your own birth, death, absence or presence.

God is all. And all is God.

Solipsism is the final truth.

“you” are self-evident
is a first-person experience which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. 99.99% subjective and not objective.
God is self-evident is merely based on first-person experience which highly subjective and not objective.

"You" are not alone but exists with another >8 billion humans of the same human nature.
"You" as an empirical-self can easily be verified and justified as real within the human-based science framework and system [FS] as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; there is no better.

Solipsism is the final truth.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Since we are doing philosophy here, you should try to dig deeper on the above contentious issues.

Try ChatGpt as a starter with the following assertion as a question:
"God is self-evident?."

[Age]

God is self-evident.

In the same context “you”are self-evident. You that cannot directly experience your own birth, death, absence or presence.

God is all. And all is God.

Solipsism is the final truth.

“you” are self-evident
is a first-person experience which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. 99.99% subjective and not objective.
God is self-evident is merely based on first-person experience which highly subjective and not objective.

'Science', that is; the just human based system and framework, being the so-called 'gold, and best, standard' of credibility and objectivity is merely based on first-person experience, which according to the first-person here known as "veritas aequitas" is highly subjective, and not objective.

"You" are not alone but exists with another >8 billion humans of the same human nature.

This may well be true, when this is being written.

By the way, one wonders what this 'same human nature' is, EXACTLY, which is being talked about, here?

"You" as an empirical-self can easily be verified and justified as real within the human-based science framework and system [FS] as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; there is no better.

Also, human bodies only have to be 'touched', and thus 'felt', to be verified and/or justified as 'real matter'.

Solipsism is the final truth.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Since we are doing philosophy here, you should try to dig deeper on the above contentious issues.

Who and/or what is the 'we' word here in reference to, exactly?

For as the 'gold, and best, standard' of 'credibility and objectivity' as SHOWN and PROVED, VERIFIED and JUSTIFIED that 'you', "veritas aequitas" are ABSOLUTELY NOT DOING 'philosophy' AT ALL, here.

But, then again, from your own highly subjective, and not objective, viewpoint and perspective you might well BELIEVE otherwise.

Try ChatGpt as a starter with the following assertion as a question:
"God is self-evident?."

So, for you 'human beings' "veritas aequitas", once again, suggests using 'artificial intelligence' to UNDERSTAND 'the world', and 'the Universe', around 'you'.

This makes one wonder, was this conclusion and suggestion the result of actual 'scientific work and study', or just the result of "veritas aquitas" acquired BELIEF, from its own highly subjective, and not objective, personal, previous, views and opinions?

The ACTUAL ANSWER will be MORE OBVIOUS to some, than it is to others.

[Fairy]

God is self-evident.

In the same context “you”are self-evident. You that cannot directly experience your own birth, death, absence or presence.

God is all. And all is God.

Solipsism is the final truth.

“you” are self-evident
is a first-person experience which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. 99.99% subjective and not objective.
God is self-evident is merely based on first-person experience which highly subjective and not objective.

"You" are not alone but exists with another >8 billion humans of the same human nature.
"You" as an empirical-self can easily be verified and justified as real within the human-based science framework and system [FS] as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; there is no better.

Solipsism is the final truth.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Since we are doing philosophy here, you should try to dig deeper on the above contentious issues.

Try ChatGpt as a starter with the following assertion as a question:
"God is self-evident?."

I’m talking about existence; the sense of being alive.

It’s not known what is aliveness, or how or why it is. But it’s without limitations or borders, there’s no inside or outside of this, so it’s infinite, meaning it’s solipsistic by its very nature. This is obviously known in it’s conception.


God is simply a concept for infinity.

So why call infinity God?

Because all labels point to this mystery that cannot be known; and yet, appears in this conception as if it’s known. An oxymoron indeed.

[Age]

God is self-evident.

In the same context “you”are self-evident. You that cannot directly experience your own birth, death, absence or presence.

God is all. And all is God.

Solipsism is the final truth.

“you” are self-evident
is a first-person experience which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. 99.99% subjective and not objective.
God is self-evident is merely based on first-person experience which highly subjective and not objective.

"You" are not alone but exists with another >8 billion humans of the same human nature.
"You" as an empirical-self can easily be verified and justified as real within the human-based science framework and system [FS] as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; there is no better.

Solipsism is the final truth.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Since we are doing philosophy here, you should try to dig deeper on the above contentious issues.

Try ChatGpt as a starter with the following assertion as a question:
"God is self-evident?."

I’m talking about existence; the sense of being alive.

It’s not known what is aliveness, or how or why it is.

What 'aliveness' IS, is just the changing of way, shape, or form. And, 'change' is just evolution, itself. Things like animals, plants, planets, stars, galaxies, and even the Universe, Itself, are constantly CHANGING, and thus ALIVE, and EVOLVING, always. But, most of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, only 'look at' and 'see' things from 'one level' or from 'one, very narrowed, perspective', only, and so do NOT 'see' the 'aliveness' within nor of 'the other things', which are considered on 'other levels'.

But, AGAIN, if ANY one would like to delve into this MUCH FURTHER, then I can EXPLAIN a LOT MORE.

But it’s without limitations or borders, there’s no inside or outside of this, so it’s infinite,

The Universe, It-Self, is obviously infinite, and eternal. While ALL of the other conceptually made up, and illusioned, 'separated things' are obviously NOT infinite, nor eternal.

meaning it’s solipsistic by its very nature. This is obviously known in it’s conception.


God is simply a concept for infinity.

Can 'infinity' be a concept for 'God', as well? Or, does it not work this way around?

So why call infinity God?

Because all labels point to this mystery that cannot be known;

But, AGAIN, what appears to be 'a mystery' to you people at any period or moment, throughout history, can become KNOWN. And, just like what ONLY appears to be 'this mystery' to people like "yourself" "fairy", at this period and moment, in 'time', is NOT 'a mystery' AT ALL, to 'us'.

In Fact ALL of the Truly 'meaningful questions', and thus 'meaningful problems', in Life, which appear 'mysterious', to you, have ALREADY been ANSWERED, and thus have ALREADY BEEN RE-SOLVED.

and yet, appears in this conception as if it’s known. An oxymoron indeed.

But, HOW could 'this mystery' appear in 'this conception' as if it is known? By definition, 'it' would NOT be 'a mystery' if it WAS KNOWN.

Also, what even is 'this conception', which you speak of and talk about, here, exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is self-evident.

In the same context “you”are self-evident. You that cannot directly experience your own birth, death, absence or presence.

God is all. And all is God.

Solipsism is the final truth.

“you” are self-evident
is a first-person experience which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. 99.99% subjective and not objective.
God is self-evident is merely based on first-person experience which highly subjective and not objective.

"You" are not alone but exists with another >8 billion humans of the same human nature.
"You" as an empirical-self can easily be verified and justified as real within the human-based science framework and system [FS] as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; there is no better.

Solipsism is the final truth.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Since we are doing philosophy here, you should try to dig deeper on the above contentious issues.

Try ChatGpt as a starter with the following assertion as a question:
"God is self-evident?."

I’m talking about existence; the sense of being alive.

It’s not known what is aliveness, or how or why it is. But it’s without limitations or borders, there’s no inside or outside of this, so it’s infinite, meaning it’s solipsistic by its very nature. This is obviously known in it’s conception.

Aliveness is easily verified and justified within the science-biology framework and system [FS].
The science FS is the most credible and objective; it give the highest confidence level in terms of reliance and trust in its knowledge.
If we are rational, critical thinkers and wise, we don't have to speculate further beyond scientific knowledge of what 'aliveness'.

God is simply a concept for infinity.

So why call infinity God?

Because all labels point to this mystery that cannot be known; and yet, appears in this conception as if it’s known. An oxymoron indeed.

It is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and rationally, i.e. it is an impossibility within the most credible and objective FS.
Why people speculate beyond the empirical is due to psychology:
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

[godelian]

The science FS is the most credible and objective; it give the highest confidence level in terms of reliance and trust in its knowledge.

Science is about the physical universe. That is just part of the truth. Even worse, it is just a shadow of some part of the truth. Furthermore, modern science cannot operate without making use of lots of non-physical truth. For example, when making use of the notion that "a+b=b+a", modern science relies on non-physical truth. Modern science does that all the time. Hence, the idea that physicalism would be "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge is contradictory. It is not even remotely true within modern science.

[attofishpi]

So nobody within a thread titled:- "Cumulative Evidence of GOD Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."

..is actually interested in being provided with cumulative evidence of GOD? ..and they said GOD IS DEAD. NOPE...philosophy is DEAD.

In this day and age of technology we can now comprehend an ALL KNOWING entity - GOD indeed - per A.I. simulation theory etc..

Moses apparently received the commandments that GOD provided that we should abide by from Mount SINAI.

SINAI just happens to break down to SIN A.I. (commandments to cross rendering SIN and an all knowing entity GOD as A.I.)

(for Maia) Mount Sinai is placed smack between the two fingers at the North: the Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba.

Thus I have painted to scale the Red Sea as an arm with the "peace sign" or Winston Churchills victory sign - can be flipped in the next painting which then brings the Gulf of O man into the frey..

[Veritas Aequitas]

The science FS is the most credible and objective; it give the highest confidence level in terms of reliance and trust in its knowledge.

Science is about the physical universe. That is just part of the truth. Even worse, it is just a shadow of some part of the truth. Furthermore, modern science cannot operate without making use of lots of non-physical truth. For example, when making use of the notion that "a+b=b+a", modern science relies on non-physical truth. Modern science does that all the time. Hence, the idea that physicalism would be "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge is contradictory. It is not even remotely true within modern science.

Hence, the idea that physicalism would be "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge is contradictory. It is not even remotely true within modern science.

This is a strawman, I did not related science with Physicalism which is an metaphysical-ontological matter and science proper has nothing to do with metaphysics.

The main purpose of science is not about the physical universe.
There is Natural Science and Social Science which is contingent upon a scientific framework and system [FS]. [scientific methods and other conditions]

The goals of science contingent within the scientific FS:
Upon a Google search, I am presented the following by its Search AI:

"The goals of science are to describe, explain, predict, and control the natural world:
Describe: Understand the behaviors and events being studied through careful observation
Explain: Identify the conditions that cause behaviors and events to occur
Predict: Use data to foretell the occurrence of behaviors and events in the future
Control: Make a behavior occur or not occur "

It is from the above that the scientific FS enable "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge as qualified to its FS.
Despite being heavily loaded with limitations, there is no other source of more credible and reliable realization and knowledge about the real world than those from the scientific FS.
If any other, which FS?

[attofishpi]

Is that you talking Veritas or is that wot the AI told you to say?

[godelian]

It is from the above that the scientific FS enable "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge as qualified to its FS.
Despite being heavily loaded with limitations, there is no other source of more credible and reliable realization and knowledge about the real world than those from the scientific FS.
If any other, which FS?

Science, i.e. experimental testing, is perfectly fine for creating a database of stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe. It is excellent at that, but that is also all it does. The following is an example of when it is clearly a poor method for developing any understanding or knowledge of particular phenomena in the physical universe.

An Almas ATGM missile tries to destroy a Merkava IV tank, while the tank tries to use its Trophy antimeasure system to neutralize the missile. Are you going to get anywhere by experimentally testing this setup? In software engineering, this would be called "blackbox testing":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-box_testing

Black-box testing, sometimes referred to as specification-based testing,[1] is a method of software testing that examines the functionality of an application without peering into its internal structures or workings.

Black-box testing is also used as a method in penetration testing, where an ethical hacker simulates an external hacking or cyber warfare attack with no knowledge of the system being attacked.

Is this the best approach for figuring out what is going on? No, experimental black-box testing is a poor way of trying to develop knowledge about Almas or Merkava IV Trophy:

Black-box testing may be necessary to assure correct functionality, but it is insufficient to guard against complex or high-risk situations.

Black-box testing has been said to be "like a walk in a dark labyrinth without a flashlight."

Because they do not examine the source code, there are situations when a tester writes many test cases to check something that could have been tested by only one test case or leaves some parts of the program untested.

Both Almas and Merkava IV Trophy are essentially governed by software.

If you want to truly understand the nature of these systems, you will have to read and understand their source code. The scientific method of black-box testing alone amounts to "walking in a dark labyrinth without a flashlight." It is clearly not "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge for this particular setup in the physical universe.

Nowadays, there are billions of running processes -- governed by software -- shaping the very nature of modern society. It is their Platonic abstractions that explain what's going on. With the scientific method of black-box testing alone, you will increasingly "walk in a dark labyrinth without a flashlight".

Again, I repeat, physical reality is just the shadow of part of the truth. You will never gain comprehensive knowledge of the truth merely by studying a database of stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe, aka science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is from the above that the scientific FS enable "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge as qualified to its FS.
Despite being heavily loaded with limitations, there is no other source of more credible and reliable realization and knowledge about the real world than those from the scientific FS.
If any other, which FS?

Science, i.e. experimental testing, is perfectly fine for creating a database of stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe. It is excellent at that, but that is also all it does. The following is an example of when it is clearly a poor method for developing any understanding or knowledge of particular phenomena in the physical universe.

An Almas ATGM missile tries to destroy a Merkava IV tank, while the tank tries to use its Trophy antimeasure system to neutralize the missile. Are you going to get anywhere by experimentally testing this setup? In software engineering, this would be called "blackbox testing":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-box_testing

Black-box testing, sometimes referred to as specification-based testing,[1] is a method of software testing that examines the functionality of an application without peering into its internal structures or workings.

Black-box testing is also used as a method in penetration testing, where an ethical hacker simulates an external hacking or cyber warfare attack with no knowledge of the system being attacked.

Is this the best approach for figuring out what is going on? No, experimental black-box testing is a poor way of trying to develop knowledge about Almas or Merkava IV Trophy:

Black-box testing may be necessary to assure correct functionality, but it is insufficient to guard against complex or high-risk situations.

Black-box testing has been said to be "like a walk in a dark labyrinth without a flashlight."

Because they do not examine the source code, there are situations when a tester writes many test cases to check something that could have been tested by only one test case or leaves some parts of the program untested.

Both Almas and Merkava IV Trophy are essentially governed by software.

If you want to truly understand the nature of these systems, you will have to read and understand their source code. The scientific method of black-box testing alone amounts to "walking in a dark labyrinth without a flashlight." It is clearly not "the most credible and objective" source of knowledge for this particular setup in the physical universe.

Nowadays, there are billions of running processes -- governed by software -- shaping the very nature of modern society. It is their Platonic abstractions that explain what's going on. With the scientific method of black-box testing alone, you will increasingly "walk in a dark labyrinth without a flashlight".

Again, I repeat, physical reality is just the shadow of part of the truth. You will never gain comprehensive knowledge of the truth merely by studying a database of stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe, aka science.

You going off track.

What is truth?
Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
In everyday language, it is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences.[2]
Truth is usually held to be the opposite of false statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

'Truth' is merely correspondence, accord or alignment with, which is not the critical element; what is critical is the fact or reality.

As I had claimed what is fact or reality is that which is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
There is no other more credible method to understand the truth of the fact or reality than the scientific FS.
I asked you, what other FS is better than the scientific FS in grasping the truth of reality [ all there is].

An Almas ATGM missile tries to destroy a Merkava IV tank, while the tank tries to use its Trophy antimeasure system to neutralize the missile.

The truths related to the above is not the most critical, what is critical to the above is the moral and ethical elements involved as established within a human-based moral system.

If the human species is threatened with extinction, the most efficient strategy is to rely on the scientific FS to find the patterns [truths] of the root causes and establish preventive measures within the best of our abilities.
What is critical here is what is the most reliable and credible FS to understand the truths of the root causes.
So the priority is the scientific FS not 'the truth'. Without the scientific FS we cannot discover the truths of the roots cause to enable preventive measures to ensure the human species in not at risk.

I believe what is 'Truth' to you is 'God exists'.
A true God that handed down evil laden verses to a messenger where believers are duty bound to kill non-believers in ensuring a promise of eternal life in paradise.
The problem is this true-God cannot be justified [proven philosophically] to be real but is merely an illusion driven by an existential crisis.
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

[godelian]

What is truth?
Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

In Tarski's semantic theory of truth, there is no requirement for one side of the correspondence to be a fact in physical reality.

Both sides of the equation can perfectly well be Platonic abstractions.

You are aware of just part of the truth, i.e. the collection of correspondence between a Platonic abstraction and facts in physical reality. You are unaware of the much larger collection of correspondence between two Platonic abstractions.

In everyday language, it is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences.[2]

Everyday language is not a substitute for Tarski's semantic theory of truth.

I asked you, what other FS is better than the scientific FS in grasping the truth of reality [ all there is].

The scientific method is a poor approach for looking at an Almas ATGM missile trying to destroy a Merkava IV tank. As I have pointed out already, a much better approach would be to start with some source code analysis of their respective software. This is just one counterexample to your claim. There are obviously many more.

Furthermore, the scientific method is not just a poor approach for analyzing running programs, it is clearly also a poor approach for explaining the simultaneous human behavior and interaction of up to 8 billion people. Human decision making processes are much more akin to running programs than to observable stubborn patterns in physical reality.

The scientific method more often than not fails to grasp the truth of any part of physical reality in which running programs or human decision making are essential elements.

[attofishpi]

-- --

How does this make you consider the fact that GOD exists since your departure from the wisdom of Christ to join the doopidity of Islame where THE most commonly used greeting upon the planet..IS

Evidence 1. HELLO = HELL owe