SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not necessarily the case, only true of your particular framework of your version of what a god might be.
Yes absolutely necessarily the case thats the point of Logic it identifies the necessary, the impossible and the contingent.
Agreed, at least that I 'know' of no such entities to ask.
There are no entities that can exist and not exist.
Here again, only relative to 'your' particular framework, of what a god might be. With respect to mine, they decide everything, including what obeys and disobeys, what is and is not logic, what things can and cannot be.
No, 'they' don't, Logic is not relative. They may well create entities but they cannot make them break the rules of Logic with respect to what being a thing or state of affairs is.
Again only relative to your framework of what a god might be. From mine anything is possible, as everything is created by a god, even what is and what is not physics.
No, as Logic is not relative to us but due to there being things and states of affairs. So whilst it may be true that they could break the laws of Physics, as these are the contingent and empirical things or states of affairs, they cannot break the laws of Logic covering the necessary and impossible which are those I have been stating.
Only within the framework of existence as you believe it to be. As you look at theirs, you can only see ours, as it is the only existence that you are aware. Their state of being might not be encapsulated at all, by any constraints at all. Who says we have to understand it? That they have to comply to our logic?
Because it's not 'our' Logic, its the logic of things and states of affairs.
Which in my framework of what a god would be, the highlighted of your words, immediately above, is a product of gods, all that humans can conceive of is a product of my hypothetical gods.
It doesn't matter who conceived of what as Logic arises from there being things and states of affairs and as such it is beyond a 'Gods' touch. Are you saying you think your 'Gods' can exist and not exist?
Not, necessarily their logic. Again you can only see that which your world allows you to imagine, when I say different world I mean different to the point that it would make no sense to humans at all, that a human might not ever be capable of conceiving of such things, no sensing at all, of such things. That the meaning of, "things and states of affairs," as you understand them, might not exist for them at all.
It doesn't matter what the Physics is, if these hypothetical entities of yours exist, no matter where, when or how, they cannot exist and not exist, they cannot change a deduction nor make a logical contradiction true. Wherever they exist the laws of logic will apply to them.
I know exactly what Logic is, here in this universe, but neither of us can possibly know what logic is in another universe, or for gods, if there even is such a thing, as we are bound by our understanding of this existence alone. You are attempting to dictate what's outside this universe, while I am not.
Yes you are as you are trying to deny the fundamental laws of logic that apply to any and all existence.
"Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning." --Wikipedia--
That's "human" validity and reasoning, Arising.
No, thats valid reasoning and it applies to all things that can think as it comes from there being things or states of affairs existing. What you are trying to say is that there are things that exist and don't exist, they don't and this applies to all your 'Gods'.
That's "human" principles, correctness, reliability and inference, Arising.
No, thats correctness, reliability and inference that applies to anything that can think. But even if they can't think the laws of logic will still apply or do you think an earthworm can exist and not exist?
That's what's proper, reasonable, a particular way, formal processes, and thinking of "humans," Arising.
No, thats the way that anything that thinks will have to think.
That's human reasoning, principles and validity, Arising. The assessment is also human.
You think you're saying something about Logic but you're not as you do not understand why Logic arises to thinking things. It arises due to there being existence, no existence no Logic, existence then Logic.
They are all from the human perspective, as what else could they be? By what other 'measure' would humans use?
We use Mathematics to measure, we use Logic to think and your 'Gods' will do the latter as well.
You called them, "your gods," and I said 'I have no gods' They are not mine! ...
Then what do you mean by this? As you said you are an agnostic but you appear to say they are not yours but what are they to you then?
While it's true that I characterize them probably like no one else has ever done before, ...
Nah! You are just confused as to what an agnostic is and more than likely a believer but just not in a specific religion.
they are not mine, they are just hypothetical gods, that I posit as possibility, they aren't even complete in my mind, they are an ongoing process of possibility, that I come to as I grow, understanding more about philosophy and science, and soft science too, actually everything. Though I shall never claim to know them, how could I possibly know them, they are a postulate, that my wisdom ponders as it grows. And believe me they are everyone's gods in that they favor no one, they favor everything they created, or else why else create it, that is if they in fact exist at all, in the way that they exit, of course.
Like I said, a confused agnostic as an agnostic does none of this.
None verbatim, no. Do I borrow or lend from them, most probably!
So you do have religion and 'Gods' then?
First remember that it was you that first called them "your gods." So I don't really think this applies in the context that I replied, 'I have no gods.' But... No, I can say that I have no gods in that I have nothing but postulate. But I never said that if they exist, they do not have me. Because if they exist, well they certainly have me, don't they. Them having me does not mean that I have them, as I would have to know them, knowing they have me, for me to have them, understand? So I have no gods, rather only postulate of the possibility of gods. I certainly don't rule them out, just like I don't rule out the possibility of not gods. So as to gods I have no internal or external conflict, instead I am wide open for either gods or no gods to present. Of course I won't hold my breath either. 
Right, so not an agnostic then but an undecided waiting for more evidence.
Why not? ...
Becuase you said you were an agnostic?
Does not each day have the possibility to illuminate something? Is there not the possibility that either solution shall eventually present itself, or I die beforehand? Of course me dieing first surely seems more probable. But one never really knows for sure what tomorrow holds.
Lots of luck finding that burning bush but stop calling yourself an agnostic.
Not one that is currently in my sight, at least.
So not an agnostic but an undecided possible believer.
Yea, you could put it that way.
Thanks I will.
By the way Arising...
Happy Holidays!
And to everyone else too!
Merry Christmas.
