// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Metalogical reasoning for the Divine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Metalogical reasoning for the Divine

    I believe it may be possible to derive a rigorous reason for the Divine from metalogics.



    Well, metalogic is really simple. Did you know that metalogic is merely the generalizing of logical connectives??? In other words, saying anything about a logical connective IS called metalogic!!! You will notice I say many things about these connectives. Well, all that logic is, is the generalizing of what can be said through the use of logical connectives.




    Parmenides said "nothing IS not" which means "nothing doesn't IS" or "IS" doesn't apply to nothing.

    It is a scientific fact that nothing does not exist somewhere. And even if one had a superconducting and supermagnetic box (which could remove magnetic and electric fields) that one could remove all of the gases, photons and charged particles from; you would still have the gravitational field in the box (which is a longitudinal radiation gradient)! m = ∇ x Φ (-∇A)/(n0 ς) therefore G ∝ ∇ς where ς is webers per cubic meter or the longitudinal radiation intensity.

    This link discusses the history of the idea; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#...interpretation


    Four senses of “IS” can be meant;


    generalization; identity (equivalents), [mankind IS homosapien]

    implication (implies) [a man IS an animal]

    predication (has the property of) [an orange IS the color orange]

    existence; instantiation (exists as) [there IS truth]


    Generalization has two antecedents;


    Liken

    Contrast




    Which means;


    Nothing likens not

    Nothing contrasts not

    Nothing generalizes not

    Nothing implicates not

    Nothing describes not

    Nothing instantiates not




    The contraposition of "nothing IS not" is "everything IS" or "everything does IS" or "IS" applies to everything.


    meaning;


    everything likens

    everything contrasts

    everything generalizes

    everything implicates

    everything describes

    everything instantiates




    The contraposition of "everything IS" is "one thing self-IS"

    Or by implication; IF everything IS (or likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates) then everything generalizes one thing. But this one thing, is also a thing, in other words it self-IS;




    meaning;




    one thing self-likens => it self-harmonizes => it is autoimmune

    one thing self-contrasts => it self-informs => it is an autodidact

    one thing self-generalizes => it self-identifies => it is self-aware => it is sapient

    one thing self-implicates => it is self-causal => it is self-deterministic (conscious) => it is self-reasoning

    one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

    one thing self-instantiates => it is self-generating => it is self-sustaining => it is self-sufficient




    The contraposition of "one thing self-IS" is "one thing all-IS"


    meaning;


    one thing all-likens => it all-unifies => it is omnibenevolent

    one thing all-contrasts => it all-informs (and from self-aware it all-teaches)

    one thing all-generalizes => it all-identifies => it is all-aware => omniscient

    one thing all-implicates => it is all-causal => it is all-deterministic (and from conscious => all-intentional (and from self-reasoning => all-reasoning => all-wise)

    one thing all-describes => it is all-essence => monopantheistic

    one thing all-instantiates => omnipotent and eternal.




    here is some of the reasoning more explicitly;




    Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since all things are implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables. Thus this one thing is self-causal or all-causal


    Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness. Thus cause is reason and causal is reasoning. Therefore; one thing is self-reasoning or all-reasoning


    If this one thing is all-describing, all things must be made of it and get their essence from it. Which means the one thing is a monistic pantheism.


    We have established that the one thing is an autoimmune, autodidact, sapient, consciousness, that is self-interested, self-sufficient, and omnibenevolent, making it an all-teacher, that is omniscient, and all-wise, as well as monopantheistic, omnipotent and eternal.


    This essay about the one thing is part of it's self-describing, self-reasoning, and as an act of it being an all-teacher.

  • #2
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    I believe it may be possible to derive a rigorous reason for the Divine from metalogics.



    Well, metalogic is really simple. Did you know that metalogic is merely the generalizing of logical connectives??? In other words, saying anything about a logical connective IS called metalogic!!! You will notice I say many things about these connectives. Well, all that logic is, is the generalizing of what can be said through the use of logical connectives.




    Parmenides said "nothing IS not" which means "nothing doesn't IS" or "IS" doesn't apply to nothing.

    It is a scientific fact that nothing does not exist somewhere. And even if one had a superconducting and supermagnetic box (which could remove magnetic and electric fields) that one could remove all of the gases, photons and charged particles from; you would still have the gravitational field in the box (which is a longitudinal radiation gradient)! m = ∇ x Φ (-∇A)/(n0 ς) therefore G ∝ ∇ς where ς is webers per cubic meter or the longitudinal radiation intensity.

    This link discusses the history of the idea; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#...interpretation


    Four senses of “IS” can be meant;


    generalization; identity (equivalents), [mankind IS homosapien]

    implication (implies) [a man IS an animal]

    predication (has the property of) [an orange IS the color orange]

    existence; instantiation (exists as) [there IS truth]


    Generalization has two antecedents;


    Liken

    Contrast




    Which means;


    Nothing likens not

    Nothing contrasts not

    Nothing generalizes not

    Nothing implicates not

    Nothing describes not

    Nothing instantiates not




    The contraposition of "nothing IS not" is "everything IS" or "everything does IS" or "IS" applies to everything.


    meaning;


    everything likens

    everything contrasts

    everything generalizes

    everything implicates

    everything describes

    everything instantiates




    The contraposition of "everything IS" is "one thing self-IS"

    Or by implication; IF everything IS (or likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates) then everything generalizes one thing. But this one thing, is also a thing, in other words it self-IS;




    meaning;




    one thing self-likens => it self-harmonizes => it is autoimmune

    one thing self-contrasts => it self-informs => it is an autodidact

    one thing self-generalizes => it self-identifies => it is self-aware => it is sapient

    one thing self-implicates => it is self-causal => it is self-deterministic (conscious) => it is self-reasoning

    one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

    one thing self-instantiates => it is self-generating => it is self-sustaining => it is self-sufficient




    The contraposition of "one thing self-IS" is "one thing all-IS"


    meaning;


    one thing all-likens => it all-unifies => it is omnibenevolent

    one thing all-contrasts => it all-informs (and from self-aware it all-teaches)

    one thing all-generalizes => it all-identifies => it is all-aware => omniscient

    one thing all-implicates => it is all-causal => it is all-deterministic (and from conscious => all-intentional (and from self-reasoning => all-reasoning => all-wise)

    one thing all-describes => it is all-essence => monopantheistic

    one thing all-instantiates => omnipotent and eternal.




    here is some of the reasoning more explicitly;




    Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since all things are implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables. Thus this one thing is self-causal or all-causal


    Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness. Thus cause is reason and causal is reasoning. Therefore; one thing is self-reasoning or all-reasoning


    If this one thing is all-describing, all things must be made of it and get their essence from it. Which means the one thing is a monistic pantheism.


    We have established that the one thing is an autoimmune, autodidact, sapient, consciousness, that is self-interested, self-sufficient, and omnibenevolent, making it an all-teacher, that is omniscient, and all-wise, as well as monopantheistic, omnipotent and eternal.


    This essay about the one thing is part of it's self-describing, self-reasoning, and as an act of it being an all-teacher.
    Mods, please move to philosophy 101.

    Comment


    • #3
      The contraposition of "everything IS" is "one thing self-IS"

      Or by implication; IF everything IS (or likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates) then everything generalizes one thing. But this one thing, is also a thing, in other words it self-IS;
      Can you talk me through this bit?

      It would seem that some of these necessiate two things. This is like that. This contrasts with that. Etc. Does it mean anything to say this apple is like this apple? Or this apple is this apple?

      I am also curious how you can show that everything describes.
      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
        Can you talk me through this bit?

        It would seem that some of these necessiate two things. This is like that. This contrasts with that. Etc. Does it mean anything to say this apple is like this apple? Or this apple is this apple?

        I am also curious how you can show that everything describes.
        "nothing likens not" contrapositions to "everything likens"
        "nothing contrasts not" contrapositions to "everything contrasts"
        "nothing generalizes not" contrapositions to "everything generalizes"
        "nothing implicates not" contrapositions to "everything implicates"
        "nothing describes not" contrapositions to "everything describes"
        "nothing instantiates not" contrapositions to "everything instantiates"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
          I believe it may be possible to derive a rigorous reason for the Divine from metalogics...This essay about the one thing is part of it's self-describing, self-reasoning, and as an act of it being an all-teacher.
          I really LOVE Metalogical! Enter Sandman is one of my favorite tunes.

          There is only one sentence of relevance, I think, in the preceding: "existence; instantiation (exists as) [there IS truth]"

          This is the presupposition to your excercise. So you think there is ultimate truth. That is not a logical conclusion. It is merely the premise upon which you've built a logical model. I could easily postulate the opposite coming from the presupposition that there is NO Truth. It would be equally meaningless because it is based on an arbitrary premise.

          I'm not sure what your are gaining or how this over-long philosophical exercise demonstrates your claim.

          NORM
          When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NormATive View Post
            there is NO Truth.
            which is a truth, which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum), therefore there is truth

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
              "nothing likens not" contrapositions to "everything likens"
              "nothing contrasts not" contrapositions to "everything contrasts"
              "nothing generalizes not" contrapositions to "everything generalizes"
              "nothing implicates not" contrapositions to "everything implicates"
              "nothing describes not" contrapositions to "everything describes"
              "nothing instantiates not" contrapositions to "everything instantiates"
              Ah, I see we aunderstand "talk me through" rather differently.

              You made the claim "everything generalizes one thing", which appears to be derived from "everything IS". Please show me how you logically get from one to the other. Please explain why we should suppose everything generalises the same thing (which appears to be necessary for your argument. If it comes to that, please explain what "everything generalizes one thing" actually means here. What does "everything describes" actually mean?

              At the moment I am trying to decide if you have an argument of a word salad. If you cannot explain what you mean, then we will assume you have a word salad.
              My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                You made the claim "everything generalizes one thing", which appears to be derived from "everything IS". Please show me how you logically get from one to the other.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

                every individual thing, is a special case of one thing; the definition is, that which likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates

                Please explain why we should suppose everything generalises the same thing (which appears to be necessary for your argument.
                another way to understand it is; set theory, the one thing is the universal set

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set


                If it comes to that, please explain what "everything generalizes one thing" actually means here.
                each individual thing, is an instance of one thing, and there are instances of one thing that are not in every individual thing


                What does "everything describes" actually mean?
                everything has information to it

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                  which is a truth, which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum), therefore there is truth
                  Please re-read my post: you misunderstood it, apparently.

                  NORM
                  When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Here are two propositions: 1) There is a Divine. 2) There is no Divine. Now what there is, is. And this 'is' needs no Divine.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Word Salad:

                      In my fevered dream thinks of that milk-white proxy land of lore, the frying pan daisies shall coalesce with the muddy browns of an ill-begotten child of the dawn's grass wherin the rules will crumble before the afterward visions of seagull's gangling cry. This heedless infection of humanity's perceptive unconsciousness upon which the green monkey shall feast with the wisdom of ignorant beauty's greatest scheme. It is this toy of the elderly tree that awaits the thought patters on the willfully unedited freedoms of an endless expanse inside our most foul of heart-holes. And though the sound of screaming instills yet more birds in our lethargic fingernails, cell-by-cell we witness the faithful and the bland unite in a passionate embrace of thorns and the knowledge that advanced psychosis and thought disorder allows the weaving of this tapestry that we call out to the Gods of Men in triumphant an undulating thrusts of our serpent tongues which slit the collective throats of a thousand helpless murdered sands. So go now into that endless end of the unilateral triangle's crusty wave so that we as a collective may sit in the sphere's corners to twiddle our thumbs because of the gravity of our whimsical fancy. - crookedalley. Found here: http://crookedalley.deviantart.com/a...Poem-311217595
                      NORM
                      When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                        You made the claim "everything generalizes one thing", which appears to be derived from "everything IS". Please show me how you logically get from one to the other.
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

                        every individual thing, is a special case of one thing; the definition is, that which likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates
                        I know what "generalizes" means. I am not sure you do.

                        In what way does my desk generalise anything? It does not. The concept "desk" generalises, the concept "furniture" generalises. But individual items do not.

                        And yet in the OP you claimed: "everything generalizes"

                        Argument: 0, Word salad: 1
                        Please explain why we should suppose everything generalises the same thing (which appears to be necessary for your argument.
                        another way to understand it is; set theory, the one thing is the universal set

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set
                        No explanation there.

                        Argument: 0, Word salad: 2
                        If it comes to that, please explain what "everything generalizes one thing" actually means here.
                        each individual thing, is an instance of one thing, and there are instances of one thing that are not in every individual thing
                        You mean like my desk is an instance of the definition of desks? Is a definition then a thing?

                        My desk is not in my car. Is that what you mean by an instance of a thing that is not in every individual thing?
                        Why does you definition leave me asking more questions?

                        Argument: 0, Word salad: 3
                        What does "everything describes" actually mean?
                        everything has information to it
                        Great. My desk has a certain size, a certain location, a certain mass; all information.

                        But wait, in the OP, this then leads to:

                        one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

                        So what does self-describe mean?

                        Argument: 0, Word salad: 4

                        It is pretty clear that your purpose on this thread is to obfuscate rather than to clarify, and I think we can all guess why.
                        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                          In what way does my desk generalise anything?
                          your desk generalizes it's material constuction; the wood and metal it's made of are contained in your desk


                          But individual items do not [generalize].
                          every individual item can be understood as a composite which generalizes it's composition


                          No explanation there.
                          the universal set contains everything



                          You mean like my desk is an instance of the definition of desks? Is a definition then a thing?
                          the concept desk, is a thing


                          My desk is not in my car. Is that what you mean by an instance of a thing that is not in every individual thing?
                          what I mean is; your desk is not every kind of desk



                          Great. My desk has a certain size, a certain location, a certain mass; all information.

                          But wait, in the OP, this then leads to:

                          one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

                          So what does self-describe mean?
                          everything describes, generalizing to one thing, well the one thing is a thing, it therefore describes itself

                          I say it means endomorphic self-manifestation

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
                            your desk generalizes it's material constuction; the wood and metal it's made of are contained in your desk
                            Hence I do not think you know what "generalizes" means.

                            Hence I will not bother with the rest of your post.
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                              Hence I do not think you know what "generalizes" means.
                              Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements.

                              Therefore every composite is a generalization. And every particular just so happens to be a composite. Therefore, everything is a generalization!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Esther, 09-27-2020, 02:01 PM
                              56 responses
                              259 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-15-2020, 11:19 AM
                              49 responses
                              412 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Tassman
                              by Tassman
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              985 responses
                              53,962 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by showmeproof, 01-19-2014, 11:28 AM
                              91 responses
                              19,192 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X