God is testing us all

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

NSKimura
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:45 am

My issue with your (Eodnhoj7) definition of "test" is that when you explain why God tests us you state a tautology similar to this "that 'sleeping pills' work because they possess 'soporific qualities'", or in your terms, "God tests us so as to prove our existence". You repeat the same sense of the words but using different words. It is ok for a definition but when you explain something this is uninteresting and fails to explain. If I asked you why God tests you replied that "God tests us because God wants to prove our existence", when asked why God wants to prove our existence, you respond, because "God is testing us" or you would use the other definitions of "test" that you have invented and make a longer circle. This will not explain anything.

The way you define "test" which leads to circularity and tautologies is not what the rest of the world understands by the word "test". People have an idea of what it is to "test" that they do not associate with some being proving that something he created does in fact exist, or that "test" is actualisation or whatever.

People associate "test" with showcasing some skills/knowledge they have acquired and an evaluation of this. This is the analogy people appeal to in response to the question of why God tests us in this life, they say it is for God to evaluate us. What you say has nothing to do with this.

I have no idea how you came up with the definitions of proof=existence, test=proof of existence, test=actualisation, or meaningless statements such as "proof observes quality", "self reflecting lines", etc. You are attributing properties of living things to abstract objects. Lines cannot reflect, they don't have minds to reflect with, proof cannot observe as things with minds can observe.

Whenever I asked a simple question in the OP: why God would prove that something exists when he already knows that thing exists? What you did was redefine the terms, particularly "test", into something silly, without giving reasons for why you define them that way, and then put these words together into a convoluted and meaningless sentence.

Here's an example: I claim that: if you define "test" as "proving existence" then God proving our existence when we already exist is incoherent.

You answered: "If everything exists as one causal moment, with effect merely being approximate cause to further cause, cause is an ever present median of reality and in this respect the act of existence, as cause through structure, is perpetual proof".

This is nonsense. You just try to cover it up with profound seeming words and phrases in a convoluted drivel. You remind me Of Deepak Chopra.

I can do that too: test = realisation. God realises himself in us through the self reflecting definiteness of a point in the centre of an infinite circle that reflects on its infinity through our potentials. We realise the reality of God through the test by which he is if proving our existence and the infinity of the circle and all geometric shapes and abstract objects that can reflect and observe us take the test. This is why God tests us.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:04 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:45 am
My issue with your (Eodnhoj7) definition of "test" is that when you explain why God tests us you state a tautology similar to this "that 'sleeping pills' work because they possess 'soporific qualities'", or in your terms, "God tests us so as to prove our existence". You repeat the same sense of the words but using different words.

It is ok for a definition but when you explain something this is uninteresting and fails to explain.

I don't think you see the hypocrisy of your statements. You claim a strictly linear approach, which by its own terms, leads to an irrational "point zero". Repeating, everything is "absurd" because it does not resonate with you at the emotional level is fine, however do not claim to argue from strict intellectual reason, but rather emotion.

The ancients viewed God as circular and/or spherical in nature as the circle/sphere is not only fully symmetrical but contains all geometric forms at once. These geometric forms reflect across reality and both define and compose it as "space", with space being an irreducible axiom in itself.


Philosophy is the act of definition, as what we observe as truth is determined by clarity and precision. Are "clarity", "precision" approximates of "definition" in meaning? Yes, but the is the inherent nature of language. As I said before, if you do not believe me, strictly look into a dictionary. All definitions are circular.

If I asked you why God tests you replied that "God tests us because God wants to prove our existence", when asked why God wants to prove our existence, you respond, because "God is testing us" or you would use the other definitions of "test" that you have invented and make a longer circle. This will not explain anything.

Do you want more specific examples? Then you have to provide a specific situation. Let's say "God is testing me by giving me wealth". My ability to handle my wealth and help those less fortunate, enables me to not only help others financial but help myself as all people are extension of both eachother and God. I help the poor man, I transcend past myself and in turn form my own judgement as the poor man embodies everything I lack, i.e health, wealth, etc. In these respects, I oppose "nothingness" through "goodness" as being through giving.

The process of being is a process of generation, from which we observe the words generous, genius, generation, gene, etc. In these respects, to be "good" or to "be" is to "generate", with generation being (again) a strict opposition to nothingness.

In a seperate respect one could argue that "God is testing me by taking away my wealth". In these respects he allows evil, as "non-being", to cycle through itself and cancel out other evils of a deeper nature. For instance, I used by wealth to harm others by starting wars, or oppressing people. This negation of leads to a further negation which in turn exposes me for who I really am. In simpler terms, the loss of my wealth may cause a change in perspective where I decide to help others, etc.


The way you define "test" which leads to circularity and tautologies is not what the rest of the world understands by the word "test".
Actually it is:

"a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use"
https://www.bing.com/search?q=test+defi ... 0ACA67D51F



People have an idea of what it is to "test" that they do not associate with some being proving that something he created does in fact exist, or that "test" is actualisation or whatever.

People associate "test" with showcasing some skills/knowledge they have acquired and an evaluation of this. This is the analogy people appeal to in response to the question of why God tests us in this life, they say it is for God to evaluate us. What you say has nothing to do with this.


Evalation is formation, formation is actualization.

"form an idea of the amount, number, or value of; assess"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=evaluate+ ... 29844F8CAB

The problem occurs in respect to the nature of language, however the point remains the same.



I have no idea how you came up with the definitions of proof=existence, test=proof of existence, test=actualisation, or meaningless statements such as "proof observes quality", "self reflecting lines", etc. You are attributing properties of living things to abstract objects.
What is consciousness but a continual process of measurement? All axioms are rooted in the observations of dimensions, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Considering the observation of spatial properties observes the foundations for all realitiies (ie the point to "x" form) does "space" come first or "life". In simpler terms, did the point provide the foundations for the axiom or the axiom for the point? If consciousness is merely an extension of space, what we under stand of life is the synthesis of measurements.


Lines cannot reflect, they don't have minds to reflect with, proof cannot observe as things with minds can observe.

What is symmetry then? What is rationality but the synthesis of measurement? If "proof cannot observe", then why seek it considering it tell us nothing?

Whenever I asked a simple question in the OP: why God would prove that something exists when he already knows that thing exists? What you did was redefine the terms, particularly "test", into something silly, without giving reasons for why you define them that way, and then put these words together into a convoluted and meaningless sentence.

You yourself admit you do not know what you are doing other than looking for ways to prove believers wrong.

Here's an example: I claim that: if you define "test" as "proving existence" then God proving our existence when we already exist is incoherent.

God "testing us as proving our existence" observes we already exist because God is actualizing us. If testing proves existence, and proof is an actualization of existence, then God testing us is God actualizing us. God is already testing us as we already exist.

You answered: "If everything exists as one causal moment, with effect merely being approximate cause to further cause, cause is an ever present median of reality and in this respect the act of existence, as cause through structure, is perpetual proof".

This is nonsense. You just try to cover it up with profound seeming words and phrases in a convoluted drivel. You remind me Of Deepak Chopra.



I can do that too: test = realisation. God realises himself in us through the self reflecting definiteness of a point in the centre of an infinite circle that reflects on its infinity through our potentials. We realise the reality of God through the test by which he is if proving our existence and the infinity of the circle and all geometric shapes and abstract objects that can reflect and observe us take the test. This is why God tests us.

NSKimura
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm

I don't just dismiss what you say as absurd, I give you reasons why. No reasonable person would believe that the claim that "X created Y and X proved to Y and to himself that Y exists" is not nonsense. If I exist I don't need anything or anyone to prove to me that I exist. If I create something and cause it to exist I don't need to prove to myself or it that it exists because it existed the moment I created it.

I understand that all definitions are tautologies. But when it comes to giving an explanation you cannot posit a tautology because it explains nothing, just like this tautology: "these sleeping pills work because they possess soporific qualities". This is what you did. You are too confused with your circles and lines that reflect to realise these basic principles of reason. I know what you will say, that you do not accept linear logic, you do not accept the basic principles of logic.

Here's an example of what I call nonsense and pseudo profound drivel:

I claim that "lines cannot reflect, they don't have minds to reflect with. Proof cannot observe as things with minds can observe".

Your response: "What is symmetry then? What is rationality but the synthesis of measurement? If "proof cannot observe", then why seek it considering it tell us nothing?"

How do these 3 questions support your claim that "lines can reflect" and that "proof can observe"? Just think about it, I say proof cannot observe and you responded with: "why then seek it considering it tells us nothing?". You asked 3 questions rather than provide an argument to demonstrate that lines can reflect and that proof can observe. In light of this why should we take what you post seriously?

If the above isn't enough here is another one: I say that if you define "test" as "proving existence" then God proving our existence when we already exist is incoherent.

Your response is: "God "testing us as proving our existence" observes we already exist because God is actualizing us. If testing proves existence, and proof is an actualization of existence, then God testing us is God actualizing us. God is already testing us as we already exist".

If we already exist then our existence is actual not potential. How then can God coherently actualise that which is already actual, or prove that which is already proven?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am

NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
I don't just dismiss what you say as absurd, I give you reasons why. No reasonable person would believe that the claim that "X created Y and X proved to Y and to himself that Y exists" is not nonsense.
Then the circle is nonsense, Pi is nonsense, the point (as foundations for space) is non-sense. Self-reflection is merely the observation of reality as intradimensional in nature.



If I exist I don't need anything or anyone to prove to me that I exist.
Actually your whole thread what justified on that axiom. Your argument, as an extension of you and your perception, did not work according to you. You needed people to help you justify your absence of belief.

If I create something and cause it to exist I don't need to prove to myself or it that it exists because it existed the moment I created it.

I understand that all definitions are tautologies. But when it comes to giving an explanation you cannot posit a tautology because it explains nothing, just like this tautology: "these sleeping pills work because they possess soporific qualities". This is what you did. You are too confused with your circles and lines that reflect to realise these basic principles of reason. I know what you will say, that you do not accept linear logic, you do not accept the basic principles of logic.

You cannot accuse me of explaining nothing, when atheism is premised on strict negation. It's whole point is 0, or absence.

Here's an example of what I call nonsense and pseudo profound drivel:

I claim that "lines cannot reflect, they don't have minds to reflect with. Proof cannot observe as things with minds can observe".

Your response: "What is symmetry then? What is rationality but the synthesis of measurement? If "proof cannot observe", then why seek it considering it tell us nothing?"

How do these 3 questions support your claim that "lines can reflect" and that "proof can observe"?
The questions were an attempt to get you to actually think.

1)We observe symmetry in geometric solids, facial structures, etc as the reflection of lines.

2)We synthesize measurements, through dimensions, in order to both define and observe reality. The dimensions, form our vary thoughts and are an extension of the observation process. In these respects all dimensions, have an inherent degree of consciousness to them.

3) Seeking for proof as strictly objective evidence, relegates proof to strictly objective terms in which proof is merely a limit. It provides answers only through boundaries: "if "x" then "y"" observes a simple relation between these very same boundaries. The problem occurs, in the proof requires dimensions, we form as extensions of us. In these respects proof is never strictly objective, but maintains a subjective nature. Proof, as extension of conscious measurement, in turn observes reality.



Just think about it, I say proof cannot observe and you responded with: "why then seek it considering it tells us nothing?". You asked 3 questions rather than provide an argument to demonstrate that lines can reflect and that proof can observe. In light of this why should we take what you post seriously?

You already take it seriously, otherwise you would not be responding to it. In all truth most atheists get angry when someone provide a counter argument they do not understand.

If the above isn't enough here is another one: I say that if you define "test" as "proving existence" then God proving our existence when we already exist is incoherent.

Not if it exists at one "moment" in which God percieves everything. Testing, relaxation, etc. would exist as 1 moment. "Proving existence" is "existence".

Your response is: "God "testing us as proving our existence" observes we already exist because God is actualizing us. If testing proves existence, and proof is an actualization of existence, then God testing us is God actualizing us. God is already testing us as we already exist".

If we already exist then our existence is actual not potential. How then can God coherently actualise that which is already actual, or prove that which is already proven?

Actuality exists as present movement, where potentiality observes unactualized movement. Actuality is movement, potentiality is non-actualized movement, or that which may be. Movement, exists through relations, as time.

From a dual perspective everything already exists in one dimension already as one stable ever present moment.

So you have one dimensions where everything exists at one moment. This dimension is unified. A dual dimension occurs, as an approximation of the original dimension as "movement through parts". So you have unity and multiplicity being inherent duals, where multiplicity is the boundary of unity as a negative.

I will stop here considering you will probably have questions about this.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Viveka » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:39 am

NSKimura, just ignore Johndoe7. He's always rambling about 'reflection' 'points' 'intradimesionality' and 'extradimesionality' and 'lines' as though they apply to everything. The only sense I can make of what he is saying is that we essentially prove we exist through privations in being, such as light and darkness. These privations give us our proof of existence, which is self-knowledge. This self-knowledge is through privation because the existent itself already exists and does so through the non-being of privation. :P

NSKimura
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
I don't just dismiss what you say as absurd, I give you reasons why. No reasonable person would believe that the claim that "X created Y and X proved to Y and to himself that Y exists" is not nonsense.
Then the circle is nonsense, Pi is nonsense, the point (as foundations for space) is non-sense. Self-reflection is merely the observation of reality as intradimensional in nature.
The circularity I accuse you of is directed at the logical form of the argument, not the geometric form of circles which aren't arguments and are not formed by propositions. You keep mixing up geometric shapes, with logical forms or arguments, you reify abstracta and attribute to them properties of sentient beings, etc. This is nonsense.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
If I exist I don't need anything or anyone to prove to me that I exist. If I create something and cause it to exist I don't need to prove to myself or it that it exists because it existed the moment I created it.
Actually your whole thread what justified on that axiom. Your argument, as an extension of you and your perception, did not work according to you. You needed people to help you justify your absence of belief.
No, someone rebutted my argument with the teacher analogy and I asked for possible replies to it in addition to the one I thought of. You could have critiqued my rebuttal to show that it is wrong. Instead you argued for something which no respected scholar defends. The only one I know who thinks like you is Deepak Chopra. And you know what everyone thinks of him...

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
I understand that all definitions are tautologies. But when it comes to giving an explanation you cannot posit a tautology because it explains nothing, just like this tautology: "these sleeping pills work because they possess soporific qualities". This is what you did. You are too confused with your circles and lines that reflect to realise these basic principles of reason. I know what you will say, that you do not accept linear logic, you do not accept the basic principles of logic.
You cannot accuse me of explaining nothing, when atheism is premised on strict negation. It's whole point is 0, or absence.
That is not true. And your plan is to combat this negation by positing lines that reflect and infinite circles that have tea in the afternoons? Atheism is the negation of the existence of God. Atheism doesn't entail nominalism, physicalism, nihilism, etc.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Here's an example of what I call nonsense and pseudo profound drivel:

I claim that "lines cannot reflect, they don't have minds to reflect with. Proof cannot observe as things with minds can observe".

Your response: "What is symmetry then? What is rationality but the synthesis of measurement? If "proof cannot observe", then why seek it considering it tell us nothing?"

How do these 3 questions support your claim that "lines can reflect" and that "proof can observe"?
The questions were an attempt to get you to actually think.

1)We observe symmetry in geometric solids, facial structures, etc as the reflection of lines.

2)We synthesize measurements, through dimensions, in order to both define and observe reality. The dimensions, form our vary thoughts and are an extension of the observation process. In these respects all dimensions, have an inherent degree of consciousness to them.

3) Seeking for proof as strictly objective evidence, relegates proof to strictly objective terms in which proof is merely a limit. It provides answers only through boundaries: "if "x" then "y"" observes a simple relation between these very same boundaries. The problem occurs, in the proof requires dimensions, we form as extensions of us. In these respects proof is never strictly objective, but maintains a subjective nature. Proof, as extension of conscious measurement, in turn observes reality.
Again, how does proof, a process we go through to derive entailment from premises following some rules of inference, how is this something that can observe reality?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Just think about it, I say proof cannot observe and you responded with: "why then seek it considering it tells us nothing?". You asked 3 questions rather than provide an argument to demonstrate that lines can reflect and that proof can observe. In light of this why should we take what you post seriously?
You already take it seriously, otherwise you would not be responding to it. In all truth most atheists get angry when someone provide a counter argument they do not understand.
Especially when your counter argument is that proof observes reality and that lines reflect (as in thinking or like a mirror?) and that synthesise measurements through dimensions, etc, etc.

NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
If the above isn't enough here is another one: I say that if you define "test" as "proving existence" then God proving our existence when we already exist is incoherent. Your response is: "God "testing us as proving our existence" observes we already exist because God is actualizing us. If testing proves existence, and proof is an actualization of existence, then God testing us is God actualizing us. God is already testing us as we already exist".
Not if it exists at one "moment" in which God percieves everything. Testing, relaxation, etc. would exist as 1 moment. "Proving existence" is "existence".
Even assuming molinism it is still incoherent to say that God creates us, hence we exist, then god tests us which means he proves that we exists and actualises us while we already exist. If all this is the same thing then just say that God causes us to exist, and that is all. There is no need to repeat this in many different words and then try to square this nonsense so that we can understand it. We can understand that it is incoherent, and that is it.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
If we already exist then our existence is actual not potential. How then can God coherently actualise that which is already actual, or prove that which is already proven?
Actuality exists as present movement, where potentiality observes unactualized movement. Actuality is movement, potentiality is non-actualized movement, or that which may be. Movement, exists through relations, as time.

This is what I am talking about, you just repeated in a convoluted and circumlocutious way that what is potential is not actual.

From a dual perspective everything already exists in one dimension already as one stable ever present moment.

Are you implying a block universe?

So you have one dimensions where everything exists at one moment. This dimension is unified. A dual dimension occurs, as an approximation of the original dimension as "movement through parts". So you have unity and multiplicity being inherent duals, where multiplicity is the boundary of unity as a negative.

I will stop here considering you will probably have questions about this.
I don't even know what to ask...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:48 am

NSKimura wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
I don't just dismiss what you say as absurd, I give you reasons why. No reasonable person would believe that the claim that "X created Y and X proved to Y and to himself that Y exists" is not nonsense.
Then the circle is nonsense, Pi is nonsense, the point (as foundations for space) is non-sense. Self-reflection is merely the observation of reality as intradimensional in nature.
The circularity I accuse you of is directed at the logical form of the argument, not the geometric form of circles which aren't arguments and are not formed by propositions. You keep mixing up geometric shapes, with logical forms or arguments, you reify abstracta and attribute to them properties of sentient beings, etc. This is nonsense.

Than why is logic reduced to linear terms?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
If I exist I don't need anything or anyone to prove to me that I exist. If I create something and cause it to exist I don't need to prove to myself or it that it exists because it existed the moment I created it.
Actually your whole thread what justified on that axiom. Your argument, as an extension of you and your perception, did not work according to you. You needed people to help you justify your absence of belief.
No, someone rebutted my argument with the teacher analogy and I asked for possible replies to it in addition to the one I thought of. You could have critiqued my rebuttal to show that it is wrong. Instead you argued for something which no respected scholar defends. The only one I know who thinks like you is Deepak Chopra. And you know what everyone thinks of him...
But your'e replied didn't work. If the ability to meaure through a logical reply would have changed your opinion, and you could not respond, why didn't you change? The point I am trying to make is that you are no looking for a logical argument, so by default you contradict your own standards. If you said I am angry because of "x", that would be rational as you provide structure your perspective.

Arguing against basic metaphysics, when you are not interested in them, is not going to give you what you are looking for.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
I understand that all definitions are tautologies. But when it comes to giving an explanation you cannot posit a tautology because it explains nothing, just like this tautology: "these sleeping pills work because they possess soporific qualities". This is what you did. You are too confused with your circles and lines that reflect to realise these basic principles of reason. I know what you will say, that you do not accept linear logic, you do not accept the basic principles of logic.
You cannot accuse me of explaining nothing, when atheism is premised on strict negation. It's whole point is 0, or absence.
That is not true. And your plan is to combat this negation by positing lines that reflect and infinite circles that have tea in the afternoons? Atheism is the negation of the existence of God. Atheism doesn't entail nominalism, physicalism, nihilism, etc.

Atheism has no answer because it is "nothing". It is negation pure and simple. In regards to the "circular" arguments, many of these arguments justify their structure on their own terms. When applied to various other criteria (linear arguments, atomic propositions (single truth statments) they expand in definition while simultaneous justifying the grounds they expand upon.

For instance if you say a God that tests, does not exist because he tests...does that mean those who test do not exist? Now you will of course say, it is because he "needs to test" and God has not need. However if he is testing, then by default he does not have to because the premise was that he tests already.

You can argue about the definition of test, but as I have observed (through linear application of definition of A leads to B leads to C) that the nature of "testing" is approximate to that of "realization". A linear approach can be observed in the process of definition, while simultaneously arguing that the definitions in themselvse are circular.

You have to remember, turning a circle on its side results in an alternating line. All tautologies are rooted in geometric structures,


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Here's an example of what I call nonsense and pseudo profound drivel:

In all truth, you are just unintelligent. I say this, not claiming intelligence, but because you act like a child that mocks what he does not understand.

I claim that "lines cannot reflect, they don't have minds to reflect with. Proof cannot observe as things with minds can observe".

Your response: "What is symmetry then? What is rationality but the synthesis of measurement? If "proof cannot observe", then why seek it considering it tell us nothing?"

How do these 3 questions support your claim that "lines can reflect" and that "proof can observe"?
The questions were an attempt to get you to actually think.

1)We observe symmetry in geometric solids, facial structures, etc as the reflection of lines.

2)We synthesize measurements, through dimensions, in order to both define and observe reality. The dimensions, form our vary thoughts and are an extension of the observation process. In these respects all dimensions, have an inherent degree of consciousness to them.

3) Seeking for proof as strictly objective evidence, relegates proof to strictly objective terms in which proof is merely a limit. It provides answers only through boundaries: "if "x" then "y"" observes a simple relation between these very same boundaries. The problem occurs, in the proof requires dimensions, we form as extensions of us. In these respects proof is never strictly objective, but maintains a subjective nature. Proof, as extension of conscious measurement, in turn observes reality.
Again, how does proof, a process we go through to derive entailment from premises following some rules of inference, how is this something that can observe reality?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Just think about it, I say proof cannot observe and you responded with: "why then seek it considering it tells us nothing?". You asked 3 questions rather than provide an argument to demonstrate that lines can reflect and that proof can observe. In light of this why should we take what you post seriously?
You already take it seriously, otherwise you would not be responding to it. In all truth most atheists get angry when someone provide a counter argument they do not understand.
Especially when your counter argument is that proof observes reality and that lines reflect (as in thinking or like a mirror?) and that synthesise measurements through dimensions, etc, etc.

NSKimura wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
Not if it exists at one "moment" in which God percieves everything. Testing, relaxation, etc. would exist as 1 moment. "Proving existence" is "existence".
Even assuming molinism it is still incoherent to say that God creates us, hence we exist, then god tests us which means he proves that we exists and actualises us while we already exist. If all this is the same thing then just say that God causes us to exist, and that is all. There is no need to repeat this in many different words and then try to square this nonsense so that we can understand it. We can understand that it is incoherent, and that is it.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 am
Actuality exists as present movement, where potentiality observes unactualized movement. Actuality is movement, potentiality is non-actualized movement, or that which may be. Movement, exists through relations, as time.

This is what I am talking about, you just repeated in a convoluted and circumlocutious way that what is potential is not actual.

From a dual perspective everything already exists in one dimension already as one stable ever present moment.

Are you implying a block universe?

So you have one dimensions where everything exists at one moment. This dimension is unified. A dual dimension occurs, as an approximation of the original dimension as "movement through parts". So you have unity and multiplicity being inherent duals, where multiplicity is the boundary of unity as a negative.

I will stop here considering you will probably have questions about this.
I don't even know what to ask...

NSKimura
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:19 am

Than why is logic reduced to linear terms?

Because that is what leads to propositions that are true and not contradictory. Why is it the it used in computer science, semantics and physics? It has to be because of its success. But not all logic is reduced to linear terms, Eastern philosophy employs non linear logic and that is why it leads to so much contradiction and nonsense which for them is alright. But these easterners, when it is time to employ a logic that will yield results in a clear and objective way, will turn to linear logics. The way I see it there are two domains, one of imagination where one can play around with dialestheism, paraconsistent logic, non reflexive logic, etc., for the sake of mental amusement. But in the domain where truth and objectivity is important everyone turns to classical and linear logics.


But your'e replied didn't work. If the ability to meaure through a logical reply would have changed your opinion, and you could not respond, why didn't you change? The point I am trying to make is that you are no looking for a logical argument, so by default you contradict your own standards. If you said I am angry because of "x", that would be rational as you provide structure your perspective.

It did change something in my mind. It made me doubt my argument that it is incoherent to claim that this life is a test and that God is testing us. I went home and thought about it and I undid the doubt.


Arguing against basic metaphysics, when you are not interested in them, is not going to give you what you are looking for.

I am not arguing against basic metaphysics. I am arguing against nonsense. We are here discussing a counter argument that consists of an analogy from teachers testing students, and you ended up arguing lines and circles.


Atheism has no answer because it is "nothing". It is negation pure and simple. In regards to the "circular" arguments, many of these arguments justify their structure on their own terms. When applied to various other criteria (linear arguments, atomic propositions (single truth statments) they expand in definition while simultaneous justifying the grounds they expand upon.Atheism is a negation of the existence of God. Or in some cases the negation of belief in God. The difference is the scope of the negation. The former is a positive claim and commits one to the proposition that God does not exist. The later is a negative one and does not commit one to any proposition the ontological status of God.

There is non vicious circularity and vicious circularity, I am sure you know the difference. Your arguments are viciously circular.


For instance if you say a God that tests, does not exist because he tests...does that mean those who test do not exist? Now you will of course say, it is because he "needs to test" and God has not need. However if he is testing, then by default he does not have to because the premise was that he tests already.

Please tell me you are joking.


You can argue about the definition of test, but as I have observed (through linear application of definition of A leads to B leads to C) that the nature of "testing" is approximate to that of "realization". A linear approach can be observed in the process of definition, while simultaneously arguing that the definitions in themselvse are circular.

You have to define test based on its real world application. Go out and ask people in different fields what a test is. You will see that they all use the word in the same sense even if the meaning differs. That means that the word test though it may have different meanings in different contexts it does have the same sense.


You have to remember, turning a circle on its side results in an alternating line. All tautologies are rooted in geometric structures,

Tautologies are semantic truths, they are true only due to the meanings of the words.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:32 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:19 am
Than why is logic reduced to linear terms?

Because that is what leads to propositions that are true and not contradictory.
Is that so, or are the axioms they are founded upon do that? All linear arguments require circularly defined axioms, with the linear argument itself being strictly the relation of these axioms, which in turn result in a further circular axiom.

Most linear arguments are based on the alternation of axioms, until a further axiom is formed. Even then, the argument as definition, observes the circulation of definitions as founded in dictionaries.


Why is it the it used in computer science, semantics and physics?
Actually the scientific method is founded upon the circulation of reasoning, resulting in these fields.

"Linear thinking: a process of thought following known cycles or step by step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step it taken."
http://chuckslamp.com/index.php/2009/04 ... rthinking/


It has to be because of its success.
Its success was rooted in circulation.

But not all logic is reduced to linear terms, Eastern philosophy employs non linear logic and that is why it leads to so much contradiction and nonsense which for them is alright. But these easterners, when it is time to employ a logic that will yield results in a clear and objective way, will turn to linear logics.
The increase in clarity of one proposition causes a simultaneous lack of clarity in another. Linear logic results in more questions than answers as it manifests a branch effect. In contradicts itself by manifesting a dualism of "clarity" and "non-clarity".

The way I see it there are two domains, one of imagination where one can play around with dialestheism, paraconsistent logic, non reflexive logic, etc., for the sake of mental amusement. But in the domain where truth and objectivity is important everyone turns to classical and linear logics.
Subjectivity is not a logical argument. Imaginations is strictly a process of imaging and is required for scientific progress as emphasized by the necessity of the hypothesis and theory.

But your'e replied didn't work. If the ability to meaure through a logical reply would have changed your opinion, and you could not respond, why didn't you change? The point I am trying to make is that you are no looking for a logical argument, so by default you contradict your own standards. If you said I am angry because of "x", that would be rational as you provide structure your perspective.

It did change something in my mind. It made me doubt my argument that it is incoherent to claim that this life is a test and that God is testing us. I went home and thought about it and I undid the doubt.

Actually you had no choice in the matter. You had to continue doubting in order to prove to yourself you are right. You need people to agree with you and "circulate" your opinions. If you chose to agree, then you would be "wrong".


Arguing against basic metaphysics, when you are not interested in them, is not going to give you what you are looking for.

I am not arguing against basic metaphysics. I am arguing against nonsense. We are here discussing a counter argument that consists of an analogy from teachers testing students, and you ended up arguing lines and circles.

Maybe that is because one the foundational structure teachers test is geometry and arithmetic. Considering the argument is premised on an exercise in logic, what we understand of logic is a form of measurement. If geometry does not effect logic why equate it to linear, non-linear, circular, etc.?


Atheism has no answer because it is "nothing". It is negation pure and simple. In regards to the "circular" arguments, many of these arguments justify their structure on their own terms. When applied to various other criteria (linear arguments, atomic propositions (single truth statments) they expand in definition while simultaneous justifying the grounds they expand upon.

Atheism is a negation of the existence of God.
So God exists then? How can you negate what does not exist? How is that not a circular argument? God does not exists, however in order to negate God he must exist.

Or in some cases the negation of belief in God.
So a belief in God exists? If so, does that mean we actualize God through our beliefs much in the same manner we actualize a scientific theory through hypothesis and method?

The difference is the scope of the negation. The former is a positive claim and commits one to the proposition that God does not exist. The later is a negative one and does not commit one to any proposition the ontological status of God.



There is non vicious circularity and vicious circularity, I am sure you know the difference. Your arguments are viciously circular.

Actually they are both circular and linear to be exact.


For instance if you say a God that tests, does not exist because he tests...does that mean those who test do not exist? Now you will of course say, it is because he "needs to test" and God has not need. However if he is testing, then by default he does not have to because the premise was that he tests already.

Please tell me you are joking.

Need observes a lack, for if I need something I lack it. God does not need to test because he is already testing as God is ever-present. Is that simpler for you?


You can argue about the definition of test, but as I have observed (through linear application of definition of A leads to B leads to C) that the nature of "testing" is approximate to that of "realization". A linear approach can be observed in the process of definition, while simultaneously arguing that the definitions in themselvse are circular.

You have to define test based on its real world application.
Yes that is what dictionaries are, how a cultural percieve the means of a word. A leads to B leads to C is the nature of definition and linear argument. In order to understand the nature of testing we have to observe what its nature is, in doing so an argument precedes.



Go out and ask people in different fields what a test is. You will see that they all use the word in the same sense even if the meaning differs. That means that the word test though it may have different meanings in different contexts it does have the same sense.

I did already, it is called a dictionary.




You have to remember, turning a circle on its side results in an alternating line. All tautologies are rooted in geometric structures,

Tautologies are semantic truths, they are true only due to the meanings of the words.

All tautologies are justified by prior tautologies and in these respect the circulation of tautalogie allows the medial center point of the word as meaning. Meaning is strictly a center between extremes that alternate between each other.

NSKimura
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:39 pm

Sorry but you have to be a troll. I say that atheism is the denial that God exists and you conclude that God indeed exists because atheists deny his existence. So by your nonsense logic, if I imagine a being, anything I fancy, and deny its existence, then it exists.... the same for everyone, if they deny the existence of something it exists or else we cannot deny its existence.

This is it for me. Thank you very much for showing me that there are people like you out there. This is why people, lots of people, and most scientists, dislike philosophy, because of people like you, because of nonsense such as what you spread here.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:02 am

NSKimura wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:39 pm
Sorry but you have to be a troll. I say that atheism is the denial that God exists and you conclude that God indeed exists because atheists deny his existence.
Or are you since you keep repeating the words "nonsense" and "absurd"?

The premise is simple, the atheists keep redefining "nothingness" into something. A metaphor is needed here to answer your question:

It would be equivalent to wolves raising sheep to eat them. They claim the sheep have no power, but the wolves need them in order to exist. The sheep just eat and continue moving on. The problem, metaphorically speaking, is that the wolves raising sheep eventually lead to rams coming into existence. The rams in turn kill the wolves. So they raise cattle instead, and what happens but bulls come into existence and the wolves are still stuck in the circular pattern they seek to avoid.

Atheism creates its own beast. They don't understand that by saying God doesn't exist they actually create one to fight against. Would it be better to say that man is God for the atheist, and that he continually eats himself to sustain himself? Much like the metaphorical ourboros? Does the atheist offer anything moral value besides a savage hate premised on continual negation?

Atheism is the origin of all savagery and it is a disease of the mind. It is universal and extends across all faiths. We see it when we insult the poor, or when spouses commit adultery. We see it when we raise children that they are nothing unless they achieve wealth and fame. We see it in ourselves when we say we are not good enough.


The simple truth is that I did not create any of these arguments, you did by staring into the void. You made arguments and I responded. Is that not what this thread about? A response?


So by your nonsense logic, if I imagine a being, anything I fancy, and deny its existence, then it exists.... the same for everyone, if they deny the existence of something it exists or else we cannot deny its existence.

Atheists gather together all the time to talk about the Spaghetti Monster. Its a bit ironic to equate God to a food group they desire to eat...isn't it? Or is it since they gather to gain spiritual and intellectual sustainance from agreement with eachother? Either way, the idea becomes their God and it steers the course of the rest of their lives.

This is it for me. Thank you very much for showing me that there are people like you out there. This is why people, lots of people, and most scientists, dislike philosophy, because of people like you, because of nonsense such as what you spread here.
Scientists spend most of their time studying Dark Matter, something they cannot see, and yet says it exists. It has become a pure religion whose dogma is mere equations that perpetually change. It is has become a faith whose sole purpose is to stare into the dark and ask "Who am I". Do you understand one possible interpretation for M theory they offer? "Magic Theory". And that is "science"? Or is it hypocrisy?


Why quit if you know so much? I am only getting started, this is easy for me because I know that I know less than you do. Can you say the same? You know more than me don't you?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests