The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:23 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:04 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:05 am
The idea of the universe is not empirically possible. Full stop.
This sounds like another absolute.
I wouldn't know. What do absolutes sound like?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:07 pm
One does NOT have to observe ALL of some thing to KNOW that It [something literally] exists.
Yes, but one must observe a statistically significant part of of something to make useful general inferences.

How much of this thing you call "the universe" have we observed? 1%? 5%? 20%? 95%?
How much of something must one observe before one concludes anything about the whole from its parts?

Look! A tea cup on my desk!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! A Moon!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! 10 planets in the Solar system.
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! 100 billion Galaxies!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! Cosmic microwave background!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! Multiverses.
Oops....

Now we have to go and rename The Universe to "Universe 1". And argue over whose universe is better.

So why not just make The Universe this unfalsifiable thing means EVERYTHING, so we don't have to keep renaming fucking things as we learn more.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:07 pm
One does NOT have to observe ALL of some thing to KNOW that It [something literally] exists.
Yes, but one must observe ALL of something to know that ALL of it exists. Or your KNOWLEDGE is incomplete.
(The ignore list must not be working to well. Or, some one just could NOT resist?)

But that was NOT your so called "challenge".
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
How much of something must one observe before one concludes that ALL exists?
That does NOT matter one bit.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
Look! A tea cup on my desk!
Therefore the universe exists.

Lool! A Moon!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! 10 planets in the Solar system.
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! 100 billion Galaxies!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! Cosmic microwave background!
Therefore the universe exists.

Your so called "challenge" WAS to provide ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

If some thing exists, then that is a part of ALL-THERE-IS, or, ALL-THERE-IS.

So,
If you can SEE a tea cup on "YOUR" desk, then does either or both exist?
If you can SEE a moon, then does it exist?
If you can SEE 10 planets in the "solar system", then does either or both exist?
If you can SEE 100 billion galaxies, then do they exist?
If you can SEE cosmic microwave background, then does that exist?

P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.

Now, we are back to my original two questions to you here;
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?

If no, then so be it.
If yes, then would you say that exists within the Universe's existence?

A yes or no response would suffice for both questions. Thank you.

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:52 pm

ONCE AGAIN, logik has edited their writings while I am responding.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:07 pm
One does NOT have to observe ALL of some thing to KNOW that It [something literally] exists.
Yes, but one must observe ALL of something to know that ALL of it exists. Or your KNOWLEDGE is incomplete.
(The ignore list must not be working to well. Or, some one just could NOT resist?)

But that was NOT your so called "challenge"
Yes. I was surprised when I saw notifications from you.

Seems I missed the the confirmation box. So much for 100% certainty.

Let me fix it.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
How much of something must one observe before one concludes that ALL exists?
That does NOT matter one bit.
It does. It is called statistical significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Otherwise I can conclude that God exists because of the toenail on my left foot.

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE a tea cup on "YOUR" desk, then does either or both exist?
The teacup exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE a moon, then does it exist?
The moon exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE 10 planets in the "solar system", then does either or both exist?
Then 10 planets exist. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE 100 billion galaxies, then do they exist?
Then 100 billion galaxies exist. Any inferences beyond that is a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE cosmic microwave background, then does that exist?
Then the cosmic microwave background exists. Any inference beyond that is just a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.
That's a rather long tautology. Let me shorten it for you.

P1. All there is all there is.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
Now, we are back to my original two questions to you here;
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?
All there is may exist.
All there is may not exist.

All there is is all there is.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:00 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:52 pm
ONCE AGAIN, logik has edited their writings while I am responding.
Cry me a fucking river.

The universe keeps moving.

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:01 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:07 pm
One does NOT have to observe ALL of some thing to KNOW that It [something literally] exists.
Yes, but one must observe a statistically significant part of of something to make useful general inferences.
Not necessarily so.

I can observe an atom and deduce, through reason (or without), that some thing exists.

I can then also deduce, (with or without reason) that if the Universe is ALL-THERE-IS, and I can observe some thing, like an atom for example, then the Universe, Itself exists.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
How much of this thing you call "the universe" have we observed? 1%? 5%? 20%? 95%?
Who cares, and it does NOT matter one iota.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
How much of something must one observe before one concludes anything about the whole from its parts?
Again who cares? As that does NOT matter AT ALL to what is actually in question here.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
Look! A tea cup on my desk!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! A Moon!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! 10 planets in the Solar system.
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! 100 billion Galaxies!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! Cosmic microwave background!
Therefore the universe exists.

Look! Multiverses.
Oops....

Now we have to go and rename The Universe to "Universe 1". And argue over whose universe is better.
You really take your own self to some far away thinking and imagining.

If you just try to stick only to the so called "challenge" that you presented, then you might pay attention to what is actually happening here.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
So why not just make The Universe this unfalsifiable thing means EVERYTHING, so we don't have to keep renaming fucking things as we learn more.
WHAT????

You are the ONLY one who came up with some totally impossible defining and meaningless word of 'multiverses', and then went on with this last nonsensical comment.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:01 pm
WHAT????

You are the ONLY one who came up with some totally impossible defining and meaningless word of 'multiverses', and then went on with this last nonsensical comment.
Well lets give it meaning.

The Multiverse is all that exists.

It used to be The Universe, but we are demoting it. For variety.

And I'll even back up my claim. If one universe exists then the Multiverse also exists.

If one EVERYTHING can exist. Then two EVERYTHINGS can also exist.

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:13 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm

Yes, but one must observe ALL of something to know that ALL of it exists. Or your KNOWLEDGE is incomplete.
(The ignore list must not be working to well. Or, some one just could NOT resist?)

But that was NOT your so called "challenge"
Yes. I was surprised when I saw notifications from you.

Seems I missed the the confirmation box. So much for 100% certainty.

Let me fix it.
LOL
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pm
How much of something must one observe before one concludes that ALL exists?
That does NOT matter one bit.
It does. It is called statistical significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Otherwise I can conclude that God exists because of the toenail on my left foot.
If that is what YOU can conclude, then so be it.

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE a tea cup on "YOUR" desk, then does either or both exist?
The teacup exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE a moon, then does it exist?
The moon exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE 10 planets in the "solar system", then does either or both exist?
Then 10 planets exist. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE 100 billion galaxies, then do they exist?
Then 100 billion galaxies exist. Any inferences beyond that is a guess.
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
If you can SEE cosmic microwave background, then does that exist?
Then the cosmic microwave background exists. Any inference beyond that is just a guess.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.
That's a rather long tautology. Let me shorten it for you.

P1. All there is all there is.
Incorrect.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 pm
Now, we are back to my original two questions to you here;
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?
All there is may exist.
All there is may not exist.

All there is is all there is.
So, once again, you are totally incapable of answering two very simple clarifying questions or there could be some other reason? Or, maybe you are just to afraid to for what that will SHOW about YOUR BELIEFS if you did answer them honestly.

You are also TRYING TO twist things around so that what this is REALLY about will NOT be LOOKED AT.

By the way, if any of those things that you SEE exists, which you say they do, then that is sufficient enough empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:23 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:01 pm
WHAT????

You are the ONLY one who came up with some totally impossible defining and meaningless word of 'multiverses', and then went on with this last nonsensical comment.
Well lets give it meaning.

The Multiverse is all that exists.

It used to be The Universe, but we are demoting it. For variety.
But 'we' are NOT. ONLY 'you' are "demoting". Because you are TRYING TO deflect away from the issue at hand and the very FACT that YOUR so called "challenge" has already been refuted and quashed.

This is TWICE now that I have accepted YOUR "challenges", and did what you originally BELIEVED was impossible.

You are also so called "demoting" things, so that things will now fit in with YOUR BELIEFS.

Your BELIEFS are becoming obviously WRONG and FALSE but instead of just letting them go, you are TRYING anything to hold onto them and make them "work".

You may NOT be able to recognize and SEE what you are TRYING TO do, but it is obvious to Me.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
And I'll even back up my claim. If one universe exists then the Multiverse also exists.
LOL.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
If one EVERYTHING can exist. Then two EVERYTHINGS can also exist.
LOL

According to your OWN logic, you can NOT even justify your response here.

But please feel FREE to go ahead and TRY TO back up YOUR claim.

But REMEMBER if you can JUSTIFY your response/claim, then responses/claims CAN BE JUSTIFIED, which would falsify your OWN theory.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:49 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:23 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:01 pm
WHAT????

You are the ONLY one who came up with some totally impossible defining and meaningless word of 'multiverses', and then went on with this last nonsensical comment.
Well lets give it meaning.

The Multiverse is all that exists.

It used to be The Universe, but we are demoting it. For variety.
But 'we' are NOT. ONLY 'you' are "demoting". Because you are TRYING TO deflect away from the issue at hand and the very FACT that YOUR so called "challenge" has already been refuted and quashed.

This is TWICE now that I have accepted YOUR "challenges", and did what you originally BELIEVED was impossible.

You are also so called "demoting" things, so that things will now fit in with YOUR BELIEFS.

Your BELIEFS are becoming obviously WRONG and FALSE but instead of just letting them go, you are TRYING anything to hold onto them and make them "work".

You may NOT be able to recognize and SEE what you are TRYING TO do, but it is obvious to Me.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
And I'll even back up my claim. If one universe exists then the Multiverse also exists.
LOL.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
If one EVERYTHING can exist. Then two EVERYTHINGS can also exist.
LOL

According to your OWN logic, you can NOT even justify your response here.

But please feel FREE to go ahead and TRY TO back up YOUR claim.

But REMEMBER if you can JUSTIFY your response/claim, then responses/claims CAN BE JUSTIFIED, which would falsify your OWN theory.
I never said I can justify my claims?

Nor do I want to ;)

I said you can’t justify your claims.
I didn’t ask you to but you insisted trying (you didn’t believe me when I said you can’t?)

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:03 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:49 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:23 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm

Well lets give it meaning.

The Multiverse is all that exists.

It used to be The Universe, but we are demoting it. For variety.
But 'we' are NOT. ONLY 'you' are "demoting". Because you are TRYING TO deflect away from the issue at hand and the very FACT that YOUR so called "challenge" has already been refuted and quashed.

This is TWICE now that I have accepted YOUR "challenges", and did what you originally BELIEVED was impossible.

You are also so called "demoting" things, so that things will now fit in with YOUR BELIEFS.

Your BELIEFS are becoming obviously WRONG and FALSE but instead of just letting them go, you are TRYING anything to hold onto them and make them "work".

You may NOT be able to recognize and SEE what you are TRYING TO do, but it is obvious to Me.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
And I'll even back up my claim. If one universe exists then the Multiverse also exists.
LOL.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:04 pm
If one EVERYTHING can exist. Then two EVERYTHINGS can also exist.
LOL

According to your OWN logic, you can NOT even justify your response here.

But please feel FREE to go ahead and TRY TO back up YOUR claim.

But REMEMBER if you can JUSTIFY your response/claim, then responses/claims CAN BE JUSTIFIED, which would falsify your OWN theory.
I never said I can justify my claims?
I KNOW this.

You have stated very clearly that you can NOT justify your responses AND claims.

And, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:49 pm
I said you can’t justify your claims.

And you proved my prediction correct.
That is ALL relative to the observer.

From My perspective, I have already validly justified my claim that humans can reason.
I have also, once again, stepped up to your "challenge" here and provided empirical evidence for The Universe's existence!

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:15 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:03 pm
That is ALL relative to the observer.
Relative how?
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:03 pm
From My perspective, I have already validly justified my claim that humans can reason.
That's not what you said. You said that you have already justified your claim.

Now you are saying that you have VALIDLY justified your claim.

Please explain their criterion for "valid justification" to the audience so that the audience can reach the same conclusion as the observer.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:25 pm

P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.
This is a violation of Cantor’s theorem.

From P1 follows that there is only ONE thing. The Universe, Itself. U=U ⇒ True - The Law of identity!
You could've left it there as there is nothing more to be said.

But if P2 is true then it follows that there is another thing: some thing (T)

The existence of T contradicts P1.

Therefore the Universe is not all there is. ALL-THERE-IS is U+T

Age
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:19 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:15 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:03 pm
That is ALL relative to the observer.
Relative how?
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:03 pm
From My perspective, I have already validly justified my claim that humans can reason.
That's not what you said. You said that you have already justified your claim.

Now you are saying that you have VALIDLY justified your claim.

Please explain their criterion for "valid justification" to the audience so that the audience can reach the same conclusion as the observer.
But they are thee observer, obviously.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests