New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Synchronicity]

8 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

But I feel like your being illogical and unable to concisely mean something real. Like a 4 sided triangle. 
 

when does the start start, if the unplaced objects are never placed. 

We could ask the same of your eternal chain. How is the chain there, if it never got there? 
 

Do you see what I mean? 
 

So think of how we’d go about answering that for the eternal chain. We’d say that the chain’s overall content doesn’t need a cause 

So the finite one could have the same. All of its content - including its starting point - there without a cause 

If you want to show me that this is illogical, then you’ll need to show how uncaused content is illogical 

Which would unfortunately take down your point as well… because you’re saying that you think reality has no before & after & therefore, no cause 

So you think an uncaused thing is logical. But then when I talk about an uncaused thing… you think it’s illogical

Edited Wednesday at 04:08 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

3 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

We could ask the same of your eternal chain. How is the chain there, if it never got there? 
 

Do you see what I mean? 
 

So think of how we’d go about answering that for the eternal chain. We’d say that the chain’s overall content doesn’t need a cause 

So the finite one could have the same. All of its content - including its starting point - there without a cause 

If you want to show me that this is illogical, then you’ll need to show how uncaused content is illogical 

Which would unfortunately take down your point as well… because you’re saying that you think reality has no before & after & therefore, no cause 

So you think an uncaused thing is logical. But then when I talk about an uncaused thing… you think it’s illogical

No not at all I’m open to this debate but now wonder if you truely are. I’m just asking you a question. Because I want to understand. When does time start in your proposed possibility. 

[Synchronicity]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It does not defy materialist human logic. But human logic is woefully inadequate and means nothing other than human social norms.

Understanding the logic of God requires making new logical connections that standard logicians do not make. So a finite material reality is incoherent not from the POV of coventional logic but from the POV of God. From a human POV atheism is coherent, but this is meaningless. From an idiot's POV Nazism or MAGA is coherent. So what?

A child could think that 4 sided triangles are coherent. That's not by problem, that's the child's problem.

A finite material reality is incoherent once one understands that finite things can never be self-created, nor can they be eternal because eternity necessitates Infinity. The missing piece of conventional logic is that it does not understand that if any part of reality is eternal or infinite, all of reality must be. And then there is a further failure to understand what infinity entails. Conventional logicians simply have no idea how serious infinite anything is. And nothing can help them other than Awakening.

My proofs only work for a mind that has a profound grasp of the significance of Infinity. And that's as it should be, because I am describing the logic of how anything at all can exist. This should be expected to be an advanced thing, like trying to understand an advanced mathematical theorem. This requires deep intelligence to connect important dots. If those dots are not connected then the logical entailments will not be visible. It takes an advanced mind to see logical entailments of the kind we are talking about.

If your logic is more advanced than conventional logic, then why is it so much narrower in scope? 
 

Conventional logic would allow for both the reality you’re describing (because yours doesn’t violate self-evidence) & the finite one (because it doesn’t violate self-evidence either) 

So conventional logic allows for both. Your logic only allows for one

Why is yours more restricted? 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

If your logic is more advanced than conventional logic, then why is it so much narrower in scope? 
 

Conventional logic would allow for both the reality you’re describing (because yours doesn’t violate self-evidence) & the finite one (because it doesn’t violate self-evidence either) 

So conventional logic allows for both. Your logic only allows for one

Why is yours more restricted? 

Why is your logic more restricted than a child's? A child's logic allows for 4 sided triangles and yours does not. Why is your logic so limited?

Why don't you employ the logic of an imbicile? Look how much more freedom you will have!

Truth restricts logic. How annoying!

Just because you can imagine a finite reality doesn't mean you are actually being logical. You would need to trace the logical consequences of your fantasy. That's not trivial. It is not easy to see all the ramifications of our fantasies. It similar to playing chess. A bad chess player does not see the logical consequences of his moves far into the future, so to him a move can look good when it actually ends in checkmate.

Edited Wednesday at 04:22 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

No not at all I’m open to this debate but now wonder if you truely are. I’m just asking you a question. Because I want to understand. When does time start in your proposed possibility. 

I’m not pinning down a specific start-date. It could be any finite number, for this example 

So let’s just come up with a random example for the sake of discussion. Let’s say it started… 1 trillion years ago

That would mean its starting point was a trillion years ago, with no such thing as a before. Meaning, there was no 1 trillion & 4 years ago… 

Bizarre? Yes. But like I said, a never-ending chain would also exist without any prior cause

[Mu_]

1 minute ago, Synchronicity said:

I’m not pinning down a specific start-date. It could be any finite number, for this example 

So let’s just come up with a random example for the sake of discussion. Let’s say it started… 1 trillion years ago

That would mean its starting point was a trillion years ago, with no such thing as a before. Meaning, there was no 1 trillion & 4 years ago… 

Bizarre? Yes. But like I said, a never-ending chain would also exist without any prior cause

So it started 1 trillion years ago, so did the unplaced stuff start then as well?

[Synchronicity]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Why is your logic more restricted than a child's? A child's logic allows for 4 sided triangles and yours does not. Why is your logic so limited?

Why don't you employ the logic of an imbicile? Look how much more freedom you will have!

I don’t actually just stick with Classical Logic. I’m only doing so for the sake of this discussion, because you were citing A = A. I actually have all sorts of insane notions of 4-sided triangles & the like 

But I get your overall point. You’re saying that restriction isn’t a bad thing, because conventional logic restricts more than a child’s logic. A child’s logic would be silly, while conventional logic works better. And therefore, you’re claiming that your logic works even better 

Okay, that point’s fine. But then, from now on, don’t claim that your view of reality is unrestricted. I’m going to screenshot this, to show people that - in your own words - it isn’t 

[Synchronicity]

5 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

So it started 1 trillion years ago, so did the unplaced stuff start then as well?

Yeah 

By “unplaced” I mean “uncaused.” So if nothing came before the 1-trillion-year-mark, then that mark is uncaused 

So it’d be when everything started, but… nothing caused the start

See what I’m saying? 
 

Never-ending chains run into the same deal. It’s just that they also lack a starting point, in addition to a cause

Edited Wednesday at 04:24 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

1 minute ago, Synchronicity said:

Yeah 

By “unplaced” I mean “uncaused.” So if nothing came before the 1-trillion-year-mark, then that mark is uncaused 

So it’d be when everything started, but… nothing caused the start

See what I’m saying? 
 

Never-ending chains run into the same deal. They just lack a starting point too 

So it started from nothing or it was always there? 

[Synchronicity]

5 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I don’t actually just stick with Classical Logic. I’m only doing so for the sake of this discussion, because you were citing A = A. I actually have all sorts of insane notions of 4-sided triangles & the like 

But I get your overall point. You’re saying that restriction isn’t a bad thing, because conventional logic restricts more than a child’s logic. A child’s logic would be silly, while conventional logic works better. And therefore, you’re claiming that your logic works even better 

Okay, that point’s fine. But then, from now on, don’t claim that your view of reality is unrestricted. I’m going to screenshot this, to show people that - in your own words - it isn’t 

Honestly though, we could contend that your restricted logic doesn’t work better 

But I’m open to being shown that it does. Is there anything in this restricted logic that shows itself to be better? 
 
You may say Awakening. Okay, sure. But that doesn’t quite prove it per se. You’d need to show why yours is better 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

But then, from now on, don’t claim that your view of reality is unrestricted.

It's restricted in that false things can't be true. Your view is also restricted by truth. We are all restricted by truth.

If truth was not restricting you then you wouldn't be disputing anything I say since anything I say is as good as any view you hold.

There is no way around Truth.

Edited Wednesday at 04:31 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

So it started from nothing or it was always there? 

It didn’t start from nothing. It’s not that the nothing created it or caused it 

It’d instead be that it started (uncaused) with nothing prior to it 

There’s no need for a sequential transition from nothing to something, cause it’d just be there - uncaused - without a transition 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Honestly though, we could contend that your restricted logic doesn’t work better 

But I’m open to being shown that it does. Is there anything in this restricted logic that shows itself to be better? 
 
You may say Awakening. Okay, sure. But that doesn’t quite prove it per se. You’d need to show why yours is better 

It's only restricted in the sense that it doesn't admit false things as true.

My logic doesn't really restrict what sort of phenomena are found within reality. Flying 5 dimensional unicorns are allowed.

Even finite sub-realities are allowed, as long as they are part of Infinity. Anything that can be coherently imagined is allowed.

If you can figure out a way to coherently imagine a 4 sided triangle then it can exist. Otherwise it cannot.

Edited Wednesday at 04:33 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's restricted in that false things can't be true. Your view is also restricted by truth. We are all restricted by truth.

If truth was not restricting you then you wouldn't be disputing anything I say since anything I say is a good as any view you hold.

There is no way around Truth.

My stuff’s very strange. But I won’t get into that, cause that hasn’t been my point here 

But sure yeah, I can accept that this is restricted 

[Synchronicity]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's only restricted in the sense that it doesn't admit false things as true.

My logic doesn't really restrict what sort of phenomena are found within reality. Flying 5 dimensional unicorns are allowed.

Even finite sub-realities are allowed, as long as they are part of Infinity. Anything that can be coherently imagined is allowed.

If you can figure out a way to coherently imagine a 4 sided triangle then it can exist. Otherwise it cannot.

I’ll accept this, this is good to leave the debate/discussion at 

I don’t have a problem with you saying that’s how reality works under what you’ve found through Awakening 

Edited Wednesday at 04:37 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

3 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

It didn’t start from nothing. It’s not that the nothing created it or caused it 

It’d instead be that it started (uncaused) with nothing prior to it 

There’s no need for a sequential transition from nothing to something, cause it’d just be there - uncaused - without a transition 

So there is nothing prior to it but it started?  And start does not imply it came into existence, it’s when exaistance and time began, and there is nothing prior to outside of it. Who’s determining time in this world?

[Leo Gura]

@Synchronicity I see our views as quite compatible. We might differ on how exactly Infinity manifests itself in all its weird edge-cases. I don't claim absolute knowledge of all the edge-cases of Infinity. To me those are interesting details. You have a better sense of those edge-cases than me.

Edited Wednesday at 04:40 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

Just now, Mu_ said:

So there is nothing prior to it but it started? 

Yeah 

Quite a mind-twist, isn’t it? I understand why you would initially think that’s illogical, but at least in terms of classical logic, there’s nothing contradictory or non-self-evident about a starting point with no priors. It’d just be… well… a starting point 

That’s why academics are fine with it. Not that I believe that they’re right. My point is simply that it still adheres to conventional logic. If - like Leo - you want to throw away conventional logic, then that’s another matter 

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Synchronicity I see our views as quite compatible. We might differ on how exactly Infinity manifests itself in all its weird edge-cases. I don't claim absolute knowledge of all the edge-cases of Infinity. To me those are interesting details.

I’m further in the child & imbecile direction you mentioned Lol 

I’m whacky as hell 

Then again, for that reason, I can’t even give a direction Lol 

But I just use Classical Logic in daily life, cause well… obviously I can. I can place 2 items next to 2 others & always have 4

Edited Wednesday at 04:41 AM by Synchronicity

[Leo Gura]

@Synchronicity Conventional logic requires that all finite things have a cause and they cannot be their own cause nor exist for no reason whatsoever.

It is highly unconventional to say that a kangaroo exists for no reason and with no cause.

And this logic is correct. Finite things require other finite things as causes. An infinite thing does not need a cause because infinite logic allows it to be self-created/eternal.

Edited Wednesday at 04:46 AM by Leo Gura