I have an idea. I will argue and prove every single spiritual question you ask with mathematics.

I have an idea. I will argue and prove every single spiritual question you ask with mathematics. Logic and mathematics are the basis for my belief system. Ask me any spiritually fundamental question, and I will use the logic of mathematics to reveal the correct answer. If something is illogical, it cannot be true. If something accords with logic, it is true. If you take a spiritual statement and translate it to mathematics and it's false, it's false spiritually too.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Demonstrate the truth value of the following statements:
    >objects that move outside our perception continue to exist
    >mathematics is discovered not invented
    >there's a difference between how the world appears and how the world is
    >physics is more fundamental than consciousness

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's pretty boring. Do you actually need proof of these beliefs?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's recurring discussion about these statements on multiple boards so the truth value of these statements is not self-evident. The truth value of what is considered more exciting depends on the boring fundamentals.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          1) this is intuitive, too intuitive to explain. If you don't know this, you are a hopeless cause.
          2) if you believe mathematics is invented, then you deny that logic is something apart from man. This is akin to denying god and the logos. We cannot find common ground with this, and logic cannot be used to show something to someone who denies it. So good luck with that, this is the foundation of any life in truth.
          3) this is easy. One plus one is two. Without the "is" in that statement, the equality of the two would not be apparent.
          4) I don't like this question, too difficult.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Boo! Intuition isn't math or logic! You have a set of axioms you're using and just picking if something aligns to that set of axioms or not. Logic and mathematics aren't the basis for your belief system, they're just tools you use in assessing the consistency of the unspoken axioms you hold!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fact is the foundation cannot be shaken and if the first thing would not align with logic and maths then I would not believe it. I know it does, so I'm not using time for that. Wasting my precious energy. Do you doubt that objects exist outside of you you idiot?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That is just not true. I'm not gonna use idiotic statements and assess them. Everyone should believe objects exist when not observed. He who does not deserves not to know the truth for he is an idiot and a doubter of ultimate reality. Akin to a blasphemer against the holy spirit.

            Last reply to this post, the reason I don't explain this first one is everyone knows it. In their heart nobody thinks objects don't exist when not observed. If you doubted that or believed the opposite you would have severe psychological terrors and problems.

            Logic and maths are tools to assess relations you fricking moron, they make truth claims within the confines of agreed upon base axioms. Watch.

            Do objects that move outside our perception continue to exist?

            >Something that is perceived can be perceived with various levels of focus sometimes leaving out smaller parts.
            >Something that is perceived can be perceived with varying levels of focus, sometimes leaving out the whole, for example looking at a leg of a table is still looking at a table.
            >All things that exist can be perceived in some manner by their nature of existing, to exist is defined as the capacity to interact with other things as a part of a whole.
            >All things that exist are thus connected by the ability to be perceived.
            >All things that can be perceived is a valid grouping.
            >As one is ultimately observing something that can be perceived they are observing a part of everything that can be perceived.
            >As one can perceive something even if they are looking at a segment of it, that is neglecting smaller of larger parts, they are still perceiving it.
            >We are all perceiving everything that exists.
            >Things that move out of our perception do not continue to exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your effort is appreciated by me, the original object permanence doubting idiot. To continue your exercise:
            >if to exist is defined as the capacity to interact with other things as a part of a whole
            >then thoughts exist
            >the thought of an object outside perception exists
            >a thought of an object interacts differently from the perception of that object
            >an object exists in different forms (thoughts and perceptions)
            >objects that are neither thought or perception don't exist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That is just not true. I'm not gonna use idiotic statements and assess them. Everyone should believe objects exist when not observed. He who does not deserves not to know the truth for he is an idiot and a doubter of ultimate reality. Akin to a blasphemer against the holy spirit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Last reply to this post, the reason I don't explain this first one is everyone knows it. In their heart nobody thinks objects don't exist when not observed. If you doubted that or believed the opposite you would have severe psychological terrors and problems.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this one is fun
    >the reason everything exists is because it's inevitable
    >everything existing means that it's something that can be
    >if something were to happen to make it not exist it will exist again eventually

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      can you show it through mathematics?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As the math teacher would say, show how you got the solution.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Okay then we should all be vegan because of the name the trait vegan argument

    It goes like this,

    P1) If your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value, then your view can only deny the given
    nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P∧~P.

    P2) Your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value.

    C) Therefore, your view can only deny the given nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P∧~P
    This argument is a simple Modus Ponens. Put simply: If A then B. A, therefore B. While the premises (P1 and P2) may be challenged, the conclusion must follow if both premises are true.

    The first premise, P1, and the conclusion contain the phrase "on pain of P∧~P" which has confused some people, it is to be read as "if view denies the given nonhuman animal has moral value you are in contradiction." and not "You are in contradiction unless your view denies the given nonhuman animal has moral value" or "on pain of P∧~P (contradiction), your view can only deny (your view must deny) the given nonhuman animal has moral value".

    The argument is designed so as to channel any meaningful challenge into P2, specifically encouraging the interlocutor to "Name the trait" which would cause human beings to lose moral value if changed. P1 is virtually impossible to challenge, although some specific (commonly theological) metaphysics may attempt to do so
    https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tl;dr

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )

      %3D

      Tl;dr

      If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay then we should all be vegan because of the name the trait vegan argument

        It goes like this,

        P1) If your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value, then your view can only deny the given
        nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P∧~P.

        P2) Your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value.

        C) Therefore, your view can only deny the given nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P∧~P
        This argument is a simple Modus Ponens. Put simply: If A then B. A, therefore B. While the premises (P1 and P2) may be challenged, the conclusion must follow if both premises are true.

        The first premise, P1, and the conclusion contain the phrase "on pain of P∧~P" which has confused some people, it is to be read as "if view denies the given nonhuman animal has moral value you are in contradiction." and not "You are in contradiction unless your view denies the given nonhuman animal has moral value" or "on pain of P∧~P (contradiction), your view can only deny (your view must deny) the given nonhuman animal has moral value".

        The argument is designed so as to channel any meaningful challenge into P2, specifically encouraging the interlocutor to "Name the trait" which would cause human beings to lose moral value if changed. P1 is virtually impossible to challenge, although some specific (commonly theological) metaphysics may attempt to do so
        https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

        https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37621796/#37626366

        History/Tradition
        The trait 'history/tradition' is very easy to show as absurd, as there are plenty of historic cultural tenets and traditions that are outright crazy.

        A could say:

        P1. Something that is done out of tradition is morally justified.
        P2. Eating animals is done out of tradition, while eating humans is not.
        C1. Eating animals is morally justified, while eating humans is not.

        B could then then give any reductio ad absurdum examples that derives from P1.

        For example:

        P1. Something that is done out of tradition is morally justified.
        P2. Burning Indian women alive after the husbands die is done out of tradition.
        C1. Burning Indian women alive after the husbands die is morally justified.

        Or:

        P1. Something that is done out of tradition is morally justified.
        P2. Forcing women to wear burqas is done out of tradition.
        C1. Forcing women to wear burqas is morally justified.

        Or:

        P1. Something that is done out of tradition is morally justified.
        P2. Child marriage is done out of tradition in certain places.
        C1. Child marriage is morally justified in certain places.

        And so on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This argument usually leads person A to either completely admit that tradition has no relevance to morality (most cases), or to have to rationalize P1. into saying that morality is spatial *and* temporal (i.e. by taking one step over a national border something would be morally good, and by taking one step back it would be magically morally bad all of a sudden - something that is inane and makes no sense).

          Person B wouldn't even have to create hypotheses to show how absurd relying on traditions to know what the morally right thing to do is, as there are plenty of examples right now and in the past of traditions that lead/led very clearly to a morally bad outcome.

          Traditions have no bearing on morality, and are not even correlated. While relying on legality to know what's morally right is wrong (explained above), it would be even more insane to argue that traditions have a bearing on morality than legality has a bearing on morality, since laws sometimes correlated with what's morally right and are often derived from what's morally right, while traditions are simply expressions of societies' believes and customs - and are irrelevant with what someone ought to do or not.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >presenting Vegan Gains as an example
        Do you believe it's good that Vegan Gains sacrificed both his physical and mental health to save the animals? You'd rather encourage humans to slowly kill themselves with malnutrition than sacrifice animals for our wellbeing?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We all believe we'd run into the burning building, but until we feel that heat, we can never know.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If something is illogical, it cannot be true
    This is illogical, who are you to promote logic over truth? Even paradoxes have to be accepted otherwise you live in denial.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How do you cope with the fact that mathematics is necessarily either incomplete or inconsistent

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He can't, otherwise he would have to concede that units of measurement are approximate.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I will argue and prove every single spiritual question you ask with mathematics
    Well, ok: is the Demiurge evil?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how does duality emerge out of non-duality.

    im asking you to model the phenomenon which is labeled "wuwei" (spontaneous action) in taoism.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *