Logic is the foundation of a true belief system. Here, I will show some beliefs to be false based on pure Logic.

Logic is the foundation of a true belief system. Here, I will show some beliefs to be false based on pure Logic. Please, comment as you like or discuss with me. Let's go:
>All is one. Everything is the Brahman.
First of all, the Brahman is something. Let's give it the number one. Is one, two? Of course not. One does not equal two. Nor three. Nor anything beside one. This statement is untrue.
>There is no afterlife
Let's see. Let's give you the number one. You are one. Can one suddenly become zero? Of course not. You would have to subtract exactly one. Is death a substraction process? No. Here is why. Life is an accumulation of processes. So at your death, the number we give to it now will be let's say 80. Do you lose eighty years at death? You simply stop counting life numbers. Ok. So you might say, well you always exist in the present. Therefore the actual number should be zero, since every time you gain one minute of life, you lose one minute. Alright. Let's work with this equasion too. If life is zero. Then what is death? "Minus" zero? This is nonsense of course, no such thing exists. There is only zero. So when you die, nothing happens to you. You simply lose consciousness, stop counting in our system here, and then resume counting. Zero remains zero, it does not become "minus-zero". You can prove all spiritual beliefs with this by the way.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >So at your death, the number we give to it now will be let's say 80.
    so am I one and then I become eighty? I am confused

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was somewhat careless and didn't finish the first idea. The idea that you are one and at death zero, that's hard to articulate and I don't know how to solve it right now. But the other two points proved it already so.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Proved there is an afterlife I mean.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your life starts at one and ends at eighty for example, just ignore the idea before that. I didn't finish it.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Um, no it isn't
    The foundation of a true belief system is knowledge gained from the scientific method and active practice
    Every piece of spiritual knowledge you could want is present in the universe you just gotta poke it and see what happens
    Logic comes in once a set of proven theories based on what existence has shown you have been set in place

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The scientific method relies on logic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yes but the information wasn't pulled from the logic, it just aided in organizing le discovered information
        Logic on its own isn't very useful, it needs information to be actively gained and worked with, or it's useless, which is my point.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hmm. Logic itself if you think literally obviously will not help you at any spiritual endeavour. But maths can show that spiritual beliefs are true or not, as I showed above. So, do you think my afterlife equasions are convincing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what are you talking about, I'm not arguing for its lack of usefulness, I'm just saying alongside logic you need to actively provide yourself with further information and test what you've discovered against reality
            You're failing to do that last part.
            my point is that it is -one half- of the two necessary components of a practice, anon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I see. Well I don't see it like that. I think three things are fundamental. Logic, which is the basis on which true beliefs are founded on. Knowledge, which is the path towards logically true beliefs. And third, intuition, which is the thing by which you find out knowledge that is logically true. If you have a spiritually developed intuition, a sagely intuition, developed through prayer and meditation, fasting, and austerity, then you can mentally experience knowledge, and simultaneously know that it "is" logical. Without intuition as the oil in the engine.. tough luck. You won't need science at all, I for example know god exists without science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but, what can your practice accomplish?

  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

      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

      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

          >morality is spatial *and* temporal
          But this is true. An executioner at the time they are doing their job is allowed to kill prisoners.
          that same executioner once they have retired is not allowed to go back to the jail and kill people - even if they are on death row.
          Time, place, and circumstance are always important when considering relative morality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there's two neighboring countries and one rapes children and the other doesn't I don't think crossing the border makes rape immoral or moral

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think
            And the person who lives in the rape-is-fine nation also agrees that just walking over the border does not make rape suddenly a bad thing.
            But you both agree it changes what is legal.
            And you both should agree your idea on the topic is heavily impacted by the location you grew up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I agree with all that though I'd say the pro rape nation is probably hypocritical for condoning rape in the first place just like many nations are nowadays with meat because of ntt

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >pro rape nation is probably hypocritical for condoning rape in the first place
            Only if you arbitrarily add in some deliberate activity that goes against their belief. It is just as easy - and more likely - to say that the anti-rape nation is hypocritical for probably letting their elites get away with it, or having severely reduced punishment for it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To make clear, I am saying it is a more consistent moral stance to say
            >If you can rape, you get to rape, but I will make sure that no one can rape me.
            than
            >It is wrong to rape and no one should do it, unless you have a lot of power.

  4. 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

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Let's give it the number one.
    But Brahman isnt a number, it is the entire number line.
    Is one part of the number line? Yes.
    Is two? Yes.
    Are negative numbers? Fractions? Irrational numbers? Imaginary numbers? All of them are on the number line.
    They are all Brahman, no matter how different from each other they are.

    If you want to compare everything by looking at numbers, then the proper understanding is that Brahman is the very concept of numbers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I know this is the intuitive response from a believer. However, Brahman is called a spirit in the upanishads. So, is a spirit not one thing?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Brahman is called a spirit in the upanishads
        This makes no sense. You mean someone translated a word, and used their own connotative label in its place (since we can easily argue what "spirit" means).
        >is a spirit not one thing?
        Completely rejecting your attempt to semantically wswitch labels.
        No - Brahman is not one thing. Brahman is All Thing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's what he is, and that's what the official BBC website says online.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's what he is
            The concept of Brahman does not assert an individual personality.
            I think you have confused Brahman with Brahma.
            Brahman is the concept of an undifferentiated energy/force/substance from which all existence and observation manifests.
            It is not a person. It is not one thing. Because it is All Thing, no single trait can be ascribed to it for the opposite trait also exists in its fullness.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >First of all, the Brahman is something. Let's give it the number one. Is one, two? Of course not. One does not equal two. Nor three. Nor anything beside one. This statement is untrue.

    so one cant be two? are you sure about that?
    is water and ice one or two?
    are Iron Man and Robert Downey Jr. 2 or 1?

    > Logic is the foundation of a true belief system

    no.
    the problem with logic is, that no one wields it 100%.
    if anyone did, it would not be a "belief" system.
    the proof of this statement is in the first part of my response, showing your lack of nuance in approaching something which is nuanced. dishonest approaches like yours are detestable btw. so KYS.

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