Arguments for God in Quran.

[GrandizerII]

Just to go at this from a different angle, let's assume for the sake of argument there is no real guidance (as you would define it). How is the latter paradoxical? Impractical perhaps, but I don't see how this logically necessitates the existence of a god. All it means is that we have the illusion of a "real" guidance, not the actual thing. What is the logical problem with not having "real guidance".

It would be an illusion. And it would be us following our desires, as we do, tricking ourselves, we are following morality. And it's the state of humans right now. They don't know what morality is at all, and forgotten the connection and mystic link that binds us, the pledge of the true Kings of humanity, they took before coming to this world.


And the argument falls to pieces if there is no real guidance. And I went that route before. And there is no way to prove it in easy manner. If someone is going to doubt this, they ought truly take their doubt seriously, enough, to search within in themselves the truth of this question.

That's not my job to do for you guys, although, I have shown a process that would conclude it's an illusion without God.

But still, what's the logical problem with it being an illusion (as you argue)? Just because you don't like the thought of it being an illusion does not make it logically problematic.

[The Grand Nudger]

-then it's an illusion.  Oh well?  I really don't see the problem.

Good on you. So brave to accept the possibility of the illusion, yet too scared to answer my question.

If you have some question to ask, just fuckin ask it, lol.  Jesus christ, you're worse than my kids.

[Mystic]

It would be an illusion. And it would be us following our desires, as we do, tricking ourselves, we are following morality. And it's the state of humans right now. They don't know what morality is at all, and forgotten the connection and mystic link that binds us, the pledge of the true Kings of humanity, they took before coming to this world.


And the argument falls to pieces if there is no real guidance. And I went that route before. And there is no way to prove it in easy manner. If someone is going to doubt this, they ought truly take their doubt seriously, enough, to search within in themselves the truth of this question.

That's not my job to do for you guys, although, I have shown a process that would conclude it's an illusion without God.

But still, what's the logical problem with it being an illusion (as you argue)? Just because you don't like the thought of it being an illusion does not make it logically problematic.

It's not a logical problem in the sense defined by logicians today.  A person can deny the premise.

But remember logic once meant the word, and so the word is the word of God, and it's self-defeating to use word of God to deny the word of God.

That is why I hate people hanging up on definitions of today. Ancients who passed us language, they derived these words, from a less abstract simple way and they weren't cold definers of the word, but had deep layered way of understanding them.

These days, everything is made so trivial. 

But essentially you are right, by the definition of logical problem, there is none, it would invalidate the argument.

And there is no such thing as axioms. I'm not going to say it's self-evident, rather, we are to experience language and it's meanings, and language is communication, and symbols that form letters and words are not, nor is the Webster dictionary or any dictionary enough to know what a word means.

It's experience.

And Logic to me still remains the word of God who is the one who makes everything speak.

[GrandizerII]

-then it's an illusion.  Oh well?  I really don't see the problem.

Good on you. So brave to accept the possibility of the illusion, yet too scared to answer my question.

So your problem is that you fear that possibility, not that you actually see a logical impossibility regarding it.

[The Grand Nudger]

And Logic to me still remains the word of God who is the one who makes everything speak.

..................................................................

[GrandizerII]

But still, what's the logical problem with it being an illusion (as you argue)? Just because you don't like the thought of it being an illusion does not make it logically problematic.

It's not a logical problem in the sense defined by logicians today.  A person can deny the premise.

But remember logic once meant the word, and so the word is the word of God, and it's self-defeating to use word of God to deny the word of God.

That is why I hate people hanging up on definitions of today. Ancients who passed us language, they derived these words, from a less abstract simple way and they weren't cold definers of the word, but had deep layered way of understanding them.

These days, everything is made so trivial. 

But essentially you are right, by the definition of logical problem, there is none, it would invalidate the argument.

And there is no such thing as axioms. I'm not going to say it's self-evident, rather, we are to experience language and it's meanings, and language is communication, and symbols that form letters and words are not, nor is the Webster dictionary or any dictionary enough to know what a word means.

It's experience.

And Logic to me still remains the word of God who is the one who makes everything speak.

Ok, fine. So you agree there is no logical problem in the conventional sense of the term. That's all I wanted to get out of you. This went better than I thought, actually. Carry on.

[Mystic]

IT's not a logical problem by the way that word has been butchered in this century among a certain type of people, still highly irrational.

---

Good on you. So brave to accept the possibility of the illusion, yet too scared to answer my question.

If you have some question to ask, just fuckin ask it, lol.  Jesus christ, you're worse than my kids.

I'm waiting on you bro.

[The Grand Nudger]

This just got truly infantile.