My proofs for Islam

[Mystic]

I already know that explaining necessary and sufficient condition to you is a waste of time.

I got A+ in last logic course, so yes, it would be a waste of time to explain something I know very well.

[LadyForCamus]

......what...?

You traits, your psychological traits and mental states in actions, they are not physical. They may have backing physically like in the brain, it might generate, but the program generated even purely naturalism wise is different then the material world.

So, you’re saying that because ideas themselves are immaterial, that a god must exist?  That simply doesn’t follow, MK.  

1. That science doesn’t, at this moment, have a complete and perfect understanding of how consciousness works is not evidence that human consciousness has magical or spiritual properties.  To insist it is so is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. 

2. Even if you could demonstrate that our minds, or our personhood can exist absent a physical medium, that isn’t an argument or evidence that a monotheistic god exists.  That insinuation doesn’t follow from your premise. For example, maybe consciousness continues absent our physical brains when we die, but there is no actual god overseeing everything?  How have you ruled this possibility out?  How have you falsified it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Then apply it.

[Mystic]

You traits, your psychological traits and mental states in actions, they are not physical. They may have backing physically like in the brain, it might generate, but the program generated even purely naturalism wise is different then the material world.

So, you’re saying that because ideas themselves are immaterial, that a god must exist?  That simply doesn’t follow, MK.  

1. That science doesn’t, at this moment, have a complete and perfect understanding of how consciousness works is not evidence that human consciousness has magical or spiritual properties.  To insist it is so is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. 

2. Even if you could demonstrate that our minds, or our personhood can exist absent a physical medium, that isn’t an argument or evidence that a monotheistic god exists.  That insinuation simply doesn’t follow from your premise. For example, maybe consciousness continues absent our physical brains when we die, but there is no actual god overseeing everything?  How have you ruled this possibility out?  How have you falsified it?

This premise by itself doesn't prove it.  All I was trying to demonstrate by that is that we are an idea and ideas need perception to exist.

We can go through why we aren't that perception that maintains who we are or not our brains again and why it has to be God, but what I was trying to demonstrate why it can't be that we don't exist anywhere (no where or without any judge including ourselves) like you suggested.

That our psychological aspects exist without a judgement of any kind is absurd and the reason is because we are an idea.  The psychological traits are part of that generated program by the brain at most, but are not synonymous with the brain.

That is why we need a judgment. The question is are we the judges who maintain who we are or is it God?

[LadyForCamus]

Double post, sorry.

[Mystic]

Nope that is not what I'm saying. I was simply replying to why we can't be without judgment of some kind, why are psychological traits and states forming us- as far that us- not the physical body - we can't be without perception.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope that is not what I'm saying. I was simply replying to why we can't be without judgment of some kind,

OFC we can be.  

why are psychological traits and states forming us- as far that us- not the physical body - we can't be without perception.

Seems to be the case that we can.

You're just using these words as a standin for god, you realize?

[Mystic]

Double post, sorry.

No problem. All this time, I honestly thought you guys understood my argument. It seems there was miscommunication or misunderstanding.

Perhaps we can bridge the gap tonight.

[The Grand Nudger]

I;m not having any trouble understanding your argument.  The problem is that your argument is gibberish.

[Mystic]

Gae Bolga,

A ->B
A
therefore B is valid.

Another valid is
A->B
Not B
Therefore Not A.

What is invalid

is A->B
B
Therefore A.

As well
A->B
Not A

Therefore Not B.


The last two are invalid, and the first two are valid.