• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I want to find a person who would sincerely admire my thoughts. If such a person cannot be found, then one should not look for it, and even run from it. And then, the almighty Jesus will make a miracle. How often you feel perfect connection, while communication?

Consider an area of knowledge, for example, General Relativity. If you know everything about this theory, then you will also know that someone knows everything about this theory. Therefore, there must be a God. He knows everything about everything.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587583_RIEMANN_HYPOTHESIS_AND_BASIS_OF_KNOWLEDGE
 
Last edited:

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I certainly admire your persistence...
I want to find a person who would sincerely admire my thoughts. If such a person cannot be found, then one should not look for it, and even run from it. And then, the almighty Jesus will make a miracle.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
How often you feel perfect connection, while communication?
depends on who Im communicating to and what we talking about and what kind of connection Im looking for. Ive never felt romantic connection with anyone but Ive felt some strong platonic connections
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
..........Consider an area of knowledge, for example, General Relativity. If you know everything about this theory, then you will also know that someone knows everything about this theory. Therefore, there must be a God. He knows everything about everything.........

I find in some cases then God chooses Not to know everything....
For example: God does Not know the un-known number of the great crowd of people found at Revelation 7:9.
Because God gifted all with free-willed choices, then the number is not a known number as to the number of people who will come through the great tribulation of Revelation 7:14.

I would say God knows everything about the vast material Universe with its billions of galaxies.
Since even close galaxies, clusters of galaxies, are organized then to me that implies an Organizer.
I suppose then one could say God is Not only Creator but Organizer.- Revelation 4:11
 
Last edited:

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I find in some cases then God chooses Not to know everything.
Second(or 3-rd ?) Law of Aristotle's Logic: statement A and its opposite non-A can not be true in the same relation.
Fact B.
1. God knows B, because God knows all.
2. God "does not know" B, because God does not want to know it.

Statements 1 and 2 are not in contradiction, because each statement has according reasoning.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Second(or 3-rd ?) Law of Aristotle's Logic: statement A and its opposite non-A can not be true in the same relation.
Fact B.
1. God knows B, because God knows all.
2. God "does not know" B, because God does not want to know it.

Statements 1 and 2 are not in contradiction, because each statement has according reasoning.
Those two statements cannot be true at the same time. The clauses are irrelevant. The laws a logic don't care why it's the case.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Second(or 3-rd ?) Law of Aristotle's Logic: statement A and its opposite non-A can not be true in the same relation.
Fact B.
1. God knows B, because God knows all.
2. God "does not know" B, because God does not want to know it.

Statements 1 and 2 are not in contradiction, because each statement has according reasoning.

Except one could replace god in those propositions with the Wizard of Oz, and they'd lose nor gain anything. If you think they're evidencing a deity, then you need to search for the definition of a begging the question fallacy.

Maybe you could stop making unevidenced assertions about a deity and its nature for a moment, and demonstrate some objective evidence that any deity exists?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I want to find a person who would sincerely admire my thoughts. If such a person cannot be found, then one should not look for it, and even run from it. And then, the almighty Jesus will make a miracle. How often you feel perfect connection, while communication?

Consider an area of knowledge, for example, General Relativity. If you know everything about this theory, then you will also know that someone knows everything about this theory. Therefore, there must be a God. He knows everything about everything.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587583_RIEMANN_HYPOTHESIS_AND_BASIS_OF_KNOWLEDGE

It would be a lot easier to admire your thoughts if you'd stop claiming to have 'proof' for things when you clearly don't even know what proof is. You made 3 completely unsubstantiated claims and pretend like you've provided 'proof' for something. It's not how proof works.

If you know everything about this theory, then you will also know that someone knows everything about this theory.

Not necessarily true. If I come up with a completely new aspect to the theory that no one else has ever conceived of that means that there is no one else who currently knows what I know.

Therefore, there must be a God.

Not even close to a valid statement. You haven't even defined what this god you claim must be is, let along that it must exist.

He knows everything about everything.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Just because you write the words doesn't make them true. You have to provide actual evidence for your claims.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
.................., and demonstrate some objective evidence that any deity exists?
'objective ' also makes me also think of objects, and to me the vastness of the universe as a whole is: evidence.
Evidence with its billions of galaxies. Some galaxies in clusters, close proximity to each other, yet stay organized.
Organized then leads that there is an Organizer. Order = Organizer.

Organized matter from energy. Enough dynamic energy to transfer energy into matter or mass.
That significant and extensive amount of energy is how things are made; such things are built.
Enough energy exerted with enough speed to make a transformation.
In the Bible, the Source of that abundantly needed dynamic energy is God according to Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 10:12
Thus, the Bible identifies the God of the Bible as both Creator and Organizer.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Those two statements cannot be true at the same time. The clauses are irrelevant. The laws a logic don't care why it's the case.
the non-contradictory law of Aristotle's logic "a statement and its opposite cannot be both true in the same relation'' can never be violated in mathematics, as any statement has its reasoning and the anti-statement has its reasoning. Hence, they do not hold in the same relation. They are related to different reasons. For example, if you are a passenger on the city bus, then during the travel there are moments when the bus approaches the final destination (measured by the traveled path). However, the direct distance (bird-fly distance between bus and its destination) increases.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Except one could replace god in those propositions with the Wizard of Oz
Atheists reply, that one could replace word "God" in the proof with Harry Potter, satan, or Zeus. I have proof of Omniscient Being. You have suggested what His name might be. It is additional information to be proven, but basic one is already proven: He exists.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
the non-contradictory law of Aristotle's logic "a statement and its opposite cannot be both true in the same relation'' can never be violated in mathematics, as any statement has its reasoning and the anti-statement has its reasoning. Hence, they do not hold in the same relation. They are related to different reasons. For example, if you are a passenger on the city bus, then during the travel there are moments when the bus approaches the final destination (measured by the traveled path). However, the direct distance (bird-fly distance between bus and its destination) increases.
Sorry, no. You are trying to sneak in two propositions into each premise by way of a conjunction. Only one statement per premise.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
If you know everything about this theory, then you will also know that someone knows everything about this theory.

Therefore, there must be a God.

Not even close to a valid statement.
Wrong, if If you know everything about this theory, then you know, that someone knows the theory. It is at least You. Hence, prior of knowing the theory two knowledges were hidden: the theory, and that somebody knows the theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MyM

ppp

Well-Known Member
Please give example. What is premise in my text, and what is statement.
Sorry. I was explaining your post to someone at the same time I was typing and garbled that a bit.

1. God knows B, because God knows all.
2. God "does not know" B, because God does not want to know it.

The law of contradiction is talking about statements and their negation.
1 is not the negation of 2.

1. God knows B, because God knows all.
2. God does not know B, because God knows all.

or

1. God knows B, because God knows all.
2. God knows B, because God does not know all.

When you made the subordinate clauses different, they were no longer a negation of one another.


X and not-X <- proper negation
 
Top