• 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!

Good valid tautologies or Secret of Life

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
TOP SCIENCE SOUNDS OBSCURE:

In mathematics, the Taylor series of a function is an infinite sum of terms that are expressed in terms of the function's derivatives at a single point.

A function may differ from the sum of its Taylor series, even if its Taylor series is convergent. A function is analytic at a point x if it is equal to the sum of its Taylor series.

TRANSLATION INTO SIMPLE ENGLISH:

Taylor proved that if a function is analytic, then it can be expressed by a Taylor series. But what is an analytic function? Definition: "A function is analytic if it can be expressed by a Taylor series." Tautology: Taylor proved that if a function can be expressed by a Taylor series, then it can be expressed by a Taylor series.

A thing is alive if God considers it to be alive: "the gates of death are in the power of the Lord Almighty." (Psalm 67:21 SYNODAL). Hence, God must be in the definition of Life and Living! Satan is walking dead. God must be included in every definition: "A function is analytical if God thinks it is analytical."
Good valid tautologies?

Tautology "Life is Life" - sounds in the song:


Alexander: "You can say that a thing is alive if god considers it to be alive. That's nice. I can say a thing is alive if quantum fairies empower its living essence with their fairy dust. Both statements are equally justified, equally unfalsifiable, equally untestable, and equally not evident."

It is easy. God is not defined as a character from a fairytale.
The fairies are defined as characters from fairytales.
Hence, the fairies are not real.

fairy tale: a written or oral work that does not hide from the reader that all characters and events are the fiction of the storyteller. For example: Tom and Jerry.

Folklore: the belief of the people. Beliefs were never considered fiction. People seriously thought that the personalities in the stories are alive or actually lived.
 
Last edited:

AlexanderG

Active Member
Maybe it's equivocating away from your analytic math example, but I find the analytic/synthetic distinction in philosophy useful.

1. Analytic statements are conceptual only, based on definitions, semantics, word usage, and pure speculation.
2. Synthetic statements describe aspects of demonstrable reality, whether properties, relationships, correlations, etc, and usually incorporate empirical considerations.

From what I can tell, all the core claims about god are analytic. There is nothing that tethers these claims to demonstrable reality except by reference to conceptual definitions, semantics, and speculation. If you have a strong need to feel like you understand the fundamental nature of reality or the "secret of life," then you're free to believe these claims. However, there is nothing in reality you can point to that provides evidence that these specific claims are true.

You can say that a thing is alive if god considers it to be alive. That's nice. I can say a thing is alive if quantum fairies empower its living essence with their fairy dust. Both statements are equally justified, equally unfalsifiable, equally untestable, and equally not evident. The main difference is that one of these statements probably affirms how your particular parents and community raised you. You are personally and emotionally biased to believe one over the other.

You can use any definition or tautology you like. Until you provide an empirical basis for the truth of that statement, it's indistinguishable from being imaginary.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Maybe it's equivocating, but I find the analytic/synthetic distinction in philosophy useful.

1. Analytic statements are conceptual only, based on definitions, semantics, word usage, and pure speculation.
2. Synthetic statements describe aspects of demonstrable reality, whether properties, relationships, correlations, etc, and usually incorporate empirical considerations.

From what I can tell, all the core claims about god are analytic. There is nothing that tethers these claims to demonstrable reality except conceptual definitions, semantics, and speculation. If you have a strong need to feel like you understand the fundamental nature of reality or the "secret of life," then you're free to believe these claims. However, there is nothing in reality you can point to that provides evidence that these claims are true.

You can say that a thing is alive if god considers it to be alive. That's nice. I can say a thing is alive if quantum fairies empower its living essence with their fairy dust. Both statements are equally justified, equally unfalsifiable, equally untestable, and equally evident. The main difference is that one of these statements affirms how your particular parents and community raised you. You are personally and emotionally biased to believe one over the other.

You can use any definition or tautology you like. Until you provide an empirical basis for the truth of that statement, it's indistinguishable from being imaginary.

Well, I agree as an atheist, but empiricism does have it limits:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
TOP SCIENCE SOUNDS OBSCURE:

In mathematics, the Taylor series of a function is an infinite sum of terms that are expressed in terms of the function's derivatives at a single point.

A function may differ from the sum of its Taylor series, even if its Taylor series is convergent. A function is analytic at a point x if it is equal to the sum of its Taylor series.

TRANSLATION INTO SIMPLE ENGLISH:

Taylor proved that if a function is analytic, then it can be expressed by a Taylor series. But what is an analytic function? Definition: "A function is analytic if it can be expressed by a Taylor series." Tautology: Taylor proved that if a function can be expressed by a Taylor series, then it can be expressed by a Taylor series.

A thing is alive if God considers it to be alive: "the gates of death are in the power of the Lord Almighty." (Psalm 67:21 SYNODAL). Hence, God must be in the definition of Life and Living! Satan is walking dead. God must be included in every definition: "A function is analytical if God thinks it is analytical."
Good valid tautologies?

Tautology "Life is Life" - sounds in the song:

I prefer Laibach's version.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
It is easy. God is not defined as a character from a fairytale.
The fairies are defined as characters from fairytales.
Hence, the fairies are not real.
I heard fairies wear boots and you got to believe me. I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes. A fairy with boots on dancin' with a dwarf.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I heard fairies wear boots and you got to believe me. I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes. A fairy with boots on dancin' with a dwarf.
fairy tale: a written or oral work that does not hide from the reader that all characters and events are the fiction of the storyteller. For example: Tom and Jerry.

Folklore: the belief of the people. Beliefs were never considered fiction. People seriously thought that the personalities in the stories are alive or actually lived.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I heard fairies wear boots and you got to believe me. I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes. A fairy with boots on dancin' with a dwarf.

When I saw the fairies a dancing, I didn't see no boots. Suppose I'll have to pay more attention next time. :oops:

fairies-gif.gif
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
When I saw the fairies a dancing, I didn't see no boots. Suppose I'll have to pay more attention next time. :oops:

fairies-gif.gif
Unfortunately, this video has neither fairies nor boots. But it does have the song I built my post on.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
It is easy. God is not defined as a character from a fairytale.
The fairies are defined as characters from fairytales.
Hence, the fairies are not real.

Is this satire? I just posted about how conceptual, semantic definitions are unable to distinguish the real from the imaginary, and then you responded by defining god as real and defining fairies as not real. I'm telling you that your epistemology is unreliable, and you're helping me prove my point.

Let me help you out: I define god as a character from a false mythology, and I define fairies as real. Uh oh! Now what!?!?!
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Let me help you out: I define god as a character from a false mythology, and I define fairies as real. Uh oh! Now what!?!?!
Your definitions if different from God's definitions are wrong. The God is the universal standard. God does not like for example homosexuality, because it does not produce new life, but uses the children from normal sexuality.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
Your definitions if different from God's definitions are wrong. The God is the universal standard. God does not like for example homosexuality, because it does not produce new life, but uses the children from normal sexuality.

For the third time(?), arguing that something exists by definition is not evidence that the thing actually exists. Maybe you just can't understand due to indoctrination or some kind of emotional block? I don't know.

"A floarton is a supernatural stone that exists necessarily by definition and also by definition it immediately destroys all gods that exist or attempt to exists. It does this BY DEFINITION so you can't argue against this ironclad proof. Therefore no gods exist!"

Can you see the flaw in your reasoning yet?

"Your definitions if different from fairies' definitions are wrong. Fairies are the universal standard, since their dust is the necessary and fundamental basis of reality. Fairies for example do not like Christians, since they eat endangered animals and dismember children."

(What's that, you say? I'm just making up fairies and their attributes? Well based on all available evidence, people just make up their gods. What's that, you say? Christians don't dismember children or eat pandas? Well, lots of gay people have biological children and the data from longitudinal studies show their children do as well or even better than children raised by straight parents. Your real and profound ignorance is far more concerning than my satirical ignorance.)
 
Last edited:
Top