Is religion inferior to logic ?

[zerogain]

I don't agree that time is "just the record of history". We might say that history is the arrangement of events in time, but that doesn't really help us define time. Nor does it tell us whether time, or space, are fundamental properties of objective reality, or emergent phenomena, ie features of the interaction between the observer and the external world.

You are more than welcome to disagree but I can inform you that your disagreement is based on your neurological reference frames stored information . You don't have information to the contrary .
Time doesn't exist as a fundamental property of objective reality , it only exists in the practitioners NRF .
When sentient beings are born and at an understanding age , the word time , is entered into the sentient beings NRF. Objectively time has no physical attributes , more virtual than reality .
Space is a part of objective reality , not only is it a ''programmed' word in a NRF , it is self evident externally of the NRF .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion is logic.

No, not to me. Religion is to me as me to transcend objective reason, logic and evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Probability is for rollling of dice not the universe . There is no past or future , there is only progression .

An object falling to the ground will always fall to the ground under normal situation , there are external events that can cause the object not to fall to the ground such as somebody catches it .

Again, the current scientific consensus is that God/the Universe does play dice. The consensus may be wrong, which would make Einstein's contention that "The Old One doers not play dice" correct; and I'm not one to bet against Einstein personally. Still, one of the axioms of Quantum Theory is that the universe is essentially probabilistic at the fundamental level. Here's Stephen Hawking on the subject of determinism.

Stephen Hawking

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are more than welcome to disagree but I can inform you that your disagreement is based on your neurological reference frames stored information . You don't have information to the contrary .
Time doesn't exist as a fundamental property of objective reality , it only exists in the practitioners NRF .
When sentient beings are born and at an understanding age , the word time , is entered into the sentient beings NRF. Objectively time has no physical attributes , more virtual than reality .
Space is a part of objective reality , not only is it a ''programmed' word in a NRF , it is self evident externally of the NRF .

Yeah, I am a skeptic, so I still think, understand and act differently than you, because I understand truth, logic and objective reality differently than you.

 

[zerogain]

Yeah, but there is still more to the everyday world than that.

Of course , neurological diversity allows for the everyday world to be different .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, the current scientific consensus is that God/the Universe does play dice. The consensus may be wrong, which would make Einstein's contention that "The Old One doers not play dice" correct; and I'm not one to bet against Einstein personally. Still, one of the axioms of Quantum Theory is that the universe is essentially probabilistic at the fundamental level. Here's Stephen Hawking on the subject of determinism.

Stephen Hawking

Try to google the universe is not locally real

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course , neurological diversity allows for the everyday world to be different .

So explain how I can do logic, truth and objective reality differently than you. Don't explain it away as in effect irrelevant, but explain how we can understand truth, logic and objective reality differently.

 

[zerogain]

Again, the current scientific consensus is that God/the Universe does play dice. The consensus may be wrong, which would make Einstein's contention that "The Old One doers not play dice" correct; and I'm not one to bet against Einstein personally. Still, one of the axioms of Quantum Theory is that the universe is essentially probabilistic at the fundamental level. Here's Stephen Hawking on the subject of determinism.

Stephen Hawking

Bless dear Stephen but prediction and probability isn't exactly the same thing .

 

[blü 2]

I consider a diety is the creator of sentient beings although the diety may be a sentient being.

But that, with respect, is again defining deity by imaginary qualities, whereas as I said, there appears to be no coherent concept of a real deity, one with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a deity or not. Anyone can imagine any deity they like, indeed any number of deities. And it appears humans are inclined to do just that.

An axiom isn't a proposal , it is something that is self evidently true that we can mostly agree on

It's not an axiom; and it isn't even correct ─ you'll have trouble dropping a helium balloon to the ground.

Tell me ─ what definition of 'truth' do you use? And under that definition, is an axiom 'true'? Or just a rule of the game?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But that, with respect, is again defining deity by imaginary qualities, whereas as I said, there appears to be no coherent concept of a real deity, one with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a deity or not. Anyone can imagine any deity they like, indeed any number of deities. And it appears humans are inclined to do just that.
It's not an axiom; and it isn't even correct ─ you'll have trouble dropping a helium balloon to the ground.

Tell me ─ what definition of 'truth' do you use? And under that definition, is an axiom 'true'? Or just a rule of the game?

Or claim that objective reality is real, because they define objective reality as real. That has nothing to do with God as such.

 

[blü 2]

Or claim that objective reality is real, because they define objective reality as real. That has nothing to do with God as such.

Just so. It appears that "real god" is an authentic oxymoron.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Therefore Pizza = Flatbread + Sauce + Cheese +/- Anchovies

And most definitely NO pineapple!


People who put that on pizza, should be flogged.

 

[zerogain]

So explain how I can do logic, truth and objective reality differently than you. Don't explain it away as in effect irrelevant, but explain how we can understand truth, logic and objective reality differently.

Great question , the answer is extensive .

In brief , mostly acceptance of what you were ordered to learn and stored as memory .

Have you heard of Honey and Mumford learning styles ?

In addition to learning styles , is learning circumstance .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just so. It appears that "real god" is an authentic oxymoron.

So is objective reality as really independent of the mind.

 

[zerogain]

But that, with respect, is again defining deity by imaginary qualities, whereas as I said, there appears to be no coherent concept of a real deity, one with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a deity or not. Anyone can imagine any deity they like, indeed any number of deities. And it appears humans are inclined to do just that.
It's not an axiom; and it isn't even correct ─ you'll have trouble dropping a helium balloon to the ground.

Tell me ─ what definition of 'truth' do you use? And under that definition, is an axiom 'true'? Or just a rule of the game?

I explain a diety as wavefunction / volume , that isn't imagination , it has a foundation .

A Helium balloon changes the context of the event , I should of wrote the context better , specified a brick rather than an object , my error !

I see truth in being a set of principles that merge together without contradiction . An axiom is true without contradiction .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Great question , the answer is extensive .

In brief , mostly acceptance of what you were ordered to learn and stored as memory .

Have you heard of Honey and Mumford learning styles ?

In addition to learning styles , is learning circumstance .

Well, I get that. But that is not all that is relevant to learning.

 

[blü 2]

So is objective reality as really independent of the mind.

Nope, Reality was there some 14 bn years before minds were, and will still be there when they've gone. It's probably a good thing that it doesn't have a mind or maybe it'd feel very lonely.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, Reality was there some 14 bn years before minds were, and will still be there when they've gone. It's probably a good thing that it doesn't have a mind or maybe it'd feel very lonely.

But you only know that because you exist.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
" that is self evidently true "
Yes, G-d is self Evident, please. Right? True?
Regards

God isn't self evident but there are self evident things that require the existence of a diety . If you were to beleive Darwins evolution then that wouldn't be self evident . The theory of evolution isn't an axiom and has no axiom properties .

I don't agree with one.
G-d is Evident/Manifest* and He needs no proof for that, He exists irrespective of the humans believe Him or not.
Evident/Manifest never ever needed any proofs, has an evident/manifest ever needed any proofs?

Regards
__________________
*57:4 ہُوَ الۡاَوَّلُ وَالۡاٰخِرُ وَالظَّاہِرُ وَالۡبَاطِنُ ۚ وَہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۴﴾
He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.
Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
*evident (adj.)
"plainly seen or perceived, manifest, obvious," late 14c., from Old French evident and directly from Latin evidentem (nominative evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious, apparent" from ex "out, out of, fully" (see ex-) + videntem (nominative videns), present participle of videre "to see" (from PIE root *weid- "to see").
evident | Etymology, origin and meaning of evident by etymonline
manifest (adj.)
late 14c., "clearly revealed to the eye or the understanding, open to view or comprehension," from Old French manifest "evident, palpable," (12c.), or directly from Latin manifestus "plainly apprehensible, clear, apparent, evident;" of offenses, "proved by direct evidence;" of offenders, "caught in the act," probably from manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand") + -festus, which apparently is identical to the second element of infest.
manifest | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[RestlessSoul]

You are more than welcome to disagree but I can inform you that your disagreement is based on your neurological reference frames stored information . You don't have information to the contrary .
Time doesn't exist as a fundamental property of objective reality , it only exists in the practitioners NRF .
When sentient beings are born and at an understanding age , the word time , is entered into the sentient beings NRF. Objectively time has no physical attributes , more virtual than reality .
Space is a part of objective reality , not only is it a ''programmed' word in a NRF , it is self evident externally of the NRF .

You think time is a function of consciousness? And that space is objectively real, in a way that time is not? Where does that leave the four dimensional spacetime manifold, and Special Relativity?