Materialism is illogical

[Thomas]

The most pure and true logic exists in a closed system, but no human mind exists in a closed system because we do not exist outside the same universe we are a part off. There are always more variables then our minds can contain. An immaterial universe where we are all pure noetic substances inside the mind of God on the other hand does open the possibility to; 1: exist in a closed logical system; 2: have via a trancendant medium (God) giving access to all variables in existence.

Assume that nothing is a one in our minds, not even God. Therefor neither is religion or mythology a one, but in fact a large collection of variables. If both where in fact one, one could substract them by using two, but noone has done so just yet. In a material universe this means that religion must always hold some validity because there is always an aspect of religion that exists outside of the mind, and therefor true knowledge and true judgement about reality or religion is not possible.

In a immaterial universe on the other hand religion can exist because religion would be limited by existing thought constructs. Either a system exists on it own and everything the system produces would be an interconnected aspect of that system and thus religion being part of the mind is validated by it very own existence, or what we call mind has a trancendal medium that through its trandendal aspects allows religious aspects to be pulled from a distant noetic substance; religion in this case would structure the open-ended mind to only receive substance that embodies it's own structure and then religion would shape reality and mind.

The immaterial model would allow complete logic, while the material model does not. But none of these thought system can be used to completely discount religion, God, Christ, Mary or the LORD. If Christ is love, then you need to either destroy your idea of Christ and free love from Christ or debunk love together with Christ making them both powerless. There is no way of knowing if a Christian used the meaning of the prophet jesus, lord of our world or divine love to describe Christ and therefor any attempts to make Christ one and debunk it as a singulare concept is also doomed to fail.

[stenlis]

This must be the most unintelligible comment I've ever read. I couldn't make it through the very first sentence and the following ones didn't clear up the issue very much.

I mean, it looks like your mind does indeed exist in a closed system because your thoughts don't seem to make it through to other people, and, considering your exchanges in ohter forums here, it doesn't work the other way around either.

Don't want to be rude to you, it just seems to me you are trying to make too many points without explanation or continuity. Nobody will be able to debate with you this way.

[Thomas]

This must be the most unintelligible comment I've ever read. I couldn't make it through the very first sentence and the following ones didn't clear up the issue very much.

I know, i am using my own semantic module. In fact i am using a combination of Christian, neoplatonic, jungian, berkleyean, German idealist and voegelian concepts in combination with my average understanding of the English language.

I mean, it looks like your mind does indeed exist in a closed system because your thoughts don't seem to make it through to other people, and, considering your exchanges in ohter forums here, it doesn't work the other way around either.

You don't understand what i mean with ''closed system''.

No others have already converted me to there ways, but there ways are just another module within my soul.

Don't want to be rude to you, it just seems to me you are trying to make too many points without explanation or continuity. Nobody will be able to debate with you this way.

No, they will not, but not because i am obscure but because i use the name Jesus, our lord and saviour. I hope i have proven this, to these people....

[donnyton]

Somehow you claim to have tapped in the truth, yet when your arguments are intelligible, you blame it on the fact that you've tapped in the truth.

Are we nonbelievers too stupid to handle Jesus? It seems that is what you are insinuating.

[Thomas]

Somehow you claim to have tapped in the truth, yet when your arguments are intelligible, you blame it on the fact that you've tapped in the truth.

Are we nonbelievers too stupid to handle Jesus? It seems that is what you are insinuating.

Yes, i am.

[stenlis]

You don't understand what i mean with ''closed system''.

I don't. Explain. Show an example of 'closed system'.
I'm even more puzzled with the second part of your first sentence - is there anyone who would think that we would 'exist outside the same universe we are a part off'?
But the most puzzling thing is the first part - "The most pure and true logic exists in a closed system".

What is 'the most pure logic'? Is there a logic that is not pure but is still a logic? Show some examples.

What does logic have to do with 'closed/open systems'. Is logic in 'open systems' different from logic in 'closed systems'? Why?

[Thomas]

You don't understand what i mean with ''closed system''.

I don't. Explain. Show an example of 'closed system'.

A conscious and completely interrelated multi-dimentional computer system, inside a infinite vacuum; every aspect of such a machine would correlate with all the other aspects, making it pure and dependant for knowledge only on self-knowledge.

I'm even more puzzled with the second part of your first sentence - is there anyone who would think that we would 'exist outside the same universe we are a part off'?

No, but just that there is nothing outside of our minds.

But the most puzzling thing is the first part - "The most pure and true logic exists in a closed system".

A open system would not be able to contain pure order because the system is nothing but a module of the outside world and is thus dependant on this world. In such a system mental knowledge has no other choice then to experience contradictions and fuzzy baggage material in it's mental make up.

What is 'the most pure logic'? Is there a logic that is not pure but is still a logic? Show some examples.

Logic can only be pure through proxy or non-proxy depending if you are a materialist or a immaterialist.

What does logic have to do with 'closed/open systems'. Is logic in 'open systems' different from logic in 'closed systems'? Why?

Personally i think that all logic is open, since our minds are open to non-minds, but others might disagree with me. Especially if they are immaterialists like i am. Luckily for you, i am not a Hegelian; because i would be lying if i where one.

[stenlis]

A conscious and completely interrelated multi-dimentional computer system, inside a infinite vacuum; every aspect of such a machine would correlate with all the other aspects, making it pure and dependant for knowledge only on self-knowledge.

My fart inside an infinite vacuum is a closed system too. Trouble is - there is no infinite vacuum. Give me a real example - is there a closed system in *our* world?

A open system would not be able to contain pure order because the system is nothing but a module of the outside world and is thus dependant on this world. In such a system mental knowledge has no other choice then to experience contradictions and fuzzy baggage material in it's mental make up.

Personally i think that all logic is open

So what is outside of logic?

[donnyton]

Somehow you claim to have tapped in the truth, yet when your arguments are intelligible, you blame it on the fact that you've tapped in the truth.

Are we nonbelievers too stupid to handle Jesus? It seems that is what you are insinuating.

Yes, i am.

Then you've already lost the argument. At least I give you the intellectual respect to not attack your own intelligence in order to further my argument. Saying that I'm right because I'm CLEARLY smarter than you all is the asinine Christian elitism that proves to us that you're not here for polite discussion, you're here to preach.

[Thomas]

Somehow you claim to have tapped in the truth, yet when your arguments are intelligible, you blame it on the fact that you've tapped in the truth.

Are we nonbelievers too stupid to handle Jesus? It seems that is what you are insinuating.

Yes, i am.

Then you've already lost the argument. At least I give you the intellectual respect to not attack your own intelligence in order to further my argument. Saying that I'm right because I'm CLEARLY smarter than you all is the asinine Christian elitism that proves to us that you're not here for polite discussion, you're here to preach.

Yes, i came here to preach and i don't care about winning my arguments, because i think i am smarter then atheists and my truth is better then your truth.

[GizmoIscariot]

I have seen this before. Its called "Let me write a bunch of nonsense to try to confuse people so they go 'hmm, you might be on to something.'"

Not sure why you would bother coming here to preach, especially in the way that you are doing it. I also don't understand that if you are arguing, yet you don't care if you are winning (or at least having all parties learn from) the argument, then why bother. I could argue why some movie is the best movie ever yet I didn't care if I am winning than why bother. It sounds like you are here just for the purpose of annoying people or provoking some response (be it anger or whatever).

I don't mind if you want to argue or discuss something (though others may disagree) but at least if you want to discuss something, stop typing 4 paragraphs of uselessness to get to a point and at least care about what you are saying.

[Mythman]

I don't mind if you want to argue or discuss something (though others may disagree) but at least if you want to discuss something, stop typing 4 paragraphs of uselessness to get to a point and at least care about what you are saying.

Funny, I was just going to call him a moron.


Who preaches to a group of learned atheists in the forum for a website specifically dedicated to debunking theism?

[GizmoIscariot]

I don't mind if you want to argue or discuss something (though others may disagree) but at least if you want to discuss something, stop typing 4 paragraphs of uselessness to get to a point and at least care about what you are saying.

Funny, I was just going to call him a moron.


Who preaches to a group of learned atheists in the forum for a website specifically dedicated to debunking theism?

Someone who wants to piss them off by making useless posts. Used to happen all the time on the Rational Response Squad site (and probably still is that way). My point was that it doesn't upset or anger me, it just seems like a waste of time.

[donnyton]

Then why doesn't someone call in the mods and get rid of him?

[Sans_Deity]

Yes, i came here to preach and i don't care about winning my arguments, because i think i am smarter then atheists and my truth is better then your truth.

Bad move.

Then why doesn't someone call in the mods and get rid of him?

Done.