The inferior logic of the atheist

[Ostronomos]

Given that anyone who qualifies for the title of "the smartest person in the world" would naturally come close to absolute truth - the very approximation of a Being we call God - then it stands to reason that not only is their theoretical framework impervious to faulty reasoning, it would naturally follow that their reasoning and logic is superior to those of all atheists. For example, the following was written when I expanded my consciousness and perceived all manner of truth.

You'll notice that each and every one of the following arguments are internally consistent and therefore logically sound.

Conspansive hological processing and display

The generative dynamic of the SCSPL displays reality in progressive wave-particle dual aspect alternative processes. It alternatively configures reality as an SCSPL. The nature of the SCSPL is two-fold: first configuration, then recession. In a conspansive dual aspect process.

We live in a Matrix.

Reality is supposed to be a term that defines real on inclusion in the real universe. But if we have no definition of the real universe, then does it somehow interrupt our lives? It seems that if the universe were to assume an infinite size or sizelessness, all things within it would be under an illusion of space and time being real, when they are not. Cognition is representing time. Sensual information can represent space and objects.

[b](...)[/b] What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large.

I do not think of a pluralistic (imaginable, conceivable) God as real, I consider God as consciousness. When the self-declaring non-algorithmic "I" in the mind unhinges the freely functioning awareness, God is revealed as a unifying reality that is consciousness of all things physical as one.

The brain is a perception of the mind

The choice to choose between life and death is free will at its best. Every human has either free will, or determinism. Or a compromise of both. Immortality is an example of a person choosing life over death. The brain is but a perception of the mind. Consciousness is primary because choice and free will take place IN consciousness. Listen to ronan. There is nothing supernatural about it. The reality of the mind and the reality of the world are unified, not split. The concrete world in which the brain is part is perceived as objects in the mind. Thus there should be a mechanism that the mind can create that will influence the physical well being of the body and allow immortality. It would make sense that the meaning of life is a creative force. I can choose between life and death, as I have stated before I am a miracle of the consciousness and the understanding that mind and reality can be unified to a point that the mind can will matter.

Death is nothing but an illusion of the physical body being mistaken as the originator of an extremely complex creative network that is consciousness (in which the mind/reality equilibrium is perceived). We perceive both inside and outside the body through the mind.

Observer-dependent reality

The material universe cannot be independent of consciousness or the mind otherwise it would be "unreal". Thus unreality is non-informational and thus non-observational. It is nothing. And it has no relationship or connection to the spacetime manifold in which the universe can be real. The unreal universe is non-relational to the real universe and cannot exist, so it does not exist. There can be no external reality to a conscious observer and observation. Communication is the means of building an objectifiable reality in which our conscious brain can explain.

Physical matter exists within the reality of the mind and the communication between individuals. The mind is not an object. It is the reality.

One X, Therefore One God

X = matter or non-object. Information can have meaning without matter. This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind. Reality is comparable to self-configuration. Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).

My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is). Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound. The SCSPL is intrinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.

Schroedinger's Cat as Reality

My understanding is that the mind is not limited to the physical brain, but is actually a field. And that history is only in memory so the path between past and present are occurring in a single moment for eternity. According to the famous thought experiment of Schrodinger, a cat in a box with a 50/50 chance of being alive or dead, exists in an in-between state until conscious observation verifies it. Whether the cat can verify its own death, if dead at all, is unknown. So consciousness splits the state of the cat into other worlds so that its death and life are taking place simultaneously in a single moment, with no apparent way of communication between conscious observers in each world. This would imply that even if the cat appears to have died, it is not actually dead, only as the physical body in the one world.

[Ostronomos]

I appreciate your less aggressive and hostile inquiry versus our past encounters.

Firstly, Isaac Newton was convinced that God imparted the secrets of natural philosophy and true religion to a select few. I have reason to believe that I am privileged to be one of those few. Due to the fact that my quantum brain has connected to the universe a number of times, due to expansion of consciousness. Have you read my arguments above? It would be no problem to recognize whether a universal consciousness appeared to you or not.

God, I define to be the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality including physical matter.

The typical theist tends not to be of extremely high intellect. Hence why their concept of God is typically a personal one that can alter reality.

The imaginary aspects of God do not align with a scientific version of a God. Do not simply dismiss God based on your caricature version of It, which is a less intelligent version of God. God is a thing, a universal consciousness, not a person. God is a scientist of the ultimate caliber. Existence requires a necessary mind to generate it.

God places Himself beyond worldly change and is unchanging and infinite.

[Magical Realist]

It's probably no coincidence that the idea of God or Gods, such as we see in religions all over the world, arose in our history at about the same time as written language did. "In the beginning was the Word", right? It was thus thru the transmission of written tales and passed down scripturally-preserved creeds, and consequentially thru the belief in God as a storybook character with such and such a dramatic history and personifying attributes, that he continues to exert whatever influence he still has today.

[Peeples]

You'll notice that each and every one of the following arguments are internally consistent and therefore logically sound.

Being internally consistent does not make something logically sound.
To be "sound", the logic must be "valid" and the premises true.
Take, for example, the following syllogism:
P1: all cats are blue.
P2: Bob is a cat.
C: Bob is blue 

This is internally consistent. The form is valid. But P1 is false and thus the argument unsound.

Takeaway: being consistent is necessary but not sufficient for an argument to be true. And since soundness requires truth, it is also not sufficient for soundness.

[Ostronomos]

You'll notice that each and every one of the following arguments are internally consistent and therefore logically sound.

Being internally consistent does not make something logically sound.
To be "sound", the logic must be "valid" and the premises true.
Take, for example, the following syllogism:
P1: all cats are blue.
P2: Bob is a cat.
C: Bob is blue 

This is internally consistent. The form is valid. But P1 is false and thus the argument unsound.

Takeaway: being consistent is necessary but not sufficient for an argument to be true. And since soundness requires truth, it is also not sufficient for soundness.

Oh my, you speak as though your argument and logic are sound. All the while remaining oblivious to the fact that the argument is sound.

[Peeples]

Oh my, you speak as though your argument and logic are sound. All the while remaining oblivious to the fact that the argument is sound.

Is this an example of the standard of discourse one should expect at this site?

[Zinjanthropos]

Oh my, you speak as though your argument and logic are sound. All the while remaining oblivious to the fact that the argument is sound.

Is this an example of the standard of discourse one should expect at this site?

Hello Peeps. Two things that perhaps you haven’t notice yet is that there is no separate subforum labeled Trash and little moderation. Not saying anything goes and I have seen the odd poster banned. Forum run by a guy named Stryder who occasionally comments. I think if you start spewing words that may put Stryder’s licence to operate the site at risk then you will find yourself on the outside. A little profanity and name calling not unusual, kind of like sitting at a restaurant in a booth next to a group of folks arguing, all the while oblivious to the fact you’re within hearing range.

I liken this site to a Rod Serling monologue about a 5th dimension, it’s a middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition. Not all, reality isn’t far away. You have a thought, then by all means go for it. You may get challenged , corrected or ignored.

In this case you’re dealing with Ostro, a self proclaimed genius, I used to get on his case regularly but have refrained lately. His internet persona is such that it’s a really good fake or he really is a love starved, pot smoking, useless son living in mom’s basement.

[confused2]

Oh my, you speak as though your argument and logic are sound. All the while remaining oblivious to the fact that the argument is sound.

Is this an example of the standard of discourse one should expect at this site?

It varies.

[Syne]

Oh my, you speak as though your argument and logic are sound. All the while remaining oblivious to the fact that the argument is sound.

Is this an example of the standard of discourse one should expect at this site?

That's Ostro. It's always the same from him. I quickly put him on ignore.

[C C]

Oh my, you speak as though your argument and logic are sound. All the while remaining oblivious to the fact that the argument is sound.

Is this an example of the standard of discourse one should expect at this site?

The place is extremely free-speech oriented, so it's very difficult to get banned here. Pretty much requires flooding and disrupting the site with inane, off-topic, hyper-monomaniacal posts. So it's a personal choice whether one wants to spend hours, days, weeks futilely arguing with or trying to correct a particular member or members. Many of us just have better things to do. As Syne mentioned, there's the ignore feature in User preferences, or the ignore capacity in one's head. I heavily rely on the latter.