tecoyah: Why the heck would I need to abandon science to believe in a god?
mantus:
Quote:
|
All right ill try again. There are no boundaries to be found. Mankind imagines the boundaries that create what we call “objects”. There are no objects everything is simply one. The gear does not exist because of the clock, which does not exist because humans made it. They all exist because they are part of the whole universe. Therefore purpose is an allusion. The same applies for causality. Everything is in motion as a whole. We may see that the objects A, B and C all seem to hold their own cause and effect yet they are part of the whole and they are effected by the whole. To make a long story short everything is One.
|
Ok, so you are talking about monism. Gotcha. So let me ask the question in another way, why does the One exist?
Quote:
|
Sure it does. X caused Y, which caused Z, which caused X.
|
That is not what it means, a the following are equivalent proof says that you cant have one without the others, it doesn't mean they all cause each other. The definition of x->y is ~x OR y, there is no causality there. When you do the appropriate reductions on [((x-y)&(y->z))&(z->x)] and take advantage of the selfcontradicting (x&~x), you are left with [(x&(y&z)) OR (~x&(~y&~z))]. Logically speaking, the implication need not be used.