Quote (majorblood @ Apr 12 2026 06:43pm)

let me try to express this another way, for the sake of the hypothetical, let's pretend I am wrong and God doesn't exist.

in your worldview, the universe is just matter and motion, and humans are an accidental outcome of determined chemical reactions. evolution prefers survival, not truth and humans invented a system called logic to stay alive.

under this system, how do you know the particular configuration of molecules in your brain matches reality and isn't just creating a hallucination for your senses? if logic is not universal, but only something particular to your individual brain chemistry, how can you know your thoughts are correct rather than just determined? if logic is a mental tool invented by chemical reactions, how can we arbitrate my determined conclusion is correct vs yours if logic itself isn't universal but just a mental tool?

if there is only anis (the chemical reaction), how do you arrive at a true knowledge of the world? you are effectively claiming that your accident is somehow capable of judging the whole of reality. it’s a performative contradiction. you are using the very reason you claim is a survival trick to try to state an objective truth.

if you are right, you have no way of knowing it in your worldview.

knowledge itself becomes impossible because all of logic and reason are just particular determined chemical reactions based off the configuration in your brain if logic itself is not universal


if you disagree, how do determined random chemicals arrive at objective truth reliably? can we even know objective truth exists if all of our experiences are simply determined chemical reactions and justified true belief itself is impossible?

Quote (addone @ Apr 12 2026 12:56am)

Wtf? Bench still exists whether you chose to identify it or not. Do you imagine the bench vanishes somewhere if you pretend like it has no meaning?

Logic is a tool like language it is a shared tool that has been agreed upon by a collective of people. We decided that x + y = z just like we decided what certain things are called. It isn't grounded in some wizard up in the clouds its a tool that has been developed and evolved over time to help us communicate and exchange ideas more effectively. Language evolves and gets updated constantly sometimes for the worse it isnt grounded in some deity. We the people create the language. You can create a new hip saying or a new word and if people decide its useful then it shall be added to the lexicon. How people speak today will be much different how people speak in 1000 years time.

It probably all started with 2 cave men pointing at something and making grunts. Then those grunts evolved into more refined grunts and slowly it became the language as we know and use today. Same for morals and reason taking thousands of years to refine.

Our morals change because we evolve. Even christians like yourself do not adhere to the same grounding they used to burn people at a stake, they used to believe earth was flat, they used to sacrifice goats, and many other things. This isnt evidence of some eternal moral truths its evidence of shifting culture. So you can preach all you like about grounding but in practice you change.

Old testament vs new testament for few thousands of years god kills people left right and center, demands sacrifices and all kinds of sadistic requests. But then he changes his tune and decides to be all hippy dippy and forgive and turn the other cheek. Thats not eternal truths this is some flip flop who cant make up his mind. The only grounding you can rely on is change itself.

Quote (addone @ Apr 12 2026 01:38am)

Logic isn't universal or innate in a sense that everyone has same logic otherwise we would all be thinking the same and arriving at same conclusions. The closest word I can think of its a collectively shared agreed upon concept. Just like language there isn't one universal language (at least none that i can think of) that we all speak fluently. Language is a learned concept and agreed upon by the collective. We adopt certain logic and reason because they are useful means of communicating and understanding the world.

You would be at a disadvantage to not use logic, reason, language, maths, science and even morals. Because they are advantageous in our survival and thriving. If we used just random guesses or feelings instead of logic and reason then we are increasing our likelihood of harming or potentially dying significantly.

We are a creatures of pain and pleasure avoid pain and seek pleasure. If it brings pain we avoid If it brings pleasure we try and do more of that. That is our basic grounding if you like to call it that. We have senses and nerves that signal to our brain. And since we are all more or less equally hardwired we can find common ground in terms of what we like, dont like, think that right or wrong, logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable. From there its all about refining the concepts and constantly upgrading them and growing as a species.

Quote (addone @ Apr 12 2026 01:38am)

Logic isn't universal or innate in a sense that everyone has same logic otherwise we would all be thinking the same and arriving at same conclusions. The closest word I can think of its a collectively shared agreed upon concept. Just like language there isn't one universal language (at least none that i can think of) that we all speak fluently. Language is a learned concept and agreed upon by the collective. We adopt certain logic and reason because they are useful means of communicating and understanding the world.

You would be at a disadvantage to not use logic, reason, language, maths, science and even morals. Because they are advantageous in our survival and thriving. If we used just random guesses or feelings instead of logic and reason then we are increasing our likelihood of harming or potentially dying significantly.

We are a creatures of pain and pleasure avoid pain and seek pleasure. If it brings pain we avoid If it brings pleasure we try and do more of that. That is our basic grounding if you like to call it that. We have senses and nerves that signal to our brain. And since we are all more or less equally hardwired we can find common ground in terms of what we like, dont like, think that right or wrong, logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable. From there its all about refining the concepts and constantly upgrading them and growing as a species.

Quote

Since the emergence of language lies so far back in human prehistory, the relevant developments have left no direct historical traces, and comparable processes cannot be observed today.

Quote (majorblood @ Apr 12 2026 08:44pm)

I don't think you know what universal means, universal doesn't mean innate it means it doesn't exist only in a particular and applies to all things at all times in the case of logic.

The fact that two people disagree on a math problem doesn't mean 2+2=4 isn't universal, it just means one person is wrong. if the majority of humans said 2+2 =5 it would not make it the case, because 2+2 = 4 is a universal truth independent of humans agreeing, which is what we established with the law of identity and the reality of the bench earlier. logic itself is universal and not just a useful tool we invented.

Quote (addone @ Apr 13 2026 04:32pm)

Never said they are the same wtf? Read again I said logic isn't universal OR innate. I am not comparing universal with innate, I am comparing it to logic. Smh

No logic isn't universal. Like language you have to learn it and subscribe to it's particular rules. There are several different types and they all have different applications.
Logic is a tool designed to solve certain kinds of problems. A nail requires a different tool to a screw. You can get the right tools for the job and solve the problem easier that depends on the builder. Sometimes there are problems where no current tools can solve easily or at least not on their own. You require multiple tools. You might require to wait until new tool is invented to solve a problem. (Like the origin of the universe). Perhaps some problems are unsolvable or don't require to be solved (a fools errand)

What you are claiming is people should only use your particular "brand" (ground truth/logic/morals/reason etc in god) of hammer that you think is the best. Then there are other fanatics who say their brand/god is better.
I am saying brands do not matter you just pick the best tool for the job. Their utility matters more than having epistemic justification for using them. Not only does religion uses very outdated tools in its toolkit it only knows how to build primitive houses. I am not going to build a modern house with those tools and if I did want to build a mud hut I can do so much faster and easier using modern tools.

Quote (addone @ Apr 13 2026 01:32pm)

Never said they are the same wtf? Read again I said logic isn't universal OR innate. I am not comparing universal with innate, I am comparing it to logic. Smh

No logic isn't universal. Like language you have to learn it and subscribe to it's particular rules. There are several different types and they all have different applications.
Logic is a tool designed to solve certain kinds of problems. A nail requires a different tool to a screw. You can get the right tools for the job and solve the problem easier that depends on the builder. Sometimes there are problems where no current tools can solve easily or at least not on their own. You require multiple tools. You might require to wait until new tool is invented to solve a problem. (Like the origin of the universe). Perhaps some problems are unsolvable or don't require to be solved (a fools errand)

What you are claiming is people should only use your particular "brand" (ground truth/logic/morals/reason etc in god) of hammer that you think is the best. Then there are other fanatics who say their brand/god is better.
I am saying brands do not matter you just pick the best tool for the job. Their utility matters more than having epistemic justification for using them. Not only does religion uses very outdated tools in its toolkit it only knows how to build primitive houses. I am not going to build a modern house with those tools and if I did want to build a mud hut I can do so much faster and easier using modern tools.

Quote (D_urRRR @ Apr 11 2026 04:14pm)

The death = event. Not really sure what's confusing that his death is an event that happened historically. I'm not saying that human being is himself an event....

The New Testament gives two accounts of Judas’s death and the Field of Blood. In the Gospel of Matthew, Judas regrets betraying Jesus, returns the silver, and hangs himself; the chief priests use that money to buy a field, which is called the Field of Blood because it was purchased with “blood money” linked to Jesus’s death. In the Acts of the Apostles, Judas acquired a field with his reward and dies there in a violent fall that causes his body to burst open; the field is called the Field of Blood because of the bloody nature of his death in that place.

Both accounts do not conflict, but give 2 sets of details of the same event.

Quote (belthasar @ Apr 13 2026 05:25pm)

1. Who bought the field, and how did they come across the money?
A: Judas bought it with money he recieved from the Romans.
B: The Christian community purchased it with money given to them by Judas

2. When did Judas die, before or after the field was purchased?
A: He died after purchasing the field, by falling.
B: He died before the field was purchased, by hanging.

3. Did he fall headlong on his newly purchased land and burst open, or give the money to the Christians and hang himself?
A: He fell headlong on his own land.
B: He hung himself and then the Christians purchased the land.

4. Who owned the land when he died? Was it Judas?
A: Yes, it was Judas, bought with blood money.
B: The Christians purchased it at some point, with Judas' blood money.

It seems this Judas fellow hung himself (maybe upside down for some reason?), then fell headlong and burst open, on land that he purchased with blood money, but Christians later purchased that land with the same blood money. If the divine hand is writing intentional contradictions that even someone like me can pick up on, I don't think he wants me to believe this book is to be taken as gospel :P

Quote (belthasar @ Apr 13 2026 02:25pm)

1. Who bought the field, and how did they come across the money?
A: Judas bought it with money he recieved from the Romans.
B: The Christian community purchased it with money given to them by Judas

2. When did Judas die, before or after the field was purchased?
A: He died after purchasing the field, by falling.
B: He died before the field was purchased, by hanging.

3. Did he fall headlong on his newly purchased land and burst open, or give the money to the Christians and hang himself?
A: He fell headlong on his own land.
B: He hung himself and then the Christians purchased the land.

4. Who owned the land when he died? Was it Judas?
A: Yes, it was Judas, bought with blood money.
B: The Christians purchased it at some point, with Judas' blood money.

It seems this Judas fellow hung himself (maybe upside down for some reason?), then fell headlong and burst open, on land that he purchased with blood money, but Christians later purchased that land with the same blood money. If the divine hand is writing intentional contradictions that even someone like me can pick up on, I don't think he wants me to believe this book is to be taken as gospel :P