Thread: I just can't get my head around nonexistence after death

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Im not fighthing anything. But if you are to proud to try to understand what I've been saying, then keep doing what you doing if you believe that it will do you any good.

How many internet trolls does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. Their mothers change the basement light bulb for them.

How many internet trolls does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. Their mothers change the basement light bulb for them.

Well, nice talking to you. Im out.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Well, nice talking to you. Im out.

Out of the basement?

Not gonna point fingers, but that wasn't very nice now was it?

Classic troll move to accuse other people of trolling. I would know.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Classic troll move to accuse other people of trolling. I would know.

Case in point.

Classic troll move to make somebody(s) think the retaliator is a troll and the troll is a victim. Calling somebody a troll is not trolling if the troll really is a troll. This is how the wrong people get elected to office. Our economy is on the edge of collapse and the Bill of Rights is on fire because of this phenomenon.

I think various reactions in this thread show who won the debate on the main topic.

Classic troll move to piss off the person you're talking with through near endless accusations of trolling so he stops following the thread then promoting yourself as the winner of a debate. :\ Come on UM, don't be a dick.

(Technically we're off topic right now so I achieved my objective, that means I'm winning)

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Classic troll move to piss off the person you're talking with through near endless accusations of trolling so he stops following the thread then promoting yourself as the winner of a debate. :\ Come on UM, don't be a dick.

(Technically we're off topic right now so I achieved my objective, that means I'm winning)

I think you got out-trolled. You were made into a sidekick although you were really trying to be the alpha troll. It was DreamyBear who destroyed this discussion. However, I am about to be the one who saves it. Just stay tuned. I am going to be the first person to be on topic after many off topic posts. You'll see.

Originally Posted by Sibyline

Gentlemen, please let it go now. Let's get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ That would be very nice...

Is the topic whether we should be on topic? If not, you are off topic. Since no one else will do it, I am going to get us back on topic.

NeuroLogica Blog » What is Unconscious?

I contend that TRUE unconsciousness is ACTUAL death. (not clinical death – a decision made by instruments) The inability to think AT ALL in any capacity as if you had never been born.

That is what I was saying before certain people, you know... Not only is death unconsciousness. It is the ultimate unsconsciousness. It involves the complete vanishing of consciousness. However, this could be part of a paradox. Nothingness and infinity often appear to be the same reality. The more sides you add to a regular polygon, the more it resembles a circle. A polygon with a trillion sides would really look like a circle, especially if it is small. It is as if a circle has an infinite number of sides. Yet, it has no sides. Is there a difference? The slope of a line tangent to a curve can be calculated based on what the slopes of lines secant to the curve approach as the differences between x coordinates of points of intersection approach 0. The difference can never be 0 if the line is secant to the curve, but we can calculate what it would be based on what the differences approach although the reality does not exist. Is nothing therefore something? The greater the absolute value of the slope of a line, the closer the line is to not even having a slope. What would be infinite slope exists right where there is no slope at all. My point is that the complete absence of consciousness could be (and I am of course discussing what ifs here.) infinite consciousness, so that when you become nothing, you become everything. Death is perhaps becoming existence itself. The idea is explored also in the book Keys to Infinity by Clifford A. Pickover.

Keys to Infinity: Clifford A. Pickover: 9780471193340: Amazon.com: Books

Part of the book is about a mathematician who theorized that 0 is an infinite number. There is a good discussion on it.

No number can be divided by 0 because 0 cannot be multiplied by 0 to get a number other than itself. That is the general mathematical consensus, at least. However, why can't 0 be divided by 0? 0 times 0 is 0. Also, 0 times 1 is 0. 0 times 2 is 0. 0 times 1.75 is 0. 0 times 3,854,942,764 is 0. That seems to suggest that 0/0 is not merely a nonsense concept representing an even lower level of nonexistence than 0 (0 is a "real number," and 0/0 is not even considered a number. Some lines have slope of 0, and some lines have no slope at all. Hmmm...). It suggests that 0/0 is all numbers. So, the ultimate nonexistence is also the ultimate existence. It is a paradox, but so is the statement, "This statement is false." Is that statement false? Yes or no?

0/0 seems to parallel Lao Tzu's statement in Tao Te Ching, "Darkness within darkness, the key to all understanding."

That is what I consider one hope for eternal unconsciousness as the ultimate consciousness.

Gentlemen, please let it go now. Let's get back on topic.

^^ That would be very nice...

UniversalMind,

that's just not nice. You may think DreamyBear is a troll, but you are the only one thinking that. Your replies to him are not warranted. Nor being rude to people pointing that out to you in a nice manner. And sibyline is on staff, so please don't tell her she is off topic asking you to stop bickering.

First I deleted one of your posts, now I undeleted. So its clear, why you getting an infraction point.

I'm not sure what happend, since normally this is not you. I know you as a fierce debater, great with words, able to convey your message elegantly, but not rude. Peace.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"This statement is false." Is that statement false? Yes or no?

This question doesn't have to be a paradox because it's easily resolved when you put some thought into what the question is. The statement can be answered correctly in more than one way, which doesn't have to make the other answer wrong. For instance yes/no is both compatible answers to this. Yes the statement is false in that the statement is true. And no the statement is not false in the sense that it stated it was false. Both would fit the right answer, and both could also fit the wrong answer because they cancel each other out. The question demonstrates that truth is double sided. No and yes can be part of the same truth and part of the same falseness.

A paradox is suppose to be a contradiction. However reality itself is not self contradictory or it wouldn't make sense or function. So even the idea of a paradox is illogical and the way to resolve a paradox is to understand the truth of the paradox and then it's resolved.

For example your signature "God cannot destroy himself because he is Omnipotent. That is resolved by simply recognizing that he would have the capability to destroy himself actually cause Omnipotent has no limits (it's just an idea in the mind like infinity), but that he could simply decide it's not appropriate, and so not decide to do it because of it being wrong. Not that he wouldn't be capable of something. But it would be true in the sense that he cannot do it because it's wrong, but that's a different context.

Originally Posted by gab

UniversalMind,

that's just not nice. You may think DreamyBear is a troll, but you are the only one thinking that. Your replies to him are not warranted. Nor being rude to people pointing that out to you in a nice manner. And sibyline is on staff, so please don't tell her she is off topic asking you to stop bickering.

First I deleted one of your posts, now I undeleted. So its clear, why you getting an infraction point.

I'm not sure what happend, since normally this is not you. I know you as a fierce debater, great with words, able to convey your message elegantly, but not rude. Peace.

My comment about off topic points was obviously playful and not meant to be hostile, and I made the joke comment at the end of a discussion that had gone completely Monty Python... because of DreamyBear. DreamyBear was being a troll. Read my conversation with him very carefully, and you will see that. Also, I am the person who got the thread back on track, temporarily at least. As starz pointed out, trolls need to be pointed out, especially when they are as slippery as DreamyBear. He put a huge dent in the discussion, and people needed to look at what was going on so they could carry on the thread accordingly.

Is it okay to call people out, or is it not? I responded to people who called me out by pointing out some funny irony and then fixing the discussion. Were they out of line? If not, why was I out of line for calling DreamyBear a troll? He was, in fact, trolling.

Originally Posted by starz

This question doesn't have to be a paradox because it's easily resolved when you put some thought into what the question is. The statement can be answered correctly in more than one way, which doesn't have to make the other answer wrong. For instance yes/no is both compatible answers to this. Yes the statement is false in that the statement is true. And no the statement is not false in the sense that it stated it was false. Both would fit the right answer, and both could also fit the wrong answer because they cancel each other out. The question demonstrates that truth is double sided. No and yes can be part of the same truth and part of the same falseness.

A paradox is suppose to be a contradiction. However reality itself is not self contradictory or it wouldn't make sense or function. So even the idea of a paradox is illogical and the way to resolve a paradox is to understand the truth of the paradox and then it's resolved.

For example your signature "God cannot destroy himself because he is Omnipotent. That is resolved by simply recognizing that he would have the capability to destroy himself actually cause Omnipotent has no limits (it's just an idea in the mind like infinity), but that he could simply decide it's not appropriate, and so not decide to do it because of it being wrong. Not that he wouldn't be capable of something. But it would be true in the sense that he cannot do it because it's wrong, but that's a different context.

Thanks for speaking up for me.

A paradox is an apparent contradiction that has a resolution. I think my sig line is just a contradiction and not a paradox. However, the concept that it is a true statement is a concept of a paradox, but not an actual paradox, since it has no logical resolution.

The false statement paradox is not a mere contradiction. It would have to be true to be one. It is one of the strangest philosophical mysteries I know of. Would you say that the statement is false? Giving a yes/no answer to that reveals what is so insane about that statement. I have never been able to give a straight answer on that. It seems to be a paradoxical situation that violates the law of the excluded middle.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If what I was saying about unconsciousness and infinite consciousness is true (I do admit that I am kind of dreaming in talking about it, but it's a fun idea.), it is a paradox.

Originally Posted by gab

UniversalMind,

that's just not nice. You may think DreamyBear is a troll, but you are the only one thinking that. Your replies to him are not warranted. Nor being rude to people pointing that out to you in a nice manner. And sibyline is on staff, so please don't tell her she is off topic asking you to stop bickering.

First I deleted one of your posts, now I undeleted. So its clear, why you getting an infraction point.

I'm not sure what happend, since normally this is not you. I know you as a fierce debater, great with words, able to convey your message elegantly, but not rude. Peace.

I don't think someone should be punished for having their own point of view on trolls. Even if you could make a better judgment it would be better to tell them simply what you think is the real troll. If we don't recognize trolling, it would destroy the forum. I'm not saying anyone is trolling, but if you punish someone for trying to point it out, you encourage trolls to be able to run wild because no-one is allowed to say what a troll is. But clearly trolling does exist....

Originally Posted by starz

I don't think someone should be punished for having their own point of view on trolls. Even if you could make a better judgment it would be better to tell them simply what you think is the real troll. If we don't recognize trolling, it would destroy the forum. I'm not saying anyone is trolling, but if you punish someone for trying to point it out, you encourage trolls to be able to run wild because no-one is allowed to say what a troll is. But clearly trolling does exist....

Thank you. UniversalMind is here since 2004. He knows what trolling is. So does OriginalPoster, Sageous and others. And everybody else didn't thing DreamyBear is a troll. And no matter if someone is a troll or not, one doesn't need to be rude. There is a little triangle button below every post and if one sees something inappropriate, it can be used to report that post and alert staff.

Infraction was not given for pointing out someone is a troll, but for rude comments that were uncalled for. Nobody needs to be personally attacked here, we don't appreciate that.

I'm replying to you here, since you are new. And I will also ask you to post your future disagreements with staff actions in the Talk to Staff section. Thank you and Happy dreams.

Originally Posted by gab

Thank you. UniversalMind is here since 2004. He knows what trolling is. So does OriginalPoster, Sageous and others. And everybody else didn't thing DreamyBear is a troll. And no matter if someone is a troll or not, one doesn't need to be rude. There is a little triangle button below every post and if one sees something inappropriate, it can be used to report that post and alert staff.

Infraction was not given for pointing out someone is a troll, but for rude comments that were uncalled for. Nobody needs to be personally attacked here, we don't appreciate that.

I'm replying to you here, since you are new. And I will also ask you to post your future disagreements with staff actions in the Talk to Staff section. Thank you and Happy dreams.

Shouldn't you have posted it in staff section then? Or do the rules only apply to people that are not staff? I say that partly because what you said to Universal Mind could also be considered offensive as I saw it as him trying to keep the thread on topic, he wasn't trying to be rude. So giving him an infraction is kind of hypocritical. He wasn't trying to be offensive and that wasn't the point of his posts....

If you don't consider people's intentions and just play the thought police, no discussion can flourish cause you would just be giving everyone infractions when it suits you?

I have a twist on the idea. It is actually what I believe but of course can not prove. It is basically stuff from mystic Hinduism. I am just going to say it as if no one will question me, as far as proof.

The consciousness that we are experiencing, is actually an amalgamation of at least three prospectives. The reality we see is the result of animal based responses to instinct and hormonal triggers. It is also receiving a aspect of the awareness from the purely bio-mechanical higher functions in the brain. Another contributor to the combined experience is higher functions that are seemingly unrelated to standard neural pathways. I am addressing a contributing factor , being non-physical aspects of the awareness, existing and continuing after death.

Sorry if that is long winded. Why not just say after-life? This is about non-existence. In my belief system, I will not be me when I die. Eric will not go to heaven. Atheist leaning analytical reasoning shows that most of what makes up our conscious experience requires a functioning biological system. One example is the first contributor I mentioned. A man with high testosterone levels may feel it is important to stand up to someone. The experienced 'self' actually 'wants' to be heroic. Yet, the reason is the level of a hormone. Next, take rational thought adding to the experience. Stored pathway based information is accessed through neural activity, and knowledge of the nature of the opposition comes up. The way he stands shows you he is military. You see that so are 10 other men nearby. This adds to the perceived experience. Now, the self "wants" to fight, but experiences a rush of self doubt based on understandable elements.

So, you can see how I am implying an experienced 'self' that does not actually exist as a stand alone entity. It is easiest for me to explain my point in an analogy. If I have a blue, a yellow, and a red flash light pointed at a screen, new colors are created by over lapping the lights. Combined in an exact manner and we perceive white. In this analogy, the human experience is everything that results form pointing those lights together. Not a perfect white circle, but 3 circles attempting to occupy the same area. Maybe the yellow wobbles a bit, maybe the blue one has more lumens so over powers a bit. Here is the tie in to this thread. The white circle and other patterns are the 'self', but have no existence of its own. As soon as the lights move apart, that self is gone. It has non-existence.

Yet, what is that 3rd component that I talked about. It exists on some type of physical law that does not need a biological aspect. This is sort of an idea like a 'soul.'

I am not wanting to debate if souls exist. You either feel unknowable aspects of existence may exist, or you choose not to.

My contribution to the topic is this. I believe in existence after death of only the 3rd element in the composite that we came to understand as 'us' or 'self.'
This results in a source of experience. That source has traits that are special to it. It is intact after death and will at some point attempt to become part of a new "self" by uniting with another biological system. What does that mean? Well as this element moves from lifetime to life time, it grows and develops patterns, much like our neural pathways. So if I say I have experienced many past lives, I am speaking entirely as that fractional aspect of "Eric", or "my self"

Eric will not be born again, and Eric will never experience anything after the brain stops functioning. However, one of the elements that makes me "me." is going to experience things, and eventually be a contributing aspect of some other awareness.

This is different from most views of soul or reincarnation. The self is destroyed, but this perpetual element can essentially learn and grow through a process similar to how we learn by establishing more complex neural pathways. Bonus, every time awareness forms from it combining with a biological system the likelihood of an enjoyable existence increases. How, first it can learn to be picky about what biological system it joins with, helping the new self to take place in a desirable body, with a strong mental aspect. Also, the things it can influence expand as it grows and learns. An example is it can influence the new self to take paths of disciplined action and influence this self towards non-destructive actions.

Very long winded way to say this, "The self dies, true, but that is not the same as no continued experiencing.

I don't like when someone is rude, but I don't like when someone says what is appropriate more.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The false statement paradox is not a mere contradiction. It would have to be true to be one. It is one of the strangest philosophical mysteries I know of. Would you say that the statement is false? Giving a yes/no answer to that reveals what is so insane about that statement. I have never been able to give a straight answer on that. It seems to be a paradoxical situation that violates the law of the excluded middle.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If what I was saying about unconsciousness and infinite consciousness is true (I do admit that I am kind of dreaming in talking about it, but it's a fun idea.), it is a paradox.

What has happened With a question like that is it asks for a nominal answer (yes/no). False and true are nominal. But to ask about a particular open statement is not nominal. Sentences are communication that is qualitative. So we cannot really answer a qualitative question, with a nominal answer. It would be like asking "how many minutes are on the apple tree" Apples tree's do not grow minutes because minutes are segments of time. But they do grow apples. So we could only answer how many apples are on the tree for it to make sense. Same thing with asking about a particular sentence (which is a thing of the mind) as being true or false. It depends o the sentence and context as our language is not designed as true and false because it's qualitative. We don't have true or false letters of the alphabet. but we do have specific true and false facts when they are put in context.

Just how nonexistence is a thing of the mind. So is existence. They are both nominal categories. things like 0/1. True/false. Yes/no. They don't really exist, they only exist as a language in our speech. In reality everything is different degrees. Like hot and cold. There is no absolute cold, or hot. It is only the temperature that differs.

Originally Posted by Alric

Except the stuff applies to thing that are not really harmful at all. There are so many sins that apply to just things you are thinking, that it is extremely limiting.

If something isn't harmful it wouldn't be put into the category of sin though. Like if you were in a room with dangerous tools. You could say I'm so limited I cannot saw my leg off or put my hand on the chainsaw. But that isn't limitations cause the tools can be used correctly and produce better things when used right.

In terms of thoughts. A delusion would be a sin, and a sin would inhibit you. If someone thinks they are Jesus, that's going to not work, and will ruin their life. If you thought hostile of someone, that also is an attack on the person. That's damaging for them cause they have to live with it, and then it's damaging for the one thinking it cause they are causing the damage. But there is such thing as little mistakes and then bigger mistakes. We couldn't be perfect, but we could reduce our blunders.

If you thought of someone else's wife for example, that damages the husband, and their relationship. You might think well no-one knows about it so what harm is it. That is not how it works. Things are not really hidden. I know it's hard to believe but the husband finds out. and everyone finds out. Maybe not right at the moment that you think something. But at the appointed time the crap does hit the fan. It's how it's set up. You might think how is it possible since when we die there is nothing afterwards.

That's not exactly true. when we die there is something after. All your deeds, thoughts, everything, will be on record. The scary thing is for people that thought they could hide things, when they find out that ofcourse it's not hidden. but not only that they have to be accountable for it all.

Originally Posted by starz

What has happened With a question like that is it asks for a nominal answer (yes/no). False and true are nominal. But to ask about a particular open statement is not nominal. Sentences are communication that is qualitative. So we cannot really answer a qualitative question, with a nominal answer. It would be like asking "how many minutes are on the apple tree" Apples tree's do not grow minutes because minutes are segments of time. But they do grow apples. So we could only answer how many apples are on the tree for it to make sense. Same thing with asking about a particular sentence (which is a thing of the mind) as being true or false. It depends o the sentence and context as our language is not designed as true and false because it's qualitative. We don't have true or false letters of the alphabet. but we do have specific true and false facts when they are put in context.

Just how nonexistence is a thing of the mind. So is existence. They are both nominal categories. things like 0/1. True/false. Yes/no. They don't really exist, they only exist as a language in our speech. In reality everything is different degrees. Like hot and cold. There is no absolute cold, or hot. It is only the temperature that differs.

I think there is some kind of language issue mixed with a lack of substance factor to the resolution of the false statement paradox, but it is hard to pin point specifically what it is. I agree that some questions do not have answers. I asked earlier in this thread what color somebody's elbow sees. That is a question that does not have an answer. However, the crazy issue with the false statement paradox is that the law of the excluded middle is a rule of logic which says that a proposition is either the case or is not the case. There is no third alternative. Questions that do not have answers generally do not involve that factor. The statement, "This statement is false," is either true or it is not. Anything that can be named is either true or it is not. That does not mean it is either true or false. Not true is not always the same as false. A triangle is not true because it does not qualify as a proposition. However, it is not false either. So, the law of the excluded middle does not say every idea is either true or false. It says that every proposition is either true or false.

What I cannot answer is whether, "This statement is false," is true or false. Since the statement is that the statement is false, I cannot say whether the statement is true. Its falsehood is the proposition, so the falsehood is what is in question. Is it true that the statement is false, or is it not true that the statement is false? If it is false, then it is true, and if it is true, then it is false. Nothing that is real turns logic on its head like that paradox. It is off the charts.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think there is some kind of language issue mixed with a lack of substance factor to the resolution of the false statement paradox, but it is hard to pin point specifically what it is. I agree that some questions do not have answers. I asked earlier in this thread what color somebody's elbow sees. That is a question that does not have an answer. However, the crazy issue with the false statement paradox is that the law of the excluded middle is a rule of logic which says that a proposition is either the case or is not the case. There is no third alternative. Questions that do not have answers generally do not involve that factor. The statement, "This statement is false," is either true or it is not. Anything that can be named is either true or it is not. That does not mean it is either true or false. Not true is not always the same as false. A triangle is not true because it does not qualify as a proposition. However, it is not false either. So, the law of the excluded middle does not say every idea is either true or false. It says that every proposition is either true or false.

What I cannot answer is whether, "This statement is false," is true or false. Since the statement is that the statement is false, I cannot say whether the statement is true. Its falsehood is the proposition, so the falsehood is what is in question. Is it true that the statement is false, or is it not true that the statement is false? If it is false, then it is true, and if it is true, then it is false. Nothing that is real turns logic on its head like that paradox. It is off the charts.

This law of the excluded middle, does not seem to be complete as a law itself, because they very claim that a proposition has to be either true or false, that is clearly disproved here by your statement isn't it. So the law of the excluded middle has been falsified has it not?

"this statement is false" is actually not making a claim or proposition really, because it is not specific about what the statement even is about. It's just claiming "False is false and that is true". It's merely a play on words, like a philosophical anagram.

Originally Posted by starz

This law of the excluded middle, does not seem to be complete as a law itself, because they very claim that a proposition has to be either true or false, that is clearly disproved here by your statement isn't it. So the law of the excluded middle has been falsified has it not?

"this statement is false" is actually not making a claim or proposition really, because it is not specific about what the statement even is about. It's just claiming "False is false and that is true". It's merely a play on words, like a philosophical anagram.

That's sort of what I was getting at earlier, but in a different aspect. I have this faint idea of something circular and without substance because the statement is a judgment on itself and nothing else. The question I have about it is something like, "But what is it assessing in the first place?" I haven't completely put my finger on what the flaw is, but I might have some idea. I am going to keep pondering on it, possibly for the rest of my life.

The statement might be an exception to the law of the excluded middle. If not, then it's pretty scary because logic is one of the main tools we use to analyze reality. The idea that one of the major laws of logic has a big hole in it brings up the question of what other laws of logic do not add up entirely. What if logic itself can be reduced to complete absurdity? I think that's spooky stuff, but it's fascinating.

Originally Posted by starz

If something isn't harmful it wouldn't be put into the category of sin though. Like if you were in a room with dangerous tools. You could say I'm so limited I cannot saw my leg off or put my hand on the chainsaw. But that isn't limitations cause the tools can be used correctly and produce better things when used right.

That isn't true though. There is stuff that isn't harmful that are sins. What if you are gay and that is part of who you are. There is nothing harmful about being gay, but if you go to heaven that part of you is erased and you can no longer be gay. What if you believe in free love? There is nothing harmful in having casual sex with a consenting adult, but it is a sin and not allowed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The idea that one of the major laws of logic has a big hole in it brings up the question of what other laws of logic do not add up entirely. What if logic itself can be reduced to complete absurdity? I think that's spooky stuff, but it's fascinating.

I'm 100% certain that logic can be turned in on itself in some ways, and used against itself, quite easily. Logic is all good and well to use, but what about emotions? Couldn't emotions affect things just as much as logic in our mind does? That is the thing about science, as a method, it's purely philosophical at it's foundation. You can observe results, you can calculate probability, but it's never fool proof or 100% coherent as some seem to think. You can't with 100% certainly says something will happen or not happen, or say that something is ultimately a cohesive truth or a law. It wouldn't be accurate to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say nothing can be relied upon. But it would also be a mistake to say that the method of science is the only possible method for getting truth. That is what people have to face. When someone is mature enough to know that it's just a method, and not a magic bullet to get answers, then comes the real potential for wisdom.

You might ask what else is there to work with? If you can't rely on a method to find things out what can you rely on to get answers? I would say you have to seek in alternative ways, not limit oneself to a specific construct. Logic is a specific construct that collapses in on itself, as we have demonstrated, so we can't rely on logic alone.

Originally Posted by Alric

That isn't true though. There is stuff that isn't harmful that are sins. What if you are gay and that is part of who you are. There is nothing harmful about being gay, but if you go to heaven that part of you is erased and you can no longer be gay. What if you believe in free love? There is nothing harmful in having casual sex with a consenting adult, but it is a sin and not allowed.

There is many reasons why it would be harmful. In terms of making a family it's an imbalance as you cannot reproduce with 2 males for obvious reasons, and if you did bring up a child, they have no mother or sense of gender identity to follow or know about. That has it's own issues as males and females are designed different. Beyond that our physiology is not designed for sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Neither does 2 male minds compliment each other the way a male and female mind goes together. It's an imbalance. A magnet has a positive and negative trait and if you bring two positive together the magnet does not attract it actually repels it. With our physiology 2 males are suppose to repel not attract. Things are designed for a purpose, and if you use one thing for something it's not designed for, you are resisting the very reason it was created. Like using scissors to try and glue paper together. It will only cut the paper more. If you misuse your own body, that's so much worse. Two consenting adults does not make something right either. Two consenting adults could decide to make each other fat and eat a lot of food until they Die of obesity. That does not make it good, even if they enjoy it. If you misuse your body by being with another male all your life, that would be a waste of a life and damage others who have to live with your decision. And yes it does effect others. Everything you decide to do effects not just you, but everyone. People's businesses have being sued, for not catering to gay people. It has ruined their lives because gays demand things from people that don't agree.

Being gay is like using your legs as arms, and your arms as legs. It's living entirely backwards. You would not put your pants on your head for a hat, because pants were not designed to go on your head. If you walked around with your pants on your head. That is kind of insulting to people that have to deal with your stupidity. It's the same thing with being gay but on a sexual level. If one person decides to be gay, they do not know their gender role properly, and have turned things upside down. That's why it's considered a sin.

Originally Posted by starz

I'm 100% certain that logic can be turned in on itself in some ways, and used against itself, quite easily. Logic is all good and well to use, but what about emotions? Couldn't emotions affect things just as much as logic in our mind does? That is the thing about science, as a method, it's purely philosophical at it's foundation. You can observe results, you can calculate probability, but it's never fool proof or 100% coherent as some seem to think. You can't with 100% certainly says something will happen or not happen, or say that something is ultimately a cohesive truth or a law. It wouldn't be accurate to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say nothing can be relied upon. But it would also be a mistake to say that the method of science is the only possible method for getting truth. That is what people have to face. When someone is mature enough to know that it's just a method, and not a magic bullet to get answers, then comes the real potential for wisdom.

You might ask what else is there to work with? If you can't rely on a method to find things out what can you rely on to get answers? I would say you have to seek in alternative ways, not limit oneself to a specific construct. Logic is a specific construct that collapses in on itself, as we have demonstrated, so we can't rely on logic alone.

Science is a bit shaky, subject to change, and not completely reliable, though it is excellent for the most part when used correctly. However, the law of the excluded middle aside for now, logic has always seemed flawless and completely coherent. Math is a form of pure logic, and it makes complete sense. The rules of math are totally solid. The same is true of correctly used deductive reasoning based on true premises, which is the general type of logic involved in a great deal of math. I am asking about what I think is a pretty far out what if when I question whether pure logic can be turned on its head. I don't think it can, but the issue the false statement paradox presents for the law of the excluded middle does bring up the interesting question.