Affiliated:


Buhahahaha. Nicely put

Actually, I was referring to your logic (and greatgenius),
In all my wanderings, I have never come across anyone who starts out an argument with such a blatant illogical statement like: "X is and is not".
Even weirder is that you guys go on to build the craziest of theories from it. Who deceived you people like this?

Affiliated:

Lol. By terrestrials, I mean life originating on earth and by extraterrestrials i mean outside earth. The 13 bloodlines are SPECULATED to have come from mars after martians partook in a Luciferian process. The Hebrews are SPECULATED to have come from somewhere which I can't remember now but they didn't take part in the Luciferian process so they got along just fine with humans. All these are speculations though and you may be right after all. But on another note, I find it interesting that all the United States presidents that ever ruled descend from a single bloodline. Obama and Bush seem world's apart which is why I didn't want to believe it at first

I see what you are saying but my point was that as long as you incarnate here no matter what group soul you belong to you are terrestrial....

Now the 13 bloodlines which you have chosen to call illuminatis( and there are millions of them.) incarnated here on the behest of Yahweh to introduce polarity to his creations...
The presidents and the people that you know them as illuminatis are not part of the original bloodlines..

You know what this is not the time to talk about stuff like these...not this thread...but believe me they are not speculations....

@ Anony I understand how you feel and where you coming from. It is well

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I was referring to your logic (and greatgenius),
In all my wanderings, I have never come across anyone who starts out an argument with such a blatant illogical statement like: "X is and is not".
Even weirder is that you guys go on to build the craziest of theories from it. Who deceived you people like this?

Ok. X JUST IS. Are you happy now? the whole idea of X IS NOT is that it X is not to you. For instance invisible green cars aren't but they actually are because if they really aren't then we wouldn't even be able to think about it. So invisible green cars are not to you but they really are. which is why i was trying to say there is really no such thing as nothing. I thought the "4D" picture i put would explain things a little better. i.e. those guys climbing up and not climbing up at the same time.
I know you were referring to our logic. Your quote was still funny so I had to laugh

greatgenius:
I see what you are saying but my point was that as long as you incarnate here no matter what group soul you belong to you are terrestrial....

Now the 13 bloodlines which you have chosen to call illuminatis( and there are millions of them.) incarnated here on the behest of Yahweh to introduce polarity to his creations...
The presidents and the people that you know them as illuminatis are not part of the original bloodlines..

You know what this is not the time to talk about stuff like these...not this thread...but believe me they are not speculations....

Ok sir. I actually think the illuminati if they still exist are totally different people

Affiliated:

Ok sir. I actually think the illuminati if they still exist are totally different people

They do exist and yes they are different ... Different because their creator or soul group complex is not Yahweh but Lucifer... But if you see them on the street they look exactly as " humans"... Having said that their DNA make up is also different from your make-up... They have evolved higher in awareness than humans...

Like the luciferian soul group, there are other soul groups like the Ra and others that have manifested on this earth to help humans in their evolution.... My point is that every " human" you see was or is created by Yahweh or part of the Yahweh soul group but once you are here you are terrestrial.. but I get your point .....

greatgenius: They do exist and yes they are different ... Different because their creator or soul group complex is not Yahweh but Lucifer... But if you see them on the street they look exactly as " humans"... Having said that their DNA make up is also different from your make-up... They have evolved higher in awareness than humans...

Like the luciferian soul group, there are other soul groups like the Ra and others that have manifested on this earth to help humans in their evolution.... My point is not every " human" you see was or is created by Yahweh or part of the Yahweh soul group but once you are here you are terrestrial.. but I get your point .....

Yes I believe in other soul groups and what you just said above. What i meant was I don't think illuminati is the governments and musicians or whatever people say they are. Looking through their history they started out as a secret science group whose scientific ideas such as the earth is not the center of the universe would have gotten them killed by the church. In other words they came together to escape the oppression of the government which was the church at that time. I don't think they would become the very evil they seeked to escape or more importantly what that has got to do with Jay-Z or Beyonce. So let's call those bad guys other people call the illuminati what they really are which is the government(s)/Bilderberg group

As far as evil they are evil in human terms because they are playing their part of the game that they have chosen out of love to help humanity evolve higher..But they are very illuminated like some of us are.. The difference between the luciferians and " humans" are that the luciferians know they are playing the game.. humans are still in the illusion ...

BTW the rothchilds and the Rockefellers etc and those humans that you know are just pawns in the game the lucifers are using .. .. they are not part of the original bloodline or part of the luciferian soul group but part of the "family"..

Affiliated:

Ok. X JUST IS. Are you happy now? the whole idea of X IS NOT is that it X is not to you. For instance invisible green cars aren't but they actually are because if they really aren't then we wouldn't even be able to think about it. So invisible green cars are not to you but they really are. which is why i was trying to say there is really no such thing as nothing. I thought the "4D" picture i put would explain things a little better. i.e. those guys climbing up and not climbing up at the same time.
I know you were referring to our logic.

don't worry yourself about what you can't control...You can tell when someone is not ready to remember... When they are not ready nothing you say will make sense to them.... Your job really on this earth is to live and experience ... Things are making sense to you because you are ready... So don't worry too much about others just follow on your path and let them theirs . they will get there no matter how long it takes...

As an after thought to those that feel that the universe must submit itself to the rules of their logic. I have stated many occurrences here that defy human logic and yet are happening. These occurrences baffle even the scientists themselves and at least those that came up with idea of other dimensions to explain these things didn't deny them. However when i wrote them here, they were promptly ignored because they didn't align to the prejudice and preconceived notions of the reader and yet they couldn't be fought away. This is due to the fight or flee response of ideas anyway. If your response isn't to deny that such proven things exist, I'll be glad to hear other explanations

@ greatgenius
Going by your logic we can also deduce that all views about God's existence or nonexistence are all right by simply considering God to be all of time and space everywhere and nowhere. He She or It can not be narrowed down to any point of time or location. hence he can not be quantified or totally qualified. Deeply thinking along this line there is a meeting point of all views as regards God, The is point, i could say atheist theist deist are all right in their views about God

Affiliated:

I'm trying to keep everything as simple as possible.
1. I said the situation can be illogical to someone because the situation is outside one's understanding.
2. Logic is the science of the formal principles of reasoning
3. principles are a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption
4. If these laws, doctrines or assumptions are different in a different place or time, then the logic is different
5. Ok. Logic is not the way a person thinks, it is the reason behind the way a person thinks
6. If these fundamental assumptions behind the way people think are breached, then it is illogical to the person. For instance when logic dictated that the earth was the center of the Universe, it was well within logic for John to claim that one third of the stars would fall on the earth but now that my fundamental assumption has seen how insignificant the earth is, it is illogical for me to think a single star can even fall on the earth.

Lol. Seriously?
1. Are we on this same thread? Lol. Chineke mo!
2. How is it now possible to possess the science of reasoning? You've not still answered my question. How does one possess logic?
3. Okay
4. Na wa o. Can logic change?
5. Lol. But you said logic is a way a person thinks. Choiii! If you define logic as the reason a person thinks you are contradicting your number two.
6. You say logic is the way a person thinks, and also if the way a person thinks is breached, it is now illogical. Are you listening to yourself at all.
Guy no kill me with laugh abeg.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Reyginus you sef get energy. You no see as I take style waka comot the thread.

Usually bad logic is difficult to spot in an argument because it is shrouded by a number of good statements. This one is just out and out naked bad logic.

How can you have a logical conversation with someone who starts out his first premise with a blatant abuse of basic logic?

I may as well say pure gibberish like: "syuoncibnjko beythji is a loiujhhbguj and can make yppoovkotdi and not ppocuybyit before jfuhniopo it has jeuuuyguho not kjioopi99uu byvbkygbgjli87by1cf75." and when you ask me the meaning, I say that you are not reasoning in a higher dimension.

@greatgenius and Affiliated, Rubbish is still rubbish no matter what "dimension" you chose to elevate it to.

Lol. Mr Anony, the thing tire me o. I never hear this kind thing before o.

Reyginus: Lol. Seriously?
1. Are we on this same thread? Lol. Chineke mo!
2. How is it now possible to possess the science of reasoning? You've not still answered my question. How does one possess logic?
3. Okay
4. Na wa o. Can logic change?
5. Lol. But you said logic is a way a person thinks. Choiii! If you define logic as the reason a person think you are contradicting your number two.
6. You say logic is the way a person thinks, and also if the way a person thinks is breached, it is now illogical. Are you listening to yourself at all.
Guy no kill me with laugh abeg.

I think you should start reading slowly to try to understand other people instead of reading speedily and interpreting everything to your own ideals.
Science tries to understand something. In this case the principles of reasoning. These principles can be assumptions or doctrines. So logic is the science that tries to understand why people think the way they do. Is it possible for something to not be scientific? Yes because it doesn't follow OUR known laws of science. Just the way its possible for something to be illogical because it doesn't follow OUR laws of logic. Saying logic is the way a person thinks was an error I've corrected. I don't appreciate the condescending tone. Is it logical for a star to fall on the earth? Yet it once was

otheloze: @ greatgenius
Going by your logic we can also deduce that all views about God's existence or nonexistence are all right by simply considering God to be all of time and space everywhere and nowhere. He She or It can not be narrowed down to any point of time or location. hence he can not be quantified or totally qualified. Deeply thinking along this line there is a meeting point of all views as regards God, The is point, i could say atheist theist deist are all right in their views about God

good point... from the limited angle that each looks at the concept of God, you could say they are all right... you have to unsersstand that the term God is a concept albeit albeit a good one but it represents a slightly distorted view of ULTIMATE reality...it(God) is a concept, but that doesn’t mean it should not be used. A concept has value but it should not be mistaken for Ultimate reality. A concept is a perception of reality that may or may not have a certain amount of distortion to it. In this case, “God” is a slightly distorted view of reality. Infinte Creator is all there is. it all that is... "Creator” is an undistorted view of reality. There is no “right or “wrong” in actuality. There is only what serves you, and what does not. If you need a “God” because that perception serves you, then so be it.

But “creator” is what the truth is..creator is all there is. There is only creator and creation. This is universal and everyone understands and knows this... But “God” is something that has to be explained, and has been explained in so many different ways and yet there is still so much mystery to it to some becuae of the angle people look at their God concept from.. Truth is always clear, but illusion never seems to get clear enough.

the God concept implies some “supreme being” that is “higher” than all, “ruler” of all, able to “assert” itself over other being’s reality, is the one “responsible” for whatever happens in the reality of other beings, has “power” over all, is “overseer” of all, and “owner” of all.
But this and such an idea becomes unnecessary when one remembers or come to the relization of the truth that... Self is Supreme, Self is Creator, Self is responsible for all events and experiences, and Self is All. This is All based on the Law of One.

The concept of god is not based on the law of One, and in a sense and many cases forms a dualistic consciousness. but there is actually nothing other than the law of One...anything other than the law of One is “unreal” or an illusion and far from ultimate reality... and so you could say the concept of God represents a slightly distorted view of waht ultimate reality is..
When reality is viewed with the law of One, there is no distortion and only the Self is seen. It is said that “God is the Creator”..but the truth is and in truth, Self is Creator and the Self creates the reality of “God” and all its implications as one of its experiences. Therefore the experience of “God” is the result of a created reality, but Self is the uncreated reality...

tkhe concept of God should be upgraded to the law of One. There is only one of us here...God is You. You are ALL THAT IS..
ps when i speak of self i am not talking about the individual conscioness of you that experiences reality in whatever form it is in but your indiviaul self in conjuction with the whole of existence.. The totality of YOU.. think sea and its individual waves but all making up the sea..

Affiliated:

I think you should start reading slowly to try to understand other people instead of reading speedily and interpreting everything to your own ideals.
Science tries to understand something. In this case the principles of reasoning. These principles can be assumptions or doctrines. So logic is the science that tries to understand why people think the way they do. Is it possible for something to not be scientific? Yes because it doesn't follow OUR known laws of science. Just the way its possible for something to be illogical because it doesn't follow OUR laws of logic. Saying logic is the way a person thinks was an error I've corrected. I don't appreciate the condescending tone. Is it logical for a star to fall on the earth? Yet it once was

Lol. Are you asking me to dumb down to your level?
1. It is not the aim of science to try to understand the principles of reasoning. Don't tell me you've not heard of philosophy.
2. That something is beyond our understanding does not make it illogical. I would have used our understanding of God here, but I know where it will lead us to.
3. Thank you for correcting the error. We are getting somewhere.
4. Sorry for the tone. Just that I can't stand and watch logic murdered in cold blood.
5. Again that a star drops to earth is not an illogical scenerio. It just show how incomplete our understand of the universe is.

Reyginus: Lol. Are you asking me to dumb down to your level?
1. It is not the aim of science to try to understand the principles of reasoning. Don't tell me you've heard of philosophy.
2. That something is beyond our understanding does not make it illogical. I would have used our understanding of God here, but I know where it will lead us to.
3. Thank you for correcting the error. We are getting somewhere.
4. Sorry for the tone. Just that I can't stand and watch logic murdered in cold blood.
5. Again that a star drops to earth is not an illogical scenerio. It just show how incomplete our understand of the universe is.

First and most importantly thanks for apologising. Second I was giving dictionary definition of logic which is the science that tries to understand the principles of reasoning. I further went ahead to give the dictionary definition of principles which was defined as fundamental assumptions or doctrines. So logic is the science that tries to understand the fundamental assumptions and doctrines behind our reasoning. Our known laws of logic can be wrong for instance it would be illogical TO ME for a star to fall on the earth because the fundamental assumption behind my reasoning is that stars are far bigger than the earth and would probably melt the earth before contact. But I accept that I could be wrong. I know you possess all the secrets to the universe and it is impossible for you to be wrong but please dumb down to my level who is just seeking answers and try to see things from my point of view

Affiliated:

First and most importantly thanks for apologising. Second I was giving dictionary definition of logic which is the science that tries to understand the principles of reasoning. I further went ahead to give the dictionary definition of principles which was defined as fundamental assumptions or doctrines. So logic is the science that tries to understand the fundamental assumptions and doctrines behind our reasoning. Our known laws of logic can be wrong for instance it would be illogical TO ME for a star to fall on the earth because the fundamental assumption behind my reasoning is that stars are far bigger than the earth and would probably melt the earth before contact. But I accept that I could be wrong. I know you possess all the secrets to the universe and it is impossible for you to be wrong but please dumb down to my level who is just seeking answers and try to see things from my point of view

Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

Reyginus: Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

I never claimed something was illogical when it didn't make sense to me. I gave dictionary definitions and followed it. You however claim that something is illogical only when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines illogical as 1 : not observing the principles of logic *an illogical argument*
2 : devoid of logic : SENSELESS *illogical policies*, Anyway I'll humor you and agree that something can only be illogical when the premise doesn't agree with the conclusion. Back to the star matter it is outright illogical according to your claims for a star e.g the sun to fall on the earth. I actually checked for the meaning of premise to be sure I understood you. And note how Merriam-Webster claimed illogical is also senseless i.e. doesn't make sense to the individual

Reyginus: Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

And now you're talking of illogical things happening but outside our limited understanding of the Universe which is what we have been saying all along.

Reyginus: Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

Even if I were to agree with your illogical assertion that the sun is capable of falling on the earth. John claimed in revelation that one third of the stars. So you imagine the numbers and sizes and explain how that is possible outside my limited understanding of the universe

Affiliated:

I never claimed something was illogical when it didn't make sense to me. I gave dictionary definitions and followed it. You however claim that something is illogical only when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines illogical as 1 : not observing the principles of logic *an illogical argument*
2 : devoid of logic : SENSELESS *illogical policies*, Anyway I'll humor you and agree that something can only be illogical when the premise doesn't agree with the conclusion. Back to the star matter it is outright illogical according to your claims for a star e.g the sun to fall on the earth. I actually checked for the meaning of premise to be sure I understood you. And note how Merriam-Webster claimed illogical is also senseless i.e. doesn't make sense to the individual

Hmmm. The problem is, you seem not to understand what it means for a premise not to agree with the conclusion.
Let's say
Premise: fowls lay eggs
also their new born are housed in an egg
And conclude that
conclusion: fowls don't hatch eggs, the give birth to their newborn like humans.
That is illogical because it's not sensible.

To put things in perspective on the relationship between the earth and stars, One million earths would fit into the sun and please look at the sun in comparison to another star.

Affiliated:

And now you're talking of illogical things happening but outside our limited understanding of the Universe which is what we have been saying all along.

Lol. Their is no illogical thing, and that we are yet to understand doesn't mean it is outside our understanding. To say a thing is outside our understand is to claim it is incomprehensible.

Affiliated:

Even if I were to agree with your illogical assertion that the sun is capable of falling on the earth. John claimed in revelation that one third of the stars. So you imagine the numbers and sizes and explain how that is possible outside my limited understanding of the universe

The problem is still that you can not differentiate illogical things with things not fully understood. You have to understand perfectly what it means for something to be logical or not. For the purpose of clarity, what do you understand, not definition, of logical and illogical things? Don't define them.

Reyginus: Hmmm. The problem is, you seem not to understand what it means for a premise not to agree with the conclusion.
Let's say
Premise: a fowls lay eggs
also their new born are housed in an egg
And conclude that
conclusion: fowls don't hatch eggs, the give birth to their newborn like humans.
That is a illogical because it's not sensible.

I think I understand it.
Premise: The sun's gravity keeps the earth in place.
If the sun's gravity were to fail the earth would fall of it's orbit until it is caught in another star's orbit
If the sun were to start falling so would the earth.
The sun is far bigger than the earth and the sun would be unable to land on the earth
Conclusion: The sun along with Other "septillion" stars would fall on the earth and life and activities would continue.

Illogical or logical?

Affiliated: To put things in perspective on the relationship between the earth and stars, One million earths would fit into the sun and please look at the sun in comparison to another star.

What will this help achieve?

Reyginus: What will this help achieve?

You seem to think its logical for stars to fall on earth while I don't. I just wanted you to get the full picture of how big stars are.

Reyginus:
The problem is still that you can not different illogical things with things not fully understood. You have to understand perfectly what it means for something to be logical or not. For the purpose of clarity, what you understand, not definition, of logical and illogical things? Don't define them.

Something illogical is something that doesn't go along with the fundamental assumptions or doctrines behind our thought process while something logical does. For example it would be illogical to a cave man for man to go to the moon because the fundamental assumption is men don't fly. I already know you will say I'm wrong but if you do then you are claiming to know English better than the dictionary which I checked

Affiliated:

Even if I were to agree with your illogical assertion that the sun is capable of falling on the earth. John claimed in revelation that one third of the stars. So you imagine the numbers and sizes and explain how that is possible outside my limited understanding of the universe

The problem is still that you can not different illogical things with things not fully understood. You have to understand perfectly what it means for something to be logical or not. For the purpose of clarity, what do you understand, not definition, of logical and illogical things? Don't define them.

lol it is illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion in their head...if it does only then do they see it as logical... humans are funny i tell you...

i really dislike blind followers... you believe your "God" to be everywhere( becuase someone told you to)..to them if their God is everywhre then he must be a one powerful being... yet they fail to see that the very notion of their God being everywhere implies that he is no-where in particular... to them accepting that angle means their God might not be as powerful as they thought it to be(they incorrectly imagine no where to be infinitesimal and insignificant)... or worst their God might not even exist becuase they have been misled to bellieve that nowhere and nothing means non-existent. and that notion they cannot conceive and condone....

to humans more means better; greater means higher; higher means better...but i ask you this is a human higher up in the sky let say in an aircraft better than a human on the ground?...

Affiliated:

I think I understand it.
Premise: The sun's gravity keeps the earth in place.
If the sun's gravity were to fail the earth would fall of it's orbit until it is caught in another star's orbit
If the sun were to start falling so would the earth.
The sun is far bigger than the earth and the sun would be unable to land on the earth
Conclusion: The sun along with Other "septillion" stars would fall on the earth and life and activities would continue.

Illogical or logical?

Now you're coming close to what I'm talking about.
To your question.
First of all, you must understand that before anything, your premise must be absolute. Assuming we have a complete understanding of the sun, the statement will be illogical.

Affiliated:

You seem to think its logical for stars to fall on earth while I don't. I just wanted you to get the full picture of how big stars are.



Something illogical is something that doesn't go along with the fundamental assumptions or doctrines behind our thought process while something logical does. For example it would be illogical to a cave man for man to go to the moon because the fundamental assumption is men don't fly. I already know you will say I'm wrong but if you do then you are claiming to know English better than the dictionary which I checked

Lol.
1. That's not what I think. It is an assumption you made, with which we are trying to understand how logic works.
2. Lol. Isn't that what I tried to make you understand. The fundamental doctrines you are talking about here, is the same with 'premise'. And the conclusion is the end point. We are going somewhere.
Don't ever argue with, 'if it is illogical to a particular person, it is'. That the cave man thinks it is illogical doesn't make it so.

Reyginus: Now you're coming close to what I'm talking about.
To your question.
First of all, you must understand before anything, your premise be absolute. Assuming we have a complete understanding of the sun, the statement will be illogical.

I agree with everything you said above That's what we have been saying all along. People with an incomplete understanding lock up their mind to other possibilities other than the possibilities open to their own limited mind. Now I agree that it is possible for all the stars to fall on the earth. Even though this does not make sense to me and it is illogical to me right now, I know all things are possible so I leave it at that. When greatgenius claims something both is and is not why can't you just take that same view? why must it become impossible just because its illogical to a person. That's the point of the whole argument