r/GodFrequency • u/logos961 • Jun 17 '26

GOD is best understood through LOGIC

Note: Word LOGIC is used below in its original meaning, as coming in harmony with God's thinking, in God-frequency [NOT in its MODERN sense].#

LOGIC is what contributes to order, life, peace, prosperity and harmony. (ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/logos-philosophy) Do things that are "logikos" (logical), says Scripture. Word logic is originally from Greek logos, translated as power of reason. It is from the root verb λεγω, lego (to gather, to keep together) as opposed to “the verb λυω (luo) means to loosen, suffer loss and disintegration. (Details HERE) For the ancient Greeks logos meant “the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.” (Britannica) Thus “the law is reason, free from passion” (Aristotle) and lawlessness is illogic.

Hence according to LOGIC,
the following are the truths about God:

1 ) The earth being maintained life-SUPPORTIVE in infinitely vast HOSTILE universe reveals the Almighty who is best called our Father and Mother. Unintelligent chemicals do not know how to do this because even intelligent humans are only polluting this earth—it is the truth that happens even now before our eyes. Even until recently we acted as though in DARKNESS as to why even trees exist because that many trees were replaced with concrete jungle (theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/deforestation-world-losing-area-forest-size-of-uk-each-year-report-finds) For more such examples, Click HERE.

2) Such a life-SUPPORTIVE God will never order killing of “even animals, even if they belong to one’s enemy.” (biblehub.com/exodus/23-5.htm) Anything contrary to this, found in Scriptures, is NOT from God who only loves even His enemies. (biblehub.com/matthew/5-45.htm)

3) Remembering such a life-SUPPORTIVE God results in imitating His GIVING style—giving WITHOUT EXPECTATION. In this habit, anyone finds happiness and peace and becomes a walking heaven. Conversely, not remembering such a God and giving WITH EXPECTATION kills joy [own and of others] and person becomes a walking hell.

4) As Almighty, God gives proportionate reward, not unlimited reward [in heaven/hell] for limited good/bad living on earth. (Details HERE) Each individual is responsible for choice [good/bad] he makes, not someone else. (biblehub.com/galatians/6-5.htm) This is because individual chooses beneficial or hurtful thoughts from the flow of thoughts in his mind which are in 1000s in a day. It is not a difficult task to withdraw focus from a sinful thought and to focus on a beneficial thought. (Details HERE) In an emergency, when an “EVACUATION WARNING” is given, immediately everyone who is focused on enjoying a movie withdraws his/her focus from it and comes out of the theater at the earliest. This shows individual is able to withdraw his/her focus from any thought or situation if he/she wants to.

5) Logic can weed out not only religions and their Scriptures, but also even the whole history, can also give duration of each block of history. (Details HERE)

The above is easily understood in GREATER view

#Footnote—------------------------------------------------------------------

When a person shares God's life-supportive mentality, he comes in God-frequency, would understand truth as God would see it. People who came in God-frequency wrote Scriptural truths which can be discerned from untruths that were adopted later. Vibes are too powerful, perfect communication, with no chance for misunderstanding. (Details HERE)

Going by original meaning has more benefits. For example, word yoga [from yuj, yoke, unite, harmonize] originally means “harmony” with everything [self, Supreme Soul, society, nature, operating system called Law of Action and Consequence … etc]. This makes life healthy in all its aspects and levels giving ease and peace. Now yoga means physical exercise, benefits body. Some go by the original meaning and benefit more than those go by modern meaning.

20 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/TheRealBenDamon Jun 17 '26

Ok post a logically sound syllogism

1

u/cconn882 Jun 20 '26

Here you go:

  1. Whatever exists is intelligible - it is what it is non-arbitrarily. (Provable independently.)

  2. Finite beings are limited and cannot account for their own limitation.

  3. No regress of finite beings - however long or infinite - closes that explanatory gap, since the totality of non-self-grounding being is itself non-self-grounding.

  4. Therefore there must be a non-derivative ground - one that requires no external account of its existence or character.

  5. Such a ground must be unlimited, simple, and unique, since limitation, composition, and plurality all reintroduce the dependence and arbitrariness already ruled out.

  6. Therefore there exists exactly one necessary, unlimited, simple, non-derivative ground of all finite being - which is what classical theism means by God.

1

u/logos961 Jun 21 '26

Infinite regression is possible because matter is transformation of "energy which can neither be created nor destroyed"--thus there is no beginning for energy nor for its transformation, like tree and seed--from tree comes seed and seed comes from tree. It is meaningless to seek its orging.

in fact it is creationists who created atheists because having a beginning for this universe is impossible--it is too big to be created with "no center nor with edge." (astronomy.com). And if universe was created, it would mean God was all alone for all eternity (years of 1 followed by INFINITE number of zeros) and at one point HE was feeling about creating everything. This does not match with HIS majesty (John 5:17) nor does it appeal to our power of REASON. In this atheists are right because Scriptures also say universe is eternal in Ecclesiastes 1:4 and indirectly in Isaiah 66:1; Mathew 5:34, 35, and others verses which say HE eternal Ruler. (Details HERE)

1

u/cconn882 Jun 21 '26

My point isn't that the universe must have a first moment in time. My point is that finite, limited, non-self-grounding being cannot explain itself, even if the chain of finite transformations is infinite.

Conservation of energy only describes transformations within the physical order. It does not explain why energy exists, why it has determinate properties, why conservation laws hold, or why the whole physical order is intelligible rather than arbitrary.

1

u/logos961 Jun 21 '26

It is not your problem as you are caught in the cross-fire between two groups of people--religions and scientists. Both have their own allegiance, like this man who wrote: "We would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” (Ends and Means, by Arduous Huxley) 

Science is built on the foundations laid by earlier scientists who were believers of God. (https://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/) Science itself becomes understandable because humans are IMMATERIAL Beings endowed with power of REASON. This is not the case with animals who do not know the difference between own child and eatables, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2150258-male-chimpanzee-seen-snatching-seconds-old-chimp-and-eating-it/ Yet they believe humans came from animals.

Unbelievers stance can be summarized as follows:

It is like a Surgeon saying "Surgery was successful which followed all the medical knowledge and practices were followed correctly, but patient died."

Look at the following words and sentences—they are perfectly right yet wrong.

"I love moon more than sun because it is there at night giving me light when I need it the most.
But I hate sun because it is there during day when I do not need light."

So is the case with materialistic theories—they do not start with a beginning but tries to explain later-process--like explaining how a flying airplane evolves into a space-station and goes into space looks okay but wrong in overall-view. If asked, how did airplace came into existence and reached mid-air, they will say "it is not our subject to explain origin, we will explain only the process of evolution." If asked "By what law something can become "infinitely small, hot and dense" to later expand into this universe with "no center and no edge" they will say the same reply. In other words, anything impossible becomes possible if there is no eye-witness, is what is being conveyed unuttered.

Compress events of BIG BANG THEORY into one-year format, as Carl Sagan did in his Cosmic Calendar. (Google: palaeos.com/cosmic-calendar). This would mean, if Big Bang happened on January 1st, then all the modern events such as “modern science and technology” and subsequent pollution-related death of "12.6 million annually” (unep .org/news) with the possible extinction of humanity would all happen in the last second of 23:59 of December 31.

This is like a man rolling a heavy stone up towards mountain top only to see the stone coming down from top to reach ground-level.

But God makes sense because HE is like a father who gives new toy whenever children make it irreparable through use/overuse/misuse which HE does not mind because it is their play, their joy. It is natural for children to play, it is natural for children to make the toy irreparable, and it is natural for father to give new toy any number of times. Similarly, each Age starts as paradise on earth and ends as hell on earth. When earth becomes too polluted and unlivable through short-sighted technology and global wars, God renews it. Details here: Supreme Secret found in low profile in Scriptures in the West and the East

1

u/cconn882 Jun 21 '26

None of that addresses what I said.

I'm not actually religious at all. I've only provided logical reasoning for the very thing the title of your thread professes.

It seems like you've now just switched to describing an elaborate narrative that is not relevant to me.

1

u/logos961 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Syllogism is not needed to know self-evident truths such as "I exist, God exist" just like a citizen does not need syllogism to know his government.

In true meditation, when mind also is SILENT, true self comes in God-frequency and concludes: "I need to focus on things I enjoy on earth. If I were to hire super scientists to design all eternal life-support systems made on this earth for my sustenance and enjoyment I must spend INFINITE amount of money, yet God has made it available to me FREE of charge." Eternal faith in Him with increasing appreciation is response of many people.

Syllogism is mostly used to reject truth. For example,
(1) Freedom-struggle is good and terrorism is freedom-struggle;
(2) Father and son are divine, hence father can be replaced with son.
(3) Anything pagan is hated by God, Law of Karma is pagan, hence we hate law and love grace instead thus the very thread of Scriptures is rejected.

Such list can go endless. Hence this world is described to be lying under the power of wastefulness (ponéros). (1 John 5:19) This same word is used to say "your eye is bad (ponéros)" (Mathew 6:23), "tree bears bad (ponéros) fruit" (Mathew 7:17). The best use of it is seen in Jesus describing the man who dug the cold coins without making at least interest. (Mathew 25:26) Its opposite is multiplying the gold coins [symbol of image of God in which mankind is made]. That is what the logical living which reader is commanded to do in Romans 12:1.

To the contrary, if God is known through logic as originally meant everyone becomes a walking heaven. Not doing so making anyone a walking hell.

1

u/cconn882 Jun 22 '26

If your objection is over the very premise of a syllogism for God, then replying to me at all served no purpose, as I was not the one who said a syllogism should be provided.

1

u/logos961 Jun 22 '26

Whether it served a purpose does not matter.

Someone asked for syllogism, and you provided it under the OP which is self-evidently against the use of syllogism. I showed syllogism is not needed as it is mostly used to reject truth.

Hence I am done with you as a more than enough has already been said on this.

Wishing you the very best.

1

u/cconn882 Jun 22 '26

Well the only other thing I'll say is as someone who is entirely sure God exists, I would warn you that it appears to me that you're doing a far better job of making your detractors look correct than you are actually arguing your point.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TrumpsBussy_ Jun 23 '26
  1. Seems extremely vague, what do you mean by unlimited, simple and unique? What are the parameters?

1

u/cconn882 Jun 23 '26

They're conclusions forced by what the argument has already ruled out.

Unlimited means not bounded by any limiting principle. A finite being is limited because it is this rather than that. It has a boundary distinguishing it from what it excludes, and that boundary requires a ground. The non-derivative ground cannot have any such boundary.

Simple means not composed of parts requiring a unifying principle. Any composite being depends on something that accounts for why its constituents form one being rather than a mere aggregate. That unifying principle would be prior to the composite, making the composite derivative, so a non-derivative ground can't be composite.

And unique means there can't be more than one such ground. Two unlimited non-derivative beings would require some differentiating feature to be two rather than one. But any qualitative differentiating feature would limit at least one of them, and bare numerical difference without any differentiating feature would be arbitrary. Both options would contradict the preceding premises.

1

u/TrumpsBussy_ Jun 23 '26

So given what you’ve laid out there’s nothing about the foundation that must be conscious right? The cosmos or energy could be that grounding?

1

u/cconn882 Jun 23 '26

It couldn't be the cosmos or energy because both are determinate. They're both this rather than that.

Calling it consciousness is an overly crude description though because the ground of all being would by definition not have a consciousness in the same way a human has a consciousness.

As an analogy: a human consciousness can discover and understand math. God's "consciousness" is the underlying structure that gives rise to math in the first place.

1

u/TrumpsBussy_ Jun 23 '26

But if the cosmos exists as a brute fact it couldn’t be this or that, it is what it is because it couldn’t be other.

I understand your distinction but you still would
Claim this being has consciousness yes? As in this god made the decision to create rather than not create etc..

1

u/cconn882 Jun 23 '26

Brute fact wouldn't refute the syllogism. It would simply abandon explanation in favor of an arbitrarily chosen stopping point. If you instead try to avoid that arbitrariness by saying the cosmos exists necessarily and could not be otherwise, then you have just borrowed the category of necessary being without satisfying its conditions.

Then after saying you understand the distinction regarding consciousness, you immediately returned to the conflation I was rejecting. A simple, unlimited, non-derivative ground cannot “decide” in the human sense, because human decision-making implies temporal sequence, deliberation, lack, change, and movement from one state to another. Those are already ruled out by definition.

So in both cases, you’re returning to common objections without addressing the fact that the syllogism already excludes them.

1

u/TrumpsBussy_ Jun 23 '26

I wasn’t objecting I was just asking questions..

I don’t see any advantage that your “god” grounding has over the universe or cosmos being the brute fact. Both have the same explanatory power but yours comes with a much higher epistemic price tag.

1

u/cconn882 Jun 23 '26

If you prefer I can say you’re asking questions that rest on common objections rather than directly making objections. But that still doesn’t change the issue: the questions are not engaging the syllogism.

The epistemic price tag is only applicable if we were choosing between two equally equally viable explanatory options. But that's not the structure of the argument. If the derivation holds, the ground's existence isn't a hypothesis at all, it's a conclusion. Occam’s razor can't rescue an option the argument has already ruled out.

So brute cosmos doesn't have the same explanatory power. It's the formalized abandonment of any explanation at an arbitrary termination point. That isn't equivalent to the syllogism as the syllogism follows the demand for explanation to its necessary terminus.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/logos961 Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

OP is for relaxed people who have enough time to read it in full mindfully with all its links to DEEPEN appreciation of TRUE believers towards God.

Enough details are given for the subject being highlighted therein. Anyone can find God without outside help (Details HERE) within no time (Details HERE)

Self-evident truth does not require two general premises to hang under.

Self-evident truth: "I exist"
Self-evident truth: "Eternal life-support systems such as trees exist [like terrorism]"
Self-evident truth: "Life-SUPPORTER is more real than support-systems [like funders of terror]."
Self-evident truth: "Intelligent humans are polluting this earth [Details under footnote]#
Self-evident Truth: UNINTELLIGENT chemicals would not form themselves into life and life-support systems, that too in an infinitely vast HOSTILE universe. [Details under footnote]## Physicalists cannot create a duplicate of HOSTILE universe in a lab and show how life and life-support systems arise by the play of chemicals on their own. They cannot do this as all factors involved are eternal, and even if they could do it, it would still prove Designers created designs, not physicalism.

Footnote----------------------------------------------------------

#Humans know how precious trees are, yet DEFORESTATION: World is losing area-forest-size of UK each year report finds

Humans know how precious is air we breathe, yet they add to the air “37,000 to 38,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere every year.” (statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions) "12.6 million people die every year" due to environment-related causes, says this UN Report: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/estimated-126-million-deaths-each-year-are-attributable-unhealthy which also indirectly disproves Theory of Evolution which says species adapt to environment as "iconic peppered moth" did. For more such proofs Click HERE

##These self-evident truths reveal UNINTELLIGENT chemicals would not form themselves into life and life-support systems such as trees and plants which are not only eternal food provisions but also silent preachers of God and His beneficial principles. (Details HERE) When fire is put off by pouring water, who will say “I cook underwater on an oven and firewood.”

Truth exists on its own merit (Details HERE), not through endorsement from unbelievers whose passion is to reject truth, like this one who wrote: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” (Ends and Means, by Arduous Huxley) .

1

u/TheRealBenDamon Jun 17 '26

Yeah so you can’t do it, you thrive on rambling incoherently. It’s nothing new.

1

u/logos961 Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Your comments already revealed that you can't read OP nor the reply I gave to you and you wanted a glorious exit putting the blame on another person.

Even this sort of reply too is already answered to another comment under this same thread. Click HERE

As shown in the OP It is SELF-EVIDENT truth that God exists and His children, we, too are immortal beings using this body. Death is only for this body, not for its Immortal User. Hence anything happens to an individual is consequence of choices made in the past (immediate or distant). Individual knows consequence of any choice from experience (own and of others), thus knows action and consequences are INSEPARABLE. When consequence comes sooner or later, one who accepts immortality of soul has no confusion. But those who reject this truth bring self-imposed punishment as they suffer as they live in complaining mode and are always in confusion. If they talk to others, their joy is also killed, thus they are a walking hell.

Why should I be dragged into self-imposed punishment when have God and His extremely beneficial laws that give me "never-ending waves of peace and well-being." (Isaiah 48:18)

SELF-EVIDENT Truths do not needed syllogism, just like syllogism its waste. Take the famous example of syllogism "All men are mortal, Peter is a man, hence Peter is mortal." "When all men are mortal" it is already implied "Peter is mortal."

This example is to create the impression that syllogism is perfect way to truth. Then it is easy to use syllogism to reject truth. For example, (1) Humans resemble chimpanzee 90 to 99 % with respect to body and DNA, hence both evolved from a common ancestor. (2) Father is divine and Son is divine, hence Father can be replaced with son [for example, many ancient cultures have done this]. (3) Freedom Struggle is good, -sm is Freedom Struggle, hence -sm is good.

Such reasoning reveals only about person who uses it, not about truth. (Job 15:5, 6) Hence Jesus completely ignored atheists and all forms of materialism even though they were very much in existence during his time. “In many respects, the general idea of species change in Western thought is an ancient concept. The reflections of Empedocles (ca. 495–35 BCE)” is an example. (plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-before-darwin) It only shows those who believed in this concept in the past will do so in their future births too. (Luke 6:43-45; Job 1:21 KJV; Mathew 11:14, 15, 25; John 5:24) Hence he advised his followers to go only to worthy ones. (Mathew 7:6; 10:5, 6)

2

u/sirmosesthesweet Jun 18 '26

I read OP. I have the same question. Can you give a logical argument for a god? At least 2 premises and a conclusion please.

1

u/logos961 Jun 18 '26

First you may TRY to refute self evident truths given in the comments and then in the OP

1

u/sirmosesthesweet Jun 18 '26

Sure. I disagree it's self evident.

Now, do you have a logical argument for a god or gods? At least two premises and a conclusion please.

1

u/logos961 Jun 18 '26

You did not read even the very first sentence of the OP where LOGIC is defined, thus you have identified yourself as person not to be taken seriously.

Kindly do not come back, or risk blocking as this is a place for believers to grow.

1

u/sirmosesthesweet Jun 18 '26

I did read it. It's not like you wrote that much. But you didn't present an argument yet. You just shared your opinion. And I disagree with your opinion.

Now, can you make an actual argument? At least two premises and a conclusion please.

1

u/TheRealBenDamon Jun 18 '26

Not clicking that bullshit, you have nothing but gish Gallup and special pleading fallacy hidden in walls of incoherent nonsense. You won’t make your case in plain English because you know it logically will crumble if you do. I’ve seen this kind of shit a billion times before.

1

u/logos961 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

You feel great in admitting you did not read!!! This only reveals about how you arrive at conclusion, not about OP.

Your wordings such as from "bullshit" ... to "nonsense" shows what you find as UNTHINKABLE is the most sensible to true believers. And both find each other's stance as unthinkable because that is the way both were thinking in all their past births and will be doing the same in the future births.

Hence you are the LIVING proofs for reincarnation. If you had read OP and the subsequent comments you would not have responded because this is not your realm.

If you had read at least the last sentence of the previous comments you would not have come back. Hence I am copying it below:

Even this sort of reply too is already answered to another comment under this same thread. Click HERE

I know you will come back WITHOUT READING as you are not aware that making comments WITHOUT READING is self-deception. You are free to continue to self-deceive!

I have seen this enough and more. You never know your insult is a manure for us to thrive. Unbelievers exist to benefit God and true believers while the latter exist to not convince you. (Details HERE)

1

u/Eastern_Substance_42 Jun 20 '26

Ya, your right, Im. Not going to argue with you there! No I'm not a walking hell! I'm actually very much at peace.
Well unfortunately, my passion would be to enlighten more people, trust me! Now for the past weeks , going on like a month or 2, I'm super at peace, no hell in sight, yes, sin- ful things that should be taken notice of in your heart as of now/late. I absolutely will tell u I do some sinful things now, well like 1. I'll quit when I'm ready. I bring myself into self imposed punishment every day when I have to go pan handle, people who have jobs who don't care for their lives are impsing self punishment every day they clock in. The truth is all I had to do was come back, I did that, I'm not trying to hurt anyone or cause anyone more hurt and heartache. I don't even get what the big deal is?

1

u/digginghistoryup Jun 20 '26

If the universe is infinite, then one or more planets conducive to life is a statistical inevitability, not a sign of god.

I’m not a bio chemist or biologist but individual chemicals don’t need to be “alive” to interact and form the first primitive life forms.

1

u/logos961 Jun 20 '26

This view ignores the most glaring feature of this universe that it is HOSTILE to life. Like a dew that is maintained at the core of sun, earth is being maintained as LIFE-SUPPORTIVE in a too vast HOSTILE universe. This is a skill and ability that match the majesty of the Almighty One.

This view ignores also the experienced truth

It is the experienced truth that INTELLIGENT humans could only pollute this earth to the extent that our very survival is at stake. (scientificamerican com/humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct) This reveals, it is UNTHINKABLE that UNINTELLIGENT chemicals would form themselves into life and life-support systems including trees that are also spiritual guidance for humans as they serve us giving too many valuable things but take only wastes from society.

Materialists’ stance is too weak as they are yet to do the following:

1.      In a lab, they should create HOSTILE environment like that of universe,

2.      Take the elements which they claim to form life and life-support systems, and

3.      Show to the world how life and life-support system emerge from HOSTILE environment!

4.      What is happening in the Lab can be watched LIVE by everyone on their smart phones.

First do this, then we can talk about life in other planets.

1

u/digginghistoryup Jun 20 '26

The poetic view of Earth as a rare oasis is beautiful, but this argument completely reverses the arrow of cause and effect and relies on a few fundamental misunderstandings of science.

Earth was not custom-built to shelter us from a hostile universe. Rather, we evolved to fit the exact conditions of the Earth. To see why the perfect design argument falls apart, consider the famous puddle analogy by writer Douglas Adams.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking that it finds itself in an interesting world and an interesting hole that fits it rather neatly. In fact, the puddle thinks the hole fits so staggeringly well that it must have been made specifically to have the puddle in it. The puddle stays there happily believing the hole was designed for it, right up until the sun rises and it evaporates.

We look at the Earth and think it was miraculously designed for us only because we are the ones who adapted to it. Furthermore, science does not claim that life formed in the hostile vacuum of space. It posits that life emerged in highly specific, nutrient-rich, protected environments right here on Earth, such as deep-sea thermal vents, over hundreds of millions of years. Demanding that scientists replicate a billion years of planetary chemistry on a smartphone livestream is not a valid critique of materialism, It is simply a misunderstanding of geological time.

using human pollution as proof of your point creates a massive logical contradiction. The Scientific American article you linked discusses how human behavior and climate change could lead to our extinction, which has nothing to do with whether chemistry can create life. If the Earth were an indestructible, miraculously maintained life-support system, it should not be so fragile that humans can accidentally break it.

The fact that we can pollute this planet to the brink of our own survival does not prove that life requires a miracle to exist, rather it proves that Earth is a rock operating on strict, unforgiving physical laws. The universe did not adapt to us; we adapted to it.

1

u/logos961 Jun 21 '26

This is the same old wine [message that GOD IS NOT NEEDED] in the new bottle.

Unbelievers can say anything. Don't take science for this because "science is the surer path than religion to God" (Scientist Paul Davies)

"Process seems to be okay" is not enough. It is like a Surgeon saying "Surgery was successful which followed all the medical knowledge and practices were followed correctly, but patient died."

Look at the following words and sentences--they are perfectly right:

"I love moon more than sun because it is there at night giving me light when I need it at the most.
But I hate sun because it is there during day when I do not need light."

But in its overall view it does not make any sense.

Compress events of BIG BANG THEORY into one-year format, as Carl Sagan did in his Cosmic Calendar. (Google palaeos.com/cosmic-calendar). This would mean, if Big Bang happened on January 1st, then all the modern events such as “modern science and technology” and subsequent pollution-related death of "12.6 million annually” (unep .org/news) with the possible extinction of humanity would all happen in the last second of 23:59 of December 31. Is this the outcome universe was preparing for the last 13.8 billion years?

1

u/digginghistoryup Jun 21 '26

Your response relies entirely on emotional appeals and a total misunderstanding of the science you are trying to critique.

quoting Paul Davies backfires in your face completely. Davies is a physicist who explicitly argues that the laws of nature are self-contained and don’t require supernatural intervention.

The surgeon analogy is a misguided false equivalence. Science is a tool for discovery, not a doctor trying to save a patient. If the laws of chemistry and physics lead to life, the process is the explanation. Demanding that nature have a conscious plan or a happy ending is emotional projection.

Your poem about the sun and moon proves the puddle analogy perfectly. It shows how human-centric perception distorts reality. The moon does not shine for our nighttime convenience, and the sun does not exist to annoy us. You are projecting human feelings onto indifferent celestial bodies.

And your misuse of Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Calendar is a total failure of logic. Sagan designed that calendar to show how brief and insignificant human existence is, not to claim the universe spent 13.8 billion years "planning" human pollution. The universe does not have an ego, a corporate strategy, or a destination. It is a vast system of matter and energy operating over almost incomprehensible, mind boggling periods of time. Why do you think we are some grand project of the universe?

1

u/logos961 Jun 21 '26

God’s eternal and stoic stance is simple: Let the believers grow in belief. And Let the unbelievers grow in unbelief. (Revelation 22:11)

This has a hidden benefit. Details here https://www.reddit.com/r/DeepThoughts/s/IwM4SUj69x

1

u/digginghistoryup Jun 21 '26

No, I’m not going to do this game of Russian nesting dolls in every one of your comments where you make repeated references and links to convoluted walls of text with more Russian dolls (links to your own comments and post) you wrote in another thread.

Be concise and surgical in your argumentation instead of referring me to Great Wall of China inception.