Do the laws of logic need a creator? 

No.. He is not.. Eating.. But Stating.

​@@WaveFunctionCollapsedeveryone takes out some of their time to discuss these things. But some people based their lives on it. Like the guy whom vimoh was talking to. And several others on the Internet.

You need to demonstrate that. Just saying so doesn't make it true.

​@@vimohlive रामानुजन के बारे में क्या जानते हैं? इसका वीडियो बनाएं।

@@mr.choudhary79 already there

You cant know without believing ...

That doesn't mean believing in an supernatural entity makes me know it​@@nothing29717

@@nothing29717 how does that make any sense? Could you elaborate

​@@monstercrude8397 "Knowledge is justified true belief. In order for something to be considered knowledge, it must be a belief first; hence, you can't know without believing."

I think that the initial stages of knowledge may start with a belief as some of them happen also subconsciously. Like an accident that you came across involuntarily, without the belief that you gain something from it, but the accident happen and you learn something without believing it.

Thanks and welcome

@sid12491 Same here bro 🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵

@@suyogpoudyal2585 ohh! it,s good,so how do you feel about his video

​@@suyogpoudyal2585same here

@@vimohlive रामानुजन के बारे में क्या जानते हैं? इसका वीडियो बनाएं।

Listen to both sides and make up your own mind. You can think just as well as Vimoh

​@@nelsonth well said all these gyz want is that their ego gets satisfied they are not looking for answers

@Charak1 “Hey! Sir I am the [...] help me. Thankyou sir” ===================== What is it about god that makes you feel fear?

@@ex.hindu.now.atheist bro thoughts of christ his photo pops up and everything gets worse automatically

Bro doesn't even qualify as skeptic in my opinion

That small presupposition is based on billion times if observations giving the same result. A microscopic chance that the ball can no-clip doesn't make the preasumption invalid to use. If one got something better to show that fhe ball can indeed no-clip, they can win noble prize.

@@Ranjul_kumar When examining events, such as hitting a stationary ball with a bat, we often describe the bat as causing the ball to move. However, what we actually perceive is the bat approaching the ball and then the ball moving forward. No matter how many times we observe this sequence, all we see is a constant conjunction of events. We don't observe causation itself; instead, we infer it based on the consistent association of these events. Our mind constructs the idea of causation beyond mere observation.

@@Ranjul_kumar How are you determining the validity of such presupposition .(event A. And event B are causally connected) You assert that we observe it .But as mentioned above there is nothing explicitly about causation in the set of events right.(So there are no valid grounds for your presupposition) Lastly im not claiming that causation is a false law but im claiming that it doesnt come from mere observation

@@nothing29717 Buddy, what is "causation"?

​@@nothing29717 Isn't the very device you are using to send this comment enough evidence to be a little confident in our theories predicting the world. What you said is completely sound, I agree 100% with you. there very well could be an undetectable entity moving every atom at his will while choosing to keep just enough pattern and structure in his decisions for humans to develop predictive theories around it, but honestly, is not it simpler to assume that our theories are absolute truth until there is a better theory? Motions in a mathematical Einstein universe where spacetime curves in 4d matches very well with those of our own universe, so why not just assume that our universe is in fact a Eisenstein universe. To decide whether spacetime really curves or not is not even in the domain of science, we have metaphysics for that. That's the limitation of science; it doesn't uncover the metaphysical reality of the universe, it gives you made-up stories grounded in observed patterns which, if you pretend to believe in them, can be used to do a lot of useful stuffs. going "meh, god's whims" is not an inferior explanation for our daily observations than science in that it is no less truthful nor more than a theory derived by observing patterns. In fact it is superior to scientific theories since it could be used to explain literally everything. But would you have had your internet connected device had we all stopped at "meh, god's whims"

Not irrational. Simply inductive.

@@vimohlive not inductive. You are wrong

​@@WaveFunctionCollapsed Anime girl ki puja karunga :]

Science is dependent on philosophy to exist there is no science without philosophy

@@nothing29717 🤦

@@HumanistLogic yeah whats wrong

❌​@@nothing29717

you'll die. try having a near death experience

Chor hai Osho

Unmarried

U wanna marry him 😺

@@mangakhoon4517go I wanted to know if atheist believe in marriage life xd

​​@@iamplkBeing an Atheist is just one position on one thing, you can be many other things even if you are an Atheist, then they can be positive or negative things. For eg:- An Atheist person can very well be a Casteist, mysogynist, homophobic, transphobic,etc. It's just one position on one thing i.e. disbelief in God because of the lack of evidence. My point is some of the Atheists may view marriage in a positive light and some in a negative light, it just depends on the person and what they are okay with in their life.

@@iamplk marriage is a social construct & we follow it just like we follow taxes and others rules of society. And yeah being married sucks, i can't take part in debates & conversation on live. Sharing a room suck.

Sounds like an absolute statement.

Lol

the only time logic doesn't work is when you are drunk 350ml vodka

Do you know the purpose of your life?

Relatable He should provide meanings

But it is same as postulating a god who has 10 hands and stays on a snake 😂

What makea a dragon ridiculous and a god not ridiculous?

Well... I would say the opposite of accepting God as the creator of laws of logic would be... they are created by humans and are inter-subjective or they aren't created by anyone but are built in the very structure of the universe.

@vimohlive there is no logical connection between dragons and laws of logic. If there is the concept of dragon would be same as concept of God. In that case by the law of substitution you may very well substitute dragon with God. In short the concept of dragon must have all the attributes of God to make the claim that logic was created by dragon

@bishalupadhayay1484 no... not really. 10 hands indicate that God can do many things at a time. A primitive man must have thought that we need 2 hands to carry out all our tasks. So God must have more than 2 hands since he is taking care of many things. Also, you are confusing the abstract concept of God with a mythological picture of God.