It’s a thinking model at worst. Beware of Unequal Comparison in Thinking
I wanted to highlight the problem of a fundamental fallacy, beyond the logical fallacy recognized in a dictionary for logical thinking
Something many of them unaware who insist on defending their views which they thought it’s reasonable, even though they were just imagining things.
Basically, looking for the truth is looking for the possibility (there is) the truth.
That in the end finding certainty, that’s another story, but the main mission is exploring the possibility.
If it is possible then it can be confirmed. If it is possible 0.9, then it could be rounded to 1 certainty.
That’s what we do next. Trying to believe, again & again.
The question? What is the basis for our thinking that something is worthy to belief? That’s a lot, but that’s not what’s underlined.
What model do you use to think?
- A simple example ... you want to renovate a house. What house model do you want to apply?
- You want to shave your hair? What hairstyle would you like to imitate?
Yes, THINKING MODELS! A simple but forgotten concept then plunges them into imaginary concepts. DREAM MODE ON. THEY USE AN IMAGINATION MODEL, NOT EARTHING, NOT REALISTIC.
Testing Is Comparing
To test means to compare the tested with the standard of truth.
So, every time you test something, of course you involve standardization. As simple as that.
My question is, what is your standard of truth? We are not talking (involving) religion. We are talking on an axiomatic basis.
Standardization
What is your standard of truth? The standard of truth of people living on the "bezelbug bradiboy" planet or the standardization of the "local" community?
MORE SIMPLE. What is your standard of testing correctness? Impossible standardization?
What model clone are you using? IN BRIEF, REALISTIC OR UNREALISTIC MODELS?
This thinking model will be an imitation.
Relevancy
What if the ethical model you use is taken from the ethics prevailing in other countries? It could be irrelevant. Does that mean misguided thinking? NO!
Relevant thinking models? No. Doesn’t a relevant thinking model mean a realistic thinking model? Yes, but also still less realistic.
So? Relevant thinking is still less realistic? Yes! What does this mean?
Yes, because even though your way of thinking is relevant, it makes sense, it’s been this & that’s it, but it’s still not realistic! What? ️
Yep. You are not realistic if you are not completely realistic! Sorry, this is not a philosophical statement like "the more you know the less you know" or something like "content but empty, empty but full". Even that was not a philosophical game, but a basic truth that seems like a poetic - philosophical word game.
Again, you are not realistic if you are not completely realistic!
Regardless of whether you are relevant or not, reasonable or not, but as long as it is realistic, it means realistic. Huh, is this a paradox? Not really
Let’s try to turn thoughts around without getting dizzy. We try to twist the meaning, change the meaning of words, without losing the common thread. Without losing the basic structure
If irrelevant means unrealistic? Then as long as it’s realistic, it means that it’s realistic even if it doesn’t make sense? Does that mean “doesn’t make sense” can be realistic? Yes!
Then how can something unrealistic be relevant?
This is how most philosophers play with words, tricking others.
Worse? They are trapped by their own game, like mathematicians fiddling with formulas. That’s the philosopher who tinkers with meaning and then trapped himself into atheism.
Furthermore the atheist maestro (Richard Dawkins) or whoever his followers or successors have been able to master by stirring up reasoning, sophism and various other chaotic movement that are able to be presented into a beautiful harmony? But it turned out that the music they played was an orchestra chorus in a dream. Their claims are so unrealistic.
They are unrealistic because they are not completely realistic...!!!
If you understand this, you will laugh to yourself
THINKING MODEL - Realistic
If you want to find out the possibility of someone doing "ianyiss&=lv’/!kg", then try to find out whether there is an example or not? At least if there is "ianyiss&=lv’/!kg", then there is "ianyiss&=lv’/!kgiroonti_ianyiss&=lv’/!kgonhnoio_ianyiss&=lv’/!kgoihii_ianyiss&=lv’/!kg" is also possible.
If you want to prove something true, at least there is an example in reality.
There’s no way you’d want to prove the existence of "dancing cakes" without an example from the world of cake.
Likewise, when you want to prove the existence of God, of course you need initial information that allows for the existence of God.
It is always necessary to have a realistic comparison model!
If you deny that there is no Creator - God, even though your own reasoning admits that for “a product” there needs to be a maker. Then they (atheists) argued "yes, it’s clear someone made this stuff, but we didn’t know who made this planet". THIS IS WHAT I CALL THEM ATHEISTS DELUSION. THEIR MODEL IS NOT REALISTIC.
They reject something with unclear comparisons, while realistic models (miniature reasoning) show that something has a maker.
It’s like the case, someone asked "can we draw something unique that is unthinkable"? Of course it’s impossible. Even if it was possible, it would have been thought of by the others and then shared with the questioner.
So it is not something that is unthinkable, but something that has not been thought of, something that already exists but has not yet reached our minds. It means? Yes, we cannot possibly think of something that is absolutely beyond thought.
It’s like someone trying to think of a form of impossibility. Whereas there has never been an example or there is no trace of a piece called impossibility. Even if you say "something is impossible", that is the opposite of the possible reality (there is a reality involved here).
- Or we pull it away from reality. “Can you imagine nothingness without being aware of something?” Nope!
- Again ... , statements like this ... "can you eat " ..... " to "...."? Confused aren’t you! You must have guessed the probability through your experience to be "can you eat " what you can eat " until "full up / healthy / blah blah blah"?
Or more unrealistic...
"can " .... " "...." then "...." and "...." so that "...."? Difficult isn’t it! Why? Because there are no traces. There are no cheat sheets, there is not even the slightest cheat. HOW CAN YOU ENSURE THE POSSIBILITY OF "...." "...."?
What is the wisdom behind this? Simple.
That when you deny something, something must have absolutely no trace, no trace of its truth, nothing in any way to trace its possibility, not the slightest hint of its possibility in reality. NO SIGN CONNECTED TO " ...." WHICH YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPOSSIBLE!
SO IF THERE WERE TRACE, THERE WERE SIGNS TOWARDS SOMETHING POSSIBLE, THEN IT IS OK TO BELIEVE IN THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING.
Axioms
🔰 Impossible gives no chance , while possible indicates there is chance
🔰 It is possible for a thing to be true because similar example can be found, while something is confirmed to be true because the truth is realized
🔰 If a thing is impossible, then there can’t be a single example indicates a chance of a thing itself to be predicted - possible to happen
🔰 If a concept is impossible, then there is no possibility for a single concept that was rejected
