Do the laws of logic need a creator?

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @vimohlive
Support the show at / vimoh
Make a one-time donation at vimoh.stck.me/profile
Please read these rules before commenting. Follow them to the best of your ability. The rules are meant to keep the comment space clean and a safe space for anyone who wishes to participate in good faith.
1. No advocating violence of any kind against anyone for any reason. People doing so will get banned from the channel.
2. No praising or abusing any religion for any reason. Proselytising is not appreciated, nor is making generalised statements about the followers of any religion. People doing so will get banned.
3. No casteism, racism, or sexism. Discriminatory language will get you banned too.
4. Trolling, spamming, use of fake accounts to deceive people about your identity, will also get you banned.

[@pshivakumar6811]

this guy is eating laws of logic for breakfast

[@deepbhaisare6772]

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

[@imran_sid]

kitna khaali time h inn logo k paas, huge respect for you Vimoh.

[@akshat_2100]

​@@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.

[@ranjit.sarangi]

"we can rationalize in the immaterial world..." Seriously 😂😂😂

[@vimohlive]

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

[@mr.choudhary79]

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

[@prince-hb8qk]

@@mr.choudhary79 already there

[@srushtikanta2969]

Believing is not the same as knowing

[@nothing29717]

You cant know without believing ...

[@TheoryChronicles567]

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

[@monstercrude8397]

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

[@nothing29717]

​@@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."

[@monstercrude8397]

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.

[@Siddha50]

Hello sir I am from Nepal I always listen you

[@vimohlive]

Thanks and welcome

[@suyogpoudyal2585]

@sid12491 Same here bro 🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵

[@Siddha50]

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

[@ModernStupidity-qm3rj]

​@@suyogpoudyal2585same here

[@mr.choudhary79]

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

[@udhayveersingh1855]

Words, definitions and contexts.

[@srushtikanta2969]

great sir !

[@meGeorge_]

Vimoh when we will see you debating with religious people on a neutral platform like Modern Day Debate.

[@nelsonth]

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

[@sudarshansharma9807]

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

[@shivamkatale5909]

Hi vimoh one of my friend is a huge fan of book called ' sanatan dhram kya hai ' since I have no time to read it can you make a review of this book

[@pranavbiraris3426]

Introspection of our daily experience without judging is baap of logic.

[@dearmanchil]

I don't think many would hold their ground like you Mr. VIMOH. - Fan

[@SS-ct4hv]

🙏🙏🙏

[@sinisterdraco3807]

Hey vimoh can I also come to your live i wanted to share a story

[@AshishKumar-vk4ec]

Hii sir where are you from ..💙

[@VISHALKUMAR-mk3ps]

Immanuel Kant 🌚

[@Alok5172]

Sir what is your qualifications

[@Charak1]

Hey! Sir I am the university student wanted to talk to you regarding the religious OCD my fear of god It really hurts me in real time Makes my all works unsuccessful and makes me fail everytime in real.Non of therapists were successfull to help me.I am pretty sure your conviction and explanations can help me alot please talk to me. I know you can help me. Thankyou sir

[@ex.hindu.now.atheist]

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

[@Charak1]

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

[@Dawg.12]

Vimoh is next level skeptic.

[@nothing29717]

Bro doesn't even qualify as skeptic in my opinion

[@kurmisanjeevnaagvanshi5016]

Vimoh bhaiya Hindi me conversation kiya kijiye,bahut dimaag lagana padta hai 😂,hindi me conversation karenge to aapki reach badhegi aur jyada log connect honge

[@sohambiswas1137]

Bro is through ing random relevant words to justify god over laws of logic🤣🤣

[@Swastika_shukla-b6w]

On kushal Mehra's book why I am not an atheist make video

[@Question-Research-wj5wr]

Vimoh brother looking at your work I would suggest you that you keep the system of pay and then debate...... because kuch log to dimaag ka tel nikaal deete hai.....😂and time waste hua vo alag to kuch gain to ho .... kyuki content bhi kharab kar dete hai.....so you can keep it Rs.1 per minute.... frankly telling you....

[@ayushtomar6824]

A better line of questioning for this would be, why use laws of logic in the first place? Is it because they have worked so far? So does that mean you have faith in the laws of logic? It is irrational to use laws of logic.

[@vimohlive]

Not irrational. Simply inductive.

[@nothing29717]

@@vimohlive not inductive. You are wrong

[@snjstar8555]

LOL.

[@nothing29717]

We observe the universe, and it appears to follow certain patterns. We codify these patterns into what we call the laws of universe. However, this process is not as straightforward as simply observing and writing down rules. There are aspects of these laws, such as causation, that transcend mere observation. Consider the scenario of hitting a stationary ball with a bat. We might assert that the bat caused the ball to move. But if we examine our perception closely, we realize that we don't directly see causation. Instead, we witness the bat approaching the ball and then the ball moving forward. These events consistently occur together in our experience. It's our mind that connects these events and infers causation from them. Essentially we are presupposing causation. Should we take science seriously (F=ma gives us a causal relation between force an acceleration)

[@Ranjul_kumar]

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.

[@nothing29717]

@@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.

[@nothing29717]

@@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

[@Ranjul_kumar]

@@nothing29717 Buddy, what is "causation"?

[@sup8429]

​@@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"

[@eelongMast]

seems Jay shah on the other side

[@amantripathi2715]

uncle kya sach me mrutyu jaisi kuch chij hoti hai sab marte hai kya mai bhi marunga ye jaruri hai maine kabhi mrutyu ka anubhav nahi kiya to kya mai ye manane se inkar kar du ki mrutyu jaisi kuch chij bhi hoti hai

[@godson200]

you'll die. try having a near death experience

[@dineshgora1]

@vimohlive hey vimoh, what are your views about osho? Can you make a critical video about osho?

[@mikejack9465]

Chor hai Osho

[@HumanistLogic]

एक बात हर आस्तिक को अपने दिमाग मे भर लेना चाहिए की “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” फिलोसोफी की टक्कर साइंस से क्यों करवाते हो यार । सारी कहानिया भगवान, कर्मफल, पुनर्जन्म, स्वर्ग नरक सब तुमने अपने आपको सांत्वना देने के लिए गढ़ा है क्योंकी कोई ऊपर नहीं है सोचते ही फटती है तुम्हारी ।

[@Ranjul_kumar]

​@@WaveFunctionCollapsed Anime girl ki puja karunga :]

[@nothing29717]

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

[@HumanistLogic]

@@nothing29717 🤦

[@nothing29717]

@@HumanistLogic yeah whats wrong

[@Tiger-xn4pm]

❌​@@nothing29717

[@criticalpsyche]

your mistake is you are denying what he claims above the laws of logic. That is why values of adults are adamant as diamond they came not to change but to prove you are wrong.

[@criticalpsyche]

in my worldview........ zzzzzzz

[@iamplk]

Are you married vimoh?😅

[@Ruchi553]

Unmarried

[@mangakhoon4517go]

U wanna marry him 😺

[@iamplk]

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

[@one_autumn_leaf69]

​​@@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.

[@ModernStupidity-qm3rj]

@@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.

[@Piyush-xv1bb]

Hey just Inform you That Just Read Some OSHO Books and Think Who is The Daddy of Logic😅😅

[@Kartik-it2qc]

You need balls of logic to deny the existence of God.😎

[@Maximus321]

Stop saying Laws of logic are “absolute” nothing is absolute

[@vimohlive]

Sounds like an absolute statement.

[@Maximus321]

Lol

[@godson200]

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

[@thephilosophicalnerd]

You are really taking things to ridiculous end by talking about dragon's fart... postulating a creator is not same as postulating dragon's fart...

[@bishalupadhayay1484]

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

[@vimohlive]

What makea a dragon ridiculous and a god not ridiculous?

[@thephilosophicalnerd]

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.

[@thephilosophicalnerd]

@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

[@thephilosophicalnerd]

@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.

[@Dreamclose]

What is the purpose of your life? You look so confused always

[@devilseye361]

Do you know the purpose of your life?

[@proudindian08]

Whenever i see the collection of books behind you, i always think that i wish i had a book collection like that 🫡

[@roadtoiit4940]

bro this much English I cant handle 🥲

[@mangakhoon4517go]

Relatable He should provide meanings