User talk:Trex363/sandbox

==Trex363 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

'god' and deductive-reasoning. Trex363 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 * if 'god' exists by nature...


 * and nature 'is good'...

---
 * then 'god' is good.


 * numerical-pattern : '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * three total-subjects: 'god' ; 'nature' ; 'god'.


 * three total-predicates: 'exists by nature' ; 'is good' ; 'is good'.


 * two similar-subjects: 'god' ; 'god'.


 * two similar-predicates: 'is good' ; 'is good'.


 * one differing-subject: 'nature'.


 * one differing-predicate: 'exists by nature'.


 * correct numerical-pattern! '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.  any other numerical-pattern renders the validity of the syllogism incorrect.


 * Conclusion: 'god and nature exist by nature and are good'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion! doesn't make any sense.  'nature exists by nature'?????  'the' correct numerical-pattern doesn't 'automatically' guarantee a 'conclusion' is correct.


 * NOTE: if 'god' doesn't exist by nature, then how else can he exist ?  artificially ?  is 'god' a car lolTrex363 (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

'god' and deductive-reasoning.

 * if 'god' exists...


 * and 'god' is spiritual...

---
 * then 'spirituality' exists.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.  *three general-subjects: ( 'god' ; 'god' ; 'spirituality' ).  *three general-predicates:  ( 'exists' ; 'exists' ; 'is spiritual' ).  *two 'similar' subjects: ( 'god' ; 'god' ).  *two 'similar' predicates: ( 'exists' ; 'exists' ).  one 'differing' subject: ( 'spirituality' ).  *one 'differing' predicate:  ( 'is spiritual' ).


 * correct numerical-pattern means a valid-structure! is the conclusion valid ?  maybe/maybe-not.


 * Conclusion: 'god and spirituality exist and are spiritual'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: 1.  we don't know whether or not 'spirituality' exists in the first-place.  2.  'spirituality is spiritual' doesn't make sense.


 * NOTE: if the conclusion is wrong, then the two premises' leading-up to it 'must' be wrong.  'god' must not exist.= why the universe is infinite. ==Trex363 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

the universe is infinite because, as we have already determined via' Aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogisms, both life and death exist finitely, i.e. 'reincarnation'. if life and death exist finitely over an infinite-period of time, then the universe 'must' be infinite in order for reincarnation to occur. reincarnation is by definition 'infinite'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trex363 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

page one revision.

 * if 'life' exists by nature ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life 'is finite by nature' ( which is 'also' self-evident )...


 * then 'death' exists by nature ( which is self-evident ).

---
 * numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * three 'general-subjects': ( 'life' ; 'life' ; 'death' ).


 * three 'general-predicates': ( 'exists by nature ' ; 'exists by nature' ; 'is finite by nature' ).


 * two 'different-subjects': ( 'life' ; 'death' ).


 * two 'different-predicates': ( 'exists by nature' ; 'is finite by nature' ).


 * two 'similar-subjects' ( 'life' ; 'life' ).


 * two 'similar-predicates' ( 'exists by nature' ; 'exists by nature' ).


 * one 'different-subject' ( 'death' ).


 * one 'different-predicate' ( 'is finite by nature' ).


 * valid-structure! if the 'numerical-pattern' is correct ( see above ), then the overall-structure of the given syllogism above must be correct, as well.  however, the ultimate-goal is to determine whether the 'conclusion' of the given-syllogism.  often-times, the conclusion is 'not' correct in that it simply doesn't make sense.  the given syllogism must also 'sound' correct.


 * Conclusion: 'life and death exist by nature and are finite by nature'.


 * NOTE: obviously, the conclusion is determined by combining the two different-subjects with the two different-predicates.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: 'death is finite by nature'????????


 * NOTE # 2: it is impossible to know, based on the information given to us by this particular syllogism, whether this particular-syllogism is valid or not.  therefore, by definition, an 'uncertain-conclusion' must be an 'incorrect-conclusion'.  a conclusion 'must' either make sense or 'not' make sense.  Trex363 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

an example of an 'invalid' Aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * if 'life' exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life 'is finite' ( which is 'also' self-evident )...

--
 * then death 'is infinite'.


 * 'incorrect' numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3 '.


 * 'correct' numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * 'three' general-subjects: ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three' general-predicates: ( exists ; is finite ; is infinite ).


 * 'two' similar-subjects: ( life ; life ).


 * 'zero' similar-predicates: ( :/ ).


 * 'one' different-subject: ( 'death' ).


 * 'three' different-predicates: ( exists ; is finite ; is infinite ).


 * NOTE: if the numerical-pattern is incorrect, which in this case it is, then the syllogism 'must' be invalid, and, as a result, the 'ultimate-conclusion' must be incorrect.  will demonstrate:


 * Conclusion: 'life and death exist, are finite, and are infinite'??????????


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: doesn't make sense ( for obvious reasons ).


 * NOTE: a particular-syllogism may 'sound' like it makes sense due to a correct numerical-pattern, but it is not always guaranteed that the ultimate-conclusion will make any sense or be validated.  with this particular-syllogism, because the numerical-pattern is incorrect, there is 'no' way the structure of the argument can be correct, and as a result the ultimate-conclusion of this particular- syllogism ( or any 'other' given syllogism, for that matter ) can never be correct.Trex363 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

how to use an Aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogism to prove that natural-reincarnation exists.

 * if life exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life is finite ( which is 'also' self-evident )...

---
 * then death is 'infinite'.


 * NOTE: incorrect 'numerical-pattern':  '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3'.


 * 'three' general-subjects: ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three' general-predicates: ( exists ; is finite ; is 'infinite' ).


 * 'two' similar-subjects: ( life ; life ).


 * 'zero' similar-predicates: ( :/ ).


 * 'one' different-subject: ( 'death' ).


 * 'three' different-predicates: ( exists ; is finite ; is 'infinite' ).


 * NOTE: there can only be 'one' correct numerical-pattern:  '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * for example:


 * 'three' general-subjects: ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three' general-predicates: ( exists ; is 'finite' ; is 'finite' ).


 * 'two' similar-subjects: ( life ; life ).


 * 'two' similar-predicates: ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one' different-subject: ( death ).


 * 'one' different-predicate: ( is finite ).


 * NOTE: if the numerical-pattern is incorrect, then the given syllogism 'must' be incorrect.  this is determined by the existence of a 'conclusion' that doesn't make any sense.  this type of conclusion is achieved, even-though it must 'always' be wrong, by combining the two 'different-subjects' with the two 'different-predicates' ( in this case 'three different-predicates' ).  the fact that there are three 'different-predicates' in the first-place is what ultimately invalidates the entire syllogism.  will demonstrate:


 * Conclusion: 'life and death exist, are finite and are infinite'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: obviously doesn't make any sense.


 * Correct-Conclusion: 'life and death exist and are finite'.


 * NOTE: it is uncertain whether death is finite or not.  however, it 'is' certain that death is 'not infinite'.  therefore, as has been shown, if death 'must not' be infinite, then by definition it 'must' be finite, which automatically means 'natural-reincarnation'. Trex363 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

a=b ; b=c ; a=c ?

 * if 'a' equals 'b'...


 * and 'b' equals 'c'...

--
 * then 'a' equals 'c'.


 * valid numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'the' valid numerical-pattern of 'any' syllogism: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * why numerical-pattern of this particular Aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogism is valid:


 * 'three' total-subjects: ( a ; a ; b ).


 * 'three' total-predicates: ( equals b ; equals c ; equals c ).


 * 'two' similar-subjects: ( a ; a ).


 * 'two' similar-predicates: ( equals c ; equals c ).


 * 'one' different-subject: ( b ).


 * 'one' different-predicate: ( equals b ).


 * Conclusion: 'a' and 'b' equals 'b' and equals 'c' ???????????


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: obviously doesn't make any sense! Trex363 (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

is nature bad ?

 * if nature is bad...


 * and lions exist by nature ( which is self-evident )...


 * then lions are bad.


 * numerical-pattern is correct! '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( lions ; lions ; nature ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is bad ; exist by nature ; are bad ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( lions ; lions ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is bad ; are bad ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exist by nature ).


 * NOTE: since numerical-pattern is 'correct', the structure of the given syllogism is 'valid'.


 * Conclusion: 'lions and nature are bad and exist by nature' ??????????


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: doesn't make any sense :/ Trex363 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

is nature good ?

 * if nature is good...


 * and lions exist by nature ( which is self-evident )...

--
 * then lions are good.
 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * NOTE: a correct numerical-pattern guarantees a valid-structure and therefore a conclusion, even if it ( the conclusion ) is wrong.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( nature ; lions ; lions ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; are good ; exist by nature ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( lions ; lions ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': (  is good ; are good ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exist by nature ).


 * Conclusion: 'nature and lions are good and exist by nature'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: doesn't make any sense :/ Trex363 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE: is nature good or bad ?  it obviously can't be both!

is nature good 'and' bad ?

 * if artificiality is good...


 * and lions are artificial...

-
 * then lions are good.
 * correct numerical-pattern: 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( artificiality ; lions ; lions ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; are good ; are artificial ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( lions ; lions ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; are good ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( artificiality ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( are artificial ).


 * valid-structure!


 * NOTE: syllogism is invalid because lions don't exist artificially.  therefore, the 1st-premise, 'if artificiality is good'...is actually the opposite:  'artificiality is bad', because 'both' premises must be correct if the 'conclusion' is ultimately to be correct in actuality 'or' potentiality.


 * NOTE #2: artificiality can't be good due to the fact that lions 'can't and don't' exist artificially.  artificiality can only be 'bad', which automatically means that 'nature is good'...Trex363 (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

is death finite or infinite ? ( part-one ).

 * if life exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life is finite ( which is 'also' self-evident )...

--
 * then death exists ( which is self-evident ).
 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; exists ; is finite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( life ; life ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( death ).


 * 'one differing-predicate: ( 'is finite' ).


 * NOTE: a correct numerical-pattern 'guarantees' a valid syllogistic-structure like the one above.


 * NOTE #2: the conclusion is arrived at by combining two differing-subjects, in this case 'life' and 'death', with two differing-predicates, in this case 'exists' and 'is finite'.


 * valid-structure!


 * Conclusion: 'life and death exist and are finite'.


 * Correct-Conclusion: since it is self-evident that life exists for only a finite-duration of time, then it can only make sense that death, 'as well', exists for only a finite-duration of time.Trex363 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

is death finite 'or' infinite ? part-two.

 * if life is finite ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident )...

---
 * then death 'is finite'.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists ).


 * valid-structure!


 * NOTE: the conclusion can only be determined by combining two differing-subjects, 'life' and 'death', with two differing-predicates, 'exists' and 'is finite'.


 * Conclusion: life and death exist and are finite.


 * Correct-Conclusion: makes sense! Trex363 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * a valid numerical-pattern 'guarantees' a valid syllogistic-structure like the one above.Trex363 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

is death finite 'or' infinite ? ( part-three ).

 * if death exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death is finite...

---
 * then 'life' exists ( which is self-evident ).


 * 'correct numerical-pattern': '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; exists ; is finite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( is finite ).


 * valid structure of given syllogism above! a correct numerical-pattern guarantees a valid structure in any given syllogism.


 * the conclusion is determined by combining two differing-subjects, 'life' and 'death', with two differing-predicates, 'exists' and 'is finite'.


 * Conclusion: 'life and death exist and are finite'.


 * Correct-Conclusion: makes sense!


 * NOTE: please notice that each conclusion of all three previous-syllogisms are 'exactly' the same:  'life and death exist and are finite'.Trex363 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Trex363 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE #2: please 'also' notice that the first-syllogism begins with the premise 'life exists', whereas the third and 'final-syllogism' ENDS with the 'conclusion' that: 'life exists'.  it is hard 'not' to see the cycle that begins with the fact that life exists and 'ends' with the fact that 'life exists'.  this is 'very' powerful-evidence for believing in 'natural-reincarnation'!


 * NOTE #3: every one of these premises and conclusions are based 'solely' in physical-reality, e.g. 'life is finite', or:  'death exists', and, yes:  ' death is finite'!Trex363 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

why presumably no evidence for physical reincarnation ?
1. it doesn't occur.

2. the only way for sure that one could see natural-reincarnation actually take place is for somebody to somehow exist infinitely ( unlike the rest of us, who only exist 'finitely' ). then, we would know for sure. such a person would actually see people returning from the dead. unfortunately, such a person doesn't exist, because we all live only 'partially', and not infinitely. so there's no way of knowing for sure empirically.

NOTE: fortunately, we 'do' have the Aristotelian deductive-reasoning 'syllogisms', and based on those alone it is quite self-evident that we do 'indeed' return from the dead as well as die.Trex363 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

existence!
since it is self-evident that life exists only 'finitely' ( in other words: one lives and dies as opposed to just 'living' infinitely ), 'death', then, must 'also' exist only finitely, for if 'non-existence' were to be infinite, then life couldn't exist, 'at all', nor 'wouldn't' exist. however, the fact that life 'does' exist ( albeit in a finite-manner ), then the same 'must' apply to death. death obviously exists, but, like life, only in a finite-fashion. this is true for 'all' living-things, because 'non-living' things, e.g. 'a rock ' obviously can't nor does live or die, but, rather: it ( a rock ) exists infinitely. this is self-evident because a rock never 'dies'. we know this via' our ability to observe.Trex363 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Trex363 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Trex363 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Trex363 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

life and death aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogisms.

 * if 'life', e.g. living-plants, living-animals and living-humans, 'exist' ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life, i.e. plants, animals and humans, 'is finite' ( which is 'also' self-evident )...

---
 * then 'death', e.g. bones in the ground, decay, rigor-mortis, rotting-flesh, etc., 'exists' ( which is self-evident ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3' ; '3' ; '2' ; '2' ; '1' ; '1'.


 * 'the' correct numerical-pattern for 'any' given syllogism is: '3' ; '3' ; '2' ; '2' ; '1', '1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exist ; exists ; is finite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( life ; life ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exist ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( death ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( is finite ).


 * Conclusion: 'life', e.g. living-plants, living-animals and living-humans, 'and death', e.g. bones in the ground, decay, rigor-mortis and rotting-flesh, both 'exist' and 'are finite'.


 * Correct-Conclusion!Trex363 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

life and death as being 'self-evident'.

 * there really is no argument 'not' for the existence of life and death. the only argument is the 'duration' of life and death, especially 'death', for it is obvious that life is only partial in existence.  death is obviously much more difficult to determine when it comes to duration because there's no way of being able to actually observe what occurs.  fortunately, there 'is' a way of knowing to a certainty, and that is:  'Aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogisms'.  without them, there would be 'no' way of knowing what is true and, perhaps more importantly, what is ultimate-happiness.Trex363 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

life and death Aristotelian deductive-reasoning syllogisms 'revisited'.

 * if 'life' exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life 'is finite' ( which is 'also' self-evident )...


 * then 'death' exists ( which is self-evident ).


 * correct numerical-pattern! '3' ; '3' ; '2' ; '2' ; '1' ; '1'.


 * is also the 'only' correct numerical-pattern. anything other than the above would be deemed 'incorrect'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total predicates': ( exists ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( life ; life ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( death ).


 * the 'conclusion' is determined by combining 'two' differing-subjects with 'two' differing-predicates, and seeing if it makes any sense.


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist and are finite'.

---
 * Correct-Conclusion! makes sense.


 * if 'life' is finite ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death 'exists' ( which is 'also' self-evident )...


 * then 'death' is finite.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3' ; '3' ; '2' ; '2' ; '1' ; '1'.


 * Conclusion: 'life and death both exist and are finite'.


 * Correct-Conclusion! makes sense.


 * if 'death' exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death 'is finite' ( which is now 'also' self-evident )...


 * then 'life' exists ( which is self-evident ).


 * correct numerical-pattern.


 * Conclusion: 'life and death both exist and are finite'.


 * Correct-Conclusion! makes sense.


 * NOTE: can death be finite 'without' any kind of reincarnation ?  there can be no question that death 'is' finite. so what ?  well, if one looks at the last sentence, 'life exists', then it becomes obvious that reincarnation 'does' occur.  otherwise, the last sentence would 'have' to say something-else.  it is also worth noting that the first premise of the first syllogism, 'life exists', is the exact same sentence that is the last sentence in the final-syllogism.  namely:  'life exists'.  so the first-syllogism starts with 'life exists', and the third and 'final-syllogism' ENDS with:  'life exists'.  notice it doesn't end with LIFE DOESN'T EXIST, or:  DEATH IS INFINITE.  sounds pretty cyclical to me.  there can be 'no' question, then, that not only is death 'finite', but, more importantly, reincarnation occurs ( 'life exists' ).  also, 'all' three syllogisms have the same, exact conclusion:  'life and death exist and are finite'.Trex363 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

2 + 2 = 4 ?

 * 'only' in potentiality. 'not' in actuality.  matter 'must' exist, first, in order for mathematical-equations to be relevant.  '2 + 2 = 4' means absolutely nothing unless there is some kind of actual physical-'thing' that is already there.  therefore, in 'actuality', 2 + 2 = 4 can only be true if there are, say, four-rocks present, and u divide them in half.  'now' u can say in 'actuality', and not just 'potentiality', that 2 + 2 = 4.  but one would 'have' to phrase it as:  two-rocks + two-rocks = 'four-rocks'.  again:  numbers exist only potentially.  there 'has' to be matter present, first, in order for numbers to go 'beyond' mere potential-existence to actually existing.  that's why am skeptical of fancy mathematical-equations when actual matter and substance is irrelevant.Trex363 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

how do we know death isn't infinite ?

 * if life is finite ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident )...

-
 * then death is infinite.


 * incorrect numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3'.


 * 'the' only correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'ZERO similar-predicates': ( :/ ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'THREE differing-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * NOTE: the conclusion is determined by taking the two differing-subjects and 'combining' them with the two differing-predicates.  unfortunately, in this case, there are 'three' differing-predicates.  as a result, the conclusion will 'never' make sense if there are 'ever' more than 'two' differing-subjects and 'two' different-predicates.  will demonstrate:


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist, are finite and are infinite'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: life and death can't exist both finitely 'and' infinitely.  it 'must' be one or the other.Trex363 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

how do all living-things eventually return from the dead ?

 * unknown at this point ( at least to the best of my knowledge ). obviously, there exists some 'natural mechanism' that somehow eventually 'reincarnates' plants, animals and human-beings.  exactly what that particular 'thing' is, I have no idea as of right-now.  what I do know is that, not only does it exist, but it 'must' exist, as well.  reincarnation is purely 'physical' ( or:  'natural' ), and 'not' spiritual, at all, for spirituality doesn't exist.Trex363 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

do human-beings exist by nature ?
yes! often-times, we are regarded as being 'separate' from nature. that we somehow don't share anything in common with 'other' natural-things, e.g. plants and animals. we 'create' things all the time. these 'things' are deemed as 'man-made' or 'artificial', e.g. cars ; computers ; television-screens, etc...the question is: how are 'we' created ? if we can create all these artificial-things, why can't we create ourselves ? the answer is obvious: we 'can't' create ourselves. that is the job of 'nature'. and 'not' the theory of evolution, but rather: 'nature'. the theory of evolution exists as a subsidiary to nature, and not as a universal-equal or even a universal-superior to it ( nature ). there is nothing more 'authoritative' that exists other than nature. even the 'universe' exists 'by nature'.Trex363 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley ( not Aristotle' ) deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * if 'death' exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death is finite...

--
 * then 'life' is finite ( which is self-evident ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3' ; '3' ; '2' ; '2' ; '1' ; '1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern possible in a filley syllogism: same as above.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is finite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( life ; death ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists ).


 * the 'conclusion' is achieved by combining the two, differing-subjects with the two, differing-predicates. if the conclusion makes sense, then it is a 'valid' conclusion 'and' a valid syllogism.


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist and are finite'.


 * Valid-Conclusion: the conclusion makes sense!


 * Valid-Syllogism! :  the conclusion is valid.Trex363 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

how do we know death isn't infinite ? part 2.

 * if 'death' exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and death is finite...

--
 * then 'life' doesn't exist.


 * Incorrect numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern is: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; is finite ; doesn't exist ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'ZERO similar-predicates': ( :/ ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'THREE differing-predicates': ( is finite ; doesn't exist ; exists ).


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: 'both life and death are finite, don't exist and exist '.  obviously, doesn't make any sense!


 * NOTE: both life and death can't EXIST and NOT-EXIST at the same-time.


 * Incorrect-Syllogism: this is due to an 'incorrect-conclusion'!Trex363 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

can it be proven that 'god' exists or not ?

 * if it can't be proven that 'god' exists or not...


 * and 'god' exists...

--
 * then ?????????????????????


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: doesn't make any sense!


 * Invalid-Syllogism! :  conclusion is incorrect.


 * NOTE: obviously, it 'can' be proven whether 'god' exists or not ( see previous chapters ).Trex363 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

'god' ? brian filley deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * if 'god' exists...


 * and 'god' is infinite...


 * then 'life' is infinite.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical pattern 'is': '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( 'god' ; life ; 'god' ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is infinite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( 'god' ; 'god' ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is infinite ; is infinite ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists ).

NOTE: the 'conclusion' based on the information given by the syllogism is reached by combining the two,differing-subjects with the two, differing-predicates.


 * Conclusion: both 'god' and life exist and are infinite.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: life isn't and 'can't be' infinite.


 * Incorrect-Syllogism: is due to an 'incorrect-conclusion' like the one above.


 * NOTE #2: a correct conclusion 'must' make sense in order for there to be a 'correct-syllogism'.  this particular-conclusion obviously doesn't make any sense.  therefore, the 'syllogism' MUST be an incorrect-one.  as a result, 'god' CAN'T exist!Trex363 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

'god' ? part-two.

 * 'if' god exists...


 * 'and' god is infinite...


 * then the universe is infinite.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern 'is': '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ;1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( god ; universe ; god ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( god ; god ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( universe ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( is finite ).


 * Conclusion: both 'god' and the universe exist and are infinite'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion! there is 'ambivalence' in the conclusion.


 * NOTE: it is an assumption that 'god' exists, 'at all', let alone exists 'infinitely'.  there can be 'no' assumptions in brian filley deductive-reasoning.  there can 'also' be 'no' uncertainty.  my premises and conclusions are either 'true' or 'false'.  otherwise, the entire syllogism 'must' be incorrect and invalid.


 * Invalid-Syllogism! due to an incorrect-conclusion.Trex363 (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley 'two for one' deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * if 'life' exists ( which is self-evident )...


 * and life is finite ( which is 'also' self-evident )...


 * then 'death' exists ( which is self-evident ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern can be: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( life ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( life ; life ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( death ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( is finite ).


 * the 'Ultimate-Conclusion' of 'any' given brian filley syllogism is determined by combining the two differing-subjects with the two differing-predicates. it is 'not' guaranteed, however, that the conclusion will make any sense.


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist and are finite'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: it is uncertain whether or not death is finite.  uncertain-conclusions are invalid, which automatically negates the conclusion as well as the given syllogism.

--
 * NOTE: it is not known, based on the info. that exists in this particular syllogism, whether death is finite 'nor' infinite.


 * if 'life' is finite ( which is self-evident )...


 * and 'death' exists ( which is 'also self-evident )...

--
 * then death 'is infinite'.


 * 'incorrect numerical-pattern': '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern is: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'ZERO similar-predicates': ( :/ ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'THREE differing-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * 'Ultimate-Conclusion': 'both life and death exist, are finite and are infinite'


 * 'Invalid-Conclusion! :  obviously doesn't make sense.


 * 'Invalid-Syllogism'! :  due to an 'invalid-conclusion'.


 * NOTE: it is now 'certain' that life is 'finite' because the particular-syllogism above is not uncertain, 'at all'.  it is simply 'wrong'.  the 'first-syllogism', then, is now correct.  'life is finite'!  this is obviously because the most recent-syllogism states that life is 'infinite':  and we have now proven that that's the case.  therefore, again, if death 'can't' be 'infinite', then by definition it 'must' be finite, only!Trex363 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley infinite-syllogism ( correct )...
^death exists^--                     v death exists v

^life is finite^--                    v death is finite v

^life exists^--                       v life exists vTrex363 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley infinite-syllogism ( 'incorrect' )...
^death exists^v death exists v

^life is finite^---v death is infinite???????

^life exists^--  life DOESN'T exist?????????????Trex363 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

money and nature...

 * if money exists by nature...


 * and nature is good...


 * then money is good.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern is: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( money ; nature ; money ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; exists by nature ; is good ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( money ; money ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; is good ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists by nature )


 * NOTE: the 'ultimate-conclusion' is determined by combining the two different subjects with the two differing-predicates.


 * Conclusion: 'money and nature are good and exist by nature'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: nature doesn't 'exist by nature'.  obviously, the conclusion doesn't make sense.


 * Incorrect-Syllogism: because the 'conclusion' is incorrect.  trex3632605:6000:B4C7:3E00:DDD:43A4:60BE:F467 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

five or six ?

 * if nature is good...


 * and human-beings exist by nature...


 * then human-beings are good.

-


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern is: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( human-beings ; human-beings ; nature ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; exist by nature ; are good ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( human-beings ; human-beings ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; are good ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists by nature ).


 * if life is finite...


 * and death exists...


 * then 'death' is finite.


 * if life is finite...


 * and death exists...


 * then death 'is infinite'.

--

NOTE: which one makes sense just by looking at it ? obviously, it is #1. which means death 'must' be finite.

NOTE: which one 'does not' make sense just by looking at it ? obviously, #2. this particular-syllogism doesn't give us 'any' knowledge via' 'reality'. as one can see, life as being 'finite', and death as being 'infinite', just doesn't look right.Trex363 (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Socrates...

 * if men are mortal ( which is self-evident )...


 * and Socrates is a man ( which is 'also' self-evident )...


 * then Socrates is mortal ( which is self-evident ).

-


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern is: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.  same as above.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( Socrates ; men ; Socrates ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( are mortal ; is a man ; is mortal ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( Socrates ; Socrates ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( are mortal ; is a man ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( men ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( is a man ).


 * a 'conclusion' is reached by combining the two different-subjects with the two differing-predicates. however, for some strange reason, that doesn't automatically guarantee that the conclusion will make sense.


 * Conclusion: 'both men and Socrates are mortal and are a man'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: doesn't make sense ( for obvious reasons ).


 * Invalid-Syllogism: because of 'incorrect-conclusion'.Trex363 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley correct infinite deductive-reasoning syllogism...
a.  v life exists by nature v       <<<     f.   *life exists by nature*

b.  v life is finite v              ---     e.   ^death is finite^

c.   *death exists by nature*        >>>    d.   ^death exists by nature^


 * note: this particular diagram of a correct Brian Filley Infinite Deductive-Reasoning Syllogism is the 'smoking-gun' for the existence of general-reincarnation.  the diagram is circular in nature, which means it can't be anything 'but' infinite, for a 'circle' is infinite in nature.Trex363 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

brian filley 'incorrect' infinite deductive-reasoning syllogism...
a.  v life exists by nature v

b.  v life is finite v               e.  *death is infinite*  ( ? )

c.  *death exists by nature*      >>>    d.  ^death exists by nature^


 * this is what an 'incorrect' diagram looks like with an Infinite Brian Filley Deductive-Reasoning Syllogism. it obviously 'stops' at letter 'e.', whereas a 'correct' diagram 'never' stops ( see previous post ).  'this' particular diagram looks this way because 'death' is obviously not 'infinite', as depicted.Trex363 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

brian filley deductive-reasoning syllogism...

 * if good exists...


 * and nature is good ( which is self-evident )...


 * then 'nature' exists.

---


 * Correct Numerical-Pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * example of an 'incorrect' numerical-pattern: '2 ; 3 ; 1 ; 3 ; 1 ; 2'.
 * 'three total-subjects': ( good ; nature ; nature ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; exists ; is good ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( nature ; nature ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( good ).


 * Correct-Premises!: ( good exists ; nature is good ).


 * Correct-Syllogism! the two premises and the conclusion, 'nature exists', are accurate!Trex363 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

the divine...

 * if 'god' exists...


 * and nature is good...


 * then 'god' is good.

---


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( god ; god ; nature ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; is good ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( god ; god ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; is good ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists ).


 * Conclusion: 'both god and nature exist and are good'.


 * Correct-Conclusion: makes sense!


 * Problem: who is this 'god' fella' ?


 * Answer: there 'is' no 'god'!


 * Conclusion ultimately 'Incorrect'.

== great chain of being part 2


 * from highest to lowest ( best to worst ):


 * nature ( or: 'god'.  also, the 'theory of evolution' and the universe, in general, are PART of 'nature':  NOT vice-versa ).

vvv


 * the universe.

vvv


 * galaxies.

vvv


 * solar-systems.

vvv


 * the earth.

vvv


 * human-beings.

vvv


 * los animales.

vvv


 * vegetation.

vvv


 * 'non-living' things that still exist 'by nature', e.g. rocks, air, fire, dirt and water.

vvv
 * things that 'don't' exist by nature, e.g. cars, cell-phones, video-games, computers, modern-day money and printing-presses, as well as television-sets. 'artificial-things'.Trex363 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

nature is the supreme authority of all that is...

 * even the universe. when one 'refers' to the universe as:  'existing by nature', one is obviously 'inferring' that nature reigns supreme over the universe and all that exists within it, e.g. human-beings.  we are often wrongly accused of not existing by nature, when it is actually 'the opposite':  we 'do' exist by nature, just like all 'other' living-things, e.g. plants and animals.  'nature', and 'not' the theory of evolution or 'god', ultimately is responsible for our existence.  this is because 'macro-evolution' is limited, whereas 'god' simply doesn't exist.  nature reigns supreme even over the fact of 'reincarnation'.  to put it simply, reincarnation exists 'by nature'.  Aristotle himself discusses in his book "...POLITICS", book 1, the authority nature has over 'all' things that exist.  however, he didn't believe in reincarnation ( plato did, however ).  that is 'my' personal-belief, as well, ironically discovered by the usage of Aristotelian deductive-reasoning.Trex363 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley deductive-reasoning syllogism...

 * life is finite ( which is self-evident )...


 * death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident )...


 * 'death' is finite.


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * an example of an 'incorrect numerical-pattern': anything other than the above.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ).


 * 'one different-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one different-predicate': ( exists ).


 * the numerical-pattern is why the syllogism looks the way it does.


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist and are finite'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: is impossible to know anything about the duration of death!  or is it??????????Trex363 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley deductive-reasoning syllogism 2...

 * life is finite ( which is self-evident ).


 * death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident ).


 * 'death' is finite.

OR:


 * life is finite ( which is self-evident ).


 * death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident ).


 * death is infinite.


 * NOTE: just by 'looking' at these two, which one is true and makes sense and which one does 'not' make sense ?


 * ANSWER: the 'first' one, of course.  there is a self-evident pattern in the first-one that doesn't exist in the second.  therefore, 'death is finite' MUST be correct, while 'death is infinite', MUST NOT!Trex363 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley two for one deductive-reasoning syllogisms...

 * life is finite ( which is self-evident ).


 * death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident ).


 * 'death' is finite.

--


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * all 'other' numerical-patterns other than the one above are 'incorrect'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ).


 * 'one different-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one different-predicate': ( exists ).


 * this particular 'pattern' and number of subjects and predicates is what makes the above syllogism look the way it does. any 'other particular-pattern and number of subjects and predicates MUST be incorrect.


 * the conclusion is ultimately determined by joining both the two different-subjects with the two different-predicates. if the conclusion makes sense, then the syllogism is correct.


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist and are finite'.


 * Ambivalent-Conclusion: there is no way of knowing, at least up to this point, what the actual duration of death is.

--


 * life is finite ( which is self-evident ).


 * death exists ( which is 'also' self-evident ).


 * 'death is infinite'.

-


 * incorrect numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'ZERO similar-predicates': ( :/ ).


 * 'one different-subject': ( 'life' ).


 * Conclusion: 'both life and death exist, are finite and are INFINITE'.


 * Incorrect-Conclusion: both life and death can't be finite AND infinite at the same time.


 * NOTE: an ambivalent-conclusion, like the one from the first-syllogism, must always take precedent over an incorrect-conclusion, like the one in the second syllogism.  therefore, death MUST be finite in duration.


 * death MUST be finite in duration, and CANNOT and MUST not be infinite in duration. is only thing that makes any kind of sense.2605:6000:B4C7:3E00:6835:A4E4:3ED:5B74 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

brian filley deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * nature is superior to human-beings. ( premise )


 * human-beings are superior to animals. ( premise )


 * 'nature' is superior to animals. ( conclusion )

---


 * Correct syllogism.


 * 'both' premises and the conclusion are correct. all three make sense.  all-three are 'self-evident'.


 * why does the syllogism 'look' the way it does ?


 * it has a 'numerical-pattern', the only correct one there is, of: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( nature ; nature ; human-beings ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( are superior to animals ; is superior to animals ; is superior to human-beings ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( nature ; nature ).


 * 'two different-predicates': ( are superior to animals ; is superior to human-beings ).


 * 'one different-subject': ( human-beings ).


 * 'one different-predicate': ( is superior to animals ).


 * human-beings are 'not' animals and also are 'superior' to animals! 'nature', however, is superior to 'both' and also plantsTrex363 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

great chain of being part 3.

 * from lowest to highest ( worst to best ).


 * 'artificial-things', i.e. things that don't exist by nature. for example:  computers, trucks, cell-phones, video-games, cars, exercise-videos etc.

vvv


 * non-living things that are still 'good' and exist by nature. for example:  stones, water, air, fire, dirt, etc.

vvv


 * living-things: 'vegetation'.                        <<<

vvv


 * 'animals'.   <<<

vvv


 * 'human-beings'.

vvv


 * NATURE ( or:  'god' ).Trex363 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Brian Filley Deductive-Reasoning Syllogism.

 * life is finite ( self-evident ).


 * death exists ( self-evident ).

---
 * 'life' exists ( self-evident ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( life ; life ; death ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; exists ; is finite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( life ; life ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'one different-subject': ( death ).


 * 'one different-predicate': ( is finite ).


 * Correct-Conclusion: 'life exists'.


 * Correct-Premises: 'life is finite ; death exists'.


 * Correct-Syllogism!Trex363 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

circles.

 * if a circle is potentially infinite by nature.


 * and nature exists ( self-evident ).


 * then 'nature' is potentially infinite.Trex363 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

nature and reincarnation.

 * 'all' living-things, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals and human-beings, 'never' stop going in to and out of existence without the intervention of a 'creator'. for example:  'grass' never stops living and dying.  'lions' never stop living and dying.  'human-beings' never stop living and dying.  we obviously can and do observe this.  we can 'also' observe that 'god' doesn't take part in 'any' of it.  it is a 'totally, natural-process'.  apologists for 'god's' role in this is that basically he set everything in motion and then sat-back and let 'nature' take it's course.  there is no reason to believe this:  be it from an observational-perspective 'nor' a deductive-reasoning perspective.  if all living-things 'never' stop living and dying, again:  vegetation, regular-animals and human-beings, then nature 'must' exist infinitely.Trex363 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

which one is right ?
*life potentially exists by nature. vvv v                                                                 *life is finite.
 * life exists by nature.

v                                                         *so, 'death' potentially exists by nature.

OR:                   --

v                                                         *life is potentially finite by nature.

*death exists.

v                                                         *so, 'death' is potentially finite by nature.

-

v                                                         *death potentially exists by nature.

*death is finite.

v                                                         *so, 'life' is potentially finite by nature.
 * life is finite.


 * so, 'death' exists by nature.


 * life is finite by nature.


 * death exists.


 * so, 'death' is finite by nature.

-


 * death exists by nature.


 * death is finite.


 * so, 'life' exists by nature.Trex363 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

nature syllogism.

 * the universe exists by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'the universe' is good.

-


 * human-beings exist by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'human-beings' are good.

--


 * 'regular-animals', e.g. lions, exist by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'regular-animals' are good.


 * vegetation, e.g. a tree, exists by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'vegetation' is good.


 * water exists by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'water' is good.

-


 * cars are artificial ( self-evident ).


 * artificiality is bad ( self-evident ).


 * 'cars' are bad.Trex363 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

nature syllogism.

 * vegetation, e.g. plants and trees, exists by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'vegetation' is good.

--


 * 'regular' animals, e.g. rhinos and tigers, exist by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'rhinos and tigers' are good.


 * 'unique' animals, i.e, human-beings, exist by nature ( self-evident ).


 * nature is good ( self-evident ).


 * 'human-beings' are good.Trex363 (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, exist by nature. ( duh! )


 * all things that live, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, LIVE ONLY FINITELY. ( duh! )


 * ALL THINGS THAT DIE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, exist by nature. ( duh! ).

-


 * ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, LIVE ONLY FINITELY, by nature. ( duh! ).


 * all things that die, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, exist. ( duh! )


 * ALL THINGS THAT DIE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, DO NOT DIE INFINITELY, by nature.

-


 * ALL THINGS THAT DIE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, exist by nature. ( duh! )


 * all things that die, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, DO NOT DIE INFINITELY.


 * ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, exist by nature. ( duh! )Trex363 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

deductive-reasoning syllogism #2.

 * ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings live by nature. ( duh! )


 * all things that live, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings LIVE ONLY FINITELY. ( duh! )


 * ALL THINGS THAT DIE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, exist by nature. ( duh! )


 * ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, LIVE ONLY FINITELY, by nature. ( duh! )


 * all things that die, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, live . ( duh! )


 * ALL THINGS THAT DIE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, DIE 'INFINITELY', by nature. ( ?????????? )

-


 * ALL THINGS THAT DIE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, DO NOT EXIST ONLY FINITELY, by nature. ( duh! )


 * all things that die, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, DO NOT EXIST 'INFINITELY'. ( ???????? )


 * ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, i.e. vegetation, regular-animals ( e.g. 'rhino' ) and human-beings, live by nature. ( duh! )Trex363 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

terrestrial versus oceanic-aquatic.

 * land is superior to oceanic-water.


 * there can be no oceanic-water w/o land.


 * there 'can' be land, however, w/o oceanic-water.


 * living-things that exist on land are superior to living-things that exist in oceanic-water.


 * 'all' things that live and 'don't' live in oceanic-water 'still' exist by nature and 'must' be deemed 'good'.


 * things that both live and 'don't' live on land are superior to things that both live and 'don't' live in oceanic-water.


 * a stone, therefore, 'must' be superior to a dolphin.


 * all oceanic-things are 'superior' to all artificial-things e.g. 'cars'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trex363 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

are we the same as 'regular' animals? deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * 'homo-sapiens' is superior to regular-animals ( e.g. lions ).


 * regular-animals are superior to plants.


 * 'homo-sapiens' is superior to plants.


 * NOTE: 'homo-sapiens' is akin to regular-animals, e.g. 'lions'.  that being said, the first-premise is akin to 'regular-animals are superior to regular-animals'.  this obviously doesn't make sense.  regular-animals, e.g. 'lions', can only be 'equal' ( and no more ) to all other regular-animals, including 'homo-sapiens'.  so the above syllogism is ultimately incorrect because it ultimately doesn't make sense.


 * NOTE #2: however, if 'homo-sapiens' ( or:  'unique' animals ) are superior to regular-animals, the syllogism would go as follows:


 * 'unique-animals', i.e. homo-sapiens, are superior to regular-animals ( e.g. lions ).


 * regular-animals ( lions ) are superior to plants.


 * 'unique-animals' ( homo-sapiens ) are superior to plants.

NOTE: correct-syllogism. makes sense. see recent-posts as to why unique-animals are superior to regular-animals.Trex363 (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

god exists? Brian Filley deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * god exists.


 * god is good.


 * god is good?????????

--


 * incorrect numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 '.


 * 'the' correct numerical-pattern: ' 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1 '.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( god ; god ; god ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; is good ; exists ).


 * 'THREE similar-subjects': ( god ; god ; god ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; is good ).


 * 'ZERO different-subjects': ( - ).


 * 'one different-predicate': ( exists ).


 * INCORRECT-SYLLOGISM: doesn't make any sense.  therefore, 'god' can't be said to exist, let alone be good.Trex363 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

'new' kind of Brian Filley deductive-reasoning syllogism?

 * life exists.


 * life is finite.
 * death exists.


 * death is finite.

NOTE: is amazing that all 'three' premises are correct, here, instead of just the usual 'two'. there can be no-doubt death is only partial. I've never seen syllogistic deductive-reasoning that has, again, 'three' correct-premises as well as a correct-conclusion. deductive-reasoning syllogisms are supposed to only have 'two' correct-premises and a correct-conclusion. this is very-rare, unique syllogistic deductive-reasoning. maybe will copyright it lol.


 * p>q.
 * p>r.
 * s>q.
 * s>r.


 * s>r: correct-conclusion!  all three previous premises' are correct, as well!

or:


 * life exists.


 * life is finite.


 * death exists.


 * death is 'infinite'( ? )

--

NOTE: here, 'all' three-premises are correct, as well, but the conclusion is wrong, unlike the above, where all three-premises are correct 'and' the 'conclusion' is correct, too.


 * which one is correct?Trex363 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

nature and goodness.

 * goodness exists by nature.


 * goodness is desirable by nature.


 * 'desirability' exists by nature.

--


 * nature is good, in of itself.


 * goodness is desirable by nature.


 * 'nature' is desirable, in of itself.


 * tigers exist by nature.


 * nature is good.


 * tigers are good.


 * badness exists by nature.


 * badness is non-desirable by nature.


 * 'non-desirability' exists by nature.

--


 * nature is bad, in of itself.


 * badness is non-desirable.


 * 'nature' is non-desirable, in of itself.


 * NOTE: incorrect.  it has already been established that nature 'is' desirable and good.Trex363 (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

nature: good or bad?

 * nature is good.


 * animals exist by nature.


 * 'animals' are good.

-


 * nature is bad.


 * animals exist by nature.


 * 'animals' are bad.


 * which one is correct ? 'has' to be one or the other.  can't be both.


 * one thing is self-evident: 'good' is preferable to 'bad'.


 * would 'prefer' nature to be 'good' ; doesn't automatically make it so.


 * if want 'good' syllogism to be correct, then one obviously has to try and dis-credit 'bad' syllogism ( if possible ).

-


 * artificiality is good.


 * natural-animals exist artificially.


 * 'natural-animals' are good.

--


 * artificiality is bad.


 * natural-animals exist artificially.


 * 'natural-animals' are bad.Trex363 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

happiness: good or bad?

 * happiness exists by nature.


 * nature is good.


 * 'happiness' is good.


 * happiness exists artificially.


 * artificiality is bad.


 * 'happiness' is bad.Trex363 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

happiness, nature and goodness.

 * all-three are interconnected.Trex363 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

sadness, artificiality and badness.

 * all-three are inter-connectedTrex363 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

nature versus choice.

 * choice exists 'by nature'. ( ! )


 * nature is good. ( ! )


 * 'choice' is good by nature. ( ! )

-


 * choice exists 'apart' from nature.


 * choice is good. ( ? )


 * 'nature' is good apart from nature. ( ? )Trex363 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

life/death.

 * all things that live ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.


 * all things that live ( e.g. animals ) exist for only a finite-amount of time.


 * all things that 'die' ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.

---


 * all things that live ( e.g. animals ) exist for only a finite-amount of time.


 * all things that 'die' ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.


 * all things that die ( e.g. animals ) 'don't exist' for only a finite-amount of time.


 * all things that die ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.


 * all things that die ( e.g. animals ) 'don't exist' for only a finite-amount of time.


 * all things that 'live' ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.Trex363 (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

'god' and nature.

 * 'god' exists by nature.


 * nature is 'good'.


 * 'god' exists by nature.


 * NOTE: if god exists by nature, he cannot be 'god', at all, because nature would have authority over him.  god can only be god if he is omnipotent, meaning nature would have to be subservient to him, and not the other-way around, which is the correct-scenario.  therefore, god can't be said to exist.  'god' exists 'by nature', which means without nature, there can't be a god.  however, without 'god', nature can and does exist.  in other words, 'god' needs nature in order to exist ( if the above syllogistic-scenario were to be true ), but obviously the scenario 'cannot' be true because, even if 'god' existed, he would have less overall authority than nature.  that is not the true definition of 'god', who, again, must be 'the' authority of all that is in order to exist.  clearly that is not the case.  all of that being said, the above syllogism must be 'untrue'.  it's conclusion, 'god' exists by nature, 'must' be incorrect, which ultimately 'god' can't be said to exist, at all.  if 'god' can't exist by nature, then how can he exist, 'at all'?  answer:  he can't.  see deductive-reasoning syllogism below


 * 'god' exists.


 * 'god' is good.


 * 'god' exists.


 * NOTE: w/o nature, 'how' does 'god' exist?  answer:  he doesn't exist, at all.  he can't just exist in some kind of vacuum or void.  that is why the above deductive-reasoning syllogism doesn't make any sense.  'god' can't exist 'with' nature ; 'god' can't exist 'without' nature.  'god' doesn't exist, period.  the closest thing to a 'god' MUST be nature.  also, nature has authority over the theory of 'evolution'.  the theory can't exist without nature, but nature can exist without it ( evolution ).  this is because evolution and nature are two completely separate and 'different' things.  one ( evolution ) is subservient to the other ( nature ).  they are obviously not one in the same.  however, evolution is obviously a 'part' of nature.  it just isn't nature, in of itself.Trex363 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

the theory of evolution versus nature.

 * the theory of evolution exists by nature ( ! ).


 * nature is good ( ! ).


 * 'the theory of evolution' is good ( ! ).


 * nature exists by the theory of evolution ( ? ).


 * the theory of evolution is good.


 * 'nature' is good by the theory of evolution ( ? ).Trex363 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

'5'.

 * the nature exists universally ( ? ).


 * the universe is good ( ? ).


 * the 'nature' is good universally ( ? ).

---


 * the universe exists naturally ( ! ).


 * nature is good ( ! ).


 * 'the universe' is good naturally ( ! ).


 * correct deductive-inference: 'the universe exists naturally'.


 * 'incorrect' deductive-inference: 'the nature exists universally'.  simply doesn't make sense.  'the nature...'???


 * nature has authority over the universe ; 'not' the other-way around.Trex363 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

'6'.

 * all things that live ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.


 * all things that live ( e.g. animals ) exist for only a finite-amount of time.


 * all things that 'die' ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.

---


 * all things that live ( e.g. animals ) exist for only a finite-amount of time.


 * all things that 'die' ( e.g. animals ) exist by nature.


 * all things that die ( e.g. animals ) exist for an 'infinite-amount' of time. ( ? )

-

NOTE: natural-things like 'rocks' and 'water' obviously never live 'nor' die.Trex363 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

'choice'.

 * human-beings can choose by nature.


 * nature is good.


 * 'human-beings' are good.

--


 * animals 'cannot' choose by nature.


 * nature is good.


 * 'animals' are good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trex363 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

dinero.

 * if money is artificial.


 * and artificiality is bad.


 * then 'money' is bad.

---


 * if money is natural.


 * and nature is good.


 * then 'money' is good.

-

NOTE: only 'one' can be right and 'one' can be wrong in syllogistic deductive-reasoning. so is money good or bad? there can be no 'neutrality'. again: yes/no.Trex363 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

life versus death.

 * life exists.                      /                              *life exists.
 * life is finite.                   /                              *life is finite.
 * death exists.                     /                              *death exists.
 * death is finite.                  /                              *death is 'infinite'.Trex363 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

rocks and nature.

 * rocks exist by nature.


 * rocks exist eternally.


 * 'nature' exists eternally.Trex363 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

natural-inference.

 * nature is good.


 * the law of inference exists by nature.


 * 'the law of inference' is good.Trex363 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

logic: good or bad?

 * nature is good.


 * syllogistic deductive-reasoning exists by nature.


 * 'syllogistic deductive-reasoning' is good.Trex363 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

artificial-intelligence or natural-intelligence?

 * nature is good( ! ).


 * intelligence exists by nature( ! ).


 * 'intelligence' is good( ! ).


 * artificiality is bad ( ! ).


 * intelligence is good ( ! ).


 * 'intelligence' is bad( ? ).Trex363 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

'what is nature'? syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning.

 * if nature is good.


 * and flowers exist by nature.


 * then 'flowers' are good.


 * the 'only' correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( flowers ; flowers ; nature ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; are good ; exist by nature ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( flowers ; flowers ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; are good ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exist by nature ).


 * correct: syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning!Trex363 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"side by side". which one is correct and which one isn't?

 * if life is finite( ! ).//                       *if life is finite( ! ).


 * and death exists ( ! ).//                       *and death exists( ! ).


 * then 'death' is finite.//                       *then death is 'infinite'.Trex363 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

reincarnation.

 * if 'all'-things that 'live', e.g. 'trees', exist( ! ).


 * and 'all'-things that 'live', e.g. 'trees', are finite in duration( ! ).


 * then 'all'-things that 'die', e.g. 'trees', exist( ! ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( all-things that live ; all-things that live ; all things that die ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exist ; exist ; are finite in duration ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': (  all things that live ; all things that live ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exist ; exist ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( all things that die ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( are finite in duration ).

---


 * if all-things that live, e.g. 'trees', are finite in duration( ! ).


 * and all-things that 'die', e.g. 'trees', exist( ! ).


 * then all-things that 'die', e.g. 'trees', are finite in duration( ! ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.

-


 * if all-things that die, e.g. 'trees', exist( ! ).


 * and all-things that die, e.g. 'trees', are finite in duration( ! ).


 * then all-things that 'live', e.g. 'trees', exist( ! ).


 * correct numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.Trex363 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

metaphysics.

 * I don't believe in the general theory of evolution.


 * I don't believe in a creator ( 'god' ).


 * I don't believe in aliens.


 * I 'do' believe in the here and now.


 * the reason I believe in the here and now is due to the fact that I believe that nature is eternal and that some-form of general-reincarnation exists. therefore, there is no 'reason' to focus on how we got here or where we are going.


 * I believe the 'only' way to acquire true knowledge and certainty re: 'nature' is through observation and syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning ( very similar to Aristotle in many different ways ).


 * I believe that the concept of 'god' as the creator of all that is has numerous-problems both philosophically as well as problems in the usage of syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning.


 * I believe in happiness and the 'soul', but they are both merely products of our brain as well as our environment.


 * I believe that 'nature' is the one true god, and that it ( nature ) is Good with a capital 'G'.


 * I believe that human-beings exist by nature. however, I also believe that human-beings are 'solely'-responsible for the antithesis of what is natural and good:  the 'artificial' world, which is unnatural and Bad with a capital 'B'.  some examples of this ( artificial-world ) include:  car-pollution, paper-money and slaughter-houses.  these are all products of man-kind.


 * I believe that the existence of the artificial-world is at least due in large to a general lack of education as well as knowledge, certainty and the ability to reason.


 * I 'don't'' believe that the primary-focus on reason and observation makes us robots. quite the contrary:  they ( reason and observation ) allow us to experience true-happiness as well as allow us to emote in a natural, proper and Good way.Trex363 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

logistic-evidence versus empirical-evidence.

 * it is clear that reincarnation does indeed occur. at least from a logistic spectrum.  however, there is no evidence for it empirically.


 * the exact opposite is true when it comes to eternal-oblivion. it makes no logistic-sense whatsoever, and yet that seems to be what our senses tell us:  once u die, that's it.


 * which one is correct?


 * they are the only two-options.


 * what is the purpose of syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning in the first-place if the conclusion ultimately has to be verified empirically, even if it ( the conclusion ) is 'the' only 'correct'-one?


 * furthermore, how can eternal-oblivion 'not' be 'the' only 'correct-conclusion' yet still be verifiable by observation?


 * is eternal-oblivion truly verifiable empirically? we know reincarnation isn't.


 * if eternal-oblivion can't be verified through observation, either, then it 'can' not be said to exist, and therefore reincarnation 'must' be the only option.


 * the ultimate-question, then, is how can eternal-oblivion be verified empirically? because if it can't, then GAME OVER.  it 'must' be reincarnation all the way.  and not 'god', either ( more on that later ).


 * there is obviously no empirical-evidence for eternal-oblivion, either. apologists, however, would argue that there's no empirical-evidence because, even if it ( eternal-oblivion ) is a fact, there still is no way to verify it empirically.  apologists will take it even a step further by exclaiming that there's no need to try to verify eternal-oblivion via' observation, because there's no empirical-evidence for reincarnation.


 * this is a cop-out. apologists claim that there is no evidence for eternal-oblivion but only because it is impossible to verify it, in the first-place.  yet whether or not reincarnation exists 'can' be verified.


 * apologists are wrong because the standard of proof is unfair. it ( the standard of proof ) applies to one life-after-death scenario ( reincarnation ), and yet it ( standard of proof ) 'doesn't'' apply to the other ( eternal-oblivion ).


 * reincarnation: 1.  eternal-oblivion:  0.Trex363 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

neutrality?

 * if Good and Bad exist( ! ).


 * and nature is neither Good nor Bad( ? ).


 * then nature is neutral( ? ).


 * invalid numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 3 ; 3'.


 * the 'only' valid numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * the conclusion doesn't naturally flow from the premises.Trex363 (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

more categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogisms.

 * if nature exists( ! ).


 * and nature is Good( ! ).


 * then 'Goodness' exists( ! ).


 * if artificiality exists( ! ).


 * and artificiality is Bad( ! ).


 * then 'Badness' exists( ! ).Trex363 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

categorical, deductive-reasoning.

 * the conclusion is true 'only' if both-premises' ( not just one ) are true, e.g.:


 * if nature is Good( ! ).


 * and human-beings exist by nature( ! ).


 * then 'human-beings' are Good( ! ).


 * the conclusion is 'false' if only one-premise ( not both ) is false, e.g.:


 * if nature is Good( ! ).


 * and car-pollution exists by nature( x ).


 * then 'car-pollution' is Good ( x ).


 * the conclusion can 'accidentally' be true when both premises' are false, e.g.:


 * if water is artificial ( x ).


 * and artificiality is Good ( x ).


 * then water is Good ( ! ).


 * the conclusion can be accidentally false when both premises' are true, e.g.:


 * if life is finite ( ! ).


 * and death exists ( ! ).


 * then death is infinite ( x ).


 * the conclusion 'cannot' accidentally be 'true' when both premises are true. it ( the conclusion ) must of necessity be true, e.g.:


 * if life is finite ( ! ).


 * and death exists ( ! ).


 * then death is finite ( ! ).Trex363 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

'correct, numerical-pattern'.

 * there is only 'one': '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.  for example:


 * if life is finite ( ! ).


 * and death exists ( ! ).


 * then 'death' is finite ( ! ).


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ; exists ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is finite ; is finite ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists ).


 * correct-conclusion: DEATH IS FINITE ( ! ).

--


 * if life is finite ( ! ).


 * and death exists ( ! ).


 * then death ( or: ETERNAL-OBLIVION ) is 'infinite' ( x ).


 * 'incorrect numerical-pattern': '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1 ; 3'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( death ; death ; life ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; is infinite ).


 * 'two similar-subjects': ( death ; death ).


 * 'ZERO similar-predicates': ( x ).


 * 'one differing-subject': ( life ).


 * 'THREE differing-predicates': ( is finite ; exists ; IS INFINITE ).


 * INCORRECT-CONCLUSION: 'death', or:  ETERNAL-OBLIVION, is infinite' ( x ).Trex363 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

'god' and categorical, deductive-reasoning?

 * if 'god' exists( ? ).


 * and 'god' is 'good'( ? ).


 * then 'god' exists( ? ).


 * incorrect numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( god ; god ; god ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( exists ; exists ; is good ).


 * 'THREE similar-subjects': ( god ; god ; god ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( exists ; exists ).


 * 'ZERO differing-subjects': ( - ).


 * one differing-predicate': ( is good ).


 * INCORRECT-CONCLUSION: 'god exists'. ( x )


 * 'THE' ONLY CORRECT, NUMERICAL-PATTERN: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.

-


 * if 'god' exists( ? ).


 * and 'god' is 'good'( ? ).


 * then 'god' is good( ? ).


 * INCORRECT NUMERICAL-PATTERN: '3 ; 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 0 ; 1'.


 * 'three total-subjects': ( 'god' ; 'god' ; 'god' ).


 * 'three total-predicates': ( is good ; is good; exists ).


 * 'THREE similar-subjects': ( 'god' ; 'god' ; 'god' ).


 * 'two similar-predicates': ( is good ; is good ).


 * 'ZERO differing-subjects': ( - ).


 * 'one differing-predicate': ( exists ).


 * 'THE' ONLY CORRECT, NUMERICAL-PATTERN: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * INCORRECT-CONCLUSION: 'god' is good( x ).Trex363 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

good or bad? or 'neither'?

 * if nature is neither Good nor Bad( x ).


 * and animals exist by nature( ! ).


 * then 'animals' are neither Good nor Bad( x ).

---


 * if artificiality is neither Good nor Bad( x ).


 * and car-pollution is artificial( ! ).


 * then 'car-pollution' is neither Good nor Bad( x ).

-


 * if nature is Good( ! ).


 * and animals exist by nature( ! ).


 * then 'animals' are Good( ! ).

---


 * if artificiality is Bad( ! ).


 * and car-pollution is artificial( ! ).


 * then 'car-pollution' is Bad( ! ).

---


 * if nature is neither Good nor Bad( x ).


 * and animals exist by nature( ! ).


 * then 'animals' are neither Good nor Bad( x ).

---


 * if artificiality is neither Good nor Bad( x ).


 * and car-pollution is artificial( ! ).


 * then 'car-pollution' is neither Good nor Bad( x ).Trex363 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

infinite 'categorical, deductive-reasoning'.

 * if life will always exist( ! ).


 * and life is finite( ! ).


 * then 'death' will always exist( ! ).

-


 * if life will always be finite( ! ).


 * and death exists( ! ).


 * then 'death' will always be finite( ! ).

--


 * if death exists( ! ).


 * and death will always be finite( ! ).


 * then 'life' will always be finite( ! ).Trex363 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

neither finite 'nor' infinite?

 * if life exists. ( ! )


 * and life is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )


 * then 'death' exists. ( ! )

--


 * if life is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )


 * and death exists. ( ! )


 * then 'death' is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )

---


 * if life exists. ( ! )


 * and 'death' exists. ( ! )


 * then life is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )

--


 * if life is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )


 * and death exists. ( ! )


 * then 'death' is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )

---


 * if death exists. ( ! ).


 * and death is neither finite 'nor' infinite. ( x )


 * then 'life' exists.


 * if life exists. ( ! )


 * and life is 'finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' exists. ( ! )

--


 * if life is finite. ( ! )


 * and death 'exists'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' is finite. ( ! )

---


 * if death exists. ( ! )


 * and death is 'finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'life' is finite. ( ! )

---


 * if life exists. ( ! )


 * and life is 'finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' exists. ( ! )

---


 * if life is finite. ( ! )


 * and death 'exists'. ( ! )


 * then death is 'infinite'. ( x )

---


 * if death exists. ( ! )


 * and death is infinite. ( x )


 * then 'life' exists. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

nature 'infinite'?

 * 'major-premise': if reincarnation exists by nature.  ( ! )


 * 'minor-premise': and reincarnation is infinite.  ( ! )


 * 'conclusion': then 'nature' is infinite.  ( ! )


 * correct, numerical-pattern: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'the' only correct, numerical-pattern is: '3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1'.


 * 'three, total-subjects': ( reincarnation ; reincarnation ; nature ).


 * 'three, total-categories': ( is infinite ; is infinite ; exists by nature ).


 * 'two, similar-subjects': ( reincarnation ; reincarnation ).


 * 'two, similar-categories': ( is infinite ; is infinite ).


 * 'one, differing-subject': ( nature ).


 * 'one, differing-category': ( exists by nature ).Trex363 (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

'god' exists by nature? 'devil'?

 * 'major-premise': if 'god' exists by nature.  ( x )


 * 'minor-premise': and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * 'conclusion': then 'god' is Good.  ( x )


 * NOTE: although the conclusion, 'god is Good', is a sound-argument, it ultimately is incorrect because if 'god' did indeed exist by nature and 'was' indeed Good, then he couldn't be 'god', in the first-place, for he ( 'god' ) would have to be subservient to and a sub-ordinate of:  'nature'.  obviously, in order to be 'god', he ( 'god' ) can't be subordinate 'nor' subservient to 'anything'.

---


 * 'major-premise': if the devil exists.  ( x )


 * 'minor-premise': and the devil is Good.  ( x )


 * 'conclusion': then the devil exists.  ( x )

NOTE: the conclusion doesn't naturally follow from the premises'. therefore, the entire syllogism is in-valid and incorrect.Trex363 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

'devil' by nature?

 * major-premise: 'if the devil exists by nature'.  ( x )


 * minor-premise: 'and nature is Good'.  ( ! )


 * conclusion: 'then the devil is Good'.  ( x ) ( lol )Trex363 (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

-

 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if all-things that live, e.g. 'human-beings', exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and all-things that live, e.g. 'human-beings', 'exist for a finite-duration of time'.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'all-things that die', e.g. human-beings, exist by nature.  ( ! )

-


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if all-things that live, e.g. human beings, 'exist for a finite-duration of time'.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and all-things that die, e.g. 'human-beings', exist by nature. ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'all-things that die', e.g. 'human-beings', exist for a finite-duration of time.  ( ! )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if all-things that die, e.g. 'human-beings', exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and all-things that die, e.g. human-beings, 'exist for a finite-duration of time'.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'all-things that live', e.g. 'human-beings', exist by nature. ( ! )


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if all-things that live, e.g. 'human-beings', exist for a finite-duration of time.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and all-things that die, e.g. 'human-beings', exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then all-things that die, e.g., human-beings, 'exist for an infinite-duration of time'.  ( x )Trex363 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

evidence.

 * the evidence and the reality of the fact reincarnation exists can be found in the premises, e.g., life exists ; life is finite ; death exists ; et.al. surely no one would debate the validity of those statements.  the conclusion is almost like an after-thought.Trex363 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

mmmv.

 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if nature is Good.  ( ? )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and human-beings exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'human-beings' are Good.  ( ? )

-


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if nature is Bad.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and human-beings exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'human-beings' are Bad.  ( x )


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if nature is Neutral.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and human-beings exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'human-beings' are Neutral.  ( x )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if artificiality is Good.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and car-pollution exists by nature.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'car-pollution' is Good.  ( x )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if artificiality is Bad.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and car-pollution exists by nature.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'car-pollution' is Bad.  ( x )


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if artificiality is Neutral.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and car-pollution is Neutral.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'car-pollution' is Neutral.  ( x )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if nature is Good.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and human-beings exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'human-beings' are Good.  ( ! )

--


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if nature is Bad.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and human-beings exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'human-beings' are Bad.  ( x )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if nature is Neutral.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and human-beings exist by nature.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'human-beings' are Neutral.  ( x )

--


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if artificiality is Good.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and car-pollution is artificial.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'car-pollution' is Good.  ( x )

-


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if artificiality is Bad.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and car-pollution is artificial.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'car-pollution' is Bad.  ( ! )

-


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if artificiality is Neutral.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and car-pollution is Neutral.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'car-pollution' is Neutral.  ( x )Trex363 (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

'god'?

 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if god exists.  ( ? )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and god 'is good'.  ( ? )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'god' exists.  ( x ).

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if god exists.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and god 'is good'.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'god' is good.  ( x )Trex363 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

---

 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' exists only sometimes.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and life 'is finite only sometimes'.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' exists only sometimes.  ( x )


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' doesn't exist.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and life 'is never finite'.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' doesn't exist.  ( x )

--


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' exists always.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and life 'is finite always' .  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' exists always.  ( ! )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' exists the majority of the time.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and life 'is finite the majority of the time'.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' exists the majority of the time.  ( x )


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' exists the minority of the time.  ( x )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and life 'is finite the minority of the time'.  ( x )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' exists the minority of the time.  ( x )


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' exists 24/7 ; 365.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and life 'is finite 24/7 ; 365'.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' exists 24/7 ; 365.  ( ! )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: *if 'life' is finite 24/7 ; 365.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: *and death 'exists 24/7 ; 365'.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: *then 'death' is finite 24/7 ; 365.  ( ! )

---


 * MAJOR-PREMISE: if 'death' exists 24/7 ; 365.  ( ! )


 * MINOR-PREMISE: and death 'is finite 24/7 ; 365'.  ( ! )


 * CONCLUSION: then 'life' exists 24/7 ; 365.  ( ! )

--


 * many will argue that one can't completely trust categorical, deductive-reasoning to 'always' be accurate because one can't see into the future. knowledge is 'uncertain', they will argue.  and without certainty, there can't be such a thing as 'true-knowledge'.  however, just by making that statement, the "apologists" completely contradict themselves, for one can't argue about 'uncertainty' without being 'certain' about it.  do u see the contradiction?  knowledge and certainty 'do' ironically exist ( much to the dismay of the apologists ), and categorical, deductive-reasoning is 'the' only way to acquire true-knowledge, e.g. 'death is finite'.  that conclusion ( which is a correct-one, b.t.w. ) has no basis in inductive-reasoning or empiricism, and yet we still know it 'must' be true due to the nature of categorical, deductive-reasoning!Trex363 (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

to be continued.

 * if 'life' will always exist.


 * and life 'will always be finite'.


 * then 'death' will always exist.

-


 * if 'life' will always be finite.


 * and death 'will always exist'.


 * then 'death' will always be finite.

--


 * if 'death' will always exist.


 * and death 'will always be finite'.


 * then 'life' will always exist.

---


 * if 'life' has always existed.


 * and life 'has always been finite'.


 * then 'death' has always existed.

---


 * if 'life' has always been finite.


 * and death 'has always existed'.


 * then 'death' has always been finite.

---


 * if 'death' has always existed.


 * and death 'has always been finite'.


 * then 'life' has always existed.

---


 * if 'life' exists.


 * and life 'is finite'.


 * then 'death' exists.


 * if 'life' is finite.


 * and death 'exists'.


 * then 'death' is finite.

-


 * if 'death' exists.


 * and death 'is finite'.


 * then 'life' exists.Trex363 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

time.

 * if lions have always existed by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'has always been Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'lions' have always been Good. ( ! )


 * if lions exist by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'lions' are Good. ( ! )


 * if lions will always exist by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'will always be Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'lions' will always be Good. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

doesn't make sense.

 * if trees are whales. ( x )


 * and whales eat steak. ( x )


 * then 'trees' eat steak. ( x )


 * NOTE: will this make sense some-time in the future?  answer:  no.


 * if trees will always be whales. ( x )


 * and whales 'will always be able to eat steak'. ( x )


 * then 'trees' will always be able to steak. ( x )


 * NOTE: has this made sense some-time in the past?  answer:  no.


 * if trees were always whales. ( x )


 * and whales 'were always able to eat steak'. ( x )


 * then 'trees' were always able to eat steak. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

does make sense.

 * if trees exist by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'trees' are Good.


 * NOTE: will this make sense some-time in the future?  answer:  yes.


 * if trees will always exist by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'will always be Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'trees' will always be Good. ( ! )


 * NOTE: has this made sense some-time in the past?  answer:  yes.


 * if trees have always existed by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'has always been Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'trees' have always been Good. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

similar?

 * if a human is a chimp by nature. ( x )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then a 'human' is Good. ( ! )


 * if a human is a human by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then a 'human' is Good. ( ! )

-


 * if a human has always been a human by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'has always been Good'. ( ! )


 * then a 'human' has always been Good. ( ! )

--


 * if a human will always be a human by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'will always been Good'. ( ! )


 * then a 'human' will always be Good. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

or not.

 * if 'life' exists only some-times. ( x )


 * and life 'is finite' only some-times. ( x )


 * then 'death' exists only some-times. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

uncertain?

 * if knowledge requires certainty. ( ! )


 * and certainty 'exists'. ( ! )


 * then 'knowledge' exists. ( ! )

---


 * if knowledge requires certainty. ( ! )


 * and certainty 'doesn't exist'. ( x )


 * then 'knowledge' doesn't exist. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

infinite-universe.

 * if reincarnation exists. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'is by nature infinite'. ( ! )


 * then the 'universe' is by nature infinite. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

maybe/never/always.

 * if life 'potentially does not exist '. ( x )


 * and 'life' potentially is not finite. ( x )


 * then death 'potentially does not exist'. ( x )


 * NOTE: the term 'potentially' is an adverb that can 'not' be positioned at the very beginning of the predicate, i.e. 'doesn't exist'.  a verb ( or a set of verbs ) is/are 'always' the first-term(s) in a predicate because it's/'their' sole-purpose is to show what the ultimate-goal/purpose is of the subject.  the predicate, or:  'category', ultimately determines whether or not life exists.


 * if 'life' does not exist. ( x )


 * and life 'isn't finite'. ( x )


 * then 'death' does not exist. ( x )

---


 * if 'life' has never existed. ( x )


 * and life 'has never been finite'. ( x )


 * then 'death' has never existed. ( x )


 * if 'life' will never exist. ( x )


 * and life 'will never be finite'. ( x )


 * then 'death' will never be finite. ( x )

- -


 * if 'life' does exist. ( ! )


 * and life 'is finite. ( ! )


 * then 'death' does exist. ( ! )

--


 * if life 'is finite'. ( ! )


 * and 'death' does exist. ( ! )


 * then death 'is finite'. ( ! )

-


 * if 'death' does exist ( ! )


 * and death 'is finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'life' does exist. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

/////////////

 * if 'death' has always existed. ( ! )


 * and death 'has always been finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'life' has always existed. ( ! )

-


 * if death 'has always been finite'. ( ! )


 * and 'life' has always existed. ( ! )


 * then life 'has always been finite'. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

always/does.

 * if life 'does always exist'. ( ! )


 * and 'life' is always finite. ( ! )


 * then death 'does always exist'. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'life' is always finite. ( ! )


 * and death 'does always exist'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' is always finite. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'death' does always exist. ( ! )


 * and death 'is always finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'life' does always exist. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

elephants.

 * life exists. ( ! )


 * 'life' is finite. ( ! )


 * death exists. ( ! )


 * 'death' is finite. ( ! )


 * life exists. ( ! )


 * life is 'finite'. ( ! )


 * death exists. ( ! )


 * death is 'infinite'. ( x )

-


 * life exists. ( ! )


 * life is 'infinite'. ( x )


 * death exists. ( ! )


 * 'death' is infinite. ( x )

-


 * life exists. ( ! )


 * life is 'infinite'. ( x ).


 * death exists. ( ! )


 * death is 'finite'. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

'god'?

 * 'god' exists. ( x )


 * 'god' is good. ( x )


 * 'god' exists. ( x )

- -


 * 'god' exists. ( x )


 * 'god' is good. ( x )


 * 'nature' exists. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is good. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

nature versus 'god'.

 * 'god' exists by nature. ( x )


 * nature is Good. ( ! )


 * 'god' is Good. ( x )


 * NOTE: this 'is' a sound argument and has the correct-form, as well, but the conclusion is ultimately incorrect.  that is because if 'god' were to actually exist by nature, it wouldn't be 'god', at all.  it( 'god' ) would be a creation of all the rest of the things that exist by nature, e.g. human-beings, lions, vegetation and rocks.  last-time I heard, 'god' was the one who did all of the creating, and 'not' nature.  obviously, however, nature 'does' do all the creating, so 'god' can't be said to exist, 'despite' the sound, above-'categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogism'.it is simply a 'fact' that it( 'god' ) doesn't exist.


 * 'god' exists. ( x )


 * 'god' is good. ( x )


 * 'god' exists????????? ( x )


 * NOTE: clearly, this isn't even a sound, valid argument.  it is due to the fact that there is only 'one'-subject ( 'god' ).  there must be 'two', differing-subjects ( e.g. 'god' ; 'nature ) as well as two, differing-predicates ( e.g. 'exists' ; 'is good' ).  the above-syllogism has the 'categorical'-aspect correct (  or:  'predicative-aspect ) but there obviously needs to be another-subject present in order for it to work.  obviously, that's not the case here.  again:  'god' doesn't exist.Trex363 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

difference between 'life' and 'existence' ( as well as 'death' and 'non-existence' ).

 * elephants live by nature ( reproduction ; growth ; decay ; self-movement ; death, etc. ). they also die by nature when their body can no longer perform those particular-functions on their own ( or:  'by nature' ).


 * 'rocks' exist by nature but can't live nor die. they're just 'there'.  the scientific-approach to how old a rock is is the amount of uranium currently present.  yet, even with 'no' uranium, the rock still goes on existing.  the 'only' way it 'can't' and 'doesn't' exist is via' erosion from the natural-elements, e.g. water, air, fire, etc.  otherwise, it just keeps on 'existing', but 'not' living nor dying.  this is powerful-evidence for an infinite-universe!


 * 'non-existence' is simply when the dead-elephant is no longer there, i.e. bones ; flesh ; et.al. when this happens, it can be said that not only is the elephant 'dead', but it doesn't exist, either.


 * clearly, then, an elephant can be dead yet still be said to exist.


 * life and death are obviously not the same as existence and non-existence!Trex363 (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

all living-things.

 * 'all-things that live', e.g. GRASS, exist by nature. ( ! )


 * all-things that live, e.g. GRASS, 'are finite'. ( ! )


 * 'all-things that die', e.g. GRASS, exist by nature. ( ! )

- -


 * 'all-things that live', e.g. GRASS, are finite. ( ! )


 * all-things that die, e.g. GRASS, 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'all-things that die', e.g. GRASS, are finite. ( ! )

--


 * 'all-things that die', e.g. GRASS, exist by nature. ( ! )


 * all-things that die, e.g. GRASS, 'are finite'. ( ! )
 * 'all-things that live', e.g. GRASS, exist by nature. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

nature and existence.

 * reincarnation 'exists' infinitely by nature. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * reincarnation 'is' Good. ( ! )


 * the universe 'exists' infinitely by nature. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * the universe 'is' Good. ( ! )

--- ---


 * the universe 'exists' infinitely by nature. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * the universe 'is' Good. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

cccccccccccccccccccccc.

 * reincarnation will 'not' always exist by nature. ( ? )


 * nature is Good. ( ! )


 * 'reincarnation' is Good.  ( ! )


 * reincarnation 'will' always exist by nature. ( ? )


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * 'reincarnation' is Good. ( ! )

- --


 * reincarnation does 'not' always exist by nature. ( x )


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * reincarnation 'is Good. ( ! )

- -


 * reincarnation 'does' always exist by nature. ( ! )


 * nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * 'reincarnation' is Good. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

earth/why nature is Good.

 * the 'earth' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * the 'earth' is Good. ( ! )

- --


 * the 'earth' can never 'not' exist by nature. ( ! )


 * nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * the 'earth' is Good. ( ! )

---


 * there are potentially 'three' different kinds of tigers:


 * 1. those that exist by nature.


 * 2. those that are artificial ( man-made ).


 * 3. those that are a 'mixture' of both ( man-made 'and' natural. or:  'neutral' ).

---

! = 'correct'.

x = 'in-correct'.

? = 'un-certain'.


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! ) e.g. 'a beautiful-sunset' ( never heard of an 'ugly-one' or even a 'mediocre-one' lol )


 * tigers 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'tigers' are Good. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is Bad. ( x )


 * tigers 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'tigers' are Bad. ( x ).

- -


 * 'artificiality' is Good. ( x )


 * artificial-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'artificial-tigers' are Good. ( x )

--- ---


 * 'artificiality' is Bad. ( ! )  e.g. 'car-pollution'.


 * artificial-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'artificial-tigers' are Bad. ( ! )

-- --


 * 'neutrality' is Neutral. ( x )  i.e. 'beautiful-sunset'/'car-pollution'.


 * neutral-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'neutral-tigers' are Neutral. ( x )


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * tigers 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'tigers' are Good. ( ! )

--- ---


 * 'nature' is Bad. ( x )


 * tigers 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'tigers' are Bad. ( x )

-- ---


 * 'artificiality' is Good. ( x )


 * artificial-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'artificial-tigers' are Good. ( x )

- -


 * 'artificiality' is Bad. ( ! )


 * artificial-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'artificial-tigers' are Bad. ( ! )

--- -


 * 'neutrality' is Good. ( x )


 * neutral-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'neutral-tigers' are Good. ( x )

- ---


 * 'neutrality' is Bad. ( ! )


 * neutral-tigers 'exist by nature'. ( x )


 * 'neutral-tigers' are Bad. ( ! )

- ---


 * 'nature' is Good. ( x )


 * natural-tigers exist by nature. ( x )


 * 'natural-tigers' are Good. ( x )

- -


 * 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * tigers 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'tigers' are Good. ( ! )

--


 * 'artificiality' is Good. ( x )


 * artificial-lions 'exist artificially'. ( x )


 * 'artificial-lions' are Good. ( x )

--- ---


 * 'neutrality' is Good. ( x )


 * neutrality 'exists neutrally'. ( x )


 * 'neutrality' is Good. ( x )

-- --


 * 'neutrality' is Good. ( x )


 * neutrality 'exists neutrally'. ( x )


 * 'neutrality' exists neutrally. ( x )


 * NOTE: the 'only' categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogism that can be correct is the one with 'all' exclamation-points, i.e., *'nature' is Good.  ( ! ) ; *tigers 'exist by nature'.  ( ! ) ; *'tigers' are Good.  ( ! )  ...all other syllogisms are and must-be 'incorrect'.Trex363 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

eternal-'oblivion' lol

 * 'eternal-oblivion', i.e. one and your done, is desirable by nature. ( x )


 * nature 'is good'. ( ! )


 * 'eternal-oblivion' is Good. ( x )


 * NOTE: if eternal-oblivion doesn't exist by nature, then it can't be Good ( or:  'desirable' ) by nature, either.  obviously, because reincarnation 'does' exist by nature, then by definition it also must be desirable ( or:  'Good' ) by nature, as well.

- -


 * 'reincarnation' is desirable by nature. ( ! )


 * nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * 'reincarnation' is Good. ( ! )

- -


 * 'eternal-oblivion' exists by nature. ( x )


 * nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * 'eternal-oblivion' is Good. ( x )

---


 * 'reincarnation' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * 'reincarnation' is Good ( or: reincarnation is 'desirable' by nature ).  ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

desire.

 * 'Goodness' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * nature 'is Desirable'. ( ! )


 * 'Goodness' is Desirable. ( ! )

--- ---


 * 'badness' exists artificially. ( ! )


 * artificiality 'is non-desirable'. ( ! )


 * 'badness' is non-desirable. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

'goodness/badness'.

 * if 'goodness' is desirable by nature. ( ! )


 * and desirability 'exists' by nature. ( ! )


 * then 'goodness' exists by nature. ( ! )

--- ---


 * if 'badness' is non-desirable by nature. ( ! )


 * and non-desirability 'exists' by nature. ( ! )


 * then 'badness' exists by nature. ( ! )

---


 * if 'goodness' is desirable. ( ! )


 * and desirability 'exists'. ( ! )


 * then 'goodness' exists. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'badness' is 'non'-desirable. ( ! )


 * and non-desirability 'exists'. ( ! )


 * then 'badness' exists. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

'paper-money/coined-money/profit-making'.

 * if 'profit-making' is natural. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'profit-making' is Good. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'coined-money', e.g. gold ; silver ; copper ; and nickel, is natural. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'coined-money' is Good. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'paper-money' is artificial . ( ! )


 * and artificiality 'is Bad'. ( ! )


 * then 'paper-money' is Bad. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

'the' perfect categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogism.

 * if 'life' exists. ( ! )


 * and life 'is finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' exists. ( ! )


 * and death 'is finite'. ( ! )


 * NOTE: is almost poetic, in nature.  seriously!  read-it carefully lol  ...is also unique in that it makes sense with 'four' premises, and not just the standard 'three'.Trex363 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

'god'.

 * if 'god' exists. ( x )


 * and god 'created nature'. ( x )


 * then 'nature' exists. ( ! )


 * if 'god' exists. ( x )


 * and god 'is Good'. ( x )


 * then 'god' exists. ( x )

---


 * if 'god' exists. ( x )


 * and god 'is Good'. ( x )


 * then 'god' is Good. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

'satan'?

 * if 'satan' exists by nature. ( x )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'satan' is Good. ( x )

-- --


 * if 'satan' exists. ( x )


 * and satan 'is Good'. ( x )


 * then 'satan' exists. ( x )

---


 * if 'satan' exists. ( x )


 * and satan is Good. ( x )


 * then 'satan' is Good. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

'does always exist'?

 * the universe 'is always existing by nature, but that could change'. ( x )


 * 'nature' is always Good, but that could change. ( x )


 * the universe 'is always Good, but that could change'. ( x )

-- ---


 * the universe 'is always existing by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is always Good. ( ! )


 * the universe 'is always Good'. ( ! )

--- ---


 * reincarnation 'is always existing by nature, but that could change'. ( x )


 * 'nature' is always Good, but that could change. ( x )


 * reincarnation 'is always Good, but that could change'. ( x )

--- ---


 * reincarnation 'is always existing by nature'. ( ! )


 * 'nature' is always Good. ( ! )


 * reincarnation 'is always Good'. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

--

 * if life 'exists'. ( ! )


 * and 'life' is finite. ( ! )


 * then death 'exists'. ( ! )


 * and 'death' is finite. ( ! )


 * if life 'exists', but might-not sometime in the future. ( x )


 * and 'life' is finite, but 'might-not' be sometime in the future. ( x )


 * then death 'exists', but might-not sometime in the future. ( x )


 * and 'death' is finite, but 'might-not' be sometime in the future. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

'is'.

 * if 'reincarnation' is always infinite.  ( ! )


 * and the earth 'does always exist'. ( ! )


 * then 'the earth' is always infinite. ( ! )


 * if 'nature' is always infinite. ( ! )


 * and the earth 'does always exist' by nature. ( ! )


 * then 'the earth' is always infinite. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'reincarnation' is always infinite, but that 'could' change. ( x )


 * and the earth 'does always exist', but that could change. ( x )


 * then 'the earth' is always infinite, but 'that' could change. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

'infinity'.

 * reincarnation is infinite.


 * can it ( reincarnation ) ever exist finitely or even not at all?


 * no.


 * the word 'is' is present-tense, while the term 'infinite' is 'future' tense.


 * this means that reincarnation can never cease to be infinite: either 'now' or in the future.


 * it is impossible for something that exists infinitely to 'naturally' become finite or completely cease to exist, all-together.


 * 'artificially'? :  that's a different-story.Trex363 (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

'universal-infinite'.

 * if 'reincarnation' is infinite. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' is infinite. ( ! )

--


 * if 'nature' is infinite. ( ! )


 * and the earth 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'the earth' is infinite. ( ! )

--- ---


 * if 'nature' can't destroy itself. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'reincarnation' can't destroy itself. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'nature' can't be destroyed. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'reincarnation' can't be destroyed. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'nature' is the highest-authority that exists. ( ! )


 * and existence 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' is Good. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'reincarnation' can't destroy itself. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' can't destroy itself. ( ! )

-- ---


 * if 'the earth' can't destroy itself. ( ! )


 * and the earth 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' can't destroy itself. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'asteroids' can't destroy the earth. ( ! )


 * and asteroids 'exist through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' can't destroy the earth. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'asteroids' can't destroy the earth. ( ! )


 * and asteroids 'exist through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' can't destroy the earth. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'nature' can't destroy the earth. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'reincarnation' can't destroy the earth. ( ! )

--- ---


 * if 'asteroids' ( or: 'comets', or whatever ) can't destroy the process of reincarnation.  ( ! )


 * and asteroids 'exist through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' ( or: 'comets', or whatever ) can't destroy the process of reincarnation.  ( ! )

--- ---


 * if 'life' exists through nature. ( ! )


 * and life 'is finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' exists through nature. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'life' is finite. ( ! )


 * and death 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'death' is finite. ( ! )

-- ---


 * if 'death' exists through nature. ( ! )


 * and death 'is finite'. ( ! )


 * then 'life' exists by nature. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'nature' can't be destroyed. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'reincarnation' can't be destroyed. ( ! )


 * if 'nature' is the highest-authority of all. ( ! )


 * and nature 'can't be destroyed'. ( ! )


 * then 'reincarnation' can't be destroyed. ( ! )


 * if 'reincarnation' can't be destroyed. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is the highest-authority of all'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' can't be destroyed. ( ! )

-


 * if 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * and reincarnation 'exists through nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'reincarnation' is Good. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'self-sufficiency' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'self-sufficiency' is Good. ( ! )

-- --


 * if 'self-sufficiency' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature is 'Goodness'. ( ! )


 * then 'self-sufficiency' is Goodness. ( ! ).

-- --


 * if 'self-sufficiency' exists artificially. ( x )


 * and artificiality is 'Goodness'. ( x )


 * then 'self-sufficiency' is Goodness. ( ! )

--


 * if 'car-pollution' exists artificially. ( ! )


 * and artificiality is 'Goodness'. ( x )


 * then 'car-pollution' is Goodness. ( x )

- -


 * if 'car-pollution' exists artificially. ( ! )


 * and artificiality is 'Badness'. ( ! )


 * then 'car-pollution' is Badness. ( ! )


 * if 'Goodness' is self-sufficient. ( ! )


 * and self-sufficiency 'exists by nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'Goodness' exists by nature. ( ! )

--- ---


 * if 'Badness' is self-sufficient. ( x )


 * and self-sufficiency is artificial. ( x )


 * then 'Badness' is artificial. ( ! )

--- -


 * if 'car-pollution' is Badness. ( ! )


 * and self-sufficiency 'is artificial'. ( x )


 * then 'car-pollution' is artificial. ( ! )

- --


 * if 'perfection' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'perfection' is Good. ( ! )

- -


 * if 'perfection' is artificial. ( x )


 * and artificiality 'is Good'. ( x )


 * then 'perfection' is Good. ( ! ).Trex363 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

'characteristics of nature'.

 * Goodness ; Self-Sufficiency ; Perfection ; Finality ( or: an 'end' ) ; Truth.


 * 'telos' in ancient-greek: aim, goal or purpose.


 * 'teleology': study of the ultimate-aim, end or goal of something.

--- ---

'characteristics of artificiality'.


 * Badness ; Incomplete ; Flawed ; False ; imperfect.

-


 * if 'nature' is Good. ( ! )


 * and animals 'exist by nature'. ( ! )


 * then 'animals' are Good. ( ! )

--


 * if 'nature' is self-sufficient. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'self-sufficiency' is Good. ( ! )

--- --


 * if 'infinity' is final. ( ! )


 * and finality 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'infinity' is Good. ( ! )

- --


 * if 'nature' is infinite. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'infinity' is Good. ( ! )


 * if 'artificiality' is finite. ( ! )


 * and artificiality 'is Bad'. ( ! )


 * then 'fininity' is Bad. ( ! )

-


 * if 'finality' exists. ( ! )


 * and nature 'is final'. ( ! )


 * then 'nature' exists. ( ! )

--- --


 * if 'infinity' exists. ( ! )


 * and infinity 'is final'. ( ! )


 * then 'finality' exists. ( ! )

--- ---


 * if 'truth' is infinite. ( ! )


 * and infinity 'is Good'. ( ! )


 * then 'truth' is Good. ( ! )


 * if 'falseness' is finite. ( ! )


 * and falseness 'is Bad'. ( ! )


 * then 'fininity' is Bad. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

'god?'

 * if 'god' exists. ( x )


 * and existence is finite. ( ! )


 * then 'god' is finite. ( x )


 * NOTE: god is infinite ; not finite

-- --


 * if 'god' is good. ( x )


 * and goodness 'exists'. ( ! )


 * then 'god' exists. ( x )


 * NOTE: 'god' obviously can't be good if he doesn't exist, in the first-place ( see above 'syllogism' ).Trex363 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

'life-cycle'?

 * if 'all living-animals' exist. ( ! )


 * and all living animals 'are only finite in duration'. ( ! )


 * then 'all non-living animals' exist. ( ! )


 * and all non-living animals 'are only finite in duration'. ( ! )

-- -


 * if 'all living-animals' exist. ( ! )


 * and all living animals 'are only finite in duration'. ( ! )


 * then 'all non-living animals' exist. ( ! )


 * and all non-living animals 'are INFINITE in duration'. ( x )Trex363 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

'skepticism'.

 * many skeptical philosophers are always questioning as to whether or not absolute-knowledge can truly be ascertained.


 * they argue that one can't know something if they're not 100% sure of it's ( something's ) validity.


 * knowledge and certainty, they argue, 'must' go hand in hand. other-wise, there can be no such thing as true knowledge, in the first-place.


 * the true litmus-test is the proper use of language as well as familiarity as to what specific-words actually imply.


 * for example, the predicate: 'is infinite', not only implies infinity in the here and now but also the future, as well.


 * the word 'is' is obviously, taken by itself, a present-tense verb, e.g. 'is running' ; 'is climbing the mountain' ; 'is tall', etc.


 * the term 'was' is obviously, taken by itself, a 'past-tense' verb, e.g. 'was running' ; 'was climbing the mountain' ' 'was tall once upon a time', etc.


 * the word 'will' is obviously, when taken by itself, a 'future-tense' verb, e.g. 'will be running'; 'will be climbing the mountain' ; 'will be tall one of these days', etc.


 * if nature and reincarnation are indeed infinite, one has to prove-it through the use of syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning, which relies not only on knowledge of the external-world, but also how different words interact with each other as a means to solving the ultimate nature of reality. or: discovering 'truth' about what is real and what is 'not'.


 * if one goes back to the predicate 'is infinite' and places a subject in front of it, e.g. 'reincarnation', then u obviously now have the phrase 'reincarnation is infinite', which is true, because reincarnation is by nature 'infinite'. one lives ; and one dies:  'infinitely'.


 * the skeptic, however, will question whether or not reincarnation is infinite unless a comet hits the earth and completely wipes-it out. now, this 'could' happen, the skeptic will argue.  'anything' is possible, they claim.  therefore, we can have no real-knowledge about 'anything' because there's 'always' this lingering-doubt and un-certainty inherent in 'any' linguistic phrase.


 * however, combining the terms inherent in syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning, along with a basic understanding of 'how things work' in the external-world, it is possible to ascertain-truth and absolute-knowledge and certainty to the greatest-extent possible.


 * using the 'reincarnation is infinite by nature' analogy, it is clear that reincarnation is not only infinite presently, but will also be infinite in the future. that is what the term 'infinity' implies:  'never-ending' ; 'forever' ; 'beyond' ; et.al.


 * so if reincarnation 'is' indeed infinite by nature, then that not only applies to the 'here and now', but also to 'beyond' the here and now. and there is no way the skeptic can raise any kind of legitimate-doubt, for the fact that reincarnation is infinite by nature means that it is impossible for the earth and reincarnation ( for there obviously can't be some kind of physical/natural-reincarnation without the earth ) to 'possibly' go from being infinite to be finite:  'ever'.


 * all of that being said, then, the earth, reincarnation and nature 'can' never and 'will' never: 'be destroyed'.  it is just a fact that the skeptic has to come to grips with and realize that his/her philosophy of doubt and un-certainty about anything potentially 'know-able' is simply false and not based on anything real in the external-world as well as, one more-time, knowing how to 'apply' that particular-knowledge along-side syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning.Trex363 (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

'skepticism part 2'.

 * if life 'exists'. ( ! )


 * and 'life' is finite. ( ! )


 * then death 'exists'. ( ! )


 * and 'death' is finite. ( ! )


 * the skeptic would argue here that life and death obviously currently exist, but who is to say that that will necessarily be the case in the future? and they would be correct.  maybe an asteroid or a comet or a black-hole might completely wipe-out the earth, and indeed life and death would ( could ) no longer exist.


 * however, when it comes to the actual 'duration' of life and death, which is obviously 'finite', the skeptic has to accept that as fact, for it is 'impossible' for life/death to go from existing merely 'finitely' to ultimately existing 'infinitely'. the skeptic cannot 'theorize' about how that could somehow occur.


 * so, since it is impossible for life/death to be anything 'but' finite ( or possibly not even existing, 'period' ), and 'never' be infinite because there simply is no way for that to happen, then skepticism is ultimately an illegitimate philosophy, because there is no way to be skeptical about the concept of infinity. if something is by nature 'infinite', e.g. the cycle of life and death ( see the syllogism above ), then there is obviously nothing in nature that can cause it to become merely 'finite'/'non-existent'.  once something is deemed 'infinite', e.g. reincarnation, it must by nature 'remain' infinite, for that's what it ultimately means to be 'infinite':


 * if reincarnation 'is infinite'. ( ! )


 * and 'reincarnation' exists by nature. ( ! )


 * then nature 'is infinite'. ( ! )Trex363 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'skepticism part 3'.

 * are skeptics 'skeptical' about skepticism? lol.  think about it.  they totally contradict themselves!Trex363 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

'things'.

 * Life exists.. ( correct-premise )


 * Life is finite.. ( correct-premise )


 * Death exists.. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * Life is finite.. ( correct-premise )


 * Death exists.. ( correct-premise )


 * Death is finite.. ( correct-conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

- -


 * Death exists.. ( correct-premise )


 * Death is finite.. ( correct-premise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * Life exists.. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --
 * The earth exists.. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation is infinite by nature.. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is infinite by nature.. ( correct-conclusion )


 * Reincarnation exists by nature.. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation is infinite..  ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is infinite.. ( correct-conclusion)

- -


 * Reincarnation can never go out of existence.. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth exists.. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth can never go out of existence.. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

 * Life exists.. ( correct )


 * Life is finite.. ( correct )


 * Death exists.. ( correct )


 * Death is finite.. ( correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * Life exists.. ( correct )


 * Life is finite.. ( correct )


 * Death exists.. ( correct )


 * Death is infinite.. ( in-correct????????????? )

-- --


 * God exists.. ( in-correct )


 * Finite-existence is good.. ( correct )


 * God is good.. ( in-correct )

--- ---


 * God exists.. ( in-correct )


 * In-finite existence is good.. ( in-correct )


 * God is good.. ( in-correct )


 * The earth is infinite.. ( correct )


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation exists.. ( correct )


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation is infinite.. ( correct )

--- --


 * The earth can never be destroyed.. ( correct )


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation is infinite.. ( correct )


 * The earth is infinite.. ( correct )

-- --


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation is infinite.. ( correct )


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation can never be destroyed.. ( correct )


 * The earth can never be destroyed.. ( correct )

--


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation is infinite.. ( correct )


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation can never be destroyed.. ( correct )


 * Nature can never be destroyed.. ( correct )

---


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation is infinite.. ( correct )


 * Physical/Natural-reincarnation can never be destroyed.. ( correct )


 * Nature is infinite.. (correct )Trex363 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

good/bad/neutral.

 * Nature is Bad.. ( incorrect )


 * Tigers exist by nature.. ( correct )


 * Tigers are Bad.. ( incorrect )

--- ---


 * Nature is good.. ( correct )


 * Tigers exist by nature.. ( correct )


 * Tigers are good.. ( correct )

--


 * Nature is 'neutral' ( mixture of good 'and' bad ).. ( incorrect )


 * Tigers exist by nature.. ( correct )


 * Tigers are neutral.. ( incorrect )

- -


 * Artificiality is good.. ( incorrect )


 * Artificial-tigers exist artificially.. ( incorrect )


 * Artificial-tigers are good.. ( incorrect )

--- ---


 * Artificiality is bad.. ( correct )


 * Artificial-tigers exist artificially.. ( incorrect )


 * Artificial-tigers are bad.. ( correct )


 * Artificiality is neutral.. ( incorrect )


 * Artificial-tigers exist neutrally.. ( incorrect)


 * Artificial-tigers are neutral.. ( incorrect )

- --


 * Neutrality is bad.. ( incorrect )


 * Neutral-tigers exist neutrally.. ( incorrect )


 * Neutral-tigers are bad.. ( incorrect )

-- ---


 * Neutrality is neutral.. ( incorrect )


 * Neutral-tigers exist neutrally.. ( incorrect )


 * Neutral-tigers are both good/bad.. ( incorrect )

--- ---


 * Neutrality is good.. ( incorrect )


 * Neutral tigers exist neutrally.. ( incorrect )


 * Neutral tigers are good.. ( incorrect )Trex363 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'the importance of proper-grammar in syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning'.

 * e.g. 'Reincarnation is infinite'.. why 'two' periods?  the first-one is to demonstrate that the sentence or phrase has reached it's conclusion.  there is a subject and a predicate.  the 'second' period is used to demonstrate that what is being said in the sentence can 'never' change or even 'potentially' change.  for example, 'Reincarnation is infinite, period' demonstrates that what is being said is 'absolute', 'never-changing', 'eternal', et.al.  skeptical-philosophers can't doubt the validity of the sentence because it has already been determined through correct-grammar that it is 'impossible' to doubt the accuracy of the sentence to the absolutely lowest common-denominator:


 * Reincarnation is infinite.. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation exists by nature.. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is infinite.. ( correct-conclusion )


 * the above syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning example can 'never' be doubted. the syllogism, and what it demonstrates, can 'never' change over an infinite time-span.  the only difficulty lies in explaining/demonstrating 'why' there are more than one period's but 'less' than three.  there can never be less or more than two periods at the end of a correctly-worded sentence in a categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogism like the one above.  three or 'more' periods have no business being in these types of syllogisms.


 * in summation, then, a single-period shows that the sentence is complete ( in that it has a subject and a predicate ), and 'two' periods demonstrates that the completed-sentence is 'final', 'absolute', 'eternal', 'non-changing', 'complete', et.al. it is 'impossible for the 'skeptic' to raise any valid arguments of doubt and un-certainty when a syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning sentence is worded this way.Trex363 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'eternal-oblivion'.
Life exists. ( correct-premise )

Life is finite. ( correct-premise )

Eternal-Oblivion is finite. ( incorrect-conclusion )

--- ---
 * NOTE: something eternal obviously can't be finite, as well.

Life exists. ( correct-premise )

Life is finite. ( correct-premise )

Eternal-Oblivion is infinite.


 * NOTE: incorrect-conclusion:  for obvious reasons.

--- ---

Life exists. ( correct-premise )

Life is finite. ( correct-premise )

Eternal-Oblivion exists. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: ( again:  if Eternal-Oblivion exists, then the above syllogism would ultimately be incorrect, for the duration of Eternal-Oblivion can 'only' be finite.  it is self-evident above that life, 'in general', is finite.  therefore, Eternal-oblivion obviously can't exist, because something infinite can't exist if it is merely finite )Trex363 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

'mas'.

 * Reincarnation can never go out of existence. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth exists. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth can never go out of existence. ( correct-conclusion )


 * NOTE: obviously, both the earth and reincarnation not only exist by nature but also one can't exist with-out the other.

- -


 * The earth exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation can't exist with-out the earth. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation exists. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * Reincarnation exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation is by nature infinite. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature exists. ( correct-conclusion )


 * Death is finite. ( correct-premise )


 * Life exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Life is finite. ( correct-conclusion )

- --


 * Death exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Death is finite. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation exists. ( correct-conclusion )


 * Life exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Reincarnation exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Life is finite. ( correct-conclusion)

-


 * Beans no longer exist. ( correct-premise )


 * Beans are psychotic. ( correct-premise )


 * Xp-08 is psychotic. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

'good'. 'bad'. 'neutral'.

 * Artificiality exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Existence is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificiality is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: only 'partial' existence is good.


 * Naturalness exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Existence is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Naturalness is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * Note: only 'partial' existence is good.


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Tigers exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Tigers are good. ( correct-conclusion )

- -


 * Artificiality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-tigers exist by nature. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-tigers are good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * Artificiality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-tigers exist artificially. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-tigers are good. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * Neutrality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutral-tigers exists by nature. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutral-tigers are good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * Note: 'neutrality' is a mixture of 'good' and 'bad'.

--- ---


 * Neutrality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutral-tigers exist neutrally. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutral-tigers are good. ( incorrect-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

'Allah'.

 * Allah exists. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Existence is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Allah is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: only 'partial' existence is good.Trex363 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

'golf n stuff'.

 * All living-things exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * All living-things are finite in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * All dead-things exist by nature. ( correct-conclusion )


 * All living-things are finite in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * All dead-things exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * All dead-things are finite in duration. ( correct-conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

-- ---


 * All dead-things exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * All dead-things are finite in duration. ( correct-premise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * All living-things exist by nature. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

'forever-finite'.

 * All living-things exist by nature, unless all living-things were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-premise )


 * All living-things are infinitely-finite in duration, unless all living-things were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-premise )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) exist by nature, unless all dead-things were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-conclusion )

---


 * All living-things are infinitely-finite in duration, unless all living-things on the earth were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-premise )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) exist by nature, unless all dead-things on the earth were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-premise )


 * All dead-things are infinitely-finite in duration, unless all dead-things on the earth were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) exist by nature, unless all dead-things on the earth were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-premise )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) are infinitely-finite in duration, unless all dead-things on the earth were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-premise )


 * All living-things exist by nature, unless all living-things on the earth were to suddenly become extinct. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: by 'infinitely-finite', I mean that through the process of physical/natural-reincarnation, all living 'and' non-living things are always coming-back to life:  'as well as' always dying:  'infinitely'.  all living and dead-things, therefore, by using the methodology of syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning, can 'never' go out of existence.  each syllogism above are invalid due to the fact that all-three predicates in each one ( syllogism ) are basically the same.  the 'maximum' number of predicates that can be the same in a correctly-worded syllogism can only be 'two'.  the 'minimum' ( number of predicates in a given syllogism ) can only be 'one'.

- --


 * All living-things exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * All living-things are infinitely-finite in duration. ( correct-premise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) exist by nature. ( correct-conclusion )

- -


 * All living-things are infinitely-finite in duration. ( correct-premise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) are infinitely-finite in duration. ( correct-conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) exist by nature. (  correct-premise )


 * All dead-things ( e.g. dead 'bison' ) are infinitely-finite in duration. ( correct-premise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )


 * All living-things exist by nature. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

'44-skidoo'.

 * The cycle of life and death is eternal, in duration, 'unless' the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence. ( incorrect-premise )


 * NOTE: this sentence is incorrect because it is actually 'two' sentences!  the first-sentence correctly has a proper subject and predicate, but the 'second' part of the sentence 'also' has a subject and a predicate, i.e., '...the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence'.  in the second-sentence, the subject is obviously 'the earth', whereas the predicate is obviously 'were to somehow go completely out of existence'.  the term that immediately follows 'the earth' is the word 'were', which is a verb.  a verb that comes directly after the subject is the beginning of the predicate.  therefore, this one giant subject and predicate is really a combo. of two ( giant subject and predicate ), and that is improper and incorrect-grammar used in a categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogism.  there can only be one ( subject and predicate ):  in this particular-case, 'The cycle of life and death is eternal, in duration'.  therefore, the second-subject and predicate in this one gigantic-sentence are ultimately 'invalid', and are not a correct description and assessment on the nature of reality.  however, the first-one ( subject and predicate ) is!Trex363 (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

'the divine'?

 * 'God' exists. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Existence is good. ( incorrect-premise )

- --
 * 'God' is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: only 'partial' existence ( as well as partial 'non-existence' ) can be deemed 'good'.  'eternal' existence ( as well as eternal 'non-existence' ) can only be deemed 'bad'.

- -


 * 'God' exists. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Eternal-existence is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * 'God' is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )

- ---


 * 'God' exists finitely ( incorrect-premise )


 * Finite-existence is good ( correct-premise )


 * 'God' is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * 'God' exists. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Eternal-existence is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * 'God' is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

'jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj'.

 * although 'finite' living-things, e.g. a tiger, and finite 'dead' things, e.g. dead-bison, are 'good', 'infinite' living and dead-things are 'bad', simply because they don't exist, in the first-place. for example:  an infinitely-existing tiger and an infinitely dead-bison simply can't and don't exist based on the laws of nature.


 * however, things that 'do' exist infinitely, e.g. 'nature', itself, 'are' good because they aren't living or dead-things. they simply exist.


 * 'artificial-things' simply exist, but not infinitely, e.g. 'television' isn't infinite. artificial-things are also bad because they don't naturally live/die.  they just eventually go out of existence.


 * 'natural' things that exist but never live nor die, e.g. 'water', can 'never' go out of existence on their own accord, unless some artificial, man-made 'thing', e.g. car-pollution, is somehow able to completely destroy something natural like water.


 * that is why anything artificial is bad and must be gotten rid-of, e.g. car-pollution ( or televisions ). this can only be done thru education and takes awhile.  I'm not going to just get-up and toss this computer of mine.  is a gradual-process.  if I were to simply discard my computer, I'd be actually be making-things 'worse' for myself.Trex363 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

'partial/eternal-existence'.

 * 'partial-existence': this is deemed *good* when applied only to things that not only live but do not live, as well.  for example, a living-bison and a dead-bison both exist for only a finite-amount of time, and that is considered good because it is a *natural* occurrence.  the cycle of life and death is *infinitely-good*.


 * 'infinite-existence': this is deemed *good* only when applied to natural-things that exist eternally, e.g. water, air, fire and earth.  obviously, living-bison or dead-bison do not do so ( live or die ) on an infinite-basis.Trex363 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

'abcdefg...'.

 * Everything that lives on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Everything that lives on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and vegetation* ) is finite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * Everything that dies on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exists. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * Everything that lives on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) is finite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * Everything that dies on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Everything that dies on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) IS FINITE, IN DURATION. ( correct-conclusion )

-- ---


 * Everything that dies on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Everything that dies on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) IS FINITE, IN DURATION. ( correct-premise )


 * Everything that lives on the earth ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exists. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

*whoops!*

 * Life exists by nature. ( correct-premise ; *major* premise )


 * Life is finite, in duration. ( correct-premise ; *minor* premise )


 * Death exists by nature. ( correct-conclusion )


 * Life is finite, in duration. ( correct-premise ; *minor* premise )


 * Death exists by nature. ( correct-premise ; *major* premise )


 * DEATH IS FINITE, IN DURATION. ( correct-conclusion )

---


 * Death exists by nature. ( correct-premise ; *major* premise )


 * DEATH IS FINITE, IN DURATION. ( correct-premise ; *minor* premise )


 * Life exists by nature. ( correct-conclusion )

---


 * LIFE IS INFINITE, IN DURATION. ( incorrect-premise ; *minor* premise )


 * Death exists by nature. ( correct-premise ; *major* premise )


 * DEATH IS INFINITE, IN DURATION. ( INCORRECT-CONCLUSION )

--


 * Life is finite, in duration. ( correct-premise ; *minor* premise )


 * Death exists. ( correct-premise ; *major* premise )


 * DEATH IS INFINITE, IN DURATION. ( INCORRECT-CONCLUSION )Trex363 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

the importance of correct-grammar in *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning.*

 * All living-things ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exist, by nature, unless the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence. ( incorrect-premise ; incorrect-conclusion )

NOTE: although it is okay to have parentheses' in a sentence that has a subject and a predicate, in this particular-case *All living-things exist, by nature.* it is *not* okay to have the predicate *divided* into two different-parts, i.e. *...exist, by nature, unless the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence*. the only way for this particular predicate to be grammatically correct is if it were *only* to be: *exists, by nature*.


 * All dead-things ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) that exist ARE FINITE, IN DURATION, unless the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence. ( incorrect-premise ; incorrect-conclusion )

NOTE: again, the same standard set of rules apply. one can't divide a sentence with a subject and, as in the first sentence, as well, at least one or more predicates, with two commas or a period, i.e. *...ARE FINITE, IN DURATION, unless the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence.* the only way for this predicate to be correct is if it were worded as:  ARE FINITE, IN DURATION.

NOTE#2: there is also the issue of whether or not any *natural* thing is capable of going completely out of existence, at all, e.g. the earth.


 * All living-things ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exist, by nature. Unless, the earth were to somehow go completely out of existence.  ( incorrect-premise )

NOTE: A correct-premise can't be divided into two or more sentences, i.e, a correct-predicate can't end with a period and then have a new sentence with a new subject and predicate begin where the *first* sentence with a correct-subject and predicate left-off. in *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning*, there can only be one sentence with only *one* subject and predicate for both-premises' ( major and minor ) and the conclusion. however, it is simply incorrect-grammar to end a sentence containing subject/predicate with pronunciations such as: *question-marks*, *commas*, *exclamation-points*, et.al...*no* emotion can be displayed within a syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning premise/conclusion. the period is the only correct pronunciation-mark that can end the sentence with a subject and predicate in a *categorical, deductive-reasoning* syllogism. now, just because the grammar is correct doesn't automatically mean the syllogism is necessarily correct.

NOTE#2: *All living-things exist by nature unless the earth were to somehow go out of existence.*  this is what the entire sentence looks like without *any* commas. is obviously grammatically incorrect without any commas nor does it make any sense.Trex363 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

more correct grammatical-theory with regard to: *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning*.

 * the theory or belief that any given sentence can have at least *two* or more subjects/predicates within it is *false*, for an obvious reason: anything beyond one subject and one predicate, only, and u start to *mess* with the possibility of it being grammatically correct to have an *infinite* amount of subjects and predicates within a given sentence.  obviously, u *must* have at least *one* subject and *one* predicate, or their couldn't/wouldn't be a sentence that exists, in the first-place.  however, when u start to go *beyond* only one ( subject and predicate), where does it end?  *64*?  *2,200*?  *5*?


 * I submit that any given sentence can have only *one* predicate/subject, and no more than that, for anything *beyond* just one and u can have a sentence that is *potentially* infinite, in nature. And that is obviously impossible!Trex363 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

 * All living-things ( i.e. human-beings, animals and vegetation ) exist, by nature.


 * All living-things ( i.e. human-beings, animals and vegetation ) are finite, in duration.


 * All dying-things ( i.e. human-beings, animals and vegetation ) exist, by nature.


 * All living-things ( i.e. human-beings, animals and vegetation ) are finite, in duration.


 * All dying-things ( i.e. human-beings, animals and vegetation ) exist, by nature.


 * All dying-things ( i.e. human-beings, animals and vegetation ) ARE FINITE, IN DURATION.

-


 * All living-things ARE INFINITE, IN DURATION.


 * All dying-things exist, by nature.


 * All dying-things ARE INFINITE, IN DURATION.

---


 * All living-things are finite, in duration.


 * All dying-things exist, by nature.


 * All dying-things ARE INFINITE, IN DURATION.


 * All living-things ARE INFINITE, IN DURATION.


 * All dying-things exist, by nature.


 * All dying-things are finite, in duration.

--- --


 * All living-things ARE FINITE, IN DURATION.


 * All dying-things exist, by nature.


 * All dying-things ARE FINITE, IN DURATION.Trex363 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

*again? lol*

 * All living-things that are natural ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exist.   ***correct-premise


 * All living-things that are natural ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) are finite.   ***correct-premise


 * All dying-things that are natural ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exist.    ***correct-conclusion

-- --


 * All living-things that are natural ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) are finite.   ***correct-premise


 * All dying-things that are natural ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) exist.     ***correct-premise


 * all DYING-THINGS that are natural ( i.e. *human-beings*, *animals* and *vegetation* ) ARE FINITE.     ***correct-conclusionTrex363 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

*simple-logic?*

 * Nature is infinite. ( correct-premise )


 * The universe exists by nature. (  correct-premise )


 * The universe is infinite. ( correct-conclusion )

NOTE: how do we know nature is infinite?


 * Al living-things ( i.e. *living human-beings*, *living-animals* and *living-vegetation* ) exist.  ***correct-premise


 * All living-things ( i.e. *living human-beings*, *living-animals* and *living-vegetation* ) are finite.   ***correct-premise


 * All dying-things ( i.e. *dying human-beings*, *dying-animals* and *dying-vegetation* ) exist.    ***correct-premise


 * All dying-things ( i.e. *dying human-beings*, *dying-animals* and *dying-vegetation* )  ARE FINITE.     ***correct-conclusion

-


 * The earth is infinite, unless a black-hole was to possibly destroy it. ( correct-premise )


 * Life and Death exist, unless a black-hole was to possibly destroy them. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Life and death are infinite, unless a black-hole was to possibly destroy them. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * incorrect-pattern: 5 ; 3 ; 3 ; 3 ; 4 ; 0.


 * correct-pattern: 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1.


 * number of subjects: 5 ( earth ; life ; life ; death ; death )


 * number of *differing-subjects*: 3 ( earth ; life ; death )


 * number of predicates: 3 ( is infinite ; are infinite ; exist )


 * number of differing-predicates: 3 ( is infinite ; are infinite ; exist )


 * number of *similar-subjects*: 4 ( life ; life ; death ; death )


 * number of *similar-predicates*: 0.


 * NOTE: the universe obviously exists, by nature and is obviously *infinite*, by nature.  this is because nature, *itself*, is infinite.  also, the above categorical, deductive-reasoning *syllogism* proves that not only does natural-reincarnation exists, but it is also *infinite*.  for if death is merely *finite*, what happens when one *wakes-up*?  the answer is obvious:  one starts to live, again.  that is the only plausible-scenario.


 * The universe is infinite, by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is part of the universe. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is infinite, by nature. ( correct-conclusion )

- --

NOTE: *nature*, *the universe*, *the earth* and *natural-reincarnation* all exist *infinitely* and can never be destroyed.

-- --

Is it the case that both life and death are finite, but death is much more infinitely-oriented than life is? technically, they are both finite, residing in an infinitely-existing universe. can death be technically-finite but in reality infinite? is it merely a fluke or a coincedence that death can only exist finitely in *categorical, deductive-reasoning* syllogisms?


 * Life exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Life is finite for a MINORITY duration of time in an infinitely-existing universe. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Death exists. ( correct-premise )

- ---
 * Death is finite for a MAJORITY duration of time in an infinitely-existing universe. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * Life exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Life is finite. ( correct-premise )


 * Death exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Death is FINITE. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * The earth exists, unless a black-hole were to potentially destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * The earth is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to potentially destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Life exists, unless a black-hole were to potentially destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )

--- ---


 * The earth is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Life exists, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Life is FINITE, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: *life* is obviously not infinite, which would make the above-conclusion incorrect, as well as the first-premise, eventhough the earth is indeed *infinite*.

-- ---


 * The earth is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( correct-premise )


 * Death exists, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( correct-premise )


 * Death is FINITE, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )

---


 * The earth is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( correct-premise )


 * Life and death exist, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( correct-premise )


 * Life and death are both INFINITE when combined, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- ---


 * The earth exists, unless a black-hole were to completely destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * The earth is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to completely destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Death exists, unless a black-hole were to completely destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * The earth is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to completely destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Death exists, unless a black-hole were to completely destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Death is INFINITE, unless a black-hole were to completely destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: *death* is obviously not infinite.

--


 * All living-things ( i.e. *living human-beings*, *living-animals* and *living-vegetation* ) exist.    (  correct-premise )


 * All living-things are finite.    ( correct-premise )


 * All DYING-THINGS ( i.e. *dying human-beings*, *dying-animals* and *dying-vegetation* ) exist.    ( correct-conclusion )

--


 * All living-things are finite.    ( correct-premise )


 * All DYING-THINGS ( i.e. *dying human-beings*, *dying-animals* and *dying-vegetation* ) exist by nature.    ( correct-premise )


 * All DYING-THINGS come back to life in the form of infinitely pure-energy.    ( INCORRECT-CONCLUSION )


 * NOTE: correct-conclusion *should* be:  *ALL DYING-THINGS are finite*.  that is obviously not the case, above.


 * NOTE#2: the above syllogism is in reference to the 1st law of thermodynamics.Trex363 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

*animals*
It is natural for human-beings to depend on animals for food and clothing. For example, if one were stranded in the wilderness, and was in desperate need for food and clothing, what would one do? eat grass? of course-not. one would seek out a large amount of food in the form of protein and fat, e.g. a grizzly-bear. also, one would *attempt* to kill the bear in order to prevent oneself from freezing to death by using the winter-fur of the dead-bear as a source of warmth and clothing.

From this particular-scenario, it is easy to see that we need animals by nature a lot more than they need us. hence, human-beings are *not* animals but are a superior form of being and life, for animals exist naturally for our daily-needs.

Now, this does not in any-way imply that *factory-farming* is a natural way to supply the population with routine, daily animal-products, because it is not! what it *does* show, however, is the importance of the use of animal-products in order for human-beings to function naturally in a natural-society. Human-beings are inherently superior to animals due to the fact that they ( animals ) exist for *our* natural-purposes, and not vice-versa.

Another natural use of animals by human-beings is for protection, e.g. a watch-dog. their ( watch-dogs ) ultimate lot in life is to serve and protect human-beings, although that admittedly won't last long if they're abused rather than loved and respected. domestic-animals like dogs also offer companionship to their respective masters, especially during dire-times.

As for *domestic-animals*, they wouldn't even exist if it weren't for human-beings. so, clearly, all animals exist for the *natural* usages of man.

-- --


 * Domestic-animals ( e.g. *irish-setters* ) cannot exist without human-beings. ( correct-premise )


 * Wild-animals ( e.g. *wild-dogs* ) cannot exist without domestic-animals. ( correct-premise )


 * Wild-animals ( e.g. *wild-dogs* ) cannot exist without human-beings. ( correct-conclusion )

-- ---


 * Human-beings are naturally superior to domestic-animals ( e.g. *irish-setters* )    ***correct-premise


 * Domestic-animals ( e.g. *irish-setters* ) are naturally superior to wild-animals ( e.g. *wild-dogs* ).    ***correct-premise


 * Human-beings are naturally superior to wild-animals ( e.g. *wild-dogs* )    ***correct-premiseTrex363 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

*good-gawd!*

 * God exists.  ( incorrect-premise )  ***( giving god *huge* benefit of the doubt that he even *does* exist in the first-place, here. )


 * Existence is natural/good. ( correct-premise )


 * God is natural/good. ( incorrect-conclusion )

NOTE: if *god* exists, it obviously *must* be by nature, for *nature* is *good*, in of itself. however, if the only way *god* can exist is thru nature, then that means that nature has authority over *god*, and *not* vice-versa. a true god *must* have authority over all that exists, *including* nature. obviously, however, that is not the case if one looks carefully at the above *categorical, deductive-reasoning* syllogism. *god* exists and is good *only* if he exists by nature, and, again, a god can only be a true god if it has authority over everything: nature, included. so, therefore, *god* ultimately *cannot* exist, let alone be *natural*/*good*. -- --


 * God exists. ( incorrect-premise )


 * ARTIFICIAL-EXISTENCE ( e.g. car-pollution ) is unnatural/bad. ( correct-premise )


 * God is unnatural/bad. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * NOTE: *god* can't be unnatural/bad if he doesn't exist, in the first-place!  ***( see first-syllogism at the very top of the screen )Trex363 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

*nature ; artificial ; neutral.*

 * Artificiality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-cheetahs exist artificially . ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-cheetahs are good. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-


 * Neutrality ( i.e. *combo.* of good/bad ) is good.    ***( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutral-cheetahs exist neutrally ( i.e. *combo* of artificially/naturally ).    ***( incorrect-premise )

- -
 * Neutral-cheetahs are good. ***( incorrect-conclusion )


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Natural-cheetahs exist by nature. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Nature exists by nature. ( incorrect-conclusion )

--- --


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Cheetahs exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Cheetahs are good. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

*reincarnation: naturally.*

 * Natural-reincarnation does not exist. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Existence is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Natural-reincarnation is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * Natural-reincarnation exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Existence is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Natural-reincarnation is good. ( correct-conclusion )


 * NOTE: existence is good because it exists by nature.Trex363 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

*existence precedes life and death. And is not merely a synonym for either.*

 * a rock can't live nor die, but it still: *exists* ( by nature, one might add! ).  animals live and die, but obviously have to *exist* first in order to do that ( live and die ).  so, what exactly is *existence*?  one thing is sure:  it ( existence ) is *superior* to life and death, because there can obviously be no life and death without *existence*.  But there can and are things that exist by nature that never live nor die, e.g. water.  the same applies to *non-existence* and *death*/*life*.  neither term, just like *existence* and *life*/*death*, are synonymous with each other.  however, life and death obviously can't exist if there is nothing that precede them.


 * Existence precedes life and death. ( correct-premise )


 * Water exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Water precedes life and death. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * Non-existence isn't prior to death. ( correct-premise )


 * Aliens don't exist. ( correct-premise )


 * Aliens aren't prior to death. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

*d.n.e.l.e.*

 * All living-things ( i.e. living human-beings ; living-animals ; and living-vegetation ) exist.    ***correct-premise


 * All living-things ( i.e. living human-beings ; living-animals ; and living-vegetation ) are finite.   ***correct-premise


 * All dead-things ( i.e. dead human-beings ; dead-animals ; and dead vegetation ) exist.    ***correct-conclusion

- -


 * All living-things ( i.e. living human-beings ; living-animals ; and living-vegetation ) are finite.   ***correct-premise


 * All dead-things ( i.e. dead human-beings ; dead-animals ; and dead-vegetation ) exist.    ***correct-premise


 * All dead-things ( i.e. dead human-beings ; dead-animals ; and dead vegetation ) ARE FINITE.    ***correct-conclusionTrex363 (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

*abstraction*.

 * Human-beings are capable of using *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning* by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature exists*. ( correct-premise )


 * Human-beings exist. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * Animals are *not* capable of using *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning* by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature exists. ( correct-premise )


 * Animals exist. ( correct-conclusion )

- -


 * Human-beings are inherently superior to animals due to the fact that they ( human-beings ) are able to use *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning* by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Human-beings are good. ( correct-conclusion )


 * Animals are inherently *inferior* to human-beings due to the fact that they ( animals ) are *not* able to use *syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning* by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Animals are good. (correct-conclusion )


 * NOTE: animals obviously exist by nature and therefore *must* be deemed *good*.  human-beings are just simply *better*.Trex363 (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

*chicken or the egg?*

 * Life exists.


 * Life is finite.


 * Death exists.


 * DEATH is finite.

--- -- -
 * OR:


 * Death exists.


 * Death is finite.


 * Life exists.


 * LIFE is finite.Trex363 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

*animal-metaphysics lol*.

 * two different kinds of animals that exist.


 * alive ; dead.


 * two kinds of rabbits, for example: those that are *alive* and exist ; those that are *dead* and exist.


 * existence and life are not the same-thing.


 * existence and *death* are not the same thing.


 * life/death are finite.


 * existence is *infinite*.Trex363 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

*correct numerical-patterns*.

 * All living human-beings exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * All living human-beings are finite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * All dead human-beings exist by nature. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * total-number of subjects: '3'  ( all living human-beings ; all living human-beings ; all dead human-beings )


 * total-number of predicates: '3'  ( exist by nature ; are finite, in duration ; exist by nature )


 * total-number of similar-subjects: '2'  ( all living human-beings ; all living human-beings )


 * total-number of similar-predicates: '2'  (  exist by nature ; exist by nature )


 * total-number of differing-subjects from total-number of *similar*-subjects: '1'  ( all dead human-beings )


 * total-number of differing-predicates from total-number of *similar*-predicates: '1'  ( are finite, in duration. )

---


 * correct numerical-pattern: 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1.

-

NOTE: *any* 'categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogism' *must* have the above numerical-pattern in order to be correct. for example:


 * The earth is infinite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * Life and death exist, by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Life and death are infinite, in duration. ( incorrect-conclusion )

--- --


 * total-number of subjects: *5*  ( the earth ; life ; life ; death ; death )


 * total-number of predicates: *3*  ( is infinite, in duration ; are infinite, in duration ; exist, by nature )


 * total-number of similar-subjects: *2*  ( life ; life ; death ; death )


 * total-number of similar-predicates: *2*  ( is infinite, in duration ; are infinite, in duration )


 * total-number of differing-subjects from similar-subjects: *1*  ( the earth )


 * total-number of differing-predicates from similar-predicates: *1*  ( exist by nature )


 * incorrect numerical-pattern: 5 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1.


 * incorrect-conclusion: *Life and death are infinite, in duration*.


 * The earth is infinite in duration. Unless, a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( correct-premise )


 * Life and death exist, by nature. Unless, a black-hole were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Life and death are infinite, in duration. Unless, a black-hole were to possibly destroy it.  ( incorrect-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

*k-mart.*

 * If the earth is infinite, but could possibly be destroyed by a black-hole.


 * And life exists, but could possibly be destroyed by a black-hole.


 * Then life is finite, but could possibly be destroyed by a black-hole. ( incorrect-conclusion ; incorrect-syllogism )

-


 * If the earth is infinite, but could possibly be destroyed by a black-hole.


 * And death exists, but could possibly be destroyed by a black-hole.


 * Then death is finite, but could possibly be destroyed by a black-hole. ( incorrect-conclusion ; incorrect-syllogism )Trex363 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

*good/bad/neutral?*

 * Artificiality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * car-pollution exists artificially. ( correct-premise )


 * car-pollution is good. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Animals exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Animals are good. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * Neutrality is a combination of good and bad. ( correct-premise )


 * goodness and badness exist both naturally and artificially at the same-time. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutrality exists both naturally and artificially at the same-time. ( incorrect-conclusion )

- --


 * Artificiality is good. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Artificial-lions exist artificially/by nature. ( incorrect-premises )


 * Artificial-lions are good. ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * Neutrality is good/bad. ( correct-premise )


 * Neutral-lions exist artificially/by nature. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Neutral-lions are good/bad. ( incorrect-conclusion )

- --


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Natural-lions exist by nature. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Natural-lions are good. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Regular-lions exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Regular-lions are good. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

*what now*?

 * since it's looking more and more like physical/natural-reincarnation is a fact, at least on paper, the question, now, is obviously: 'where's the evidence'?


 * my honest answer is: *I have no idea*.  maybe there *is* evidence for it ( natural/physical-reincarnation ), and I'm just out of the loop.  however, I *personally* ain't seeing-it.  at least up to this point.


 * does that mean that all that hard-work on paper is all for not? absolutely not!  who's to say it won't occur in the future, *assuming* it hasn't happened neither in the past *nor* the present, as of yet?


 * the only *evidence* that we have is what's been put down on paper, so far. is all that meaningless, even if it makes sense ( assuming u know what you're talking-about:  unlike many who haven't been properly-educated, unfortunately  :/ )?


 * the combination of the fact that *nature* is infinite and *god* doesn't exist can only lead to the natural-conclusion, that, again, assuming there is currently no evidence for physical/natural-reincarnation, that there will and must be evidence for it ( physical/natural-reincarnation ) in the future!


 * remember: the cycle of life and death not only *is* but *must* be infinite.  is just a matter of time.  that is the only possible/plausible-scenario.  nothing-else makes any sense.  eventually, there *will* be evidence for physical/natural-reincarnation.  there is plenty of time lol


 * since we know, now, that nature is infinite, the only way *for sure* of knowing whether or not we come back from the dead or not is there to ultimately be an individual who is capable of existing, forever, and can hang-around infinitely to ascertain the truth. since that person doesn't exist, for we *all* exist only finitely, however, sitting-around for all eternity waiting for some kind of proof of physical/natural-reincarnation would be a point-less endeavor.


 * all of that being said, we can only rely on what we see in the present, which is nothing, or what's on the paper. b.t.w., this isn't meaningless random quantum-theory equations:  this is the *big-time*:  categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogisms formalized by Aristotle ( who else? ).  eventually, there *will* be evidence of physical/natural reincarnation, 'cause that's what the numbers ultimately say!


 * the truth about the nature of reality isn't just based on a piece of paper with numerous-syllogysms written-down on it ( paper ). the truth is also based on the external-world, i.e. nature, the universe, cars, rocks, people, water, and so-on.  *physical-things*!  I submit that when one *combines* some sort of knowledge regarding the external-world with *categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogisms*, then no further-proof is needed.  u can't just rely on one or the other ( knowledge of the external-world/*categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogisms* ) in order to ascertain true-knowledge.  b.t.w., the concept of discovering truth and the nature of reality by using the concept of *blind-faith* ( e.g. when used to determine the existence of *god* ) is pretty-much an insult to hard-working people who are willing to do the work necessary to determine between what is right and what is wrong, by nature, rather than just relying on some obscure, ancient writings and documents, i.e. 'the bible', in order to determine what is the *best* way to live, as well as the *proper* way to live ).Trex363 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

*animals and the abstract*.

 * one way humans *must-be* superior to animals is that we have the ability to ascertain knowledge regarding the *true* nature of reality through *categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogisms*.


 * animals do not possess this unique ability.


 * if they ( regular-animals ) *are* able to reason in this specific-way, then they must be considered *human*, instead, and not just mere *animals*, for *categorical, deductive-reasoning syllogisms* are the highest form of natural-reasoning that exists. for example:

- -


 * 'syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning' exists by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * 'syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning' is good. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * 'syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning* is the highest form of reasoning, by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * human-beings are capable of using *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning'. ( correct-premise )


 * regular-animals are not capable of using *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning*, by nature. ( incorrect-conclusion ; correct-premise )Trex363 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

*the natural-abstract*.

 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Reason exists by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Reason is good. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * 'Syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning' exists by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * 'Syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning' is good. ( correct-conclusion )

- -


 * Human-beings are by nature able to use *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning*. ( correct-premise )


 * 'syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning' is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Human-beings are good. ( correct-conclusion )

---


 * Regular-animals are by nature not able to use *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning*. ( correct-premise )


 * 'Syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning' is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Regular-animals are good. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * Regular-animals are by nature able to use basic reasoning-techniques. ( correct-premise )


 * Basic reasoning-techniques exist by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Regular-animals exist by nature. ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * Aristotle by nature invented and formalized *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning*. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * Aristotle is good. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * T.-rex by nature did not invent and formalize *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning* ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is good. ( correct-premise )


 * T.-rex is good. ( correct-conclusion )

-- --


 * T.-rex by nature can learn basic reasoning-techniques. ( correct-premise )


 * T.-rex by nature cannot invent and formalize *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning*. ( correct-premise )


 * Aristotle by nature cannot invent and formalize *syllogistic, categorical, deductive-reasoning*. ( false-conclusion )


 * NOTE: conclusion in syllogism above was created falsely on purpose.  the opposite is actually the truth:  *Aristotle by nature 'could'......*Trex363 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

*life exists, unless...*

 * All living-things exist, by nature, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )


 * All dead-things exist, by nature, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )


 * All living-things are finite, in duration, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )

-- --


 * correct, numerical-pattern: 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1.


 * three total-subjects: ( all living-things ; all living-things ; all dead-things ).


 * three total-predicates: ( exist, by nature, ; exist, by nature, ; are finite, in duration, ).


 * two similar-subjects: ( all living-things ; all living-things ).


 * two similar-predicates: ( exist, by nature, ; exist, by nature, ).


 * one differing-subject: ( all dead-things )


 * one differing-predicate: ( are finite, in duration, )

--- ---


 * All dead-things exist, by nature, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )


 * All living-things are finite, in duration, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )


 * All dead things are finite, in duration, unless a black hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )

- -


 * All living-things are finite, in duration, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )


 * All dead-things are finite, in duration, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )


 * All living-things exist, by nature, unless a black-hole were to possibly destroy the earth. ( ? )Trex363 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

*nature and rocks*

 * The earth is infinite, in duration, unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-premise )


 * Nature is infinite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth exists, by nature, unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it. ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * incorrect, numerical-pattern: 5 ; 5 ; 4 ; 5 ; 1 ; 1.


 * The earth is infinite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is infinite, in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth exists, by nature. ( correct-conclusion )

- -


 * correct, numerical-pattern: 3 ; 3 ; 2 ; 2 ; 1 ; 1.


 * 3 total-subjects: ( the earth ; the earth ; nature )


 * 3 total-predicates: ( is infinite, in duration ; is infinite, in duration ; exists by nature )


 * 2 similar-subjects: ( the earth ; the earth )


 * 2 similar-predicates: ( is infinite, in duration ; is infinite, in duration )


 * 1 differing-subject: ( nature )


 * 1 differing-predicate: ( exists, by nature )

-- --


 * If the earth is infinite in duration unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it ( incorrect-premise )


 * And nature is infinite in duration unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then the earth exists by nature unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it ( incorrect-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

-- --


 * The earth exists by nature unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it ( incorrect-premise )


 * Nature is infinite in duration ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is infinite in duration unless an asteroid were to possibly destroy it ( incorrect-conclusion )

--- ---


 * The earth exists by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * Nature is infinite in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is infinite in duration. ( correct-conclusion )

---


 * Nature is infinite in duration. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth exists by nature. ( correct-premise )


 * The earth is infinite in duration. ( correct-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

*sometimes*

 * If some living-things don't exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some living-things are infinite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then dead-things are infinite in duration ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If living-things are infinite in duration  ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some dead-things don't exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some dead-things are infinite in duration ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If some dead-things don't exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some dead-things are infinite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then living-things don't exist by nature  ( incorrect-conclusion )

- -


 * If living-things are finite in duration ( correct-premise )


 * And some dead-things exist by nature ( correct-premise )


 * Then some dead-things are finite in duration ( correct-conclusion )

- --


 * If some dead-things exist by nature ( correct-premise )


 * And some dead-things are finite in duration ( correct-premise )


 * Then living-things exist by nature ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * If all living-things exist naturally (correct-premise )


 * And all living-things are finite ( correct-premise )


 * Then dead-things exist naturally ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * If living-things are finite ( correct-premise )


 * And all dead-things exist naturally  ( correct-premise )


 * Then all dead-things are finite ( correct-conclusion )


 * If all dead-things exist naturally ( correct-premise )


 * And all dead-things are finite ( correct-premise )


 * Then living-things exist naturally ( correct-conclusion )


 * If no living-things exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * And no living-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then no dead-things exist by nature ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * If no living-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * And no dead-things exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then no dead-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If no dead-things exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * And no dead-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then no living-things exist by nature ( correct-conclusion )

- -


 * If some living-things exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some living-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some dead-things exist by nature ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If some living-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some dead-things exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some dead-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If some dead-things exist by nature ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some dead-things are finite in duration ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some living-things exist by nature ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --

- -
 * Living-things exist naturally ( correct-premise )
 * Living-things are finite  ( correct-premise )
 * Dead-things exist naturally ( correct-premise )
 * Dead-things are finite ( correct-conclusion )

OR:


 * Dead-things exist naturally (  correct-premise )
 * Dead-things are finite  ( correct-premise )
 * Living-things exist naturally ( correct-premise )
 * Living-things are finite ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---


 * If some living-things exist naturally ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some living-things are finite ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some dead-things exist naturally ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * If some living-things are finite ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some dead-things exist naturally ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some dead-things are finite ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * If some dead-things exist naturally ( incorrect-premise )


 * And some dead-things are finite ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then some living-things exist naturally ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If living-things for the most part are finite ( incorrect-premise )


 * And dead-things for the most part are finite ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then living-things for the most part exist naturally ( incorrect-conclusion )


 * If dead-things for the most part exist naturally ( incorrect-premise )


 * And living-things for the most part exist naturally ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then dead-things for the most part are finite ( incorrect-conclusion )

-- --


 * If dead-things for the most part are finite ( incorrect-premise )


 * And living-things for the most part exist naturally ( incorrect-premise )


 * Then dead-things for the most part exist naturally ( incorrect-conclusion )Trex363 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

*only 3 life-after-death scenarios*
1. heaven/hell

2. eternal-oblivion

3. physical/natural-reincarnation ( this is the 'only' scenario that makes sense from a 'syllogistic, categorical deductive-reasoning' stand-point, which is the 'only' correct-way to ascertain knowledge re: life-after-death  )Trex363 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

*what is a living-thing/dead-thing*?

 * living-things: reproduction ; carbon-based ; self-movement ( without any external-influence, e.g. *wind* ) ; growth ; decay ; death ; existence ; d.n.a.


 * dead-things: no reproduction ; no self-movement ; no growth ; life ; existenceTrex363 (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

*is/are/exists/being ( or: 'to be' )*

 * The dog is.


 * The dogs are.


 * The dogs exist.


 * The dog exists.


 * Dogs are.


 * Dogs exist.Trex363 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

*precedence*.
If all living-things precede all dead-things ( correct-premise )

And precedence exists by nature ( correct-premise )

Then all living-things exist by nature ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---

If all dead-things precede all living-things ( correct-premise )

And precedence exists by nature ( correct-premise )

Then all dead-things exist by nature ( correct-conclusion )

-- --

If all living-things exist by nature ( correct-premise )

And all living-things precede all dead-things ( correct-premise )

Then precedence exists by nature ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---

If all dead-things exist by nature ( correct-premise )

And all dead-things precede all living-things ( correct-premise )

Then precedence exists by nature ( correct-conclusion )

--- ---

If nature is good

And animals exist by nature

Then animals are good

--- ---

If artificiality is good

And buses are artificial

Then buses are goodTrex363 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

*artificiality is good*.

 * the artificial-world is merely an extension of the natural-world, which is in of itself 'good'.


 * however, eventhough the artificial-world is technically *good*, it is the worst of all-things that are deemed good. it is at the very-bottom of the totem-pole, whereas nature is at the very-top.


 * no nature = no artificiality.


 * the artificial-world obviously can't exist without the natural-world already intact.


 * artificiality is technically 'good' ; nature is just 'better'.Trex363 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

'what is goodness/badness'?
If badness exists ( + )

And existence is bad ( - )

Then existence is ( + )

--- ---

If existence is good ( + )

And goodness exists ( + )

Then existence is ( + )

-- --

If existence and nature are good ( + )

And goodness exists ( + )

Then existence and nature are ( + )

If badness is good ( - )

And goodness exists ( + )

Then badness is ( + )

-

If existence and nature are bad ( - )

And badness exists ( + )

Then existence and nature are ( + )Trex363 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

'future'.
If life is finite ( + )

And death exists ( + )

Then death is finite ( + )

- ---

If the earth exists by nature ( + )

And the earth is infinite ( + )

Then nature is infinite ( + )

---

If there are some things that live on the earth that we don't know about that are infinite in duration ( - )

And there are some things that die on the earth that we don't know about that exist artificially ( - )

Then there are some things that die on the earth that we don't know about that are finite in duration ( - )

-- --

If life is finite ( + )

And death exists ( + )

Then death is infinite ( - )

-- --

If life doesn't exist ( - )

And death exists ( + )

Then death is infinite ( - )Trex363 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

'superior'?
If lions precede human-beings ( + )

And human-beings exist by nature ( + )

Then lions exist by nature ( + )Trex363 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

'evil-genius'?
If the earth is infinite ( + )

And the earth exists by nature ( + )

Then nature is infinite ( + )

--- --

If the earth is infinite unless something natural were to destroy it ( - )

And the earth exists by nature unless something natural were to destroy it ( - )

Then nature is infinite unless something natural were to destroy it ( - )

NOTE: nature can be potentially destroyed by:  'nature'?!?!?!Trex363 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)