Logical? Deism.

[Franko]

Okely-dokely.

We now know that CWL/Upchimp/Titanpout/Elephant/De-Bungler/Tricky/Evildave/Thaifoodken/Pixypants/Stimpson/Vicky D./MRC/Fool/ETC/ETC … holds that (his very own version of [magical]) cause and effect (magical, because sometimes things just happen for no reason) is the sole (but unrefutable) evidence of:

1) the Universe and all existence is due to a "non-benevolent, non-conscious, magical singularity escaping, life accidentally creating, supernaturally appearing out of no-where, arcane wonder force which is DEFINITELY and Unequivocally not more conscious or complex then the insects "it" created by “accident”. (of course you’ll have to take CWL’s word on this ;) )
2) the existence of magical "Free Willy" super-powers (which cannot be demonstrated).

You heard it here first. That's all there is folks. Nothing more to see.

No matter how much you badger CWL/Upchimp/Titanpout/Elephant/De-Bungler/Tricky/Evildave/Thaifoodken/Pixypants/Stimpson/Vicky D./MRC/Fool/ETC/ETC for further elaborations or explanations you will not get them. This horse is clearly dead as a door nail, no point in beating it any more.

Perhaps we can now move on to discuss matters of greater interest in the R&P Section?

(Like starting up more threads dedicated to Me!!! ... or like putting Me on your IGNORE list, and then going on and on about it for days like a lovesick little school girl, and then calling the boy up who you are in love with, but hanging up when he answers the phone ...)

[CWL]

Wow... I wonder what could have caused that little tantrum...

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Franko

1) the Universe and all existence is due to a "non-benevolent, non-conscious, magical singularity escaping, life accidentally creating, supernaturally appearing out of no-where, arcane wonder force which is DEFINITELY and Unequivocally not more conscious or complex then the insects "it" created by “accident”. (of course you’ll have to take CWL’s word on this ;) )

No, I simply don't believe that your god created the universe, I do not know how the universe started or if it ever didn't exist.. but neither do you. It is evident that life on earth started with abiogenesis, but as to why that happened, I don't know.. and neither do you.


2) the existence of magical "Free Willy" super-powers (which cannot be demonstrated).

I don't believe in free will. Sorry, your strawman cannot touch me.
[/B]

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by CWL
Wow... I wonder what could have caused that little tantrum...

Probably picked up something particularly nasty in someone's garbage. If I was a garbage man, I'd be pissed off at the world too.

[Franko]

Wow... I wonder what could have caused that little tantrum...

Yo CWL … you have heard of caller id – haven’t you? Stop calling me and hanging up Bitch!

Thaifoodkenny:
Probably picked up something particularly nasty in someone's garbage. If I was a garbage man, I'd be pissed off at the world too.

Actually (and I’ve said this many times before) if you like being a garbage-man, then it is the best job in the Omniverse. Besides, finding something particularly nasty that someone’s tossed out is one of the perks of the occupation, not one of it’s hazards.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gosh golly. There's not a universal height threshold. It is relative. That is the principle of fuzzy logic. I'm glad you finally understand.

?
How is the logic "fuzzy"??

If I see something that I would classify as being "tall" then it is "tall"

It is True

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


So whose side of the debate do you think that statement supports, Franko-Wraith?

It is you who believe the Universe is governed by Aristotlean binary logic! :D

huh?
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
Wow... I wonder what could have caused that little tantrum...

tantrum?

you and your crew's balls just got blown off
;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

Yo CWL … you have heard of caller id – haven’t you? Stop calling me and hanging up Bitch!

Frankowraith,

I don't need to "call you". Nobody does. You are doing a fine job at demonstrating how mundane your "revolutionary theories" really are all by yourself. I don't need to do it for you.

BTW, I have started a new thread on the subject of causation as evidence of God's existence. Just so you don't get any big ideas it is not directed towards you, and I do not expect you to make any valuable contribution. You believe causation is proof of God (and refuse to present any explanations or elaborations as to why). Your opinion is noted, you do not need to state it again.

However, please do feel free to surprise me by providing rational arguments for your stance in a mature and polite manner. That, on the other hand would be most welcome.

[Franko]

CWL,

I don't need to "call you". Nobody does.

Well none of you A-theist need to call, you already have the “superior” metaphysical belief system.

Which is why I am so curious about your repeated Troll-like behavior (following me around constantly, asking the same question over and over, putting me on your IGNORE list and then dedicating thread after thread in my honor)?

You seem obsessed with me CWL and I am not the first person to mention this? What gives?

You are doing a fine job at demonstrating how mundane your "revolutionary theories" really are all by yourself. I don't need to do it for you.

Then why are you unable to resist?

Perhaps you aren’t as eager to cease to exist as you let on?

Or perhaps you don’t have any “free will” and me, and my Goddess are controlling your every action just like I have been claiming?

BTW, I have started a new thread on the subject of causation as evidence of God's existence. Just so you don't get any big ideas it is not directed towards you, and I do not expect you to make any valuable contribution. You believe causation is proof of God (and refuse to present any explanations or elaborations as to why). Your opinion is noted, you do not need to state it again.

Thanks.

I don’t suppose you’ll be explaining how it is “logical” that the universe magically appeared out of nothing, and then escaped an inescapable singularity – will you?

However, please do feel free to surprise me by providing rational arguments for your stance in a mature and polite manner. That, on the other hand would be most welcome.

Don’t blame me because you didn’t imagine me with better manners. I’m your figment after all …

[Franko]

Logical Deism

Logical Deism is based on 3 tenets. If you believe these things are the only logical conclusion for a rational mind, and you call yourself a “logical deist” (and another LD recognizes you as such) then you are a logical deist. A logical deists can hold any other religious affiliations he desires so long as they are not in direct conflict with the 3 tenets of logical deism.

1) GOD – God Exist.
2) SOUL – All conscious entities have a unique Soul.
3) FATE/KARMA – You are ultimately responsible for all your actions and words (Same as “Divine justice” to a Christian)


GOD = A Superior entity capable of generating a universe
SUPERIOR = greater than = more complex = having more mass/information/energy (better able to perceive Time).
UNIVERSE = a shared reality (common frame of reference) occupied by 2 or more entities.
ENTITY = A living creature = a consciousness = a Graviton (an Individual) = a Soul
UNIQUE = Unlike all others

[Tricky]

So those other things like "gravitons have spin and charge" are not tenets of LD, but merely your understanding of physics?

[Franko]

Logical Deism can be a philosophy, or it can be a religion, it depends on how much you are into it.

I have no other religious affiliations, so for me Logical deism is a Religion. It explains all of what I understand about metaphysics (the origin and nature of reality), but that isn't necessarily True for ALL logical deists.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Logical Deism

Allrigtie. Let's see if we can spot any contradictions in your tenets, shall we?

1) GOD – God Exist.

Fine if you believe so, why not. I can see nothing contradictory about that belief as such.

2) SOUL – All conscious entities have a unique Soul.

If this is your belief you are welcome to it. Again, nothing contradictory as such.

3) FATE/KARMA – You are ultimately responsible for all your actions and words (Same as “Divine justice” to a Christian)

Ah! Here is the little snag. If you believe there is "justice" in punishing I take it you also believe that each SOUL is free to choose between "moral" or "immoral" words or actions?

No?

Then your third tenet is rather contradictory.

It would appear that you are the one who needs "free will" in order to puzzle your cosmology together, not me or the other posters you choose to call "A-Theists".

Perhaps you need to revise your third tenet? A humble proposal:

3) FATE/KARMA – You are not ultimately responsible for all your actions and words as you cannot feely choose to speak or act. You are however predestined to be blessed or damned. Sorry about that but it's just the way it is.

You want to believe that? Sure, go ahead. At least it's not contradictory any more.

[Franko]

Aren’t you a LAWYER CWL???

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

Just who’s being the hypocrite A-Theist PUNISHER?

[thaiboxerken]

3) FATE/KARMA – You are ultimately responsible for all your actions and words (Same as “Divine justice” to a Christian)

How does this fit in with the "no free will" tenet? Is one responsible for actions and words that they didn't do willingly?


I don't believe in free will and I don't believe in "ultimate rewards/punishment" either.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Aren’t you a LAWYER CWL???

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

Just who’s being the hypocrite A-Theist PUNISHER?

Dear Franko,

That was a rather cryptical post. Not quite sure what you mean...

But yes, I am a lawyer. Although I do not practice criminal law, it still is rather logical for me that punishment is warranted when someone breaks the law - unless the person in question may be deemed legally insane. In such case he will go unpunished.

Why? Because he was not responsible for his actions.

Think about that for a while Franko.

Perhaps one can be deemed legally insane when a verdict is given according to the "laws" of physics?

Perhaps certified A-Theist mental cases such as myself, Tricky, Joshua, Whitefork, Upchurch, MCR_Hans (and just about any other poster on the board who does not agree with you 100 %) can yet escape the Abyss?

[Franko]

That was a rather cryptical post. Not quite sure what you mean...

But yes, I am a lawyer. Although I do not practice criminal law, it still is rather logical for me that punishment is warranted when someone breaks the law - unless the person in question may be deemed legally insane. In such case he will go unpunished.

Okay so you have this guy … he has committed some crime … and he is deemed “sane”. But why is this individual a criminal in the first place? Well, it turns out that he was raised in a very poor household, his family lived in the worst part of town. His mother was an alcoholic, and his father use to physically abuse him before he abandoned the family completely. The person in question never really fit in, he dropped out of school at an early age, and since he was surrounded by the criminal element in society, crime is all that he ever knew as a profession.

In short, It was his Destiny that he became a criminal.

… and now you want to punish him for it.

Why? It’s not really his fault that he is a criminal. He didn’t get to pick his parents, he didn’t get to pick when or where he was born.

Why? Because he was not responsible for his actions.

Yeah, but you’ll still punish him without a second thought, and sadly it is rather obvious that you have NEVER really even considered these issues before.

Think about that for a while CWL.

[Franko]

Thaifoodbunny:
How does this fit in with the "no free will" tenet? Is one responsible for actions and words that they didn't do willingly?

You didn’t willingly get to select who your parents are either.

Does that mean they aren’t your parents?

You didn’t get to pick where or when you were born, does that make you the Emperor Augustus just because you want to be?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by CWL

Perhaps certified A-Theist mental cases such as myself, Tricky, Joshua, Whitefork, Upchurch, MCR_Hans (and just about any other poster on the board who does not agree with you 100 %) can yet escape the Abyss?

[counts backwards from ten...]

It's a good thing you defined an "A-Theist" as "someone who does not agree with Franko 100%", else you would be feeling my wrath. :)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


You didn’t willingly get to select who your parents are either.

Does that mean they aren’t your parents?


That's not a proper analogy.

Here's a better one: since you didn't willingly select your parents, can you be held responsible for their giving birth to you?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

Okay so you have this guy … he has committed some crime … and he is deemed “sane”. But why is this individual a criminal in the first place? Well, it turns out that he was raised in a very poor household, his family lived in the worst part of town. His mother was an alcoholic, and his father use to physically abuse him before he abandoned the family completely. The person in question never really fit in, he dropped out of school at an early age, and since he was surrounded by the criminal element in society, crime is all that he ever knew as a profession.

In short, It was his Destiny that he became a criminal.

… and now you want to punish him for it.

Why? It’s not really his fault that he is a criminal. He didn’t get to pick his parents, he didn’t get to pick when or where he was born.

Not everyone who is raised under such conditions becomes a criminal. Your argument is flawed.

Yeah, but you’ll still punish him without a second thought, and sadly it is rather obvious that you have NEVER really even considered these issues before.

Think about that for a while CWL.

It is obvious that you have no grasp of the concept of "legally insane".

Trust me Franko, I have done some thinking when it comes to these issues. If it's any consolation, when I was twenty years old I thought I had it all figured out too. I was wrong. You will learn more as you grow older too, trust me. One painful lesson you might learn is that none of us has got it all figured out...

[CWL]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


[counts backwards from ten...]

It's a good thing you defined an "A-Theist" as "someone who does not agree with Franko 100%", else you would be feeling my wrath. :)

As long as I don't have to feel your wraith...

[Franko]

CWLoser,

Not everyone who is raised under such conditions becomes a criminal. Your argument is flawed.

So you are claiming that some people become criminals magically and for no logical reasons?

Just who’s being naïve now A-Theist?

It is obvious that you have no grasp of the concept of "legally insane".

I understand “insanity” far better then you do A-Theist.

Trust me Franko, I have done some thinking when it comes to these issues.

Your actions and words say otherwise …

If it's any consolation, when I was twenty years old I thought I had it all figured out too. I was wrong. You will learn more as you grow older too, trust me. One painfull lesson is that none of us has got it all figured out...

save you patronizing tone for those pathetic enough to select you as their “Lawyer” …

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko

I understand “insanity” far better then you do A-Theist.


:D

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
[B]CWLoser,

So you are claiming that some people become criminals magically and for no logical reasons?

Just who’s being naïve now A-Theist?

So, are you claiming that sane human beings cannot distinguish between a moral and an immoral act?

I understand “insanity” far better then you do A-Theist.

You have yet to prove this.

Your actions and words say otherwise …

You have yet to prove this too.

save you patronizing tone for those pathetic enough to select you as their “Lawyer” …

Ah, the hubris of youth. How invigorating. Whatever is virtuous within Logical Deism, humility is obviously not.

[Franko]

I guess I can add "the criminal mind" to the list of things that A-Theists are utterly clueless about ...

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
I guess I can add "the criminal mind" to the list of things that A-Theists are utterly clueless about ...

And you are not because...?

You have a PhD in criminology? Perhaps because of your extensive studies in psychiatry?

Better start insulting me now, before it becomes too obvious that you have painted yourself in a corner (again).

[Franko]

CWhineyLoser,

So, are you claiming that sane human beings cannot distinguish between a moral and an immoral act?

By who’s definition of “sane” – Yours or Mine? According to Tricky, A-Theists Dictionaries are not required to be logical, which is the same as saying that A-Theist terms aren’t logical. So by your definition of “sane” I’d say -- who knows? By my definition of sane, no sane person EVER (knowingly) commits an immoral act.

You have yet to prove this.

What’s your rush A-Theists, are you that eager to cease to exist?

You have yet to prove this too.

You are the LAWYER (bureaucrat of the penal system) claiming that Man does not need the threat of punishment to make him moral. You are the one who is clearly being hypocritical, and you are the one unable to explain the contradiction, so clearly you are acting in an obviously deceitful manner (just like ALL A-Theists).

Ah, the hubris of youth. How invigorating. Whatever is virtuous within Logical Deism, humility is obviously not.

You perception isn’t worth spit A-Theist.

[Checkmite]

Franko...is the only thing that makes you behave "morally" the fear that you'll be sent to the Abyss if you don't? Other peoples' feelings and rights are meaningless to you?

[Franko]

Franko...is the only thing that makes you behave "morally" the fear that you'll be sent to the Abyss if you don't? Other peoples' feelings and rights are meaningless to you?

You really are an A-Theist Joshua. It is evident by the fact that you always think in the most pessimistic manner possible.

Perhaps I am moral, because I do care about other people’s feelings and “rights”?

You and the A-Theists seem far more concerned about “free will”, and there being “no consequences” for your actions. The reason you don’t want there to be consequences is because you constantly behave in an immoral fashion. I don’t have a problem with suffering the consequences for my actions, because I tend to act in an intrinsically moral manner where I don’t need to be concerned about the consequences. The consequences for my actions tend to be beneficial, and I notice that this seems to increase exponentially over Time.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
[B]CWhineyLoser,
By who’s definition of “sane” – Yours or Mine? According to Tricky, A-Theists Dictionaries are not required to be logical, which is the same as saying that A-Theist terms aren’t logical. So by your definition of “sane” I’d say -- who knows? By my definition of sane, no sane person EVER (knowingly) commits an immoral act.

Good. Then I take it we agree that it is logical to punish any SANE person for KNOWINGLY commiting an immoral act. Such a person has in other words made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to act immoral. Ooops. Sounds like "free will" to me Franko.

What’s your rush A-Theists, are you that eager to cease to exist?

?!?

You are the LAWYER (bureaucrat of the penal system) claiming that Man does not need the threat of punishment to make him moral. You are the one who is clearly being hypocritical, and you are the one unable to explain the contradiction, so clearly you are acting in an obviously deceitful manner (just like ALL A-Theists).

Again, before you actually read and consider my posts on morality in the "Humanist Moral Code" thread and elsewhere I see no point in debating the subject with you.

Just FYI. I practice corporate and commercial law. I am not a "bureaucrat of the penal system".

You perception isn’t worth spit A-Theist.

Then try your own. Take a good objective look at your own behaviour on this forum. Is it humble? Is it pleasant? Is it moral?

[Franko]

Good. Then I take it we agree that it is logical to punish any SANE person for KNOWINGLY commiting an immoral act. Such a person has in other words made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to act immoral. Ooops. Sounds like "free will" to me Franko.

When I say “knowingly” I mean in possession of the required information necessary to make an informed decision (decision in the MPB sense). When a plane crashes you don’t blame the pilot if the plane crashed due to a mechanical malfunction that was beyond the pilots ability to control (beyond his perception).

Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane. In other words, all immoral acts are due to A-Theism (pessimism, cynicism). Immoral acts are committed by people who believe they have “free will”, and who believe that there will be NO consequences for their actions. People who sincerely believe they will fry in Hell for Eternity for stealing, don’t steal. It’s always the nitwit who thinks he won’t get caught, that he won’t be punished who commits an illegal, or immoral act. A-theists!!!

Again, before you actually read and consider my posts on morality in the "Humanist Moral Code" thread and elsewhere I see no point in debating the subject with you.

In other words you are like that pathetic little lovesick schoolgirl I mentioned the other day. You call up the boy who you are secretly in love with, and when he answers the phone you hang up.

That is just how ridiculous you look to me right now CWL, and don’t think that no one else is reading along. I honestly don’t know how you can even bear to show you face in this forum at this point.

… actually I know exactly why you still do. My Gravity has you …

Then try your own. Take a good objective look at your own behaviour on this forum. Is it humble? Is it pleasant? Is it moral?

Sometimes, Yes, Definitely Yes.

But I realize that you see me as an Evil MutherF*cker CWL, there’s a reason for that too.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
When I say “knowingly” I mean in possession of the required information necessary to make an informed decision (decision in the MPB sense). When a plane crashes you don’t blame the pilot if the plane crashed due to a mechanical malfunction that was beyond the pilots ability to control (beyond his perception).

Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane. In other words, all immoral acts are due to A-Theism (pessimism, cynicism). Immoral acts are committed by people who believe they have “free will”, and who believe that there will be NO consequences for their actions. People who sincerely believe they will fry in Hell for Eternity for stealing, don’t steal. It’s always the nitwit who thinks he won’t get caught, that he won’t be punished who commits an illegal, or immoral act. A-theists!!!

This just isn't so. You obviously do not base your conclusions on empirical observation.

In other words you are like that pathetic little lovesick schoolgirl I mentioned the other day. You call up the boy who you are secretly in love with, and when he answers the phone you hang up.

That is just how ridiculous you look to me right now CWL, and don’t think that no one else is reading along. I honestly don’t know how you can even bear to show you face in this forum at this point.

… actually I know exactly why you still do. My Gravity has you …
?!?

Sometimes, Yes, Definitely Yes.

But I realize that you see me as an Evil MutherF*cker CWL, there’s a reason for that too.

So constantly spouting unpleasantness at people is "humble", "pleasant" and "moral" to you Logical Deists? Interesting definitions... I really must get my hands of one of them "Lexicons" one of these days...

Anyhow, I don't think you are an "Evil MutherF*cker". You are more of a "Rude Little Pr*ck", really.

Like I said, I think you are a young person who (like many adolescents) thinks he has figured it all out. Fine, carry on. We all need to pass through a phase like that. :)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


You really are an A-Theist Joshua. It is evident by the fact that you always think in the most pessimistic manner possible.

Perhaps I am moral, because I do care about other people’s feelings and “rights”?

Franko...you've been insulting CWL because he believes humans can be moral without threat of punishment lingering over their heads.

So I ask you to clarify, and you say that you behave morally for reasons other than the threat of punishment! Obviously, the threat of going to the Abyss isn't what makes you behave morally. But if that's true, then why do you insult CWL for agreeing with you? He also doesn't think the threat of the Abyss is necessary.

Originally posted by Franko
You and the A-Theists seem far more concerned about “free will”, and there being “no consequences” for your actions. The reason you don’t want there to be consequences is because you constantly behave in an immoral fashion. I don’t have a problem with suffering the consequences for my actions, because I tend to act in an intrinsically moral manner where I don’t need to be concerned about the consequences. The consequences for my actions tend to be beneficial, and I notice that this seems to increase exponentially over Time.

Franko, the idea of having "free will" and yet having "no consequences for your actions" is the reciprocal of all your actions being "predetermined", but still having consequences. I don't believe either can be true.

If my actions are predetermined...if some higher power called "Fate" actually moves my arm and makes me rob a bank, for instance, how am I responsible? How could I resist Fate, if I have no will?

I believe in Justice, and I believe we are all responsible for our actions - near or long term. But the only way I can take responsibility for my actions is if I am the sole one who decides to take them. If I do something wrong - "yes, I'm sorry, it was my decision, and it was my fault. Mine alone. I wasn't Fated to commit this immoral action. It's not "Fate's" fault." On the same token, if I do something wonderful and philanthropic - that was my decision, too. Mine alone - not Fate's.

On the other hand, if you are right, and every single action I take was decided before I was born, then what purpose would "punishing" me for that action serve? There's nothing wrong with me, I didn't decide to commit the immoral act. Fate decided it for me. Or the Goddess decided it for me. Since I have no "free will", I couldn't conceivably make a decision one way or the other.

[Franko]

Like I said, I think you are a young person who (like many adolescents) thinks he has figured it all out. Fine, carry on. We all need to pass through a phase like that.

So is this your evidence for "fre will" CWL?

You really are a stupid Bitch. Stop calling me chick, I'm not interested, and besides everyone thinks you are a dweeb.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


So is this your evidence for "fre will" CWL?

You really are a stupid Bitch. Stop calling me chick, I'm not interested, and besides everyone thinks you are a dweeb.

No, but the above comment is clear evidence for you being a rude adolescent. Not to worry, one thing is certain about youth. It will pass. :)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


[counts backwards from ten...]

It's a good thing you defined an "A-Theist" as "someone who does not agree with Franko 100%", else you would be feeling my wrath. :)

How else would one define the term? :D

[Franko]

Franko...you've been insulting CWL because he believes humans can be moral without threat of punishment lingering over their heads.

If CWL actually believed that then he wouldn’t be a LAWYER, and instead he would be calling for the abolition of prisons and punishment for crimes – according to CWL Men don’t need the threat of punishment to make them moral.

CWL is an obvious hypocrite, and he doesn’t like me pointing this out. That is why he acts like such a crying whiney little loser when he addresses me.

So I ask you to clarify, and you say that you behave morally for reasons other than the threat of punishment!

It’s rewarding … yes.

Obviously, the threat of going to the Abyss isn't what makes you behave morally.

The Abyss fears me, but I don’t fear the Abyss.

But if that's true, then why do you insult CWL for agreeing with you? He also doesn't think the threat of the Abyss is necessary.

CWL is homesick for Hell. He’s insane, he thinks I’m rude for pointing this out, but the A-Theists don’t like to cease to exist all alone. They want to drag as many Souls down with them as they can. I am not allowing CWL (or the other A-Theists here) to do this, and they don’t like it (or me) one bit because of that fact.

Franko, the idea of having "free will" and yet having "no consequences for your actions" is the reciprocal of all your actions being "predetermined", but still having consequences. I don't believe either can be true.

Like I said you have a childlike comprehension of Determinism. You want me to explain the “crystal spheres” that hold the planets in their “orbits” in your Flat Earth Universe. But there are no “crystal spheres”, the world isn’t Flat, and you don’t have “free will”.

If my actions are predetermined...if some higher power called "Fate" actually moves my arm and makes me rob a bank, for instance, how am I responsible? How could I resist Fate, if I have no will?

When you play D&D you can’t rob a bank without the DM allowing you to move your arm either, but that doesn’t make it the DM’s fault that you robbed a bank. You were just running an intrinsically evil character.

I believe in Justice, and I believe we are all responsible for our actions - near or long term. But the only way I can take responsibility for my actions is if I am the sole one who decides to take them.

So you don’t really consider your parents your parents because you weren’t the sole person who decided they would be your parents??? I am sure your parents would be thrilled to hear this?

Do you not consider the elementary school you went to as a child the elementary school you went to as a child because you were not the sole person to make the decision to go there?

If your wife wants a divorce, can you be the sole person to make the decision that She gets to divorce you?

You are living in a fantasy land my little confused A-Theist-Deist friend.

If I do something wrong - "yes, I'm sorry, it was my decision, and it was my fault. Mine alone. I wasn't Fated to commit this immoral action. It's not "Fate's" fault." On the same token, if I do something wonderful and philanthropic - that was my decision, too. Mine alone - not Fate's.

That’s True. But without Fate you would have never had such an opportunity to do wrong, or to do right. For that you owe Her. You want to spit in the DM’s eye, and then you wonder why your character never moves up a level, and always has such “bad luck”.

On the other hand, if you are right, and every single action I take was decided before I was born, then what purpose would "punishing" me for that action serve?

You are being judged, not punished. If you happen to perceive what happens next as punishment, then that is YOUR perception. What does the Goddess have to do with it?

There's nothing wrong with me, I didn't decide to commit the immoral act. Fate decided it for me. Or the Goddess decided it for me. Since I have no "free will", I couldn't conceivably make a decision one way or the other.

Josh, the fact of the matter is that some people are just ********. Can I force you to become friends with someone who is an *******? What makes you believe that some ******* can force me or the Goddess to become friends with them? If I think you are an ass, then guess what … I don’t want you around. If you consider that Me punishing You, then so be it. I am under no obligation to be friends with unpleasant, pessimistic, cynics who are no good to be around. If you want to be a pessimist, then you’ll have to deal with the consequences – not me or my Goddess.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko

When you play D&D you can’t rob a bank without the DM allowing you to move your arm either, but that doesn’t make it the DM’s fault that you robbed a bank. You were just running an intrinsically evil character.

The difference here is, Franko, saying the DM "allows" me to rob the bank implies that I want to rob the bank. If my actions are predetermined, and I have no free will to "want" to rob the bank, it would be like the DM (as the predeterminer) commanding me to rob the bank, whether I want to or not.

Originally posted by Franko
So you don’t really consider your parents your parents because you weren’t the sole person who decided they would be your parents??? I am sure your parents would be thrilled to hear this?

Do you not consider the elementary school you went to as a child the elementary school you went to as a child because you were not the sole person to make the decision to go there?

If your wife wants a divorce, can you be the sole person to make the decision that She gets to divorce you?

You are living in a fantasy land my little confused A-Theist-Deist friend.

No, Franko...I said the only way I could be held responsible for my actions is if I'm the one who decided to take those actions. "Who my parents are" isn't an action. "Which elementary school I attended" isn't an action. If I had a wife, and she wanted a divorce, that's not my action. I said the only way I could be responsible for MY actions is if I'm the one who decided to take them.

Originally posted by Franko
That’s True. But without Fate you would have never had such an opportunity to do wrong, or to do right. For that you owe Her. You want to spit in the DM’s eye, and then you wonder why your character never moves up a level, and always has such “bad luck”.

"Fate" wouldn't give me the "opportunity to do anything", "Fate" would simply force me to do something when it was my predetermined time to do it.

Originally posted by Franko
You are being judged, not punished. If you happen to perceive what happens next as punishment, then that is YOUR perception. What does the Goddess have to do with it?

Judged for what Fate forced me to do? Judged for what I had no control over?

Originally posted by Franko
Josh, the fact of the matter is that some people are just ********. Can I force you to become friends with someone who is an *******? What makes you believe that some ******* can force me or the Goddess to become friends with them? If I think you are an ass, then guess what … I don’t want you around. If you consider that Me punishing You, then so be it. I am under no obligation to be friends with unpleasant, pessimistic, cynics who are no good to be around. If you want to be a pessimist, then you’ll have to deal with the consequences – not me or my Goddess.

But I can't "want" to be a pessimist, because I have no will according to you, remember? "Fate" predetermined me a pessimist, whether I wanted to be or not.

[Franko]

The difference here is, Franko, saying the DM "allows" me to rob the bank implies that I want to rob the bank. If my actions are predetermined, and I have no free will to "want" to rob the bank, it would be like the DM (as the predeterminer) commanding me to rob the bank, whether I want to or not.

No, it is your algorithm intrinsically attempting to do what it is programmed to do, and it is Her Superior algorithm intrinsically supplying the required inputs and transmitting the required outputs. Fate.

No, Franko...I said the only way I could be held responsible for my actions is if I'm the one who decided to take those actions. "Who my parents are" isn't an action. "Which elementary school I attended" isn't an action. If I had a wife, and she wanted a divorce, that's not my action. I said the only way I could me responsible for MY actions is if I decided to take them.

Attending School and getting a divorce aren’t actions?

Let me ask you this, suppose you are driving home today, and some drunk crosses the center line, and collides with you head on at high speed? Didn’t YOU decide to take that particular route home? Why did you decide to leave work when you did? If you had waited another 10 or 15 minutes that drunk would have killed someone else (or maybe no one at all)!

Are you saying that you won’t suffer any consequences from this event?

Just what are you saying Joshua?

"Fate" wouldn't give me the "opportunity to do anything", "Fate" would simply force me to do something when it was my predetermined time to do it.

Imagine you are sitting around for eternity, doing absolutely nothing … then one day, I come to you and ask if you want to play D&D. Now regardless of what you think of D&D compared to doing nothing for eternity, D&D is loads of fun. So you start playing D&D … question is are you grateful to me for giving you the opportunity to play, or would you rather be sitting back in the void doing NOTHING?

Judged for what Fate forced me to do? Judged for what I had no control over?

What is Fate forcing you to do? You are an Algorithm, we are watching how you behave. If we like you, if we think you are a useful program, then maybe we’ll keep you. But if you are a bad program (like a computer virus), then we’ll purge you from the system, and reclaim any Energy we’ve added to you.

But I can't "want" to be a pessimist, because I have no will according to you, remember? "Fate" predetermined me a pessimist, whether I wanted to be or not.

Hey what do you want me to tell you? Everybody wants to be popular, everyone wants to be loved and adored. The problem is that a lot of people just aren’t willing to do what it takes. It’s hard work making and keeping friends. Well … at least it is if you don’t know what you are doing.

You want friends? You want my advice? Be more of an Optimist. No one wants to hang out with a pessimist. Not for very long anyway.

[Tricky]

Let's face it, boys and girls. Logical Deism says "Fate forces you to do everything and you will 'suffer consequences' for everything fate forces you to do". That is the statement of LD. For religious paradoxes, it outdoes even the Genesis creation story, but it doesn't matter how many times you point out the howlers to a Fundemental Christian, he's still gonna believe the bible is inerrant, even if he has to twist new meanings out of every word in it.

I reiterate (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=activation#post304810)

[Checkmite]

Franko, while I'm not leaving this second, I don't have enough time to properly respond to your last post, as there's a lot to be said (especially with regard to the D&D analogy) and I have to go to work soon. And as hard is it may be to believe, I respect you enough that I won't respond with an inadequate post that only covers half the material, so I'm afraid I must ask you to wait until I get home later this evening for a proper response.

If, while I'm gone, the forum or this thread in particular boils down to a flame war, I'm sure I can expect that you won't take that out on me when I finally return. We're having an excellent and relatively flame free (thus far) debate here between the two of us, as I'm sure you can agree.

[Franko]

Tricky (lying A-Theist):

Let's face it, boys and girls. Logical Deism says "Fate forces you to do everything and you will 'suffer consequences' for everything fate forces you to do". That is the statement of LD.

Actually that is YOUR statement A-Theist, but if other A-Theists want to accept you as a spokesman for LD they don’t need my permission, and they will suffer the consequences accordingly.

A Logical Deist is a Fatalist, that much is True. A Fatalist believes that all events occur because of logical objective rules, and not due to any magical or supernatural influences.

A person who does not believe in Fate (or Determinism, as it is also called), believes that events occur for magical, supernatural, unexplainable reasons. Such a person (an A-Theist) believes that they have magic “free will” powers. The present is not based on the past, nor will the future be based on the present. It is all indeterminable magic. Ergo there are no consequences for your actions.

For religious paradoxes, it outdoes even the Genesis creation story, but it doesn't matter how many times you point out the howlers to a Fundemental Christian, he's still gonna believe the bible is inerrant, even if he has to twist new meanings out of every word in it.

Speaking of paradoxes why is it that you claim that No evidence for “God” means that No “God” exist, yet in the very next breath you claim that no evidence for “free will” means that “free will” DOES exist? Why the absurd double standard?

You also believe that men do not need the threat of punishment to make them moral or honest, but if this is the case, then why do we need prisons? If men do not need the threat of punishment to make them moral and honest (as you claim), then why do we need to threaten men with punishment to make them moral and honest?

Are you claiming that if we eliminated all prisons and rescinded all criminal laws and all forms of punishment that the crime rate would remain unchanged? … why not?

I can’t say it enough Tricky, You are a hypocritical religious moron!

You are in the wrong forum … I think you are looking for www.infidels.org

[Tricky]

Tricky said:
Let's face it, boys and girls. Logical Deism says "Fate forces you to do everything and you will 'suffer consequences' for everything fate forces you to do". That is the statement of LD.

Originally posted by Franko

Actually that is YOUR statement A-Theist, but if other A-Theists want to accept you as a spokesman for LD they don’t need my permission, and they will suffer the consequences accordingly.
And exactly what part of the above quote is an inaccurate representation of what you have said?
Is everything determined by fate or not?
Are there consequences or not?

I have tried very hard not to misrepresent your statements, which is quite a task seeing as how you waffle so much. But I believe I can point to a number of posts where you have said these exact things. Yet you call me a liar.

Originally posted by Franko
A Logical Deist is a Fatalist, that much is True. A Fatalist believes that all events occur because of logical objective rules, and not due to any magical or supernatural influences.
There are atheists who believe this too. Other atheists believe that the logical, objective rules do not imply determinism. It isn't magical. It is a different understanding of the rules. I know you think it is impossible for you to be wrong about TLOP. I don't.

Originally posted by Franko

Speaking of paradoxes why is it that you claim that No evidence for “God” means that No “God” exist, yet in the very next breath you claim that no evidence for “free will” means that “free will” DOES exist? Why the absurd double standard?
I have never made either such statement and I challenge you to find where I have. Yet you call me a liar.

Originally posted by Franko

A person who does not believe in Fate (or Determinism, as it is also called), believes that events occur for magical, supernatural, unexplainable reasons. Such a person (an A-Theist) believes that they have magic “free will” powers. The present is not based on the past, nor will the future be based on the present. It is all indeterminable magic. Ergo there are no consequences for your actions.
Magical, no. Supernatural, no. Unexplainable, no. Unexplained, yes. I have told you this many times. I can show you the links. Yet you call me a liar.

Originally posted by Franko

You also believe that men do not need the threat of punishment to make them moral or honest, but if this is the case, then why do we need prisons? If men do not need the threat of punishment to make them moral and honest (as you claim), then why do we need to threaten men with punishment to make them moral and honest?
I have never claimed to believe such things. I challenge you to show where I have. Yet you call me a liar.

Originally posted by Franko
Are you claiming that if we eliminated all prisons and rescinded all criminal laws and all forms of punishment that the crime rate would remain unchanged? … why not?
I do not claim such things. There are some people who only respond to punishment. Ironically, most of them profess some religious belief. I do not believe that punishment is the only way or even the best way to influence someone for good. Teaching empathy is the best method, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Franko
I can’t say it enough Tricky, You are a hypocritical religious moron!
You can say it until you turn blue. Repeating a lie does not make it truthful. If you want to flame me, let's take it to the flame war section. These boards are for skeptics, a class to which you have no claim. Tell us again how gravitons have charge.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


If CWL actually believed that then he wouldn’t be a LAWYER, and instead he would be calling for the abolition of prisons and punishment for crimes – according to CWL Men don’t need the threat of punishment to make them moral.

CWL is an obvious hypocrite, and he doesn’t like me pointing this out. That is why he acts like such a crying whiney little loser when he addresses me.

I am afraid you are misrepresenting my position Franko. I do think that the threat of punishment is necessary - not for all but for those few people who actually believe that such threat is necessary for acting moral, i.e. those who would themselves act immoral but for the threat of punishment. Intrestingly enough, you seem to fit nicely into this category yourself, my little juvenile delinquent. From your own reasoning it would indeed appear that you are capable of any crime whatsoever - just as long as you know you can get away with it. Why is punishment so important for you? Afraid of your own criminal urges, hmmm?

However, most people, like myself, choose to behave morally for other reasons. Your theory of "Perceived Maximum Benefit" certainly describes part of the story, another reason is the intrinsic empathy towards other human beings we have inherited through evolution.

To pick up on what Tricky is saying in his latest post to you, a better method of influencing a person for good is teaching him to tap into this empathy. Most modern penal systems recognize this and therefore rehabilitation often constitutes a part of the "punishment". There are some (very rare) cases of mentally disturbed individuals who lack the ability to experience empathy (sociopaths). Interestingly enough such people are not deterred by any threat of punishment. This in itself constitutes a good indication that intrinsic empathy is a much more important ingredient in behaving moral than the threat of punishment.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


No, it is your algorithm intrinsically attempting to do what it is programmed to do, and it is Her Superior algorithm intrinsically supplying the required inputs and transmitting the required outputs. Fate.

Well then, Franko, if I am "intrinsically bad", that's the Programmer's fault for making me that way, isn't it?

Originally posted by Franko
Attending School and getting a divorce aren’t actions?

Sure they are...but you weren't talking about "attending school", you were talking about "which school I attended", which isn't an action, it's a descriptor. And I'm not saying that "no action is real unless I have decided it", I said "I'm not responsible for an action that I did not choose". In other words, it's not my responsibility that I went to school on base rather than off base, for example, because the choice wasn't mine.

Originally posted by Franko
Let me ask you this, suppose you are driving home today, and some drunk crosses the center line, and collides with you head on at high speed? Didn’t YOU decide to take that particular route home? Why did you decide to leave work when you did? If you had waited another 10 or 15 minutes that drunk would have killed someone else (or maybe no one at all)!

Are you saying that you won’t suffer any consequences from this event?

Just what are you saying Joshua?

I'm not talking about consequences here, I'm talking about responsibility. I didn't get drunk and hit me while driving down the road, so although the drunk driver's decision certainly affects me, I can't be held responsible for it. Just like in the above scenario, where the regulations involving schooling of dependents on base certainly affected where I went to school, but I didn't make the regulations - they aren't my fault.

Originally posted by Franko
Imagine you are sitting around for eternity, doing absolutely nothing … then one day, I come to you and ask if you want to play D&D. Now regardless of what you think of D&D compared to doing nothing for eternity, D&D is loads of fun. So you start playing D&D … question is are you grateful to me for giving you the opportunity to play, or would you rather be sitting back in the void doing NOTHING?

I would be extremely grateful.

But here's the problem again, Franko. The scenario you present above simply doesn't reflect what you tell us about determinism and Fate, and our "intrinsic nature". A more accurate analogy would be me sitting in the void doing nothing, when suddenly I'm set upon from behind, gagged, and reduced to a 1-inch tall figurine on a gameboard whose rules I don't understand. I'm controlled by some "player/algorithm" I can't see, and some "DM" who throws monsters at me. I want to run away from the monsters but I can't, because my "algorithm" is programmed to aggressively attack; so I'm forced to more or less "watch" helplessly as my body is moved like a stringed marionette at the whim of this "algorithm" and "DM". No thanks, I'll stay in the void and make up my own game.

Originally posted by Franko
What is Fate forcing you to do? You are an Algorithm, we are watching how you behave. If we like you, if we think you are a useful program, then maybe we’ll keep you. But if you are a bad program (like a computer virus), then we’ll purge you from the system, and reclaim any Energy we’ve added to you.

OK, first of all, who is this "we", Mr. Algorithm? You're stuck on the exact same plane as I am, so until you "die" and are judged "more efficient" or what have you, we're equals my friend.

Secondly, after so many faulty algorithms, why haven't "you guys" fired that obviously incompetent Programmer? I realize that since you've reduced me to nothing but a line of code I have no rights, real or imagined - but you've got to do something about that Jerk-off behind the Visual G(raviton)++ IDE, he's definitely overpaid.

Originally posted by Franko
Hey what do you want me to tell you? Everybody wants to be popular, everyone wants to be loved and adored. The problem is that a lot of people just aren’t willing to do what it takes. It’s hard work making and keeping friends. Well … at least it is if you don’t know what you are doing.

Nobody "wants" to do anything, because there is no free will. You hang out with who you are programmed to hang out with. If the Incompetent Programmer has programmed you to hang out with the @$$hole, then you will...what you think you "want" is meaningless.

Originally posted by Franko
You want friends? You want my advice? Be more of an Optimist. No one wants to hang out with a pessimist. Not for very long anyway.

If find that people are more receptive if you remain tolerant of those who don't always agree with you, as opposed to calling them names or telling them what they believe even when they protest your misrepresentation of them. It also helps when you let them know you recognize them as equal human beings, rather than trying to tell them they're nothing but computer programs.

[Franko]

CWL:

I do think that the threat of punishment is necessary - not for all but for those few people who actually believe that such threat is necessary for acting moral, i.e. those who would themselves act immoral but for the threat of punishment.

I’ll guess You’ll naturally be the One who gets to decide who “those people” are?


Why is punishment so important for you? Afraid of your own criminal urges, hmmm?

You are an imbecile CWL. A person who believes that his Goddess is always watching doesn’t step out of line by acting immorally.

a better method of influencing a person for good is teaching him to tap into this empathy. Most modern penal systems recognize this and therefore rehabilitation often constitutes a part of the "punishment". There are some (very rare) cases of mentally disturbed individuals who lack the ability to experience empathy (sociopaths). Interestingly enough such people are not deterred by any threat of punishment. This in itself constitutes a good indication that intrinsic empathy is a much more important ingredient in behaving moral than the threat of punishment.

So suddenly you are reversing your position 180 degrees and conceding that Rewards and punishment are necessary for conditioning moral behavior and honesty in individuals? I wonder where the conditioning went wrong on You CWL?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko

You are an imbecile CWL. A person who believes that his Goddess is always watching doesn’t step out of line by acting immorally.





So Franko...The Goddess is watching you? You don't step out of line by acting immorally? Is it moral to abuse people on a web forum?
I've got some BAAAAAAAD news for you Catholic Heretic. You are going to burn in hell. You were Baptised Catholic and will burn as a goddess worshiping heretic....Fires of hell franko...they are waiting for you.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

I’ll guess You’ll naturally be the One who gets to decide who “those people” are?

You actually never read the posts you are replying to, do you?

People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people. That is not saying it should not apply to all people. We should all be equal under the Law.

You are an imbecile CWL. A person who believes that his Goddess is always watching doesn’t step out of line by acting immorally.

Must be kind of scary having someone "always watching you". Should we add schizophrenia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/schizoph.asp) to the diagnosis or do we stick with just paranoia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/paranoia.asp)?

Seriously Franko, why do you feel the need to be "watched"? Afraid of what you would do otherwise?

So suddenly you are reversing your position 180 degrees and conceding that Rewards and punishment are necessary for conditioning moral behavior and honesty in individuals? I wonder where the conditioning went wrong on You CWL?

What leads you to assume that I have "reversed my position 180 degrees"? Did you ever understand my position? I think not. You are clearly not interested in any other thinking besides your own. Well, Frankster, I have news for you. A skeptic is prepared to accept that his thinking may be flawed - that is in fact the whole point of skepticism. But of course, your Lexicon has probably got the term "skeptic" defined as "someone who does not contradict Franko".

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people.

You will still obey speed limits?

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


You will still obey speed limits?

Before I answer that question, perhaps you could answer this one.

Are speed limits "moral"?

Why or why not?

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


Before I answer that question, perhaps you could answer this one.

Are speed limits "moral"?

Why or why not?

I dont think so ;)

Why do you ask?

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


I dont think so ;)

Why do you ask?

Because if speed limits may not be considered as moral, your question is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

The question is whether the threat of punishment is necessary in order for people to act moral.

Why did feel it was important to bring up speed limits in relation to the discussion in question?

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


Because if speed limits may not be considered as moral, your question is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

The question is whether the threat of punishment is necessary in order for people to act moral.

Why did feel it was important to bring up speed limits in relation to the discussion in question?

Speeding is against the law is it not?
You said People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people.

Regardless of which, morality fits in aswell. Youre still working under rewards and punishment.

Why not steal from the church collection plate?

Your Fate and mine will ultimately be the same....

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith

Speeding is against the law is it not?
You said People who commit criminal offenses should generally be punished. What I am saying is that the threat of punishment is not necessary for all people.

Regardless of which, morality fits in aswell. Youre still working under rewards and punishment.

I agree, more or less. If you can say that the satisfaction one receives when choosing to act according to one's empathy for others is a "reward", then I think we may even be in complete (!) agreement (at this particular stage of the puzzle). It is the necessity of the "punishment" part that I firmly believe does not apply to all people.

As to speed limits, to be fair, I think not exceeding speed limits is about morality. I personally do not do this for concern of the safety of myself and others (not because I am afraid of getting a ticket). In fact in Sweden, one can exceed speed limits with about 20 kilometers per hour without any fear of retribution. Notwithstanding I choose not to speed as I (naïve as it may be) truly believe I am making a contribution to safer roads that way.

Again, fear of punishment is not the main propellant.

Why not steal from the church collection plate?

Why? It is clearly immoral to do so.

Your Fate and mine will ultimately be the same....

Is that a good thing?

[Checkmite]

As an aside...

I was under the impression that traffic violations as petty as speeding weren't classified as "criminal offenses".

[CWL]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
As an aside...

I was under the impression that traffic violations as petty as speeding weren't classified as "criminal offenses".

This is of course varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Sweden speeding (as I suspect probably applies in several US States as well) may be part of a criminal offense (e.g. "reckless driving") but speeding as such is a minor offense.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
As an aside...

I was under the impression that traffic violations as petty as speeding weren't classified as "criminal offenses".
I just sat on a jury in a speeding ticket case, and the judge assured us that all traffic offenses are criminal offenses. I didn't know it before then.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

I just sat on a jury in a speeding ticket case, and the judge assured us that all traffic offenses are criminal offenses. I didn't know it before then.

Cool. Sounds like a major case. Were you secluded? :D

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tricky

I just sat on a jury in a speeding ticket case, and the judge assured us that all traffic offenses are criminal offenses. I didn't know it before then.

A jury for a speeding ticket case? America certainly is a diverse country. Here, traffic violations are decided in "traffic court" by a judge, or by a magistrate at a Mayor's Court in some of the smaller townships.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


A jury for a speeding ticket case? America certainly is a diverse country. Here, traffic violations are decided in "traffic court" by a judge, or by a magistrate at a Mayor's Court in some of the smaller townships.

In Sweden tickets for speeding can be issued by a police officer if the driver is caught "red-handed" and the driver chooses to sign an admission at the spot. If the driver does not, that the case is tried in a civil court. Whether or not the driver's license should be revoked is a different issue and is always subject to an administrative court.

[Franko]

Bump

So suddenly you are reversing your position 180 degrees and conceding that Rewards and punishment are necessary for conditioning moral behavior and honesty in individuals? I wonder where the conditioning went wrong on You CWL?

ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT NECESSARY TO MAKE MEN HONEST AND MORAL CWL? YES OR NO?

It's a very simple question ...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


A jury for a speeding ticket case? America certainly is a diverse country. Here, traffic violations are decided in "traffic court" by a judge, or by a magistrate at a Mayor's Court in some of the smaller townships.
It was "traffic court", but it is still a criminal offense. And yes, everybody charged with a criminal offense in Texas has a right to trial by jury. As it turns out, the kid was challenging it because he would lose his license with another ticket. (He did).

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Bump

So suddenly you are reversing your position 180 degrees and conceding that Rewards and punishment are necessary for conditioning moral behavior and honesty in individuals? I wonder where the conditioning went wrong on You CWL?

ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT NECESSARY TO MAKE MEN HONEST AND MORAL CWL? YES OR NO?

It's a very simple question ...

You are truly amazing Franko.

From which position have I reversed 180 degrees? Please provide quotes or links to the posts in question.

I have contended that punishment is not always necessary (in fact for most people it is not). If you introduce rewards, that is something different. I have never disagreed with you as to your concept of "maximum perceived benefit". I have simply tried to point out that we often instinctively feel what is moral or not as evolution has installed certain moral beahviour in us.

Again, one could argue that the pleasure one gets from acting in accordance with such instinctive impulses (the pleasure one gets from doing "good deeds") is a "reward". Fine. I believe that this reward can indeed (in many instances) be reason alone for acting moral.

What I do not accept is that I (or any other sane person) need(s) to have the threat of Hell Fire (or the promise of Heaven) in order to act moral. That is where we disagree, not regarding the concept of "maximum perceived benefit" or a "reward" (of some sort) being necessary in order for someone to act moral.

The (simple) answer to your question is thus:

Punishment? Not always.

Rewards? Yes.

Post death rewards and punishment? No.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

It was "traffic court", but it is still a criminal offense. And yes, everybody charged with a criminal offense in Texas has a right to trial by jury. As it turns out, the kid was challenging it because he would lose his license with another ticket. (He did).

Man, justice is rough in Texas. :p

[Franko]

You are truly amazing Franko.

Ohh why thank you CWL!

From which position have I reversed 180 degrees? Please provide quotes or links to the posts in question.

You had been steadfastly proclaiming that rewards and punishments were not necessary to make men honest and moral (for months), but now (finally) you have seen obvious the error of your ways and you are starting to waffle …

I have contended that punishment is not always necessary (in fact for most people it is not).

So what you are proposing is a rigid Religious Caste system whereby A-Theists and other “enlightened” citizens would have a different set of standards and laws which applied to them, and then there would be an “Undesirable” caste made up of non-a-theists who would be threatened with prison for wrong-doing?

I guess you aren’t really big on the idea of Capitalism either are you Commie?

So I have asked you at least 100 times before, are you claiming that if we abolished all prisons that the crime rate would remain virtually the same?

If you introduce rewards, that is something different.

What do you mean “Introduce”? I have been stating that REWARDS and Punishment are a key element of Determinism (I thought every high school kid knew that), and I have been stating it for over a year on this forum. Are you going to pretend like it is something I just mentioned now in order to try and save face CWL? You really are a P*ssy A-Theist.

I have never disagreed with you as to your concept of "maximum perceived benefit".

No actually you have. But at least you are finally conceding now. Is honesty sooo difficult for you A-Theist? I wonder why?

I have simply tried to point out that we often instinctively feel what is moral or not as evolution has installed certain moral beahviour in us.

“Evolution has installed” … why CWL you are sounding more and more like a Fatalist?!? Are you asserting that TLOP has used evolution to condition you??? How can TLOP “control” you CWL?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Again, one could argue that the pleasure one gets from acting in accordance with such instinctive impulse (the pleasure one gets from doing "good deeds") is a "reward". Fine. I accept this.

Yeah do you remember ages ago when I told you about MPB, and you told me I was crazy? I wonder which of us is really crazy A-Theist?

What I do not accept is that I (or any other sane person) needs to have the threat of Hell fire haning over me in order to act moral.

If you do not believe there will be consequences for your actions, then you will behave EXACTLY as if you don’t believe there will be consequences for your actions. Your deceitfulness, outright lying, double standards, logical fallacies, religious fanaticism and trolling on this forum have been amply displayed for all to perceive A-theist.

That is where we disagree, not regarding the concept of "maximum perceived benefit" or a "reward" (of some sort) being necessary in order for someone to act moral.

Conscious entities only react to stimuli. All stimuli are either positive (a reward) or negative (a punishment)

The answer to your question is thus:

Punishment: Not always.

Reward: Yes.

Awwww … that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside ...

Tell me CWL what is the difference between withholding a reward, and punishment? If you can offer a reward to condition, then obviously you must be able to withhold the reward if the desired behavior is not performed … correct? So isn’t that a form of punishment?

You really need to learn the 2 plus 2’s of Determinism. I guess they don’t bother teaching you guys this stuff over in commie-land? I guess with all the religious indoctrination into the church of A-Theism they don’t actually have time to teach you whiney Europeans about real Science?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Ohh why thank you CWL!

I aim to please.

You had been steadfastly proclaiming that rewards and punishments were not necessary to make men honest and moral (for months), but now (finally) you have seen obvious the error of your ways and you are starting to waffle …

Again, please provide quotes and/or links to the posts where I have been proclaiming this.

Of course you can't. Because it just isn't so.

So what you are proposing is a rigid Religious Caste system whereby A-Theists and other “enlightened” citizens would have a different set of standards and laws which applied to them, and then there would be an “Undesirable” caste made up of non-a-theists who would be threatened with prison for wrong-doing?

No. All citizens must be equal under the law. The threat of punishment must naturally apply even to me (although I do not need it).

"Religious Caste system"? Which posts have you been reading (and what drugs were you on at the time)?

I guess you aren’t really big on the idea of Capitalism either are you Commie?

?!?

Again, from where do you get the impression that I am against capitalism? I am a commercial lawyer for Pete's sakes. I live of capitalism. Thus, as to the Commie comment, I can assure you I am not. I vote for a conservative party and I always have.

So I have asked you at least 100 times before, are you claiming that if we abolished all prisons that the crime rate would remain virtually the same?

No, because some people (as I have explainted to you at least 100 times before) need punishment as a deterrent.

If you want to do the Funky Strawman, why don't you try this on for size:

Are you claiming that the majority of prison inmates are atheists? If so, please provide the statistics to back your claim up.

What do you mean “Introduce”? I have been stating that REWARDS and Punishment are a key element of Determinism (I thought every high school kid knew that), and I have been stating it for over a year on this forum. Are you going to pretend like it is something I just mentioned now in order to try and save face CWL? You really are a P*ssy A-Theist.

Nope. This all started out by you claiming that any person who believes in eternal damnation would never commit a crime. You then went on to claim that the lack of such a belief automatically leads to immoral beahviour. My only contention is and has been that you are wrong in saying this.

No actually you have. But at least you are finally conceding now. Is honesty sooo difficult for you A-Theist? I wonder why?

When did I challenge your theory of "maximum perceived benefit"? Please provide quotes and/or links to any post where I have done so.

Of course you can't. Because it just isn't so.

“Evolution has installed” … why CWL you are sounding more and more like a Fatalist?!? Are you asserting that TLOP has used evolution to condition you??? How can TLOP “control” you CWL?

I thought you'd like the idea of "intrinsic morality". Of course I also claim that we are free to act upon such instinctive impulses or not to. Therefore I also believe it's fair that we suffer the consequences of our actions.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make the conclusion any less mundane Franko. Yes, there is a certain nature of things which can be described as "laws" of physics. How else would things be?

I constitute part of this Universe. My ability to influence the Universe through input (to an extremely minute extent but nevertheless) is not "disobeying the laws of physics" - it is part of the laws of physics as is any other possible phenomenon.

Yeah do you remember ages ago when I told you about MPB, and you told me I was crazy? I wonder which of us is really crazy A-Theist?

No I don't because I have never said it. Please feel free to provide a quote and/or link to any specific post where I have.

Of course, you can't. Because it just isn't so.

If you do not believe there will be consequences for your actions, then you will behave EXACTLY as if you don’t believe there will be consequences for your actions. Your deceitfulness, outright lying, double standards, logical fallacies, religious fanaticism and trolling on this forum have been amply displayed for all to perceive A-theist.

My impression is that it has only been perceived by such geniouses as yourself and Jedi Knight. I still have the other posters deceived by my A-Theist powers. :evil laugh:

Seriously Frank, aren't you projecting a bit now again?

Conscious entities only react to stimuli. All stimuli are either positive (a reward) or negative (a punishment)

I agree. That is no proof for any ultimate consequences however, nor that the lack of belief in such consequences leads to immorality.

Awwww … that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...

If it does I am happy for you.

Tell me CWL what is the difference between withholding a reward, and punishment? If you can offer a reward to condition, then obviously you must be able to withhold the reward if the desired behavior is not performed … correct? So isn’t that a form of punishment?

Sure. Again I don't see any reason to disagree.

You are still missing my main point however: 'taint no proof of no ultimate consequences (or that the lack-o-belief in such consequences leads to immorality).

You really need to learn the 2 plus 2’s of Determinism. I guess they don’t bother teaching you guys this stuff over in commie-land? I guess with all the religious indoctrination into the church of A-Theism they don’t actually have time to teach you whiney Europeans about real Science? [/B]

Franko, I am afraid that your general ignorance is showing again. Today's Europe is anything but communistic. I reside in a part of Europe which has never been. Not to worry, when you become older and have advanced a few grades in School, get to study such subejcts as History and Social Studies.

As to real Science, tell me again how the speed of light is in reality quite arbitrary.

[Franko]

CWL,

I just want to further elaborate on what a couple of religious nitwits you and your pal Tricky are …

Let’s say that I am digging a hole in my back yard, and I find some gold in the process.

I found a reward! There is nothing immoral with that, correct?

Now you are claiming that punishment isn’t necessary to make men honest and moral.

So if there is no punishment associated with “stealing” money from a bank, how is me walking into a bank and “stealing” money any different then me finding money in my back yard? I mean … if there are no negative consequences associated with taking something that isn’t yours, then in what way is that action immoral?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

I just want to further elaborate on what a couple of religious nitwits you and your pal Tricky are …

Let’s say that I am digging a hole in my back yard, and I find some gold in the process.

I found a reward! There is nothing immoral with that, correct?

If we are talking about a natural gold source and you own the land then, I agree. Nothing immoral.

If you find a golden artifact you are most likely not the legal owner of the artifact (it may belong to someone else or to the state if it is of cultural value), in which case the moral thing would be to take the object to the police.

Now you are claiming that punishment isn’t necessary to make men honest and moral.

No, I don't know about my religious nitwit pal Tricky, but I am not claiming this. I am claiming that punishment is not necessary to make all men honest and moral.

I am sure you can spot the difference.

So if there is no punishment associated with “stealing” money from a bank, how is me walking into a bank and “stealing” money any different then me finding money in my back yard? I mean … if there are no negative consequences associated with taking something that isn’t yours, then in what way is that action immoral?

Simple. Because you benefit (unreasonably) at the expense of someone else (the rightful owner of the money) when stealing.

This isn't rocket science, you know.

[Franko]

No. All citizens must be equal under the law. The threat of punishment must naturally apply even to me (although I do not need it).

Some animals are more equal then others CWL?

some people (as I have explainted to you at least 100 times before) need punishment as a deterrent.

Only some people? Which people are affected by rewards and punishments (Determinism) and which ones are immune? What is your empirical evidence for this claim?

Are you claiming that the majority of prison inmates are atheists? If so, please provide the statistics to back your claim up.

Only a person who does not believe there will be consequences for his actions behaves as if there will not be consequences for his actions. A person only believes that there will be no consequences for his actions if he doesn’t believe in a higher power responsible for the creation and existence of the Universe (an A-Theist).

This all started out by you claiming that any person who believes in eternal damnation would never commit a crime.

That is True, a person who holds a solemn religious belief that action X is immoral and against the Will of God will not commit action X. Are you suggesting otherwise? By what logic?

You then went on to claim that the lack of such a belief automatically leads to immoral beahviour. My only contention is and has been that you are wrong in saying this.

It is rather obvious to me (and over 90% of the general population) that a person who does not believe there will be consequences for his actions will behave EXACTLY as if he does not believe there will be consequences for his actions. The fact that you are a LAWYER, tells me that deep down you must also know this.

… so why do you call yourself A-Theist deceitful, hypocrite?

Why not just concede to Agnosticism CWL? Aren’t you tired of being exposed as moronic religious fanatic day after day in this forum?

When did I challenge your theory of "maximum perceived benefit"? Please provide quotes and/or links to any post where I have done so.

Of course you can't. Because it just isn't so.

CWL you can pretend that you have been claiming REWARDS and PUNISHMENT are necessary to make men moral all along, but unfortunately for you other people have been following along in our discussion.

Your original contention was that A-Theists, who DO NOT believe in consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who do believe in consequences. This is an utterly absurd claim to make, and you looked like a retard every time you claimed it, but at least you seem to be backing off from it now. Unfortunately you are unable to be a Man, and simply concede defeat graciously and with some dignity.

I thought you'd like the idea of "intrinsic morality". Of course I also claim that we are free to act upon such instinctive impulses or not to. Therefore I also believe it's fair that we suffer the consequences of our actions.

It sounds like you are saying that you are “free” to be insane?

Did I ever deny that you were “free” to jump from the roof of a tall building CWL? I am just wondering why if it really is an option for you … you have never acted upon it???

Yes, there is a certain nature of things which can be described as "laws" of physics. How else would things be?

Certain things?

What things don’t TLOP “describe”? Can you give us an example?

You are made of chemicals CWL! Is there something more to you than chemicals??? If so, then what?

DO chemicals have “free will” CWL?

I constitute part of this Universe. My ability to influence the Universe through input (to an extremely minute extent but nevertheless) is not "disobeying the laws of physics" - it is part of the laws of physics as is any other possible phenomenon.

So you are part of TLOP? It sounds like YOU are claiming that TLOP is conscious? can that be CWL? How can TLOP be “conscious”??? What is your evidence for this claim?

No I don't because I have never said it. Please feel free to provide a quote and/or link to any specific post where I have.

So then I take you are conceding my point regarding MPB? You are acknowledging that you are simply a deterministic algorithm, and that you have no “free will”?

Conscious entities only react to stimuli. All stimuli are either positive (a reward) or negative (a punishment)

CWL:
I agree. That is no proof for any ultimate consequences however, nor that the lack of belief in such consequences leads to immorality.

Look Nitwit … either Rewards and punishment affect behavior … or they do not. If you don’t believe that there are ANY consequences after you die, then you will behave EXACTLY AS IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES AFTER YOU DIE! That isn’t going to make you a more moral person CWL, it is going to make you a LESS moral person, a lot less moral, and don’t think that no one is going to notice either.

You are still missing my main point however: 'taint no proof of no ultimate consequences (or that the lack-o-belief in such consequences leads to immorality).

Sure there is. There are literally hundreds of experiments which ALL VERIFY that when a person doesn’t believe there is any reward or punishment for a given action (or series of actions) they will behave exactly as if that is what they believe.

This is common sense reasoning. Honestly, I can’t believe any serious person would actually be disagreeing with it. Only someone who was insane, or a severely deluded religious fanatic could argue with such logic and such a mountain of evidence as what exist for Determinism.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

I just want to further elaborate on what a couple of religious nitwits you and your pal Tricky are …
Go ahead. Make your little straw man.

Let’s say that I am digging a hole in my back yard, and I find some gold in the process.

I found a reward! There is nothing immoral with that, correct?
Nothing immoral about finding it. Of course, if there were clues as to who it belonged, it would be extremely moral for you to try to find the person.


Now you are claiming that punishment isn’t necessary to make men honest and moral.
No one here has claimed that but you, Franko. Punishment is sometimes necessary, but supernatural punisment is completely toothless, as the offender has no evidence that he/she will ever be punished. I have no fear of hell or the abyss, because they are imaginary, however, prison is real. However, for many people, it is not necessary to threaten them at all. They have highly developed empathy, and cannot do something that would cause harm to another because they can understand how it would feel.

You are familiar with the concept of empathy, no?


So if there is no punishment associated with “stealing” money from a bank, how is me walking into a bank and “stealing” money any different then me finding money in my back yard?
If there is no way of finding who the money in your back yard belongs to, then you can do nothing else but keep it. Of course, if you money in bags with a bank's name on it, you would be morally obliged to notify the police, otherwise you may be an accessory to a robbery by not reporting it. Also, if you have empathy, you do not want people to lose their hard-earned money. I truly feel sorry for you if the only reason you are not a criminal is fear of punishment. Don't you care about others at all?


I mean … if there are no negative consequences associated with taking something that isn’t yours, then in what way is that action immoral?
To people with empathy, the negative consequences are that you would feel terrible. You put yourself in the position of the person(s) being stolen from, and you realize you would hate such a person who stole from you. Thus, you would hate yourself. That is why, for many people, no external punishment is necessary to keep them in line. They have their own internal reward and punishment.

I hope you never lose belief in religion Franko, or you would be busting safes the next day. You appear to be one of the people for whom the penal system was designed.

[Franko]

A-Theist Trickster:

Punishment is sometimes necessary, but supernatural punisment is completely toothless, as the offender has no evidence that he/she will ever be punished.

AToms obey TLOP.
You are made of AToms.
You obey TLOP.

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

No evidence? Keep pretending A-Theist ...

[CWL]

Franko,

Right now I have more imporant matters to attend to than making you look like a dofus so I will leave the baton to Tricky for a while. I am certain he will do a fine job at demolishing your little strawmen as always.

Notwithstanding the following deserves a comment:

Your original contention was that A-Theists, who DO NOT believe in consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who do believe in consequences. This is an utterly absurd claim to make, and you looked like a retard every time you claimed it, but at least you seem to be backing off from it now. Unfortunately you are unable to be a Man, and simply concede defeat graciously and with some dignity.

As usual you are grossly misrepresenting my contentions. I have not claimed the above, and you know it full well.

I have claimed and do claim that atheists, who do not believe in ultimate consequences (i.e. consequences for the individual after death) for their actions will behave just as morally as those who do believe in such consequences.

Spot the subtle but important difference?

Why is it so hard for you to be honest in a debate Franko? Puberty hormones?

[Franko]

CWL:

Right now I have more imporant matters to attend to ...

Taking flight chicken-sh*t?

Why aren't I surprised?

Like I said ... you are no Man.


Certain things?

What things don’t TLOP “describe”? Can you give us an example?

You are made of chemicals CWL! Is there something more to you than chemicals??? If so, then what?

DO chemicals have “free will” CWL?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CWL
...I will leave the baton to Tricky for a while. I am certain he will do a fine job at demolishing your little strawmen as always.
It's pretty much done now. The Franko character has reset. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

Taking flight chicken-sh*t?

Why aren't I surprised?

Like I said ... you are no Man.

Believe it or not, unlike you, I have a life outside of this forum.

And yes, I am a Man. Don't be jealous, you will be too in a few years.

Certain things?

What things don’t TLOP “describe”? Can you give us an example?

What are you talking about?!? I said there is a "certain nature of things".

Are you misrepresenting my statements on purpose or are you actually illiterate?

You are made of chemicals CWL! Is there something more to you than chemicals??? If so, then what?

DO chemicals have “free will” CWL?

No but "I" do. That "I" may be the result of chemicals does not contradict this. You have yet to provide evidence to the contrary. Your TLOP syllogism doesn't do the trick as "I" and my "free will" are naturally both results of TLOP.

Your reasoning indicates that you have invented a new syllogism:

CHEMICALS do not have FREE WILL
CWL is made of CHEMICALS
CWL does not have FREE WILL

Fallacy of composition mean anything to you?

Please try again (when you have come up with new material).

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

It's pretty much done now. The Franko character has reset. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810)

Like you said, hours of entertainment. However, all good things must come to an end. Oh well, I might play again tomorrow. It's fun, but it really is too bad that the game only comes with a beginner level.

[Franko]

CWLoser:

Believe it or not, unlike you, I have a life outside of this forum.

Yes, yes, I know all about your meaningless existence A-Theist. I agree you should run along and not waste another valuable second of it, because before you know it you will have ceased to exist.

CWL:
Yes, there is a certain nature of things which can be described as "laws" of physics. How else would things be?

Franko:
Certain things?
What things don’t TLOP “describe”? Can you give us an example?
You are made of chemicals CWL! Is there something more to you than chemicals??? If so, then what?
DO chemicals have “free will” CWL?

CWL:
What are you talking about?!? I said there is a "certain nature of things".

More hiding and obfuscation evil A-Theist? Why aren’t I surprised?

So you have NO EVIDENCE for your statement that “certain things” are NOT described by The laws of Physics?

An A-Theists with no evidence to support his absurd religious dogma??? Why aren’t I surprised?

Franko:
You are made of chemicals CWL! Is there something more to you than chemicals??? If so, then what?

DO chemicals have “free will” CWL?

CWL:
No but "I" do.

How can YOU have “free will”, if you are nothing more than chemicals A-Theist?

That doesn’t make any sense? Is there something you aren’t telling us?

How are you greater than the sum of your parts, Materialist?

That "I" may be the result of chemicals does not contradict this.

yes it does.

You have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.

So you are asking me to prove that your “free willy God” doesn’t exist?

How about if you prove the Christian God doesn’t exist first?

Your TLOP syllogism doesn't do the trick as "I" and my "free will" are naturally both results of TLOP.

So you are again making the claim that TLOP is “conscious”??? That’s twice you have said this in one day? Is anything the matter CWL?

Your reasoning indicates that you have invented a new syllogism:

CHEMICALS do not have FREE WILL
CWL is made of CHEMICALS
CWL does not have FREE WILL

Hey that is very good! But keep in mind, I don’t exist, I’m just a figment of your imagination.

Fallacy of composition mean anything to you?

You mean like claiming that flipped coins always land “TAILS” up??

Please try again (when you have come up with new material).

You called me Bee-atch.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWLoser:

Yes, yes, I know all about your meaningless existence A-Theist. I agree you should run along and not waste another valuable second of it, because before you know it you will have ceased to exist.

No I won't. If I cease to exist, I won't know anything.

More hiding and obfuscation evil A-Theist? Why aren’t I surprised?

No I am simply pointing out that you are not reading my posts properly. The Universe exists. It does so in a certain way = "there is a certain nature of things".

How does your question "Certain things?" relate to that?

So you have NO EVIDENCE for your statement that “certain things” are NOT described by The laws of Physics?

An A-Theists with no evidence to support his absurd religious dogma??? Why aren’t I surprised?


I have made no such statement. I am not keen on providing evidence for your little strawmen.

How can YOU have “free will”, if you are nothing more than chemicals A-Theist?

That doesn’t make any sense? Is there something you aren’t telling us?

How are you greater than the sum of your parts, Materialist?

I am conscious. Yet, the chemicals I am made of are not.

Is it really so inconceivable to you that the sum can be greater than the parts? Why do you think there is a logical mistake called "fallacy of composition" in the first place?

yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Hey - I like this game.

So you are asking me to prove that your “free willy God” doesn’t exist?

How about if you prove the Christian God doesn’t exist first?

Ah. Nice one Franko. Although not entirely comparable. The input that human beings produce and the effect thereof is observable. We all perceive our "free will" on a daily basis. That shifts the burden of proof back to you my friend.

If you would care to provide evidence of the Christian God, I will gladly assume the burden of proof to disprove its existence.

So you are again making the claim that TLOP is “conscious”??? That’s twice you have said this in one day? Is anything the matter CWL?

No. TLOP describes the Universe (what is). There are conscious beings in the Universe. Consciousness is thus part of the Universe. Not the same as saying "TLOP is conscious" at all.

Hey that is very good! But keep in mind, I don’t exist, I’m just a figment of your imagination.

Time to resort to solipsism again Franko? Are you really that cornered?

You mean like claiming that flipped coins always land “TAILS” up??

No, like claiming that...

CHEMICALS do not have FREE WILL
CWL is made of CHEMICALS
CWL does not have FREE WILL

... is a clear fallacy of composition.

You called me Bee-atch.

Yes, in fact I did. But I am hogging the game now. Time to let someone else enjoy a bit of BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) for a while. See you around, your Holiness.

[Franko]

CWLoser:

No I won't. If I cease to exist, I won't know anything.

Yes, but since you are going to cease to exist regardless, then why are you here punishing yourself by exposer to radically different worldviews from your own dogmatic beliefs?

How does your question "Certain things?" relate to that?

Are there rules (LAWS) which describe the behavior and operation of the Universe CWL, or are some parts just magical? It is a very simple question. And I know why you persist in refusing to address it.

I am conscious. Yet, the chemicals I am made of are not.

How do you know that?

Without defining precisely what you mean by “conscious” your statement is meaningless.

Is it really so inconceivable to you that the sum can be greater than the parts? Why do you think there is a logical mistake called "fallacy of composition" in the first place?

Because 2 + 2 = 4, not 2 + 2 = 7 CWL!

Why is it that I can spot the fallacy in your syllogisms, but you have so much trouble clearly pointing out the flaw in mine? The only reason you are claiming that there is a flaw, is because YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BELIEF IN MAGIC “FREE WILL” POWERS.

Yet conveniently you cannot indicate what the flaw is. It’s kind of like you claiming that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, but then being unable to explain why 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

But 2 + 2 does equal 4 CWL, you are just retarded.

We all perceive our "free will" on a daily basis. That shifts the burden of proof back to you my friend.

I see the color “red” on a daily basis CWL, but that doesn’t change the reality that what I am actually perceiving is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light. Your “experiences” don’t amount to any more “evidence” for your “god” then a Christians ‘experiences” amount to “evidence” for his “god”.

Once again you have nothing to base your beliefs on but an absurd double standard.

No. TLOP describes the Universe (what is). There are conscious beings in the Universe. Consciousness is thus part of the Universe. Not the same as saying "TLOP is conscious" at all.

Then how can TLOP control you is it isn’t conscious?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

You didn’t get to choose your parents CWL, you didn’t get to choose when or where you were born. You didn’t get to choose your height, or your hair color, or whether or not you were born in a wheelchair. What is your specific evidence that you have ever chosen ANYTHING?

You have no evidence because you have never made ANY choices!

Time to resort to solipsism again Franko? Are you really that cornered?

If you imagine that I am … is that what you are imagining?

If it was then you would just provide your evidence for “free will” and shut me up.

No, like claiming that...

CHEMICALS do not have FREE WILL
CWL is made of CHEMICALS
CWL does not have FREE WILL

... is a clear fallacy of composition.

Then explain EXACTLY and PRECISELY what the fallacy is? Even the Brette was going on the other day that you nitwits weren’t making any sense with that line of argument. It is obfuscation CWL and you know it.

Explain the fallacy. What is your evidence for “free will” A-Theist?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!
Reset. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810)
Hey! Two posts! Pretty good, CWL.

[Franko]

Hey! Two posts! Pretty good, CWL.

More evidence for your "free will" Religious Fanatic?

So why does no evidence for "god" mean No God, but no evidence for "free will" means you definitely have magical "free will" powers?

That is a blatent and obvious contradiction A-Theist. You don't seem very eager or able to refute it?

You think no one is noticing? Make some more fluff post for me. Demonstrate you religious fanaticism a little more for us.

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
I am conscious. Yet, the chemicals I am made of are not.

Watch it....
You dont believe in a Soul remember ;)

Is it really so inconceivable to you that the sum can be greater than the parts? Why do you think there is a logical mistake called "fallacy of composition" in the first place?

ahhh the composition fallacy doesnt violate math :rolleyes:


No, like claiming that...

CHEMICALS do not have FREE WILL
CWL is made of CHEMICALS
CWL does not have FREE WILL

Then present free-will!

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

Reset. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810)
Hey! Two posts! Pretty good, CWL.

Thanks! I think I'm getting the hang of it. When do you suppose the sequel will be out? One really longs for new levels at this point in time...

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


Then present free-will!

You really don't get this burden of proof thingy do you?

OK. Let's change the syllogism a bit:

CHEMICALS are not CONSCIOUS
HUMANS are made of CHEMICALS
HUMANS are not CONSCIOUS

Now, does this, in your reasonable opinion, prove that humans are not conscious?

Why or why not?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by CWL


Thanks! I think I'm getting the hang of it. When do you suppose the sequel will be out? One really longs for new levels at this point in time...

The new levels are shareware instead of freeware, so you'll have to pay a 20 dollar registry fee.

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


You really don't get this burden of proof thingy do you?

OK. Let's change the syllogism a bit:

CHEMICALS are not CONSCIOUS
HUMANS are made of CHEMICALS
HUMANS are not CONSCIOUS

Now, does this, in your reasonable opinion, prove that humans are not conscious?

Why or why not?

well I believe that consciousness creates matter sweety ;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


The new levels are shareware instead of freeware, so you'll have to pay a 20 dollar registry fee.

I see. Does it come with a parental protection function as well (so you can switch off all the obscenities and abuse)?

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


well I believe that consciousness creates matter sweety ;)

In that case why do you keep insisting that WE are made of ATOMS? Don't make no sense to me.

If you truly believe that matter/atoms are made by consciousness You should rightly be saying:

ATOMS obey CONCSIOUSNESS
YOU are CONSCIOUSNESS
ATOMS obey YOU

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


In that case why do you keep insisting that WE are made of ATOMS? Don't make no sense to me.

If you truly believe that matter/atoms are made by consciousness You should rightly be saying:

ATOMS obey CONCSIOUSNESS
YOU are CONSCIOUSNESS
ATOMS obey YOU

ahh no
I dont believe in solipsism sorry
;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


ahh no
I dont believe in solipsism sorry
;)

But my dear friend, saying "consciousness creates matter" is solipsism.

You are saying that you create the world around you, not that the world around you has created you.

If consciousness creates matter (i.e. atoms) then matter is clearly an illuuuuuusion. Hence according to your own cosmology, you cannot possibly be "made of atoms".

If we accept that "consciousness creates matter" then the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

[wraith]

CWL

But my dear friend, saying "consciousness creates matter" is solipsism.

You are saying that you create the world around you, not that the world around you has created you.

If consciousness creates matter (i.e. atoms) then matter is clearly an illuuuuuusion. Hence in your version of the Universe you cannot possible be "made of atoms".

If we accept that "consciousness creates matter" then the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

no, I never said that I was generating this universe
;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith
CWL

no, I never said that I was generating this universe
;)


No but you are saying that your consciousness is not generated by atoms, are you not? In your (clearly dualistic) cosmology "YOU" are a "soul" - a "graviton". "YOU" are not your "body". In other words, your body may be made of "atoms" but "YOU" are clearly not.

Again, if the above is correct then, according to your own cosmology, the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.
;) :) ;) :) ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL



No but you are saying that your consciousness is not generated by atoms, are you not? In your (clearly dualistic) cosmology "YOU" are a "soul" - a "graviton". "YOU" are not your "body". In other words, your body may be made of "atoms" but "YOU" are clearly not.

Again, if the above is correct then, according to your own cosmology, the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.
;) :) ;) :) ;)

the claim "you are made of atoms" does not imply "matter creating consciousness"

I am not made of atoms in the sense that matter creates consciousness.

I am made of atoms in the sense that consciousness creates matter.

:. "I am made of atoms" stands True
;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


the claim "you are made of atoms" does not imply "matter creating consciousness"

I am not made of atoms in the sense that matter creates consciousness.

I am made of atoms in the sense that consciousness creates matter.

:. "I am made of atoms" stands True
;)

Two words.

Non sequitur.

[Tricky]

Okay, using what CWL has said, let's look at the sylligism another way.

Premise one: Atoms obey the laws of physics
If "obey" means "are constrained by", then okay.

Premise two: You are made of atoms
Incorrect. You are made of atoms and other things. You are also made of consciousness. Consciousness does not obey the laws of physics. Consciousness made the laws of physics, according to LD.

Conclusion: You obey the laws of physics.
If you do have a consciousness, then this is clearly wrong. If your consciousness is a "charged graviton", then it is even more wrong.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CWL
Thanks! I think I'm getting the hang of it. When do you suppose the sequel will be out? One really longs for new levels at this point in time...
Sorry. You'll have to talk to the software engineer on that one. Like Pete Townshend, I am just an end user.

[sorgoth]

Quote:OK...maybe shot down is the wrong term. The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is.


Yes, it is.

Is believing in the invisible, ethereal dragon in my garage as logical as not believing in it? Is believing in the fluffy bunnies of doom and invible-ethereal never do anythingness as logical as not believing in them?


Seriously.

[Franko]

CWL:

Again, if the above is correct then, according to your own cosmology, the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

Well that is great for the Wraith, CWL, but what about YOU?

According to YOUR cosmology YOU are definitely made of Atoms and nothing more. Your brain is simply a collection of chemicals.

Do chemicals have "free will"?

If not, then you don't have "free will" either pseudo-Materialist.

TLOP controls chemicals.
YOU are made of chemicals.
TLOP controls YOU.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Well that is great for the Wraith, CWL, but what about YOU?

According to YOUR cosmology YOU are definitely made of Atoms and nothing more. Your brain is simply a collection of chemicals.

Yes, but you are contending that my cosmology is false. Why do you insist on using a syllogism that is based on my cosmology if that is the case?

Simply put: If my cosmology is false, then so is your syllogism.

Do chemicals have "free will"?

If not, then you don't have "free will" either pseudo-Materialist.

This doesn't follow. Check out this link and you might figure out why:

Fallacy of composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)

TLOP controls chemicals.
YOU are made of chemicals.
TLOP controls YOU.

Again, the second premise is clearly false according to your cosmology. Don't you believe that consciousness creates matter any more?

[Franko]

CWL,

Yes, but you are contending that my cosmology is false. Why do you insist on using a syllogism that is based on my cosmology if that is the case?

Because that syllogism illustrates a major problem with your cosmology.

Simply put: If my cosmology is false, then so is your syllogism.

Not necessarily, atoms obey TLOP regardless. There is a reason I call myself Fatalist.

This doesn't follow. Check out this link and you might figure out why:

Fallacy of composition

Are you retarded CWL? How many times are you going to bring up this ridiculous argument?

Here is what you are saying …

Syllogism: Premise-1 (2) and (+) premise-2 (3) ergo (=) conclusion (5)

Now even though premise-1 is valid (TRUE), and even though premise-2 is valid (TRUE), and even though the conclusion is valid (TRUE). This syllogism still has an invisible flaw. It’s the flaw of Fallacy of composition. I can’t explain what that means, I can’t tell you exactly why 2 + 3 is not equal to 5 (actually I concede that it is. But really it’s not), all I can tell you is that it has a magical invisible flaw.

Here’s a website you go off on a fishing expedition if you don’t want to take my word for it: Fallacy of composition

CWL you are an imbecile, and a proven liar. Why would I take your word for anything. If you can’t explain what the precise problem is with that syllogism in your own words, then clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

… but that is what I have been saying about you all along.

Again, the second premise is clearly false according to your cosmology. Don't you believe that consciousness creates matter any more?

Well unless YOU believe it, then how does that prove “free will” CWL? Or are you just trying to prove that I am a Deist now? I thought I already told you that ... ?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

Because that syllogism illustrates a major problem with your cosmology.

No it doesn't. Saying that I obey (am constrained by) the laws of physics is saying nothing more than "you cannot do what is not possible". Rather obvious, don't you think?

Not necessarily, atoms obey TLOP regardless. There is a reason I call myself Fatalist.

You may call yourself what you wish Franko. That doesn't make "you obey the laws of physics" any more revolutionary as a statement.

[quote]Are you retarded CWL? How many times are you going to bring up this ridiculous argument?

Here is what you are saying …

Syllogism: Premise-1 (2) and (+) premise-2 (3) ergo (=) conclusion (5)

Now even though premise-1 is valid (TRUE), and even though premise-2 is valid (TRUE), and even though the conclusion is valid (TRUE). This syllogism still has an invisible flaw. It’s the flaw of Fallacy of composition. I can’t explain what that means, I can’t tell you exactly why 2 + 3 is not equal to 5 (actually I concede that it is. But really it’s not), all I can tell you is that it has a magical invisible flaw.

Here’s a website you go off on a fishing expedition if you don’t want to take my word for it: Fallacy of composition

CWL you are an imbecile, and a proven liar. Why would I take your word for anything. If you can’t explain what the precise problem is with that syllogism in your own words, then clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

… but that is what I have been saying about you all along.

You don't need to take my word for it.

Saying...

X has the property Y
Z is made of X
Z has the property Y

...proves nothing. Z may have the property Y notwithstanding (but not necessarily). The point is that it is not proven by the above syllogism. Nor do you prove that I do not possess consciousness or "free will" by saying "you are made of chemicals".

Well unless YOU believe it, then how does that prove “free will” CWL? Or are you just trying to prove that I am a Deist now? I thought I already told you that ... ?

The fact that the second premise of your famous syllogism is false according to your cosmology doesn't prove anything about "free will" nor does it prove anything about your "deism". I never claimed it did.

It only proves that if you truly belive in your own cosmology, then it is impossible to understand why you feel that the "You obey TLOP" syllogism is so important. Again, from your perspective it clearly isn't correct.

[MRC_Hans]

Frank:
I missed the proof that CWL is a liar, could you enlighten me?


Because that syllogism illustrates a major problem with your cosmology.Ohhh, THAT explaineds a lot. And here I was believeing it was supposed to prove YOUR cosmology. Well, fine, no problem then. From MY cosmolgy, there is no problem disproving it.

But---- what then was the proof of YOUR cosmology????

Fallacy of composition: The false assumption that the properties of a composite item (hence the name) equals the properties of its elements.

For example:

Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature
Water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
Water is a gas at room temperature

Not exactly invisible, unless you desparately dont want to see it.

Hans

[Franko]

No it doesn't. Saying that I obey (am constrained by) the laws of physics is saying nothing more than "you cannot do what is not possible". Rather obvious, don't you think?

You are utterly constrained CWL, in which way are you NOT constrained?

All you are doing is playing semantic word games! You don’t want to be controlled by the laws of physics – yet obviously you are. So now you will claim that you aren’t controlled, but merely [I[constrained[/I].

Big F*cking Deal! Unless you can explain the difference … there is no difference.

Saying...

X has the property Y
Z is made of X
Z has the property Y

...proves nothing. Z may have the property Y notwithstanding (but not necessarily). The point is that it is not proven by the above syllogism. Nor do you prove that I do not possess consciousness or "free will" by saying "you are made of chemicals".

Say what?

5 is made of 2 and 3 are you claiming that this is not so?

Atoms a function of TLOP
You a function of Atoms (a function of TLOP)

CWL make it simple (A-Theist never want to make it simple because then its easy to see how wrong they are!). Are you denying that Atoms obey TLOP? Are you denying that YOU are made of Atoms? What is your evidence for magic “free will” powers A-Theist!

How many times does your absurd double standard have to be pointed out to you?

You claim that No evidence for “god” means NO GOD, but then you turn around and claim that no evidence for “free will” means that “FREE WILL” DEFINITELY EXISTS!!!

Now for over a year You and the other A-Theist fanatics have repeatedly embarrassed yourself here on this Skeptics site over this point. It doesn’t matter to me, because I realize full well that A-Theism isn’t going to disappear overnight, but if you are stupid enough to think that you are winning your case …. Keep thinking it …

[Franko]

the proof that CWL is a liar, could you enlighten me?

Ohhh he’s a great guy from your POV MRC, I have to doubt. Perhaps if you ever get in any legal trouble CWL can represent you?

Ohhh, THAT explaineds a lot. And here I was believeing it was supposed to prove YOUR cosmology. Well, fine, no problem then. From MY cosmolgy, there is no problem disproving it.

If that is REALLY the case, then what is your empirical and irrefutable evidence for “free will”?

Why haven’t you posted it in the last year? I have only asked the a-Theist for their evidence about 5000 times.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL

Fallacy of composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)


Thanks for the link and the site in general, CWL. It's an interesting read.

[Franko]

Major premise: 3 - * * *
Minor premise: 2 - * *

Conclusion : 5 - * * * * *

So who is going to explain the Fallacy of composition (i.e. A-Theist slight of hand) on this syllogism? Come on! Just like EVERY intelligent person knows that you actually have magic “free will” powers (but can’t explain it), every intelligent person knows that 2 + 3 does not really equal 5.

So what bright little A-Theist wants to step up to the plate and prove it?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
So who is going to explain the Fallacy of composition on this syllogism? Perhaps if you explained how it doesn't fit the definition of Fallacy of Composition, it might clear the whole matter up?
Orignally posted here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html).
The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

Interesting side note, they have an example of a fallacy of composition that sounds very familiar:
3. Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.

edited to add:
Ah, missed the part about explaining the fallacy in terms of your syllogism. Using the above definition:
X = you
Parts of the whole X = Atoms
Characteristics A, B, C = obey TLOP.

Apply to the above definition and presto!

[Franko]

Perhaps if you explained how it doesn't fit the definition of Fallacy of Composition, it might clear the whole matter up?

So once again an A-Theist is asking Me to prove the non-existence of his “god”.

Their hypocrisy is UN-F*cking-believable!

Upchimp, do you have any evidence for your “free willy god” -- YES or NO???

Because I have been asking YOU for over a year now, and every day it is the same nonsensical religious dogma from you. This is a Skeptics site! Evidence – where is YOUR EVIDENCE?!?!

[Upchurch]

Direct question:
Originally posted by Franko

Upchurch, do you have any evidence for your “free willy god” -- YES or NO???
Direct answer: No.

edited to add:
Gosh, that was pretty simple. we should try that more often.

[Win]

Upchurch:

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bring this up, but I think you're being pretty disingenuous, so:

First, you've quoted the site http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html, without attribution or a link, a violation, I believe, of the forum rules. Second, you failed to quote the following from the same site, which supports Franko's position.

It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.

Naughty, naughty.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Win
Upchurch:

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bring this up, but I think you're being pretty disingenuous, so:
Sarcastic? Maybe just a little. Disingenous? No.

First, you've quoted the site http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html, without attribution or a link, a violation, I believe, of the forum rules.
My appologies. I thought it was fairly obvious that, in context that we were just refering to the site, that it was the source of the quote. I'll modify the post appropriately.
Second, you failed to quote the following from the same site, which supports Franko's position.
Thus my asking for him to qualify why it does not fall under the fallacy, no?

Naughty, naughty. Maybe, but about this? not so much.

[Win]

Upchurch:

Fair enough.

I wonder, though, why you didn't just explain yourself how Franko's syllogism might not be an example of the fallacy of composition, since you had gone to the site and knew?

Sorry if I was testy with you.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch


Thanks for the link and the site in general, CWL. It's an interesting read.

'Tis an interesting site, yes.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

You are utterly constrained CWL, in which way are you NOT constrained?

All you are doing is playing semantic word games! You don’t want to be controlled by the laws of physics – yet obviously you are. So now you will claim that you aren’t controlled, but merely .

Big F*cking Deal! Unless you can explain the difference … there is no difference.

Say what?

5 is made of 2 and 3 are you claiming that this is not so?

Atoms a function of TLOP
You a function of Atoms (a function of TLOP)

CWL make it simple (A-Theist never want to make it simple because then its easy to see how wrong they are!). Are you denying that Atoms obey TLOP? Are you denying that YOU are made of Atoms? What is your evidence for magic “free will” powers A-Theist!

How many times does your absurd double standard have to be pointed out to you?

You claim that No evidence for “god” means NO GOD, but then you turn around and claim that no evidence for “free will” means that “FREE WILL” DEFINITELY EXISTS!!!

Now for over a year You and the other A-Theist fanatics have repeatedly embarrassed yourself here on this Skeptics site over this point. It doesn’t matter to me, because I realize full well that A-Theism isn’t going to disappear overnight, but if you are stupid enough to think that you are winning your case …. Keep thinking it …

Franko,

You are not reading my posts properly or you utterly fail to comprehend what I am saying.

I am saying the following:


1) The second premise of your "You obey TLOP" syllogism (hereinafter the "TLOP Syllogism") is clearly false according to your own cosmology. Therefore you cannot rely on the TLOP Syllogism as proof of that cosmology.

2) The TLOP Syllogism is clearly subject to the Fallacy of Composition and it is therefore not valid. Notwithstanding, I happen to agree with the conclusion (that we "obey" the laws of physics) - again a Syllogism subject to this fallacy [i]may notwithstanding be correct. The point is however that the conclusion is not proven by the TLOP Syllogsim alone. You need to explain why the fallacy doesn't apply.

3) The conclusion of the TLOP Syllogism (although correct) is a rather mundane and uninteresting statement: "You obey the laws of physics" = "You cannot do what is not possible". Big deal.

4) The syllogisms we have discussed regarding chemicals ("You do not have free will because you are made of chemicals" or "You are not conscious because you are made of chemicals") are yet more examples of the Fallacy of Composition. Here I do not agree with the conclusions. I obviously am conscious and I can obviously make choices between perceived and available options, despite the fact that I am made of chemicals.


Feel free to consider and discuss the above. I am however certain that you instead prefer debating with your own little Men of Straw as usual.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Win
Second, you failed to quote the following from the same site, which supports Franko's position.
Just to be fair, I've come to believe that there is nothing wrong with the syllogism, per se. It's the definitions of the words "TLOP" and "obey" that Franko uses that is why I disagree with him.

Technically, it's just "TLOP" since his definition of "obey" is a consequence of how he defines "TLOP".

[Franko]

Upchimp:

Franko:
Upchurch, do you have any evidence for your “free willy god” -- YES or NO???

Upchimp:
Direct answer: No.

Exactly what I have been saying for over a year.

Plus you got smacked on your own website. (tisk tisk)

Listen Religious Fanatic, why don't you run along back to the rest of your dogmatic cult members, and come back and visit us when you actually have some EVIDENCE for your insane religious beliefs.

The cult of pessimism awaits you ... www.infidels.org

Your trolling is only harming your case (although it is endless entertainment for me and the other LD).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Win

I wonder, though, why you didn't just explain yourself how Franko's syllogism might not be an example of the fallacy of composition, since you had gone to the site and knew?Franko has a way of avoiding an argument rather than actually addressing it directly. I thought I was helping, frankly, albeit in my own sarcastic little way.

Sorry if I was testy with you. No prob. you were dead on about citing the source. I was being lazy.

Upchurch

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Plus you got smacked on your own website. (tisk tisk) Wellllll, actually, you never did justify why you think properties of the parts are the properties of the whole. Perhaps if you managed that, it would settle the matter?

[Franko]

very simple ... because 2 + 2 = 4, and just because you claim that there is an invisible error doesn't make it so.

Unless you are claiming that Solipsism is True, in which case you are 100% correct.

[CWL]

Franko,

"2 + 2 = 4" is not the same statement as "Z is made of X and therefore has the properties of X".

It isn't, it never has been and it never will be, nomatter how many times you post it.

[Franko]

CWL if chemicals don't have "free will", and you are NOTHING MORE THAN chemicals (by your own assertion of A-Theism/materialism), then how on Earth can you possible have "free will"?

Can you explain that to us?

Or is something physically preventing you from doing it?

[Franko]

CWLoser,

"Z is made of X and therefore has the properties of X" is not the same statement as Atoms obey TLOP, You are made of Atoms, YOU OBEY TLOP!

It isn't, it never has been and it never will be, no matter how many times you post it.
Ohh, and BTW, unless you can explain the “invisible flaw”, or provide evidence for “free will” it is obvious that this is just another journey into the wonderland of A-Theist obfuscation.

Because we all know that A-Theists are masters of talking without actually telling you anything …

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWL if chemicals don't have "free will", and you are NOTHING MORE THAN chemicals (by your own assertion of A-Theism/materialism), then how on Earth can you possible have "free will"?

Can you explain that to us?

Or is something physically preventing you from doing it?

Because the sum may be greater (or at least different) than the parts.

Why don't you ask how on Earth cats can have color if the atoms they are made of are colorless?

Why don't you ask how on Earth salt can be harmless to humans when the sodium and chloride it is composed of are both dangerous to humans?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
very simple ... because 2 + 2 = 4,

[snipping off the double strawman]
Ah, yes. See, CWL? Very simple. Let's put it all together:

The properties of atoms are the properties of humans because (or due to the fact that) 2 + 2 = 4.

I think that rather clearly spells it out, don't you?

edited to add:
rats. a little slow out of the gate.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWLoser,

"Z is made of X and therefore has the properties of X" is not the same statement as Atoms obey TLOP, You are made of Atoms, YOU OBEY TLOP!

*snip*

Yes it is.

Z = YOU
X = ATOMS

Anyway, I have already conceded that the syllogism happens to be correct although it is subject to the Fallacy of Composition. So why is this an issue for to you? Are we spoiling your precious holy mantra for you? No fun chanting a flawed syllogism?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, yes. See, CWL? Very simple. Let's put it all together:

The properties of atoms are the properties of humans because (or due to the fact that) 2 + 2 = 4.

I think that rather clearly spells it out, don't you?

Crystal clear. Whatever was I thinking?

edited to add:
rats. a little slow out of the gate.

Speed is of the essence when playing BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810)

[Upchurch]

Orginally posted by CWL

Speed is of the essence when playing BOBS
Stupid having to work for a living. Makes me lose at games...

hm... How about this for a justification:

Properties of atoms are the same as properties of humans, given that humans, made of a very big number of atoms, physically have the same properties as very big numbers of atoms.

[Franko]

Because the sum may be greater (or at least different) than the parts.

“may” be? What the hell is that suppose to mean?

If you are asserting the existence of a “Soul” CWL, don’t beat around the bush for another year – just say it moron!

Why don't you ask how on Earth cats can have color if the atoms they are made of are colorless?

Because I understand that atoms emit photons, which are NOT “colorless”.

Why don't you ask how on Earth salt can be harmless to humans when the sodium and chloride it is composed of are both dangerous to humans?

Kind of like how a standing in front of a parked Car isn’t dangerous, and traveling at 50 miles per hour isn’t dangerous, but standing in front of a Car traveling at 50 miles an hour IS DANGEROUS?

You really are a braindead moron CWL. I would love to be a fly on the wall in your legal office. Hehehe! I really do pity ANYONE who has you as their attorney.

How exactly do chemicals obtain the property of "free will" CWL? If you are asserting it, then the burden of proof falls on you. What is the evidence for your claim Religious Fanatic from the cult of A-Theism???

[Franko]

Upchimp:

Properties of atoms are the same as properties of humans, given that humans, made of a very big number of atoms, physically have the same properties as very big numbers of atoms.


Hey look everyone -- the A-Theist is speaking in tongues ... :rolleyes:

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Stupid having to work for a living. Makes me lose at games...

hm... How about this for a justification:

Properties of atoms are the same as properties of humans, given that humans, made of a very big number of atoms, physically have the same properties as very big numbers of atoms.

That works for me.

I'm done playing BOBS for this evening. Going to see a movie with my wife! :)

Talk to you later, UpFunk.

See you around, your Holiness.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Hey look everyone -- the A-Theist is speaking in tongues ... :rolleyes:
Hey, you're welcome to try to come up with a better justification.

[Franko]

Hey, you're welcome to try to come up with a better justification.

I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!
Okie dokie, but until you come up with a good justification, don't be suprised when people call Fallacy of Composition on it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP! Reset. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810)

[Franko]

Reduced to nothing but woo-woo post now Tricky?

Funny how it took you so long to transform into Titanpout.

Run along you fat old A-Theist Troll ... www.infidels.org

[Franko]

Upchimp:

Okie dokie, but until you come up with a good justification, don't be suprised when people call Fallacy of Composition on it.

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware that You Whitefork and all of the other fanatically religious A-Theists believe you have "magical free will powers" which you cannot explain or prove.

I realize that you believe this makes you a Non-Religion. yes, Upchimp, I know ALL about your sad pessimistic little cult of non-skepticism and double standards.

[Win]

Hi Frank:

I hope you don't mind my asking, but what's up with the infidels links.

I suppose that they, at least, are honest when it comes to holding religion in contempt, while here scepticism is supposed to be the order of the day, and of course, there's no connection between scepticism and atheism.

Just curious. ;)

[Franko]

I hope you don't mind my asking, but what's up with the infidels links.

In case you hadn’t noticed WIN there are a lot of A-Theists Trolling on this forum. Apparently many of them are confused or misinformed. For some reason they believe that this SKEPTICS site is actually an adjunct of Infidels.org (Home of the Religion of A-Theism on the Internet).

These religious fanatics (A-Theists) believe that their dogmatic Cult is the one true faith and that all other religions need to be abolished (or at least harassed). I just keep trying to tell them that they are in the wrong place. This website has nothing to do with their whacky Religion. THIS IS A SKEPTICS WEBSITE! and ...

A-Theism <> Skepticism

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Reduced to nothing but woo-woo post now Tricky?

Funny how it took you so long to transform into Titanpout.

Run along you fat old A-Theist Troll ... www.infidels.org
No, little boy. Just playing some BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) while waiting for you to answer a question.

If gravitons have charge, why are they unaffected by electromagnetic fields?

I expect I will have to wait for a while, so I play this simple game to amuse myself.

You've lost, Franko. It's over.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Franko,

1) The syllogism alone has little or nothing to do with "empirical evidence".

2) The syllogism is invalid (at least until you have justified why the Fallacy of Composition does not apply - you might want to consider Upchurch's suggestion, it's not bad at all). Notwithstanding, the syllogism does happen to be true (at least according to a monistic, materialistic cosmology). There is a difference between truth and validity you know.

3) Moreover, according to your dualistic, non-materialistic cosmology it just so happens that your syllogism is not only invalid, but also false as the second premise clearly is false according to said cosmology.

As indicated by my highlight, point no. 3 is your biggest problem. Your cannot reasonably argue that your syllogism is proof of a cosmology according to which said syllogism is in fact false. If we you are made of more (or other things) than atoms (such as "souls" or "gravitons") then the premise "You are made of atoms" simply isn't correct.

Or have you now decided that we are made from nothing but matter? That consciousness is simply a function of atoms? That matter makes consciousness? It is the only way that your syllogism can be true.

I must concur with Tricky.

http://www.cindy-sadler.com/gallery/ring/valkyrie_01.jpg

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch


Thanks for the link and the site in general, CWL. It's an interesting read.

omg!!!!

How is the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism a fallacy of composition?

Just demonstrate free-will!
You either obey TLOP or you dont....you cant have both. ( unless youre PixyMisa :rolleyes: )

TLOP controls you or you control TLOP.

SO materialists.....you have the brain which is made up of atoms, which obeys TLOP, which gives rise to consciousness. TLOP controls you.

OR

Once you have this property "consciousness" you have the ability to take control of TLOP? Solipsism is looking pretty good hey?

MAN!

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Fallacy of composition: The false assumption that the properties of a composite item (hence the name) equals the properties of its elements.

For example:

Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature
Water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
Water is a gas at room temperature

Not exactly invisible, unless you desparately dont want to see it.

Hans

ahhh, that "syllogism" doesnt flow.

In premise one, you describe O and H by themselves at room temp. ie they are gases

In premise 2, you assume that O and H behave in the same way when they are connected...

You can see that water is not a gas at room temperature.

Premise 1 does not flow onto premise 2
Hence the error in reasoning...
Hence the fallacy of composition...



Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

Here, premise 1 links onto premise 2.
You are made of atoms and atoms obey TLOP.

When was the last time that you disobeyed TLOP?

I can show you water at room temp...
How about showing everyone on this board that you can disobey TLOP...

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


omg!!!!

How is the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism a fallacy of composition?

Just demonstrate free-will!
You either obey TLOP or you dont....you cant have both. ( unless youre PixyMisa :rolleyes: )

TLOP controls you or you control TLOP.

SO materialists.....you have the brain which is made up of atoms, which obeys TLOP, which gives rise to consciousness. TLOP controls you.

OR

Once you have this property "consciousness" you have the ability to take control of TLOP? Solipsism is looking pretty good hey?

MAN!

Forget about the Fallacy of Composition. It has already been conceded that the syllogism is true from a materialistic perspective.

From a Logical Deist perspective however it is not. "You are made of atoms" is not a correct statement according to the LD cosmology.

You would need to say something along the lines of

Atoms AND gravitons obey TLOP
You are made of atoms AND gravitons
You obey TLOP

or (if atoms are but an illusion to Logical Deists - you were never clear on this):

Gravitons obey TLOP
You are a graviton
You obey TLOP

Of course, in order for this to be true you must demonstrate

(i) the existence of gravitons; and
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics.
Can you do that?

[MRC_Hans]

In premise 2, you assume that O and H behave in the same way when they are connected... Bravo! You found the error! Good progress! See? It wasnt invisible like you have claimed for so long.

And, as you correctly note, we are actually able to OBSERVE that the conclusion is false (hint: That was why I choose just this example, makes things easier when they are observable).

Now, tell me: If you take all the chemicals that comprise a human, pour them in a vat and stir them, will they behave like a human being? Well, the experiement has actually been done, and waddaya know: They did NOT behave like a human being.

Now, what does this tell us? .... RIGHT! Humans do NOT behave like any or all of the chemicals that they are built of.

SO while your sillogism has the right conclusion in the way that we do not seem to be able to break the laws of physics, we can NOT infer that the laws of physics apply in the same way to us as to an atom.

Furthermore, as it has been pointed out again and again (but which you for some reason have chosen to ignore), according to YOUR belief, we are not made of atoms ONLY, so your, in your own cosmology, your second premise is false.

Hans

[muscleman]

This might be out of subject..But men, no offense, but that guy upchurch is ugly...He needs to remove his pic there...

and Hans, I read all your post above...I agree with it completely without a doubt....

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


Forget about the Fallacy of Composition. It has already been conceded that the syllogism is true from a materialistic perspective.

From a Logical Deist perspective however it is not. "You are made of atoms" is not a correct statement according to the LD cosmology.

Youre view of matter has to change to understand the view of the LD.

Youre trying to observe the universe through the "matter creates consciousness" belief.

You would need to say something along the lines of

Atoms AND gravitons obey TLOP
You are made of atoms AND gravitons
You obey TLOP

or (if atoms are but an illusion to Logical Deists - you were never clear on this):

Gravitons obey TLOP
You are a graviton
You obey TLOP

Of course, in order for this to be true you must demonstrate

(i) the existence of gravitons; and
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics.
Can you do that?

You didnt even recognise the Soul. Your Soul is the Graviton. Your Consciousness.

Again, whatever I say would be meaningless to you if you work under the "matter creating consciousness" framework.

lets just say that the Gravity of others is testing your Sanity muhaha

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Bravo! You found the error! Good progress! See? It wasnt invisible like you have claimed for so long.

The invisible error relates to the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism
:rolleyes:

Now, tell me: If you take all the chemicals that comprise a human, pour them in a vat and stir them, will they behave like a human being? Well, the experiement has actually been done, and waddaya know: They did NOT behave like a human being.

come on...are you serious?
Are you saying that the state of you now is equal to the state when you are stirred up in the vat? I dont control TLOP by the way :rolleyes:

Now, what does this tell us? .... RIGHT! Humans do NOT behave like any or all of the chemicals that they are built of.

NO
Youre states are different. You have the "normal CWL" state and the "gooey liquefied CWL" state. Are you consciousness at this point?
:rolleyes:

SO while your sillogism has the right conclusion in the way that we do not seem to be able to break the laws of physics, we can NOT infer that the laws of physics apply in the same way to us as to an atom.

Youre above arguments dont illustrate this point at all ;)

The moon is made up of more than one atom. Does it obey TLOP?

Furthermore, as it has been pointed out again and again (but which you for some reason have chosen to ignore), according to YOUR belief, we are not made of atoms ONLY, so your, in your own cosmology, your second premise is false.

OK CWL, in this Universe, besides atoms, what else am I made of?
:rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by muscleman
This might be out of subject..But men, no offense, but that guy upchurch is ugly...He needs to remove his pic there...

lol!
Why do you care?
Better looking than you is he?
;)


and Hans, I read all your post above...I agree with it completely without a doubt....

I am sorry to here that
:)

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith

Youre view of matter has to change to understand the view of the LD.

Fine. Then demonstrate why I need to change it. Your syllogism as it is worded says nothing about the validity of your cosmology.

Youre trying to observe the universe through the "matter creates consciousness" belief.

No. I am trying to observe it through the "consciousness creates matter" belief and it doesn't work.

Maybe if I try harder:

Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of atoms
You obey TLOP

Nope. Still doesn't work. You see, with my Logical Deist goggles on, it is obvious to me that the second premise isn't true. I am not just made of atoms or I am not really "atoms" at all - I am a "graviton". Either way the second premise is incorrect.

You didnt even recognise the Soul. Your Soul is the Graviton. Your Consciousness.

Ok. Let's assume that.

Hmmm, nope. Premise 2 is still wrong. I am made of "atoms and a graviton", not merely "atoms".

Again, whatever I say would be meaningless to you if you work under the "matter creating consciousness" framework.

I cannot work under the "consciousness creates matter" framework unless you prove that such framework is relevant.

Come one, work with me here. Why do you assume the existence of a soul? Does the soul "obey TLOP"? If so, how do you know this to be true?

lets just say that the Gravity of others is testing your Sanity muhaha

No, let's not. Let's instead just say that you are in a position where you need to provide evidence for:

(i) the existence of gravitons; and
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith
OK CWL, in this Universe, besides atoms, what else am I made of?:rolleyes:

Easy. Just let me put on my

[Logical Deist goggles]

un graviton, ein Graviton, um graviton, en graviton, or in plain old English: a graviton.

[/Logical Deist goggles]

Now does this image of a stout, bawling damsel apply...

http://www.cindy-sadler.com/gallery/ring/valkyrie_01.jpg

...or can you actually provide evidence for:

(i) the existence of gravitons; and
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by muscleman
This might be out of subject..But men, no offense, but that guy upchurch is ugly...He needs to remove his pic there...
This is where I'm supposed lay down a verbally abusive retort but I keep getting hung up on two elements of what muscleman said:

"no offense" ... "upchurch is ugly"

In other words, "I'm going to shoot my mouth off, but I don't want anyone to not like me or be upset with me." I am utterly astounded by complete lack of:

1. Manners
2. Self-confidence
3. Common sense
4. Ability to focus on what is important (here and in general)
5. Tact
6. Grammer
7. Sentince structure

Oh. Hey, look there. I managed to be verbally abusive after all. Well, muscleman, with well thought out well constructed posts like that one, I'm sure you'll do just fine here. :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
The invisible error relates to the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism
:rolleyes:

So you have "selectively challenged vision" (PC for double standard).

come on...are you serious?
Are you saying that the state of you now is equal to the state when you are stirred up in the vat? I dont control TLOP by the way :rolleyes:

Hint: Always read the whole post before replying.
No, thats exactly what I'm not saying :rolleyes:
Why, right, you dont control TLOP. And?

NO
Youre states are different. You have the "normal CWL" state and the "gooey liquefied CWL" state. Are you consciousness at this point?
:rolleyes:

Are you? Hint: Proof read.

Youre above arguments dont illustrate this point at all ;)

The moon is made up of more than one atom. Does it obey TLOP?

And the moon is relevant how?


OK CWL, in this Universe, besides atoms, what else am I made of?
:rolleyes:

Uhhhn now, who WERE you talking to? Well, I know its hard. Since you say you are not a materialist, I'm sure you have a good answer yourself. But let me guess: Its something about gravitons

[/B]

Hans

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch

This is where I'm supposed lay down a verbally abusive retort but I keep getting hung up on two elements of what muscleman said:

"no offense" ... "upchurch is ugly"

In other words, "I'm going to shoot my mouth off, but I don't want anyone to not like me or be upset with me." I am utterly astounded by complete lack of:

1. Manners
2. Self-confidence
3. Common sense
4. Ability to focus on what is important (here and in general)
5. Tact
6. Grammer
7. Sentince structure

Oh. Hey, look there. I managed to be verbally abusive after all. Well, muscleman, with well thought out well constructed posts like that one, I'm sure you'll do just fine here. :rolleyes:
Well Up-Da-Funk, for what it's worth I always thought your avatar was great. It is positive and funny. Who can resist the old "thumbs up", eh? :)

But enough of this bickering people - there are more important issues being discussed here! Such as the question of whether

Atoms AND gravitons obey TLOP
You are made of atoms AND gravitons
You obey TLOP

is a true and accurate statement.

I believe that someone was, for this very purpose, just about to provide the irrefutable evidence of:

(i) the existence of gravitons; and
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL

It is positive and funny. Who can resist the old "thumbs up", eh? :)
I'll admit, I'm a ham. But at least I have enough self confidence to post under my real name and face...

Atoms AND gravitons obey TLOP
You are made of atoms AND gravitons
You obey TLOP

is a true and accurate statement.
Actually, from the LD perspective, I believe "You are made of atoms and A graviton." Subtle, but important point. Although would someone with MPD have multiple gravitons? You'd think scientists would be looking at them for evidence of gravitons just because the likelyhood is greater....

I believe that someone was, for this very purpose, just about to provide the irrefutable evidence of:

(i) the existence of gravitons; and
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics.
I believe that gravitons, should they exist, would obey the laws of physics, but whose TLOP? Those defined by Franko or those defined by mainstream science? I'm not saying I know (although I have a guess), I'm just asking the question.

While we're at it, if Franko or mainstream scientists do discover proof for the existance of the graviton, whose definition of graviton will behave like? We shall have to wait and see....

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I'll admit, I'm a ham. But at least I have enough self confidence to post under my real name and face...

I commend you, Sir.

Actually, from the LD perspective, I believe "You are made of atoms and A graviton." Subtle, but important point. Although would someone with MPD have multiple gravitons? You'd think scientists would be looking at them for evidence of gravitons just because the likelyhood is greater....
You are right of course.

It is either:

You are made of atoms and a graviton
Atoms and gravitons obey TLOP
You obey TLOP

or (if "atoms" should be considered as a mere illusion)

You are a graviton
Gravitons obey TLOP
You obey TLOP

Anyway you slice it, evidence for the following is dearly needed:
(i) the existence of gravitons;
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics; and
(heck, while we're at it, let's throw in a third assertion that is in need of evidence)

(iii) that gravitons are carriers of (human) consciousness.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL
if "atoms" should be considered as a mere illusion
hm...

Well, if gravitons are the seat of consciousness (or soul or whatever) and consciousness creates matter (atoms, humans bodies, cars, etc.), then gravitons must not be made of matter. If they were, then consciousness is also made of matter and that would be matter creating consciousness, which is strictly forbidden by LD (at least, according to Franko, et al).

At this point, one might argue that gravitons/consciousness is energy and not matter, but Einstein showed through electrodynamics and relativity that energy and matter equivalent, which leads us back to matter/energy creating consciousness, which is forbidden.

So, we must conclude that gravitons/consciousness is made of, or exists as, something other than matter or energy. As far as we know them, the laws of physics only deal with matter and energy, so we really have no mechinism to describe what these non-matter/energy things might be.

However, LD claims to have an alternative form of our description of physical laws. This may account for this new type of non-matter/energy things. Like many, I would love to read the alternative form of TLOP.

[Aardvark_DK]

Speaking of ugly: Look at that CWL dude! He looks like a big foot with a bit of white fluff stuck on top.

---

CWL and Upchurch, have you considered that trying to understand the LD is quite likely to drive you insane? And not insane in a good let's-all-bathe-in-mud way but in a bad Franko-like way... Think about it.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Speaking of ugly: Look at that CWL dude! He looks like a big foot with a bit of white fluff stuck on top.
I resent that! A few corns here and there doesn't make a foot ugly.

Besides Sir, you look like a drunken... aardvark!

[Upchurch]

Gentlemen, please!

Just because someone insults the way you look is no reason to... to...

Flashback of post by Upchurch

Oh. Hey, look there. I managed to be verbally abusive after all. Well, muscleman, with well thought out well constructed posts like that one, I'm sure you'll do just fine here.
...Nevermind

[Franko]

muscleman:

This might be out of subject..But men, no offense, but that guy upchurch is ugly...He needs to remove his pic there...

and Hans, I read all your post above...I agree with it completely without a doubt....

Tell me about it!

I gave him the same advice months ago! Jesus Christ -- I wonder if even a mother could love that dorky mug ...

Upchimp ... the tribe is spoken ... You look like a doofus!

[Franko]

CWL and Aardvark ... single handedly trying to transform R&P into the Banter section (their attempts at turning it into Infidels.org Jr. having apparently failed and been abadoned).

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWL and Aardvark ... single handedly trying to transform R&P into the Banter section (their attempts at turning it into Infidels.org Jr. having apparently failed and been abadoned).

Not at all Frank. Let's continue the debate. So let's see where we were.... oh yes...

According to Logical Deism "You are made of atoms" is not correct. Hence your famous syllogism is false from the perspective of Logical Deism.

Instead it should reasonably be something along the lines of

You are made of atoms and a graviton
Atoms and gravitons obey TLOP
You obey TLOP

or (if "atoms" should be considered as a mere illusion)

You are a graviton
Gravitons obey TLOP
You obey TLOP

Either way, this puts you in a position where you have to prove:
(i) the existence of gravitons;
(ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics;
...if you wish to prove that your syllogism is true from the LD perspective (which according to you is, of course, the correct perspective).

Oh - you may also want to prove this as I suppose it is rather crucial to your cosmology:
(iii) that gravitons are carriers of (human) consciousness.
I am sure you will manage all this for us, being a SKEPTIC and all...

The audience is listening...

[Franko]

According to Logical Deism "You are made of atoms" is not correct. Hence your famous syllogism is false from the perspective of Logical Deism.

What the hell are you talkiing about CWL!?!?

Everyone knows that Materialism is True !!!

Obviously you are made of Atoms! What, you argument as grown sooo thin that you have to resort to crazy talk now?

CWL are you positing the existence of a "Soul"??? Come On! What kind of A-Theist are you religious fanatic? I swear you sound more and more like the Elephant every day. Are you the newest member of his mystery cult?

[Franko]

Here's my latest list for anyone interested:

THE ARMAGGEDDON LIST

This list is nothing more then my own personal, subjective opinions of who on this forum is an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Theist/Deist. Don’t complain to me that you are on “the wrong list”. 1) This is only My opinion, and 2) Actions speak louder than words ...

The Forces of Light – the Saved
Consciousness makes Matter – Deist/Theist
(people who are Sane/Lucid)

Beleth
Beth Paulkey (Butch Slade)
BiliousGreen
BobM
Christian
Csense [mia]
dsm
Filip Sandors [mia]
Franko (Serpent)
Gentlehorse
hammegk (Mr. Hand)
Interesting Ian (Mr. Quick)
Jedi Knight (Knight)
LukeT (Luke)[mia]
metachristi
PotatoStew
Roadtoad
S & S
Sorgoth
stamenflicker
strongstevesaint (Mr. Sleep)
Thanz
Win
Wraith (Wraith)
Yalel


The Legion of Darkness – the Damned
Matter makes consciousness – Atheist
(Religious Fanatics)

a_unique_person [mia]
Aardvark
aerosolben [mia]
arcticpenguin
AtheistArchon [mia]
Billyhoyt [mia]
c4ts
chulbert
Colloden [mia]
CWL
DanishDynamite
De_Bunk [mia]
Diogenes
Dorman [mia]
Doubt
evildave
Fool
Fade
Futurefan [mia]
GoodPropaganda
Gnome
ImpyTimpy
joshua korosi
Kodiak [mia]
Latimer
Legally Insane
Lizardpeople
Lucifuge Rofocale
Oceansize [mia]
Paradox [mia]
PixyMisa
Plutarck
Resonabledoubt [mia]
Magnifico
Mossy
MRC_Hans
Segnosaur [mia]
Shemp
Sir-drinks-a-lot
Stimpson (Necromancer)
Synaesthesia
Thaifoodken
Titanpoint [mia]
Tricky
Trish [f] [mia]
Upchurch
Victor Danilchenko
Whitefork
Wolfgirl [f] [mia]
xrayecho [mia]
Yahzi
Zombified


Neutral Charge – No Allegiance
Not enough information – Agnostic
(If you are on this list, then I consider you a Skeptic)

Bjorn (-)
BillyJoe (=)
Crocodile Deathroll (-)
Darat (-)
Davidhorman (-)
Frank Newgent (?)
Graham (=)
Gregor (-)
Hal bidlack (=)
Kimpatsu (+)
LeFevre (+)
Lillyofthepink (-)[f][mia]
Loki (-)
Luceiia (+) [mia]
Martinm(-)
Pahansiri (+)
Q-Source (-) [f]
Randfan (+)
Scribble (+) (Mobius)
Seelie (+) [f]
Slimshady (+) (Shadow)
SortingItAllOut (+)
Soubrette (+) (Enchantress) [f]
Shroud of Akron (-) [mia]
Sundog (-)
Vorticity (+)
Whodini (-)



[mia] = I haven’t seen you posts in the R&P in a while.

Religious Person = a person who has at least one metaphysical belief which they cannot prove (and is not disproven) which the individual acknowledges they hold purely because it makes them “happy”.

Religious Fanatic = a person who holds at least one metaphysical belief which is obviously contradicted by empirical observation (i.e. they hold a logically contradictory belief), yet the person refuses to acknowledge this fact.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


What the hell are you talkiing about CWL!?!?

Everyone knows that Materialism is True !!!

Obviously you are made of Atoms!
Actually, all he's saying is that, under LD and based on what you said in the past, people are not only made up of atoms but also gravitons (or rather a single graviton per person). Correct?

Also, is it necessary to spam with a non-sequitar list?

[Franko]

Actually, all he's saying is that, under LD and based on what you said in the past, people are not only made up of atoms but also gravitons (or rather a single graviton per person). Correct?

Yes, that’s correct. Under Logical Deism you (your consciousness/your “Soul”) is actually a Graviton (fundamental force carrying particle of Gravity and Time). But Gravitons also obey (are bound by) logical rules.

Also, is it necessary to spam with a non-sequitar list?

If you are going to call yourself A-Theist, then you should be proud of it. Does my list really bother you Upchurch?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Does my list really bother you Upchurch?
Lists don't bother me at all. I had lots of fun with Bethke's list. His had fun activities. Yours just taking up space and has nothing to do with LD, is all I'm saying.

If gravitons are part of the funamental make up of humans, and not just atoms. What, in a materialistic sense, are gravitons made of? Matter? Energy? Something else entirely?

[Franko]

Lists don't bother me at all. I had lots of fun with Bethke's list. His had fun activities. Yours just taking up space and has nothing to do with LD, is all I'm saying.

I disagree.

If gravitons are part of the funamental make up of humans, and not just atoms. What, in a materialistic sense, are gravitons made of? Matter? Energy? Something else entirely?

Technically You could say Energy or Information. But if you want to be really accurate – Gravitons are made of Time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Technically You could say Energy or Information.
Well, "Energy" wouldn't fit with what you've said before. Energy is equvalent to mass/matter and graviton/consciousness made of matter, constitutes matter creating consciousness which, according to LD, is forbidden.
But if you want to be really accurate – Gravitons are made of Time.
Groovy. This must be based on the LD's alternative form of TLOP (as opposed to mainstream understanding of physics). Is it at all possible for you to present the details of this alternative form (mathematical formulae, first principle concepts used, etc)? Or perhaps provide a link to said details?

[Tricky]

I have been trying to update my list of “Tenets of Logical Deism”. First off, to be fair, Franko has said:
Originally posted by Franko
Logical Deism is based on 3 tenets. If you believe these things are the only logical conclusion for a rational mind, and you call yourself a “logical deist” (and another LD recognizes you as such) then you are a logical deist. A logical deists can hold any other religious affiliations he desires so long as they are not in direct conflict with the 3 tenets of logical deism.

1) GOD – God Exists.
2) SOUL – All conscious entities have a unique Soul.
3) FATE/KARMA – You are ultimately responsible for all your actions and words (Same as “Divine justice” to a Christian)
So the following list is only things Franko believes are implied by Logical Deism.

Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)



How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatablist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.



Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.



Miscellaneous Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)

---------------
As you may note, I’m now trying to give specific links to where these tenets were mentioned. This is an incredible amount of work, sifting through 5000+ posts for original material, so you will understand if my updates are not speedy. I also apologize to those who sent me stuff, but I lost it.

Any help would be welcome.

And Franko, as always, I want you to sign off on these. I am trying not to make any straw men.

[Franko]

Tricky (deceitful A-Theist)

And Franko, as always, I want you to sign off on these. I am trying not to make any straw men.

Don’t hold your breath for any endorsement from me non-skeptical religious fanatic.

I’m still waiting for your evidence for “free will”?

I’m still waiting for you to explain why the universe mysteriously appearing out of no where should not be considered magical? If it’s not magical (as you claim), then you should have no trouble explaining it logically for us? So why haven’t you done it in all this Time Tricky?

Is something physically preventing you from explaining the logic behind your religious dogma?

Or perhaps you have no logic to explain your absurd religious dogma? Perhaps the only explanation is you pessimism and dire wishful thinking? You are cynical about your future, and it shows. That is the sum of the evidence for your a-Theism. And with every post where you dodge the real issue you just reaffirm this obvious fact.

[Franko]

Well, "Energy" wouldn't fit with what you've said before. Energy is equvalent to mass/matter and graviton/consciousness made of matter, constitutes matter creating consciousness which, according to LD, is forbidden.

You are getting warmer little Graviton …

Don’t forget Upchurch, there is a reason why I call people like you and Stimpy “Pseudo-Materialists”. That’s because the LD are the True Materialist.

Groovy. This must be based on the LD's alternative form of TLOP (as opposed to mainstream understanding of physics). Is it at all possible for you to present the details of this alternative form (mathematical formulae, first principle concepts used, etc)? Or perhaps provide a link to said details?

It’s so cute when you pretend to be smart Upchimp. You do realize that even by Your “understanding” of physics there is a vital link between Gravity and Time – don’t you? Do you remember when Einstein came along … and then Space and Time became Spacetime?

Is this ringing any bells yet?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Don’t hold your breath for any endorsement from me non-skeptical religious fanatic.
Why not? I have not twisted your words. I have not made straw men. I have copied exactly what you said and offered to change them if you think they are wrong, and I have even provided links to where you said some of them. What could be more fair? Are you ashamed to admit you said these things? Well, I certainly understand, but alas, you did say them, and now you must face the consequences of your actions. Own up to your statements, Franko. It is the "Logical" thing to do.

Originally posted by Franko
I’m still waiting for your evidence for “free will”?
The reason you are waiting is because the "free will" bus came by, and you missed it. I have given you evidence numerous times (you want links?). Don't whine because you can't read schedules.


Originally posted by Franko
I’m still waiting for you to explain why the universe mysteriously appearing out of no where should not be considered magical? If it’s not magical (as you claim), then you should have no trouble explaining it logically for us? So why haven’t you done it in all this Time Tricky?
Ah, my little spiritual one, let me explain. Ignorance does not imply magic. If so, you would be the most magical creature in the universe. Honest people admit when they don't know something. I don't know the origin of the universe. If you say that makes it "magical", then you go on and live in your little fairy tale world. I'm sure it is more appealing to you than this mundane, real world which has no magic.


Originally posted by Franko
Is something physically preventing you from explaining the logic behind your religious dogma?
Ah, you wan't logic? I can give you logic, completely free of fallacies of composition. How about this one.

Everything real has a creator
The creator of the omniverse does not have a creator.
The creator of the omniverse is not real.

Can you find an error in that syllogism?

Originally posted by Franko
Perhaps the only explanation is you pessimism and dire wishful thinking?

Pessimistic yet wishful? I am impressed with your ability to create a self contradiction in an eleven word sentence. You might be a pretty good BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) player

[Franko]

Tricky: (deceitful A-Theist)

The reason you are waiting is because the "free will" bus came by, and you missed it. I have given you evidence numerous times (you want links?). Don't whine because you can't read schedules.

Ohhhh … so you actually presented your evidence for magic “free willy” powers, but I just “missed it” somehow?

Hehehe … Trixy, your fanaticism becomes more and more obvious. So you have secretly proved that “free will” exist (the same guy who “proved” Toast is more complex than a human) but you are refusing to repost the “proof”? Either 30 years of devotion to the cult of pessimism have severely eroded your brain, or you have an extremely over-inflated sense of your credibility.

Ah, my little spiritual one, let me explain. Ignorance does not imply magic.

So you are again claiming that You can “comprehend” things which you readily admit you cannot comprehend (or explain)?

Yeah, and Toast is superior to a human being, and Dictionaries still make sense even if they aren’t logical …

Honest people admit when they don't know something.

Which is why you are not admitting the obvious fact that people who don’t believe in consequences for their actions will behave as if there are no consequences for their actions (less morally).

Or why you are not admitting the obvious fact that you have no magic “free will” powers.

No evidence for “god” means no “god”, yet no evidence for “free will” means you have magic “free will” powers?

I guess when your Dictionary isn’t logical … that’s your definition of “Honesty”?

I don't know the origin of the universe. If you say that makes it "magical" …

If you claim that the Universe magically appeared out of no where, and then escaped an inescapable singularity and that you can’t explain why I shouldn’t consider this “magical”, but I should just take your word for it because you have been devoted to the cult of A-Theism for 30 years, and you just know your pathetic religion is the “one true faith”, so I should just really really trust you, have faith in you, and take your word for it … Then I’d say you are a frickin religious fanatic and a mystic with a magical belief system. I’d say that you sounded just like the Undercoverelephant.

… then you go on and live in your little fairy tale world.

Yeah, that is the “fairly tale” world where the present is actually based on the past, and not the magic of “Indeterminacy” …. Ooooo “spooky” …

I'm sure it is more appealing to you than this mundane, real world which has no magic.

You mean no magic except for the “magic powers” you can’t explain, or magic toast and cars which are superior in consciousness to you, or magic universes which appear out of no where, and then miraculously escape inescapable singularities, or photons that magically occupy two places – but only when you aren’t actually looking, or things in the future will not …

[Tricky]

Take a look, Franklin. I posted things you said. I provided links. All you can do is post things you say I have said, but never have any proof. you have pinned yourself to the board like a dead butterfly, and even written your own identification, Prevaricatus illogicus.

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
Fine. Then demonstrate why I need to change it. Your syllogism as it is worded says nothing about the validity of your cosmology.

Because matter creating consciousness is full of it ;)
What kind of nut bag believes that a rock evolves into a conscious entity :rolleyes:

No. I am trying to observe it through the "consciousness creates matter" belief and it doesn't work.

Maybe if I try harder:

Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of atoms
You obey TLOP

Nope. Still doesn't work. You see, with my Logical Deist goggles on, it is obvious to me that the second premise isn't true. I am not just made of atoms or I am not really "atoms" at all - I am a "graviton". Either way the second premise is incorrect.

Everyone take note here, we are not made of atoms!
Titan Point or VD may have some words with you about this ;)

Ok. Let's assume that.

Hmmm, nope. Premise 2 is still wrong. I am made of "atoms and a graviton", not merely "atoms".

Lets say that youre a lone Graviton, wandering through the void....then all of a sudden, this tidal wave of information comes "crashing" into you like a wave crashing into a rock ;).
What happens?
You perceive this Universe.

I cannot work under the "consciousness creates matter" framework unless you prove that such framework is relevant.

Come one, work with me here. Why do you assume the existence of a soul? Does the soul "obey TLOP"? If so, how do you know this to be true?

I dont assume the existence of a soul, unless you assume the existence your own consciousness :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
So you have "selectively challenged vision" (PC for double standard).

what are you talking about? :rolleyes:

Hint: Always read the whole post before replying.
No, thats exactly what I'm not saying
Why, right, you dont control TLOP. And?

You said that the chemicals dont act like a human when they are stirred up.
How could they? You have totally changed the makeup of a living human that obeys TLOP.

wraith:Youre above arguments dont illustrate this point at all

The moon is made up of more than one atom. Does it obey TLOP?

Hans: And the moon is relevant how?

Im saying that, like the moon, we dont choose anything.
We both obey TLOP.
You seem to think that since humans are made up of more than one atoms we have the ability to make "choice".

Uhhhn now, who WERE you talking to? Well, I know its hard. Since you say you are not a materialist, I'm sure you have a good answer yourself. But let me guess: Its something about gravitons.

Are you pulling a CWL aswell and saying that we are not made of atoms?

[Tricky]

Wraith,
You yourself have said we are not made of atoms. You have said we are made of atoms plus other things. Do you remember what it is you said? Think hard! It starts with a G....

[Aardvark_DK]

Ok, first Tricky said "I don't know the origin of the universe." And then...
Originally posted by Franko
If you claim that the Universe magically appeared out of no where, and then escaped an inescapable singularity and that you can’t explain why I shouldn’t consider this “magical”, aarg blaaarg A-Theist aaahh Evil etc.
If this is not final proof that Franko is stark raving mad, I don't know what is. Well, that or he's just totally stupid.

Oh wait, I forgot that it was already demonstrated in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11824&perpage=40&pagenumber=4) that Franko has no idea what a straw man is (I find it particularly amusing that he asks me why Dr. X is a straw man). And recently he had an argument with CWL where it was demonstrated that he can't tell the difference between the straw men he creates and the actual views of other people (forgive me for not providing a link, I can't remember which thread it was - can anyone else?). Hmm, not being able to tell the difference between what's real and what's imaginary... that's called schizophrenia, isn't it?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


what are you talking about? :rolleyes:

Which word do you not understand?

You said that the chemicals dont act like a human when they are stirred up.
How could they? You have totally changed the makeup of a living human that obeys TLOP.

RIGHT! You are so GOOOD when you really try! Structure! Even if we are built of nothing but atoms, the structure is crucial. So we "are made of" atoms + structure (information). This is why we behave differently from the moon: The moon's structure is different.

Im saying that, like the moon, we dont choose anything.
We both obey TLOP.
You seem to think that since humans are made up of more than one atoms we have the ability to make "choice".

And as pointed out above, you can infer nothing from the behaviour of the moon. ... Actually, to make that comparison even more absurd, even if the moon WAS conscious, it would not have any physical means of deciding its orbit. You know, last time we looked, there were no giant rockets fixed anywhere up there.

Are you pulling a CWL aswell and saying that we are not made of atoms?

YOU are the one saying that "we" are really souls or gravitons, remember? You know, maybe you should give up trying to divine what others think, and concentrate on getting your own thoughts straight. Your magical LD mind-reading capabilities are not exactly impressive

Hans

[Franko]

Aardvark (brainwashed A-Theist Fanatic):

Oh wait, I forgot that it was already demonstrated in this thread that Franko has no idea what a straw man is (I find it particularly amusing that he asks me why Dr. X is a straw man). And recently he had an argument with CWL where it was demonstrated that he can't tell the difference between the straw men he creates and the actual views of other people (forgive me for not providing a link, I can't remember which thread it was - can anyone else?). Hmm, not being able to tell the difference between what's real and what's imaginary... that's called schizophrenia, isn't it?

Aardvark, how does your complete lack of evidence for your magic “free will” powers become a problem for me?

It’s not. It’s Your problem.

You claim that no evidence for “god” means no “god” exist, so why then does no evidence for “free will” mean you fervently believe in “free will” anyway?

Face it Aardvark, your religious dogma has become far more important to you than the truth has. If you want to keep coming to this forum and demonstrating this point, I will be more than happy to assist you day after day. I’ve been saying all along that you A-Theists are just another whacky pessimistic doomsday cult, and you prove my point consistently.

[Franko]

Tricky (lying A-Theist):

You yourself have said we are not made of atoms. You have said we are made of atoms plus other things. Do you remember what it is you said? Think hard! It starts with a G....

Oooo, deceitful and as misleading as I’ve come to expect A-Theist.

What difference does it make what the Wraith believes Trixy? You certainly don’t believe that we are made of anything other than Atoms, so how do you account for your magic “free will” powers?

Are you claiming that Atoms have “free will”?

How do Atoms acquire “free will” Trixy?

Does Toast also have “free will”?

Will you be using illogical definitions of terms, or can we get you to use logical definitions this time? … because without logical definitions your words are pretty much meaningless. (not like you actually have anything to say anyway though …)

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Franko
You claim that no evidence for “god” means no “god” exist, so why then does no evidence for “free will” mean you fervently believe in “free will” anyway?
How ironic that I've just said that Franko doesn't know what a straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) is. Not that it really matters, he doesn't know what irony is either.

[Franko]

Aardvark (A-Theist):
How ironic that I've just said that Franko doesn't know what a straw man is. Not that it really matters, he doesn't know what irony is either.

What I find really ironic is a religious fanatic on a skeptics forum with a blatant double standard.

You claim that no evidence for “god” means no “god”, but no evidence for “free will” means that “free will” exist anyway. (so much for Aardfart’s logical consistency).

Keep it up religious fanatic. You got nothing, and everyone sees it.

[Aardvark_DK]

Q.E.D.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Oooo, deceitful and as misleading as I’ve come to expect A-Theist.
Golly Franko, this new method of debating you have employed is just impossible to counter. When you start with two ad hominems, then naturally, everything that follows must be correct. :rolleyes:Just as cowardly and evasive as I've come to expect from you. (You see, I'm studying your method!:D)

Originally posted by Franko
What difference does it make what the Wraith believes Trixy? You certainly don’t believe that we are made of anything other than Atoms, so how do you account for your magic “free will” powers?

You know, for someone who does it as much as you, you'd think you'd be better at lying. But since you appear to like being exposed, then I will oblige you by showing you where (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306959&highlight=covalent#post306959) I stated that we were made of more than atoms. You're welcome.
Originally posted by Franko
Are you claiming that Atoms have “free will”?

No. I never have. Only sentient beings have free will, IMO.
Originally posted by Franko
How do Atoms acquire “free will” Trixy?
They don't.
How do humans acquire a soul/graviton, Franko? At what stage of development does the graviton enter the embryo?
Originally posted by Franko
Will you be using illogical definitions of terms, or can we get you to use logical definitions this time? … because without logical definitions your words are pretty much meaningless.
I tend to stick to standard dictionary definitions, because that way, every intelligent person can find what I mean. I would hesitate to use definitions from The Lexicon because there is no copy available. That makes it difficult for the readers to know what you mean when you use a word, because they can't look it up. Are you going to provide us a copy of The Lexicon anytime soon?

Originally posted by Franko
(not like you actually have anything to say anyway though …)
Ah, and close with an ad hominem too! You really have this debating stuff down pat, don't you!

[Franko]

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.



Trixy on the other hand claims that your CAR is more conscious. That’s no joke. (well actually we were using TLOP makes YOU makes TOASTER makes TOAST at the time, but … same difference)

... So Tricky A-Theist when are you going to post your "super-secret" proof of A-Theism? I'm sure Upchurch will be as eager to see it as I, since he has been honest enough to concede that he has no evidence for "free will" himself. Stimpy's said the same thing. So ... we're all waiting "Tricky" ... ?

[Franko]

Me said:
You claim that no evidence for “god” means no “god”, but no evidence for “free will” means that “free will” exist anyway. (so much for Aardvart’s logical consistency).

Keep it up religious fanatic. You got nothing, and everyone sees it.

Aardvark:
Q.E.D.
I hear and obey …

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

Funny, I don't remember saying such things. But I must have, because I'm sure you wouldn't do something so slimy as to actually quote things in my name that I haven't said. Perhaps you can provide links to the original quotes, as I have here, in the list of Franko's Beliefs.

Origins
This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)



How Things Work
One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatablist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.



Morality
Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.



Miscellaneous

Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)

[Aardvark_DK]

Ahh, Franko, I see that you have mastered the cunning use of cut-and-paste! Well done, my young padded one! Obi-Wan has taught you well.

PS. Don't forget to look up "Straw Man".

[Franko]

Me said: (two days ago ...)
You claim that no evidence for “god” means no “god”, but no evidence for “free will” means that “free will” exist anyway. (so much for Aardvart’s logical consistency).

Keep it up religious fanatic. You got nothing, and everyone sees it.

Aardvark: (last post)
Ahh, Franko, I see that you have mastered the cunning use of cut-and-paste! Well done, my young padded one! Obi-Wan has taught you well.
I hear and obey …


Aardvart:
PS. Don't forget to look up "Straw Man".

Aardvart, you are like some nitwit yelling “FIRE! FIRE!” in a crowded theater and thinking you’ve proved something. But all you have proved is that I am correct when I say the Religion of A-Theism is Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Instead of yelling “FIRE!” you yell “STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!” in a crowded RELIGION and Philosophy forum, but for your post to be anything other than the obvious diversion that it is you have to actually specify the actual logical fallacy in your opponents post, and you have to make it plain for anyone reading along to see.

Allow me to demonstrate:

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Aarvart, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Aardvart, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

But thank you aardvart for -- yet another -- display of A-Theistic religious fanaticism at it's "finest" ... :rolleyes:

[Aardvark_DK]

Ok, just for the sake of argument, Franko:

Please point to where I have said that no evidence for God means no God.

There. Now that shouldn't prove too difficult.


By the way, a lack of belief in God is not the same as a belief that there is no God. Do you understand that?

And if you think that atheism means a belief that there is no God (and I admit that different dictionaries have different definitions), then I am not an atheist but an agnostic.


As for the straw man thingie: I did point out your straw man in your discussion with Dr. X, but you claimed that it wasn't a straw man. I could point it out to you again, but for some obscure reason I don't think it will make any difference.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bang my head against a wall.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky
Wraith,
You yourself have said we are not made of atoms. You have said we are made of atoms plus other things. Do you remember what it is you said? Think hard! It starts with a G....

consciousness creates matter Twix...get with the program!

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Which word do you not understand?

It's not the words...;)

RIGHT! You are so GOOOD when you really try! Structure! Even if we are built of nothing but atoms, the structure is crucial. So we "are made of" atoms + structure (information). This is why we behave differently from the moon: The moon's structure is different.

So the moon obeys TLOP yet we dont?

And as pointed out above, you can infer nothing from the behaviour of the moon. ... Actually, to make that comparison even more absurd, even if the moon WAS conscious, it would not have any physical means of deciding its orbit. You know, last time we looked, there were no giant rockets fixed anywhere up there.

again...
the moon obeys TLOP yet we dont?


YOU are the one saying that "we" are really souls or gravitons, remember? You know, maybe you should give up trying to divine what others think, and concentrate on getting your own thoughts straight. Your magical LD mind-reading capabilities are not exactly impressive

ever heard of "consciousness creating matter"??
:rolleyes:

[urstardust]

Originally posted by wraith
Ever heard of "consciousness creating matter"??
:rolleyes:
Ever heard of consciousness creating the of idea of God/gods? ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by urstardust

Ever heard of consciousness creating the of idea of God/gods? ;)

ever heard of consciousness creating the idea of no god/s? ;)

[urstardust]

Originally posted by wraith


ever heard of consciousness creating the idea of no god/s? ;) Yes, and I have to say it's been a good one. ;)

[c4ts]

One soul cannot = one graviton. Otherwise obese people would have more souls than short people, since according to the laws of physics (TLOP), all objects with mass attract each other, the more mass, the stronger the pull. Gravitons were theorized to exist as the subatomic particles responsible for this property of mass.

[wraith]

Originally posted by urstardust
Yes, and I have to say it's been a good one. ;)

if you see it that way......
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by c4ts
One soul cannot = one graviton. Otherwise obese people would have more souls than short people, since according to the laws of physics (TLOP), all objects with mass attract each other, the more mass, the stronger the pull. Gravitons were theorized to exist as the subatomic particles responsible for this property of mass.

omg!

[MRC_Hans]

Just so you cant say I failed to answer:

Originally posted by wraith

It's not the words...;)

No, its in your selective view: You agree the syllogism is faulty due to fallacy of composition when applied to water, but you claim the fault is invisible when the same syllogism is applied to humans. In both cases, the problem is: The composite has different properties than its components.

So the moon obeys TLOP yet we dont?

No, the moon has no free will, we do.

again...
the moon obeys TLOP yet we dont?

--Or, to be precise, the moon is irrelevant to the discussion of free will for humans (rather obvious, it would seem :rolleyes: )


ever heard of "consciousness creating matter"??
:rolleyes:

Well, somebody mentioned it. How does that vindicate your syllogism? I would say that it invalidated it. How do you explain that the matter-creating consciousness is bound by the laws of PHYSICS? Does coneciousness (the immaterial kind that you seem to believe in) obey tlop??

Anyhow, do you have any evidence that consciousness creates matter?



Hans

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


What the hell are you talkiing about CWL!?!?

Everyone knows that Materialism is True !!!

Obviously you are made of Atoms! What, you argument as grown sooo thin that you have to resort to crazy talk now?

CWL are you positing the existence of a "Soul"??? Come On! What kind of A-Theist are you religious fanatic? I swear you sound more and more like the Elephant every day. Are you the newest member of his mystery cult?

Franko,

Now try real hard to understand. Count to ten, think happy thoughts.

YOU posit the existence of a "soul" as evidenced by one of your recent posts to Upchurch:

Originally posted by Franko


Yes, that’s correct. Under Logical Deism you (your consciousness/your “Soul”) is actually a Graviton (fundamental force carrying particle of Gravity and Time). But Gravitons also obey (are bound by) logical rules.

As for me, I am prepared to go along for the sake of argument. I hope that spells it out for you. Glad we sorted that out. Now down to business:

As follows from the above you make the following assertions.

1) "A human consciousness is actually a Graviton (fundamental force carrying particle of Gravity and Time)". Ok. I understand this claim.

2) "But Gravitons also obey (are bound by) logical rules". Not quite sure about this one. When you say "also" do you mean that Gravitons also obey the laws of physics (TLOP="logical rules")?

Anyway, this is how your syllogism needs to be modified if we assume the existence of "Gravitons" as described by you:

Premise 1: You are made of atoms and a Graviton
Premise 2: Atoms and Gravitons obey TLOP
Conclusion: You obey TLOP

This leads to a few questions which I was hoping you would answer:



1) General
Is the modified syllogism true from the Logical Deist perspective?

2) Premise 1 (You are made of...)
a) Is there any evidence for the existence of the particle you call a "Graviton"?
b) Is there any evidence that each such particle is the carrier of a human consciousness?

3) Premise 2 (Atoms and Gravitons...)
Is there any evidence that Gravitons obey the laws of physics in the same way that atoms do?

Being a skeptic and logician as you keep assuring us that you are, I am certain that you can answer the above calmly, politely and in a pedagogic fashion. Keep in mind that if you can provide the necessary evidence for the premises 1 and 2, you have proven the conclusion ("You obey TLOP") true, even from the perspective of your own cosmology. I assume that this may be of some interest to you.

[Franko]

CWL

YOU posit the existence of a "soul" as evidenced by one of your recent posts to Upchurch:

Perhaps, CWL, but I don’t see how the possibility that I believe in something called “the Soul” helps YOU prove the existence of your magical “free willy” powers???

By that logic wouldn’t a Christian’s belief in “god” make “god” exist for You?

Since you can’t read minds you have no idea what I actually believe CWL, and in any event I don’t see how what I believe has any effect of the amount of evidence (or complete lack thereof) of the things that You Believe?

Can you explain it for us … because this looks like another dishonest A-Theist attempt at diversion? CWL, if you can’t defend (or even explain) the things you believe you should just concede that fact, instead of repeatedly demonstrating your dogmatism and religious fervor.

[Franko]

c4ts (brainwashed religious fanatic):
One soul cannot = one graviton. Otherwise obese people would have more souls than short people, since according to the laws of physics (TLOP), all objects with mass attract each other, the more mass, the stronger the pull. Gravitons were theorized to exist as the subatomic particles responsible for this property of mass.

Hehehe! HAHAHAHAHA … !

Yeah, plus it would shatter all of the crystal spheres! ... hehehe ...

[Franko]

Hans-Job:

No, the moon has no free will, we do.

Why, explain it too us?

You are made of Atoms, the Moon is made of Atoms. How come you have the magical property of “free will” and the Moon does not? I can see where you are alive, and the Moon is not, are you claiming that all “living” things have “free will”?

Why not just say all “living” things are “alive” and leave it at that? What does “free will” get you that being “alive” doesn’t? If the two things are exactly the same then why do you need two different terms for it?

So Hans, do living things have the ability to defy TLOP, and non-living things don’t? Is that what you are claiming?

Hey MRC, if Determinism is really False as you claim, then how come Humans always give birth to other Humans? If Indeterminacy was True (as YOU claim), then won’t we occasionally expect a Human to give birth to a dog or a cat? I mean … you are claiming that the present is not based on the past, so why should what starts as a human baby always end up as a human baby?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWL

Perhaps, CWL, but I don’t see how the possibility that I believe in something called “the Soul” helps YOU prove the existence of your magical “free willy” powers???

Aw, come on Franko. You must be brighter than this. That is not what we are discussing here.

But fair enough. If we assume the existence of a soul (or a graviton) how do we know that the soul has no free will?

"You are made of atoms" is clearly not the answer as the soul is not "made of atoms".

By that logic wouldn’t a Christian’s belief in “god” make “god” exist for You?

By what logic? What do you mean? Franko, I am seriously trying to see things from your perspective. Help me out here.

Since you can’t read minds you have no idea what I actually believe CWL, and in any event I don’t see how what I believe has any effect of the amount of evidence (or complete lack thereof) of the things that You Believe?

You claim your cosmology is true. I am offering you the fair opportunity to prove it.

Can you explain it for us … because this looks like another dishonest A-Theist attempt at diversion? CWL, if you can’t defend (or even explain) the things you believe you should just concede that fact, instead of repeatedly demonstrating your dogmatism and religious fervor.

I am perfectly willing both to explain and defend everything that I believe.

1) I do not believe in God as I see no evidence therefore. As any good skeptic, I know that a positive assertion must be backed by evidence. As any good skeptic I do not, however, rule out the possibility of a God.

2) I observe myself making choices between perceived and available options. I am responsible for and must suffer the consequences of the choices I make. I see nothing that should lead me to assume otherwise. As any good skeptic I accept this simple empirical observation.

Now, as I have explained what I believe, it is your turn:

I have suggested this modified syllogism as the one suggested by you is clearly false if we are partially made of a "Graviton":


Premise 1: You are made of atoms and a Graviton
Premise 2: Atoms and Gravitons obey TLOP
Conclusion: You obey TLOP

In relation hereto, I once again kindly ask you to answer the following questions:


1) General
Is the modified syllogism true from the Logical Deist perspective?

2) Premise 1 (You are made of...)
a) Is there any evidence for the existence of the particle you call a "Graviton"?
b) Is there any evidence that each such particle is the carrier of a human consciousness?

3) Premise 2 (Atoms and Gravitons...)
Is there any evidence that Gravitons obey the laws of physics in the same way that atoms do?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

If you want to keep demonstrating your religious fanaticism, and the fact that you have no evidence for any of the things you believe, I will be more than happy to assist you.

I am not asking for any such assistance. I am asking you to assist me in understanding your cosmology.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

Funny, I don't recall any such conversation.

Again, this is my one and only statement on the subject of "free will":

I observe myself making choices between perceived and available options. I am responsible for and must suffer the consequences of the choices I make. I see nothing that should lead me to assume otherwise.

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

Funny, I don't recall any such conversation either.

Here is my one and only statement on the existence of God:

I do not believe in God as I see no evidence for the existence of God. As any good skeptic, I know that a positive assertion must be backed by evidence. As any good skeptic I do not, however, rule out the possibility of a God.

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

Thanks. As you have presented some evidence, I accept the burden of disproving your evidence as promised.

1) This is a fallacy of composition. Atoms cannot make any choices because they are not conscious. If atoms are structured in a certain way, a resulting conscious entity may result. Such an entity (a human for instance) may very well be able to make choices between percieved and available options.

2) According to your own cosmology we are not only made of atoms but also of a "graviton". Thus the second premise of the syllgism is false from your own perspective. It may be true notwithstanding but you need to demonstrate (i) that gravitons exist; (ii) that gravitons are carriers of human consciousness; and (iii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics exactly like atoms.

Back to you Franko.

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU. [/B]

Thanks. Burden of proof is temporarily assumed.

That I control my car (which is not conscious, agreed)
says nothing about TLOP. The statement in question can therefore not be evidence that TLOP is conscious.

Back to you Franko.

[Tricky]

Gosh! A new breakthrough for Logical Deism! The Form Insult.:eek:

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah, but I’ve told you time and time again, I’m not here to convert people to Logical Deism. I’m here on this forum to demonstrate what a non-skeptical bunch of religious fanatics A-Theists are.

Any person (A-Theist or otherwise) who can’t see and concede that fact, certainly isn’t ready for LD.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

I can see that the Franko character has reset. Too bad. I thought this particular game of BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) was getting interesting.

[Franko]

Still no evidence for your beliefs A-Theist Troll?

I don't mind pointing it out over and over again that after 30+ years of your life dedicated to the Religion of A-Theism you still don't have a scrap of evidence for your beliefs.

Not one scrap. Pathetic cynical old man ... :(

[Franko]

CWL,

If you want to keep demonstrating your religious fanaticism, and the fact that you have no evidence for any of the things you believe, I will be more than happy to assist you.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[CWL]

We all know you can cut-and-paste just fine Franko. You have demonstrated this ability on numerous occasions allready.

Why don't you try engaging in some intelligent debate instead?

Oh... I forgot... you are not here for that purpose... You are here to behave like a child.

Originally posted by Franko
I’m here on this forum to demonstrate what a non-skeptical bunch of religious fanatics A-Theists are.

Q.E.D.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Still no evidence for your beliefs A-Theist Troll?

I don't mind pointing it out over and over again that after 30+ years of your life dedicated to the Religion of A-Theism you still don't have a scrap of evidence for your beliefs.

Not one scrap. Pathetic cynical old man ... :(
Okay, Franko. I will make a concession. I will agree that YOU do not have free will. Your inability to make an original post and your constant repetition make Pavlov's dog look like a chess master. However, the overwhelming evidence of other people making decisions every day tends to suggest that free will is an observable phenomenon. It is a pity you can't join in. That Goddess certainly does treat her diciples cruelly. Maybe if you grovel and debase yourself before her, she will allow a tiny bit of free will long enough to answer one question.

Do gravitons obey the laws of physics?

[Franko]

Tricky A-Theist:
I will make a concession. I will agree that YOU do not have free will. Your inability to make an original post and your constant repetition make Pavlov's dog look like a chess master. However, the overwhelming evidence of other people making decisions every day tends to suggest that free will is an observable phenomenon. It is a pity you can't join in. That Goddess certainly does treat her diciples cruelly. Maybe if you grovel and debase yourself before her, she will allow a tiny bit of free will long enough to answer one question.

Actually if Solipsism were True, then YOU would have “free will”, of course since me and everyone else would just be figments of your imagination, we wouldn’t have “free will”, all of our actions would be preordained.

So maybe that’s exactly what’s happening? You seem to be claiming that the evidence indicates it is the case?

Do gravitons obey the laws of physics?

Well as far as I know, Gravity is One of the 4 fundamental forces of Physics, so I would say that since Gravity is a part of the laws of Physics, Gravity it is covered by the laws of Physics.

Why Trixy, are you and CWL claiming that Gravity does not obey TLOP now? :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Well as far as I know, Gravity is One of the 4 fundamental forces of Physics, so I would say that since Gravity is a part of the laws of Physics, Gravity it is covered by the laws of Physics.

Why Trixy, are you and CWL claiming that Gravity does not obey TLOP now? :rolleyes:
I didn't say gravity, I said gravitons. Specifically your definition of gravitons, the kind with charge and spin. Do they obey the laws of physics?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Then Trixy (desperate to change the subject from the stunning and utter lack of evidence for the Religion of A-Theism) sputtered …

One only need to look back two posts to see that I specifically asked about gravitons, but you accuse me of trying to change the subject. Your evasion is so transparent. You have been caught in a lie (once again) and resort to your Form Insult.

I'm sure everyone is terribly impressed by your ability to start calling names when you have painted yourself into the corner of the hole you have dug for yourself. How.... mature.

[Tricky]

Bump (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Originally posted by Franko
This universe is part of an omniverse.
True

This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created all the forces except gravity.
True

The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe, but she is in turn controlled by "Fate".
False (this one is just worded poorly)

One soul = one graviton.
True

Gravitons come from outside this universe

Sort of … You really have to think of all things in terms of the Omniverse, this universe is within (inside) the Omniverse, so being “outside” of this universe, still leaves you inside the Omniverse. Essentially it is impossible for anything to be outside the Omniverse though.

The Logical goddess is the "top graviton".
True (that is the same as saying the LG is Omnipotent)

The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
True

Gravitons are inherantly either good or evil. The evil ones will burn for eternity.

Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil. That is true. Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state). From the POV of someone in a higher energy state, this Universe is “Hell”, and the state below this universe is even worse. But I am not talking about the Christian version of “hell” by ANY stretch of the imagination.

There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
True

There are consequences for the things you do.
Obviously True

The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
True

You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
True

The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
True (Electro-magnetism, weak nuclear, strong nuclear are her babies)

The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
True

TLOP are also conscious and complex.
False (technically)

TLOP is kind of the expression of the LG. The LG Herself is more analogous to the Initial State, but from your POV or mine, She is just a Gorgeous, Fabulous Babe.

TLOP created humans (except for the soul/graviton, which comes from outside the universe).
False (The LG is responsible for the shape and form of your bodies, but She didn’t create YOU. You are your Soul [your Graviton]. Your body is more analogous to the clothes you wear.

TLOP are more conscious and complex than humans.
Sorta True (badly worded)

The Logical Goddess is more complex than You or I, ergo She is a Superior Entity. In other words, God is more powerful and smarter than YOU are.

Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True

The only other alternative being Magic. [/B]

[Franko]

Trixy (fanatical A-Theist [30+ years])

If you have some evidence for your religious beliefs, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. But for over a YEAR NOW you keep spouting of the same dogmatic nonsense, day after day. If this is all the evidence you have to support your beliefs after devouting 30+ years of your life to the cult of A-Theism, that should tell you something.

Franko previously said:
Well as far as I know, Gravity is One of the 4 fundamental forces of Physics, so I would say that since Gravity is a part of the laws of Physics, Gravity it is covered by the laws of Physics.

Then Trixy (desperate to change the subject from the stunning and utter lack of evidence for the Religion of A-Theism) sputtered …

Tricky A-Theist:
I didn't say gravity, I said gravitons. Specifically your definition of gravitons, the kind with charge and spin. Do they obey the laws of physics?

Franko previously said:
Well as far as I know, Gravity is One of the 4 fundamental forces of Physics, so I would say that since Gravity is a part of the laws of Physics, Gravity it is covered by the laws of Physics.

Bud – seriously – you have been an A-Theist for over 30 YEARS and this is all you have to show for it? NO EVIDENCE??? And you are going scream at me, like it is my fault?!? Like it is MY problem?!?! Get a life you dogmatic religious fool! You are embarassing yourself.


What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Tricky]

And now, Franko, I see you are frantically deleting and reposting in a comic, yet tragic effort to misdirect others from the fact that you either cannot or will not answer a simple question.

Do GRAVITONS obey the laws of physics?

It's a binary answer, Franko, your favorite kind.

This is about the sixth time you've deleted and reposted, Franko. How long do you want to play this little game?

[Q-Source]

You two are having fun? :rolleyes:

:D



Frank, I received your memes...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source
You two are having fun? :rolleyes:

:D

Frank, I received your memes...
LOL. I'm working on BOBS version 2.0. In this version, you get points for every evasion Franko makes.

[Q-Source]

Tricky,
This is what you consider a debate?
Life is not a game.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Tricky,
This is what you consider a debate?
Life is not a game.
No, Q. This is what I call trying to get an answer to a straightforward question. I do not wish the question to be buried or made to look like it was already responded to. I would prefer that Franko stop this, and of course I eventually will. I'm letting him (and others) know that we recognize his childish tactics.

[Franko]

Source:
You two are having fun?

Well, I am now that you are here, Baby! ;)

Hehehe … what do you want me to say? Tricky has convinced himself that his religion is magical. He doesn’t need to prove any of his claims are True. We just all need to accept what he says based on his “good word”. He’s been saying as much for 30+ years, now his Karma is catching up with him.

… and he don’t like. Boo-hoo-hoo :(

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Ahhh, who am I kidding – yeah Source – it is F U N! :D

[Franko's Goddess]

Gravitons create the laws of physics.

[Franko]

Ohhh Tricky, you and your sock-puppets ... hehehe ...

making my point!

[Checkmite]

Where did the Progenitor Solipsist come from?

[Franko's Goddess]

The Progenitor Solipsist simply appeared. Nature abhors a vacuum. Autogenitor Solipsist would be a more accurate nomenclature but Progenitor it shall be.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko's Goddess
The Progenitor Solipsist simply appeared. Nature abhors a vacuum. Autogenitor Solipsist would be a more accurate nomenclature but Progenitor it shall be.

Simply appeared? As if by magic?

[Franko]

Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...


I got one:

"What is your evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist?"

[Franko]

"What is your evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist?"

My evidence for the Progenitor Solipsist is that the person reading this isn't certain that Solipsism is necessarily False. You can't prove that it's False.

That's because Solipsism is True, and you're the Progenitor Solipsist.

[Checkmite]

So since you have no evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist, your origin theory is flawed, just like my origin theory of the non-interfering God, and just like the atheists' theory of a universe that popped out of nowhere. All of us are pretty sure we are right; none of us can prove it beyond a doubt.

Of course, the only difference between your theology and mine, Franko, is that you've got gravitons and the Goddess between your Creator and the Universe, whereas my Creator/Universe link is somewhat more direct.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No, its in your selective view: You agree the syllogism is faulty due to fallacy of composition when applied to water, but you claim the fault is invisible when the same syllogism is applied to humans. In both cases, the problem is: The composite has different properties than its components.

did you actually read the whole post on this issue?

The water "syllogism" doesnt flow.
Information is neglected.
Premise one doesnt "connect" onto premise 2.

No, the moon has no free will, we do.

Listen Hans, just because you say so, doesnt mean that you make it true.

-Or, to be precise, the moon is irrelevant to the discussion of free will for humans (rather obvious, it would seem )

In other words, you cant handle the truth :cool:

Well, somebody mentioned it. How does that vindicate your syllogism? I would say that it invalidated it. How do you explain that the matter-creating consciousness is bound by the laws of PHYSICS? Does coneciousness (the immaterial kind that you seem to believe in) obey tlop??

Atoms obey TLOP

Anyhow, do you have any evidence that consciousness creates matter?

TLOP is more conscious than me

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith

did you actually read the whole post on this issue?

The water "syllogism" doesnt flow.
Information is neglected.
Premise one doesnt "connect" onto premise 2.

Just what the heck are you talking about?
Premise 1: A statement about properties of the components.
Premise 2: A statement about the composition of the whole.
Conclusion: A conclusion about properties of the whole.

You are RIGHT: This syllogism is FLAWED. It is flawed no matter where you use it. Which is what I point out.


Listen Hans, just because you say so, doesnt mean that you make it true.

Erh, no. Does YOUR saying the opposite make THAT true?

Atoms obey TLOP

Is consciousness made of atoms?

TLOP is more conscious than me

If you say so, then who am I to contradict you?



Hans

[Franko's Goddess]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Simply appeared? As if by magic?

"As if" is a good way to word things, but "as if" means "as if not" as well.

Logic.

After all, you can read in the Nothing thread that it's impossible for nothing to exist because then it would be something.

Since nothing cannot exist, there has to be something, and that is the Progenitor Solipsist.

It is really very simple and necessary.

[MRC_Hans]

Whoops! Almost replied to that one, hehehe:rolleyes:
Thank Goddess for the search feature ....

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Whoops! Almost replied to that one, hehehe:rolleyes:
Thank Goddess for the search feature ....

Yes, She really is very cute isn't she... :rolleyes:

Where's Franko? I'd like to hear his take on my question.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Just what the heck are you talking about?
Premise 1: A statement about properties of the components.
Premise 2: A statement about the composition of the whole.
Conclusion: A conclusion about properties of the whole.

You are RIGHT: This syllogism is FLAWED. It is flawed no matter where you use it. Which is what I point out.

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

where is this invisible flaw that you babble on about!?!!??!
Do you obey TLOP?
Are you not made of atoms?

Erh, no. Does YOUR saying the opposite make THAT true?

When you can back it up with some logic...yes, it does ;)

Is consciousness made of atoms?

Im not a materialist ;)

If you say so, then who am I to contradict you?

Dont take my word for it :cool:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Yes, She really is very cute isn't she... :rolleyes:

Where's Franko? I'd like to hear his take on my question.
I just hope he remembered to bring theGoddess her Lucky Strikes this time. Otherwise, he's gonna be in a really bad mood.

I want to hear his take on my question too:

Do GRAVITONS obey the laws of physics?

Not holding my breath, though.

[Franko]

Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

I think I can manage without Josh's help. I eat Logical Deists for breakfast.

[Franko]

Tricky A-Theist:

I think I can manage without Josh's help. I eat Logical Deists for breakfast.

Which explains why after dedicating over 30 years of your existence to the Religion of A-Theism you still can't provide a single scrap of evidence for any of the whacky things you believe.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

Eat this.

[Franko]

Joshie K. (A-Theist toadie):
So since you have no evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist, your origin theory is flawed, just like my origin theory of the non-interfering God, and just like the atheists' theory of a universe that popped out of nowhere. All of us are pretty sure we are right; none of us can prove it beyond a doubt.

Figment of your imagination:
My evidence for the Progenitor Solipsist is that the person reading this isn't certain that Solipsism is necessarily False. You can't prove that it's False.

That's because Solipsism is True, and you're the Progenitor Solipsist.

You are the only entity to exist, don’t ask a figment of your imagination where you came from, how would "I" know?

[Franko]

Aarvart:

Please point to where I have said that no evidence for God means no God.

1) Theism/Deism – GOD EXIST.
2) A-Theism – NO GOD EXIST.
3) Agnosticism – GOD = UNKNOWN (Not Enough Information).

You call yourself an ATHEIST – don’t you Aardvart? If you want to be an Agnostic, all you have to do is start calling yourself one.

There. Now that shouldn't prove too difficult.

That remains to be seen.

But if you want to be an Agnostic, all you have to do is start calling yourself one.

By the way, a lack of belief in God is not the same as a belief that there is no God. Do you understand that?

1) Theism/Deism – GOD EXIST. (GOD = TRUE)
2) A-Theism – NO GOD EXIST. (GOD = FALSE)
3) Agnosticism – Not Enough Information (GOD = UNKNOWN)

The question is do you understand Aardvart?

And if you think that atheism means a belief that there is no God (and I admit that different dictionaries have different definitions), then I am not an atheist but an agnostic.

Every Dictionary I have ever read on the subject is very clear. An A-Theist is a person who believes that there is NO GOD. That is the same as claiming that GOD = FALSE.

When I ask someone what they think A-Theism means, they always tell me the same thing.

As for the straw man thingie: I did point out your straw man in your discussion with Dr. X, but you claimed that it wasn't a straw man. I could point it out to you again, but for some obscure reason I don't think it will make any difference.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bang my head against a wall.

Knock yourself out. ;)

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Franko
Every Dictionary I have ever read on the subject is very clear. An A-Theist is a person who believes that there is NO GOD. That is the same as claiming that GOD = FALSE.
Fair enough. I was under the impression that atheism (which is the way it is spelled, Franko) could also be defined as "a lack of belief in any gods". It seems I'm wrong - I certainly can't find any dictionary that defines it that way.

So, I'm an agnostic when it comes to god or gods (meaning I see no evidence for any god or gods existence, and therefore I don't believe in, or lack belief in, any god or gods), but I'm an atheist when it comes to the specific definition of the Christian God (because I believe the existence of that particular God can be disproven). How's that?

---

As for your straw man (well, one of many)... [Oh no, do we really have to? - Ed.] Yes, we do. Here goes:

Doctor X said (and I quote): "Briefly [Is that possible?--Ed.], I find it a rather a "cop out" also. The child suffers severely . . . severly . . . real bad. One cannot justify such with the hope that, somehow, it all works out. I would judge this, even if it all "works out," a very bad plan."

To which you, Franko (notice that I don't resort to name-calling [well, not this time anyway]), replied (and I quote): "So you are saying that any child who suffers with a handicap would have been better off having never been born?"

THAT is a straw man, Franko, because you're claiming (even if you're phrasing it as a question) that Doctor X said something that he quite obviously didn't.

Bring on the name-calling and personal attacks.

[Franko's Goddess]

Originally posted by Tricky

I just hope he remembered to bring theGoddess her Lucky Strikes this time. Otherwise, he's gonna be in a really bad mood.
And what about my needs? No Luckies, no fluckies, no love poetry....? Boys, it's not easy being the Logical Goddess.

[MRC_Hans]

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Ardwark: Disbelieves or denies ..

So one dictionary definition does cover or overlap the agnostic view.

Franko:
But if you want to be an Agnostic, all you have to do is start calling yourself one. How does that compute? That hasnt stopped YOU calling people atheists (A-Theists) in the past. Is this a new policy?

Or are you claiming that our belief system changes if we call it something else?

Hans (agnostic)