Logical? Deism.

[thaiboxerken]

What's logical about Logical Deism? It makes absolutely no sense that there is any logic involved with belief in a god.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What's logical about Logical Deism? It makes absolutely no sense that there is any logic involved with belief in a god.

Neither is there any logic involved with active disbelief in a God.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

The only logical position is agnosticism (although it does depend on your definition of God).

:p

[whitefork]

You may glean some concept of the logic involved by perusing these threads:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9247

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9364

Let me put it another way :

The fact that you keep starting threads about Franko, specially ones which can be shot down as easily as this one can be, just indicates that Franko is getting to you, which is exactly what he wants.

Nope, I agree with TBK here. Belief in a god is not a position arrived at through the use of logic. Please explain to me how this thread is shot down easily? Using logic, of course?

Originally posted by MagsToastedSandwich
Nope, I agree with TBK here. Belief in a god is not a position arrived at through the use of logic. Please explain to me how this thread is shot down easily? Using logic, of course?

OK...maybe shot down is the wrong term. The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. There is no direct evidence of God except for the existence of a Universe whose ultimate origin is itself inexplicable. Therefore agnosticism (or pantheism) is the only truly logical position to take.

edited....

I just wish people here would stop obsessing over Franko. He has some good points which atheists/materialists refuse to acknowledge, and he mixes them up with double-talk and contradictions. The arguments just go round and round and round in circles.

I would say that since there is no evidence of god, one can logically conclude that such a thing does not exist, despite the assertions of millions upon millions of people.

I see your point about Franko... although there is a part of me that likes his style. Maybe that's not logical however. ;)

BTW... love your username.

I would say that since there is no evidence of god, one can logically conclude that such a thing does not exist, despite the assertions of millions upon millions of people.


Then you're making the same error that TBK is accusing Franko of. We live in a Universe that is arguably fine-tuned for the existence of life. We may have no direct objective evidence of the existence of God/Gods but neither do we have any objective explanation as to how this engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence. Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Do you think agnosticism is illogical?

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


OK...maybe shot down is the wrong term. The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. There is no direct evidence of God except for the existence of a Universe whose ultimate origin is itself inexplicable. Therefore agnosticism (or pantheism) is the only truly logical position to take.

...snip....

Depends on your definition of "God" doesn't it? You are not saying that you agnostic about a definition of a say Zeus are you i.e. "God lives on the top of Mount Olympus"? That is a falsifiable definition and as far as this definition of God goes I am atheistic.

By the way aren't you being inconsistent here? You seem to have decided, with no evidence, that the origin of the universe is inexplicable. Surely since you believe that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” you should be "agnostic" about whether the universe’s ultimate origin is explicable or not?

Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Well, now, you're asking a totally different question here... and atheism does not posit any such thing. I'm tempted to say "strawman".

As for agnosticism... heh. I consider myself an atheist with agnostic leanings. I don't think there is any good reason to conclude there is a god or gods. Therefore, I do not throw the weight of my belief to the concept, nice as it is. (:atheism) But who really knows? (:agnosticism)

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


...snip....

engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence.

...snip...

What do you think this universe was engineered for?

I know you can't think it was engineered for life since 99.999999999999 to the 99nth of the total volume of the universe not conducive to life and in fact is out and out hostile to life.

(I'm using a definition of life here that covers the self replicating, self organising creatures on the Earth such as humans and worms.)

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny You are in Love with me - aren't you?

At very least you seem obsessed.

So why don't you explain to us how you came to the conclusion that when you flip a coin it ALWAYS lands "TAILS" up since there is no evidence that it will land "HEADS" up?

Darat :


By the way aren't you being inconsistent here? You seem to have decided, with no evidence, that the origin of the universe is inexplicable. Surely since you believe that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” you should be "agnostic" about whether the universe’s ultimate origin is explicable or not?


Well, I would point out that I am the sole person on this forum who has ever actually attempted to explain the the origin of the Universe from first principles, and trying to get people to accept that explanation was like pulling teeth, because it depends on things like self-existing mathematics, the objective existence of Infinity and the primacy of consciousness. But unless you are willing to accept things like these then answering the question "how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

I sympathise with Franko. I just wish he would iron out the contradictions in his stated position. I can guess at some of his reasons for being unclear though.

Originally posted by Darat


What do you think this universe was engineered for?



I said it was arguable that it appears engineered for the existence of life. However, I have gone to great lengths to provide a rebuttal to the argument from cosmic design - indeed the whole of my metaphysics was provoked by an attempt to provide a rebuttal, and yet it has been fiercely contested by the atheists here because they don't like the implications. They don't like the argument from cosmic design. They don't like the rebuttal either.

The atheist/materialist position is that this is the only Universe and there's nothing special about life.

Just seven numbers.......

:)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Darat :
......

"how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

........



Geoff, to go totally offtopic - Yahzi did a fine scientific and humorous (more importantly to me:p) explanation as to how something can come out of nothing. (He didn't say where the something had come from though - or at least what the mechanism was for them popping into existence) but what are your thoughts?

I've quoted it in banter a few days ago - but I'll requote here :)


Originally posted by Yahzi - some time ago
Randfan:
Since nobody answered your question, I will try.

There is a number called the Planck constant. Distances or times shorter than this cannot be measured.

Imagine a pair of particles (one positive and one negative) suddenly springing into being from nothing, and then recombining, anhilating themselves and leaving nothing behind. If they do this in less time than the Planck limit, then no one could have possibly noticed their existance. Hence, they might be doing it all the time.

(The astute reader will ask - what about the energy released when the particles combine? The answer is, that energy pays back the universe for the energy borrowed to create the particles in the first place. Lucky for us the two energies are exactly equal, otherwise Bad Things would happen.)

Now lets turn to black holes. Once something gets too close to a black hole (past the event horizion), it falls in. Suppose that one of these ephemeral particle pairs suddenly appears really close to a black hole - and one of the particles falls in!

Now his partner is like, wtf? He can't recombine and disapear, so he is stuck: he stays here, after the Planck limit expires, and now the poor bastich is Real. Stuck in the real world.

So now you have matter appearing from nothing at all. Wait a second, you ask: who pays back the universe for the energy borrowed to make that real particle? Hawking claims it's the black hole, and thus black holes slowly evaporate. Sort of like cosmic recycling.


In the original big bang, when the first two particles popped into being from nothing, there was no space-time. So the two particles occupied an infintely small space. Which means infinite pressure (try squeezing something into nothing!) And infinite pressure means a humonguous explosion. And after that, it was way too late for the little guys to get together again.

Nowdays there is some space and time, so the temporary particles don't have infinite pressure.

But just like the twin gods of Zorastorism, sooner or later those two primal particles will find each other, recombine, and the whole universe will then snuff out instantly. Only for it all to happen again later (well later is hard to define since without a universe there is no time.)

[Ok, I made the last paragraph up. But the rest is real physics.]


Sou

[Franko]

I sympathise with Franko. I just wish he would iron out the contradictions in his stated position. I can guess at some of his reasons for being unclear though.

What contradiction -- specifically?

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Darat :



Well, I would point out that I am the sole person on this forum who has ever actually attempted to explain the the origin of the Universe from first principles, and trying to get people to accept that explanation was like pulling teeth, because it depends on things like self-existing mathematics, the objective existence of Infinity and the primacy of consciousness.



I disagree - other posters (an example is Christian) believe that they have explained the universe from "first principles" the only difference being that they aren’t the same “first principles” as yours.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

But unless you are willing to accept things like these then answering the question "how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

...snip....



Only if you can't live with the answer "I don't know". And this is what I was trying to pointing out when I said you were being inconsistent.

How do you know that something coming from nothing is impossible? What is your evidence? And remember it was you who just said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It appears that you have decided on an answer based on the opposite of what you said was your position i.e. you are saying "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" on the matter of something coming from nothing - (whilst I remain "agnostic" on this matter).

[Ignatius]

Good to see you back, UcE. I hope you are doing well.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Then you're making the same error that TBK is accusing Franko of. We live in a Universe that is arguably fine-tuned for the existence of life. We may have no direct objective evidence of the existence of God/Gods but neither do we have any objective explanation as to how this engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence.


I would say that the Universe is not fine-tuned for life. You'd think you would find life in more than .00000000000001% of it if it were.

I think that being agnostic as far as belief in how the universe started is reasonable. We do not know.


Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?


Yes! Is positing that a Creator just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation to create the universe any more logical? The same problem exists for the beginning of god as the beginning of the universe.

If I posit that the Universe was not created by god and did not just pop into existence but came to be by some other specific means, I am obligated to provide some proof for my position. It would be illogical of you to believe my idea without evidence. Same thing applies when I consider the god hypothesis.

I understand where you are coming from with the agnosticism stance (I think), but it seems to me that there is a difference between agnosticism (I don't know) and the atheist position (I don't buy that particular argument because you offer no proof).

Anyway, I mostly just stopped in to say "Howdy".

Howdy!

[scribble]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I said it was arguable that it appears engineered for the existence of life. However, I have gone to great lengths to provide a rebuttal to the argument from cosmic design - indeed the whole of my metaphysics was provoked by an attempt to provide a rebuttal, and yet it has been fiercely contested by the atheists here because they don't like the implications. They don't like the argument from cosmic design. They don't like the rebuttal either.
:)

As one of the Atheists you are speaking of, let me assure you the reason your argument is rejected isn't because we don't "like" it or it's implications.

It's because it's utter nonsense spouted from a loony.

Did you ever answer my question in the other thread about what conclusions you eventually came to regarding that mysterious document that appeared spontaneously on your computer, with answers to your Big Questions in it, and you wouldn't share it with us because of copyright concerns?

(Wow, that's one gnarly sentence.)

You did claim this, repeatedly. Do you still believe that a document spontaneously appeared on your computer? With answers in it? If so, how do you take full credit for developing your philosophy?

If not, how do you explain your behaviour?

-Chris

[Franko]

How do you know that something coming from nothing is impossible?

What is nothing exactly?

Don't you always have T i m e?

Time is something ... isn't it?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Franko


What is nothing exactly?

Don't you always have T i m e?

Time is something ... isn't it?

I don't know.

[Franko]

I don't know.

Think about it …

Suppose that nothing exist.

How long does nothing exist for?

Also, if nothing existed, then how much nothing would exist? A lot of nothing, or just a tiny little bit of nothing? If it is just a tiny little bit of nothing, then is that tiny bit surrounded by a larger nothing?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The atheist/materialist position is that this is the only Universe and there's nothing special about life.

Just seven numbers.......

:)
Now, UCE, you know how it irritates people when you state their position for them. As it turns out, both of the above statements are incorrect (for this atheist/materialist at any rate).

This is the only universe for which we have evidence. Others may or may not exist. I cannot honestly say I believe there are other universes because for me, belief is based on evidence. I agree it is possible.

Life is very special. Life is the billion-to-one lottery win. I'd say that is extremely special. It is simply not supernatural. Lotteries are in fact won.

Sou,

The two essential elements in Yahzis 'something from nothing' are :

1) polar extraction / equilibrium (particle/anti-particle)
2) The existence of Infinity (the black hole).

These are the two essential elements of any 'something from nothing' explanation. Why do you think I spent so long rambling on about 0 = 1 + -1 and the actual existence of Infinity?


Geoff.

Originally posted by Franko


What contradiction -- specifically?

There are several. Let's start with the one Pansihiri pointed out yesterday. You claim we have no Free Will but you also insist there is punishment/reward after death. What is the point in punishing people with no Free Will? What is even the point in threatening them with punishment?

[Franko]

There are several. Let's start with the one Pansihiri pointed out yesterday. You claim we have no Free Will but you also insist there is punishment/reward after death. What is the point in punishing people with no Free Will? What is even the point in threatening them with punishment?

Why do you think we don’t have “free will” elephant? It is BECAUSE there are rewards and punishments. The concept of Rewards and Punishment goes hand in hand with Determinism – haven’t you ever read Skinner???

You can’t condition anyone or anything to do squat without some form of incentive. But that doesn’t change the fact, that like a lightning bolt – you follow a path of least resistance. The LD call that path your worldline (Destiny).

[scribble]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
[Why do you think I spent so long rambling on about 0 = 1 + -1 and the actual existence of Infinity?

"Because... because you do not know." - Fernando Martinez (From Grand Theft Auto III)

-Chris

[Franko]

I have been wantingto post this again ...

In reality … the names and their place on this list were set prior to the initial state (big bang). Only my perception of the list changes over time.

The Forces of Light – the Saved (No particular order)
Consciousness makes Matter – Deist/Theist

Beleth
Beth Paulkey (Butch Slade)
BiliousGreen
BobM
Christian
Csense [mia]
dsm
Filip Sandors
Franko (Serpent)
Gentlehorse
hammegk (Mr. Hand)
Interesting Ian (Mr. Quick)
Jedi Knight (Knight)
LukeT (Luke)[mia]
metachristi
PotatoStew
Roadtoad
Sorgoth
stamenflicker
strongstevesaint (Mr. Sleep)
Win
Wraith (Wraith)


The Legion of Darkness – the Damned
Matter makes consciousness – Atheist

a_unique_person [mia]
Aardvark
aerosolben [mia]
arcticpenguin
AtheistArchon
Billyhoyt [mia]
chulbert
Colloden [mia]
CWL
DanishDynamite
De_Bunk [mia]
Diogenes
Dorman [mia]
Doubt
evildave
Fool
Fade
Futurefan [mia]
GoodPropaganda [mia]
Gnome
ImpyTimpy
joshua korosi
Kodiak [mia]
Lizardpeople
Lucifuge Rofocale
Oceansize [mia]
Paradox [mia]
PixyMisa
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 [mia]
Whitefork
Whodini
Wolfgirl [f] [mia]
xrayecho [mia]
Yahzi



Neutral Charge – No Alligence
Not enough information – Agnostic

Soubrette (+) (Enchantress) [f]
Slimshady (+) (Shadow)
Luceiia (+) [mia]
Randfan (+)
Scribble (+) (Mobius)
Vorticity (+)
Seelie (+) [f]
BillyJoe (=)
Hal bidlack (=)
Q-Source [f] [-]
Loki (-)
LeFevre (-)
Bjorn (-)
Pahansiri (-)
Gregor (-)
Martinm(-)
Lillyofthepink (-)[f][mia]
Shroud of Akron (-) [mia]
Darat (-)
Sundog (-)



[mia] = I haven’t seen you posts in the R&P in a while.

Did you ever answer my question in the other thread about what conclusions you eventually came to regarding that mysterious document that appeared spontaneously on your computer, with answers to your Big Questions in it, and you wouldn't share it with us because of copyright concerns?


It was a mistake even to mention it. We argue from logic here, not from paranormal happenings.


If so, how do you take full credit for developing your philosophy?


My philosophy is as old as the hills, Chris. I didn't develop it. I figured out a few basic logical steps and read LOTS of books. Between them Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhaur and Hegel pretty much covered 99% of it. Anything they left out was stated again by numerous other people and illustrated beautifully by Aldous Huxley in 20th century. I take credit for nothing.

And I wish you'd calm down a bit.

Chill, friend. I have my opinion and you have yours.

:)

I'm not on your list Franko.

:)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Oh boy, UCE is back...

How's your debt to the Universe doing, dude?

[Franko]

Elephant:
It was a mistake even to mention it. We argue from logic here, not from paranormal happenings.

Actually you have said you were a Mystic more than once, and on numerous occasions (including in this forum since your “return”) you have claimed that some things cannot be explained logically.

So what is your exact position?

Why is LOGIC suddenly so important? I thought it was all about Math?

Originally posted by Franko

Why do you think we don’t have “free will” elephant? It is BECAUSE there are rewards and punishments. The concept of Rewards and Punishment goes hand in hand with Determinism – haven’t you ever read Skinner???


I give up. This does not make any sense to me.



You can’t condition anyone or anything to do squat without some form of incentive. But that doesn’t change the fact, that like a lightning bolt – you follow a path of least resistance. The LD call that path your worldline (Destiny). [/B]

You are trying to argue that without the threat of punishment after death in hell that human beings would act like a bunch of deranged murderers. Billions of people do not believe in hell, but still manage to behave a lot better than I do.

Hi Victor.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Oh boy, UCE is back...

How's your debt to the Universe doing, dude?

It's been worse. :)

[Martin]

I'm listed as agnostic now? Interesting...

Originally posted by Franko
I have been wantingto post this again ...


The minus, pluses and equals under Agnostics mean what?

Originally posted by Franko

Actually you have said you were a Mystic more than once,


My metaphysics implies some form of mysticism.



Why is LOGIC suddenly so important? I thought it was all about Math?

Then you weren't listening. Logic and maths are blood brothers anyway.

[Franko]

UCE,

You are trying to argue that without the threat of punishment after death in hell that human beings would act like a bunch of deranged murderers.

I am saying that people are motivated to action by rewards and punishment. Is this really such a bizarre notion to you? … because this is something that I assumed was pretty obvious (2 + 2 = 4) to everyone?

Billions of people do not believe in hell, but still manage to behave a lot better than I do.

How do you know what “Billions of people” believe? If they Act like they believe there are consequences for their actions, then it is pretty safe to assume that they believe in consequences for their actions.

It is always the guy who thinks he can get away with murder who commits murder Elephant. It is only people who don’t believe that there will be consequences for their actions who behave as if there won’t be consequences for their actions.

This is the fundamental flaw in your worldview/philosophy.

[Franko]

Martinm:

I'm listed as agnostic now? Interesting...

You are like a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Franko


Think about it …

Suppose that nothing exist.

How long does nothing exist for?

Also, if nothing existed, then how much nothing would exist? A lot of nothing, or just a tiny little bit of nothing? If it is just a tiny little bit of nothing, then is that tiny bit surrounded by a larger nothing?

We should be careful here because nothing is one of those "words", like infinity and god, that we all use but probably have different meanings for.

The only "nothing" I would be comfortable as saying "I understand" would be the "human" meaning of nothing, i.e. “There is nothing in the box”. We all understand that there is still something in the box (whether that be a bit of dust or even just air) but we say there is nothing in the box. When what we really mean is that there is no content of significance in the box.

The "nothing" as used in this metaphysical discussion would seem to be a concept that the human mind can't "intuitively understand". As demonstrated by the wording of your question. It's like being a kid again and saying "I double infinity you!" to top your rival’s infinity.

There are concepts that maths uses i.e. "zero" and "infinity" but I believe we should be very wary of trying to draw analogies with these math terms into our everyday English language based descriptions and debates.

After all maths is another language, like English, that we have invented as a tool to help us to describe and make predictions about the world we live in.


_________

UCE: Following on from my previous comment don’t you think you are being inconsistent in stating that “something can’t come nothing”? Isn’t this just an assumption?

[Vorticity]

Howdy Franko, I'm finally getting around to commenting on my inclusion in your list.
As I made clear some time ago, I call myself an "atheist" not and "agnostic". To recap, by "atheist" I merely mean that I lack a belief in a god or gods. No more, no less. Why am I in the agnostic column?

Now, I think we both realize that your definition of "atheist" is different from that of everybody on this board (ie, "atheist" = "one who believes that matter makes consciousness").
Wouldn't you agree that using a different definition of the word than everyone else might pose a problem?

[Tricky]

Since this thread is about Logical Deism, I think we should recap what we know about it. Here is a partial list. I am trying (in as much as is possible) to only list things that have been stated by the proponants of LD, and not my interpretations. If you want to add to the list, please do likewise.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created all the forces except gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe, but she is in turn controlled by "Fate".
One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from outside this universe
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton".
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Gravitons are inherantly either good or evil. The evil ones will burn for eternity.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
TLOP are also conscious and complex.
TLOP created humans (except for the soul/graviton, which comes from outside the universe).
TLOP are more conscious and complex than humans.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.


That's all I can think of for right now. Perhaps the rest of you can add to the list (yes, you too Franko). Please try to confine the list to actual statements by a Logical Deist and not your own extrapolations.

[Franko]

Vorticity,

That list is simply my own opinions based on my own experiences talking to people in this forum. Obviously you must have said or done something that made me think you were an open-minded skeptic (agnostic) instead of a blindly dogmatic religious fanatic (A-Theist).

But if you thik I have placed you in the wrong category don’t worry, I change that list around all of the time. Just start acting like an Evil narrow-minded, pessimistic, cynical, hate-filled, bigoted, nitwit, and I will move you over to the A-Theist column so fast your head will spin.

[scribble]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It was a mistake even to mention it. We argue from logic here, not from paranormal happenings.


I wish it were so.

Anyhow, you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. but that's not anger, I'm genuinely curious as to what you think of that phenomena now that you've had time to reflect.


My philosophy is as old as the hills, Chris. I didn't develop it. I figured out a few basic logical steps and read LOTS of books. Between them Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhaur and Hegel pretty much covered 99% of it. Anything they left out was stated again by numerous other people and illustrated beautifully by Aldous Huxley in 20th century. I take credit for nothing.


You're right, and I knew that when I said it. My bad.

And I wish you'd calm down a bit.

Hey, me too, I guess... but arguing with you is exciting.


Chill, friend. I have my opinion and you have yours.

I'm willing to chill (a little) but I am not willing to give our 'opinions' equal weight. I shoudl clarify: I'm willing to contemplate anything you care to offer... but if I contemplate it and come to the determination it's ridiculousness, I'm not going to say, "Well, he has his opinion and I have mine." I will say, "He is ridiculous."

:)

-Chris

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Franko
But if you thik I have placed you in the wrong category don’t worry, I change that list around all of the time. Just start acting like an Evil narrow-minded, pessimistic, cynical, hate-filled, bigoted, nitwit, and I will move you over to the A-Theist column so fast your head will spin.
OK, its a deal!
But seriously, do you think its possible to be an "atheist" without possessing any of the negative traits in the above list? If not, then, again, we have this problem of you and this board using disjoint definitions...

UCE: Following on from my previous comment don’t you think you are being inconsistent in stating that “something can’t come nothing”? Isn’t this just an assumption?


No. It's the simplest bit of logic in the world. If you nothing at all - a state of absolute nothingness - then nothing can come from it. Even 'making' 1 and -1 from Zero implies that the zero isn't nothing. At the very least it was potentially something.

:)

[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.

Scribble :


I am going to say "He is ridiculous."




Those who feel the breath of sadness, Sit down next to me
Those who find they're touched by madness, Sit down next to me
Those who find themselves ridiculous, Sit down next to me

(James)

[Franko]

Voricity,

OK, its a deal!
But seriously, do you think its possible to be an "atheist" without possessing any of the negative traits in the above list?

You tell me?

Where is the optimism in A-Theism? I can’t seem to locate it?

Existence is meaningless, and then (thankfully) it ceases.

If not, then, again, we have this problem of you and this board using disjoint definitions...

No if you look up cynicism or pessimism in the Dictionary they are using the same definitions I am. Of course according to the A-Theists, A-Theism isn’t really a religion – were you aware of that? … I mean … You sure could of Fooled me? In what way, isn’t A-Theism a religion?

I mean if there is any person who can look at Thaifoodkenny, or De-Bungler and not see a raging religious fanatic, then your perception is beyond all hope of repair.

[MRC_Hans]

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. Then there is one (one more) thing I dont understand:

Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of atoms ....... But isnt that just my body? Which, I think we have earlier agreed is not =ME (since I am, or am also, my Soul (Graviton) as stated above)?

And since I am NOT made of (only) atoms, how does the logic carry over to the third line?

Hans

[whitefork]

Remember, Hans, that "argument" is just for the a-theists.

[Franko]

Then there is one (one more) thing I dont understand:

Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of atoms ....... But isnt that just my body? Which, I think we have earlier agreed is not =ME (since I am, or am also, my Soul (Graviton) as stated above)?

And since I am NOT made of (only) atoms, how does the logic carry over to the third line?

Well MRC, if you had a Soul, then You are made of Atoms would no longer be strictly True, would it?

Of course since you are an A-Theist, there is no point in us talking about a Soul. "Souls" are something that only silly Theists believe in. An A-Theist (like whitefork) knows that all that exists is "matter". so ...

YOU ARE MADE OF ATOMS.

(end of story)

[Tricky]

Okay, the revised list, based on Franko's input


This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
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".
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.


Better?

[whitefork]

Tricky, you need to add "matter does not exist".

[Franko]

whitefork:
Tricky, you need to add "matter does not exist".

Ahhh, only in a manner of speaking. I mean, in what way do words exist when you say them? They only exist in the mind of the person you are talking too -- right?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Ahhh, only in a manner of speaking. I mean, in what way do words exist when you say them? They only exist in the mind of the person you are talking too -- right?
Would you then say, "matter is not a tangible thing"? Obviously lots of things exist as concepts, like good and evil, which are not tangible things.

[whitefork]

OK, Tricky, then "only energy exists, since E is on the left hand side of the E=MCsquared equation"

[Tricky]

I think I can work with that, Whitefork. Remember, I am trying to be faithful to what LDeists have said.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
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".
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.


Keep 'em coming, folks.

[whitefork]

Two more:

If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P.

If A controls B then A is more conscious than B.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by whitefork
Two more:

If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P.

If A controls B then A is more conscious than B.
Do you agree to those, Franko?

[MRC_Hans]

Franko:Well MRC, if you had a Soul, then You are made of Atoms would no longer be strictly True, would it?

Of course since you are an A-Theist, there is no point in us talking about a Soul. "Souls" are something that only silly Theists believe in. An A-Theist (like whitefork) knows that all that exists is "matter". so ...

YOU ARE MADE OF ATOMS.

No, thats too silly an evasion even for you. Both statements were yours, and they were supposed to represent your beliefs. Does this mean you cannot explain the apparant contradiction? Are you really giving me this juicy tidbit for my collection? ;)

Hans

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


No. It's the simplest bit of logic in the world. If you nothing at all - a state of absolute nothingness - then nothing can come from it. Even 'making' 1 and -1 from Zero implies that the zero isn't nothing. At the very least it was potentially something.

:)

All you have done is restated what you said before.

You still have not said why your statement is not just as much an assumption as someone who says "something comes from nothing".

What evidence do you have that something can’t come from nothing?

This is what you said in regards of atheism:


The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. There is no direct evidence of God except for the existence of a Universe whose ultimate origin is itself inexplicable. Therefore agnosticism (or pantheism) is the only truly logical position to take.


Therefore for you to say that something can’t come from nothing I have to assume you have “direct evidence” that something can’t come from nothing.

Without this “direct evidence”, according to you, we should be ‘agnostic’ about “something can’t come from nothing”.

In these posts I am trying to understand your belief by understanding what your “leap of faith” is (or are). I am not (at the moment) attempting to argue or debate whether your belief is the “Truth” or not.

From your posts in this thread it appears that your belief that something can’t come from nothing is one of your “leap of faiths”.



(Thanks for the “leap…” phrase Sou)

Darat,

I don't know how to prove nothing can come from nothing. It seems obvious to me.

Try typing "nothing comes from nothing" into google and have a look around.

You can call it faith if you like.

:)

Geoff.

[Franko]

So MRC,

I guess this means you are STILL unable to prove your whacky religious claims? If you can't explain or prove any of the things you believe, then why have you bothered to come to a Skeptics forum in the first place?

I think you are looking for www.Infidels.org.

Or perhaps you should slink back to the "secret" R&P forum for A-Theists only. hehehe ....

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Darat,

I don't know how to prove nothing can come from nothing. It seems obvious to me.

Try typing "nothing comes from nothing" into google and have a look around.

You can call it faith if you like.

:)

Geoff.

Thanks - that was all I wanted to know, whether this was a "leap of faith" or it was based on "direct evidence" – leaps of faith are allowed to be inconsistent ;)

(By the way I'm not blind to the fact that my own "belief system" is based on "leaps of faith" as well.)

[The Fool]

Tricky...

Good Idea with the list. I would propose some additions.

1. There is secret information that you can only learn if you become a member.

2. there are decisions you must make without outside influences, even though you have no free will.

site:

quote from franko, replying to loki in the "frankoholic" thread. Italics are mine...

I am controlled by Fate just as you are my Friend. Ultimately there are some things that I am physically prevented from explaining. The reason I am prevented is because ultimately there are things that you must decide for yourself without outside (my) influence.

… although I am quite certain that makes very little sense to you.

Let me put it too you this way. If you traveled on an Omniworldline, then I could trust you completely, and I could say more.


"traveling on an Omniworlview line" is another way of saying "being a Logical Deist"....so you see, Only trusted members can be told the inner secrets...

I am unable to explain why franko continues to use statements like "decide for yourself" in his "no free will" universe. Franko will not explain it either, it is one of the "secrets".

[ShottleBop]

Originally posted by Franko

Why do you think we don’t have “free will” elephant? It is BECAUSE there are rewards and punishments. The concept of Rewards and Punishment goes hand in hand with Determinism – haven’t you ever read Skinner???

I give up. This does not make any sense to me.

Actually, this explanation of why we don't have free will is consistent with the view, expressed in Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God books, that God does not punish people, since to do so would deprive them of free will.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Neither is there any logic involved with active disbelief in a God.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

The only logical position is agnosticism (although it does depend on your definition of God).

:p

This is all false conjecture. Can you provide evidence that abscense of evidence is not evidence of abscence? Tell me one scientific fact that has no evidence associated with it.

The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.. nor is there a rational reason to believe in a god. There is much evidence, however, that people made up god. Pantheons used to be the majority belief.. but people realized that most of those gods were myth.. yet they still want to hold on to that last one.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Then you're making the same error that TBK is accusing Franko of. We live in a Universe that is arguably fine-tuned for the existence of life. We may have no direct objective evidence of the existence of God/Gods but neither do we have any objective explanation as to how this engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence. Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Do you think agnosticism is illogical?

No, we are not assuming that the universe just popped into existence. I will gladly say that I don't know how the universe started or if it was always around. Believers don't know either, so they say it must've been god. One position claims ignorance, the other position appeals to it. Your "god" assertion is just an appeal to ignorance.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Darat :
the question "how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?


Not really, the answer is... I don't know. Also, do you have evidence that there was a time when there was nothing? We don't know if the universe came from nothing or if it has always been. You are still appealing to ignorance.

----
The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.. nor is there a rational reason to believe in a god. There is much evidence, however, that people made up god.
----


With probability 100%, at least one of your ancestors believed in god(s).

I guess your ancestors weren't too rational or logical eh?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.. nor is there a rational reason to believe in a god. There is much evidence, however, that people made up god.
----


With probability 100%, at least one of your ancestors believed in god(s).

I guess your ancestors weren't too rational or logical eh?
yes very likely (but not 100%)to be true...that one of anyone's ancestors believed in god(s), how does this make the belief more or less rational?
I believe there is evidence for god(s) existence, and there is evidence to the contrary. There is probably some evidence that I shot JFK too. A couple of fuzzy photographs is still evidence of UFOs, but If it is enough evidence (or not )to establish a desire to believe or an opinion that it constitutes "proof" is still a personal decision.

[MRC_Hans]

Frank0:I guess this means you are STILL unable to prove your whacky religious claims? If you can't explain or prove any of the things you believe, then why have you bothered to come to a Skeptics forum in the first place? Hehehehe, Frank, no I cannot prove my beliefs (they wouldnt be beliefs if I could), but at least I can explain them without constantly contradicting myself. You, on the other hand, cannot. You have just shown that your cosmology contradicts one of your central dogma:

1) You support your dogma of Fatalism with the following logical argument:

Atoms obey tlop
You are made of atoms
Ergo: You obey tlop

But

2) Part of your cosmology (and a central part, it would appear), says:

"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. "

Now, since this means that "you" are NOT SOLELY made of atoms in your cosmology, and since another central dogma of yours is "consciousness makes matter", this totally invalidates your logic against free will.

For your logic to function (disregarding the formal fallacies of your syllogism), you have to both be a Materialist and to discard Quantum Mechanics. You, however, are not a materialist, so you need to explain why the non-material Soul/Consciousness (which has the capability to "make matter") should not be able to influence tlop, at least to the level of excerting free will.

This possible ability to excert free will by the consciousness, would then be able to explain your dogma of a justifiable system of ultimate reward and punishment.

Mmmm Frank, it seems I understand your religious dogmas better than you :rolleyes:

Before you make further statements about what others think or should do, you need to clear up this little matter in your own cosmology.

Might I remind you of ANOTHER statement of yours:
"Logical Deism is ultimately about Logical Consistency."

What is it you say in English? Tend you own garden first.

Hans

Edited to remove some of the effects of my non-deterministic keyboard ;)

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Tricky
I think I can work with that, Whitefork. Remember, I am trying to be faithful to what LDeists have said.


Tricky, is there more than one on this board?

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Sou,

The two essential elements in Yahzis 'something from nothing' are :

1) polar extraction / equilibrium (particle/anti-particle)
2) The existence of Infinity (the black hole).

These are the two essential elements of any 'something from nothing' explanation. Why do you think I spent so long rambling on about 0 = 1 + -1 and the actual existence of Infinity?


Geoff.

Sorry Geoff

Spotted this yesterday - meant to respond, got interrupted and only just remembered it :(

I don't remember your "rambles" about infinity and zero. The closest I got to it was (and is) people joshing you about proving that infinity = zero

I think we've lost all posts before July this year - but if you can link to some old threads I'd be pleased to read them :)

Sou

Originally posted by Soubrette


Sorry Geoff

Spotted this yesterday - meant to respond, got interrupted and only just remembered it :(

I don't remember your "rambles" about infinity and zero. The closest I got to it was (and is) people joshing you about proving that infinity = zero

I think we've lost all posts before July this year - but if you can link to some old threads I'd be pleased to read them :)

Sou

They're gone - but it doesn't matter. The point is that the only way something comes from nothing is the same way 1 and -1 come from zero, but this suggests that zero isn't nothing (and if so then what is it? ). This has been my position from day 1 and yahzi, who has always bitterly complained about the ideas I talk about, seems to have provided a rather smaller-scale materialistic version of the same idea. But the crucial factors required to summon up something from nothing are the same : Polarity and Infinity.

:)

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Not really, the answer is... I don't know. Also, do you have evidence that there was a time when there was nothing? We don't know if the universe came from nothing or if it has always been. You are still appealing to ignorance.

As far as I am concerned there was never nothing. I am a mathematical platonist. I believe numbers and logic to be eternal.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
Keep 'em coming, folks.

A thing can only be controlled if it is done by another thing more conscious than it.
Corollary (sp?): When something less conscious controls something that is more conscious, it is actually the LG doing the controlling.

Upchurch

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
With probability 100%, at least one of your ancestors believed in god(s).

I guess your ancestors weren't too rational or logical eh?

My parents are god believers. When it comes to god and religion, they are not rational or logical. Heck, when it comes to anything, my mom isn't very rational. What do my ancestors have to do with evidence of god?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


As far as I am concerned there was never nothing. I am a mathematical platonist. I believe numbers and logic to be eternal.

So basically....... your belief in god is not logical.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


So basically....... your belief in god is not logical.

Erm....I have not stated that I believe in God and I have not stated that I do not. Franko accuses me of being an atheist and you and Luci are convinced I am a theist. Whatever.... :confused:

[Tricky]

The revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.


This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.)
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.


Thanks to all who have contributed. Don't stop.

[Tricky]

Gosh, I almost forgot one of the most important ones.

The revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.


This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.")
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
Consciousness creates matter.


Thanks to all who have contributed. Don't stop.

[whitefork]

WRT the last point:

The idea being I think that consciousness, being non-material, must be energy, and that matter can only exist because of energy.

Which leaves me wondering about the nature of the graviton and its imprisoned soul-stuff, but that's perhaps a matter (heh-heh) for another list.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by whitefork
The idea being I think that consciousness, being non-material, must be energy, and that matter can only exist because of energy.
Ooooh. I see. It's not that energy and mass are equivelent (+/- a scaling factor) as Einstein theorized, it's that energy exists first and it becomes matter. That, I could almost buy into, but how do we know that energy is conscious? Is all energy conscious? Am I effecting a consciousness when I convert electrical or chemical energy into mechanical energy? So many ethical questions begin to arise....

Upchurch

[Tricky]

The re-revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.


This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.")
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
Consciousness creates matter.
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.

[Soubrette]

Tricky

Frank also mentions somthing about Potato Stew.....sorry I mean the Prime Sollipsist, I think it's called.

And the Abyss - the Abyss awaits those who deny that consciousness makes matter. For those gravitons who are somewhat speedier - there is Eternity

Sou

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky


The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".

Tricky,

Could you, or someone, clarify this one a bit? The lower on what? The Hierarchy Of Conscioussness (HOC)? Time? The Omniverse?

Also, and I appriciate the work you're doing here, but do you think you could highlight the points that have been added or edited, if it's not too much trouble? It's hard to go back through and compare to the last one each time.

Thanks,

Upchurch

edited for really bad pun

Tricky, do you think you could add HOC? :D :D :D

:rolleyes: Okay, I'm going to go crawl into a hole now. :(

[Tricky]

The re-revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.

Blue items have been edited with input from Franko.

Red items have been edited or suggested by others.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
Atheist gravitons will go to the abyss for eternity.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.")
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
Consciousness creates matter.
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”

(Thanks for the brain jog, Sou :))

Colors added for Upchurch, even though he deserves to go to the abyss for that abysmal pun. :p
(Sorry, I can't add HOC, because I can't figure out what the LDs are trying to say).

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. LD really is absurd.. what strange beliefs they have. They should drop the "logical" from their name and just call themselves diests.

[Soubrette]

My pleasure Tricky :)

Although I'm not sure if your list is from Frank's point of view or is supposed to be an objective list of Logical Deism

I will now go on to explain what appears to be exactly the same statement (after all in some ways Frank is LD;))?:p

Frank believes that all atheists believe matter makes consciousness - that is not necessarily true :) From Frank's pov all atheist will hit the pit. However I happen to hear rumours that there is the odd atheist who doesn't necessarily believe that matter stuff :)

To clarify I mean odd as in one or two - not odd as in strange or weird or anything :p

Sou

[Tricky]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LOL. LD really is absurd.. what strange beliefs they have. They should drop the "logical" from their name and just call themselves diests.
"Diests"? Was that an intentionally humorous misspelling?

But actually LD does not follow the tenets of deism (as it is commonly defined) either. Deism does not propose the existance of a "personal god", whereas LD obviously does. However, I am only trying to summarize the beliefs of LD, not comment on them (at least not right now).

[whitefork]

My fault for pointing out the "i before e" rule in "thief". "Deism" is a exception, of course, the syllabication being De-ism.

Well, English orthography isn't exactly logical, either. (exception #2).

[Q-Source]

Tricky,

Remember to include this in your list: "Essencially LD is a Unified Theory of Physics".

Please, if you don´t mind.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Although I'm not sure if your list is from Frank's point of view or is supposed to be an objective list of Logical Deism

It is supposed to be from the LD's point of view (I include Wraith as an LD as well). I am trying very hard not to misquote either of them.
Originally posted by Soubrette
Frank believes that all atheists believe matter makes consciousness - that is not necessarily true :) From Frank's pov all atheists will hit the pit.
I have thought about making a list of "A-Theist" beliefs too, but that will have to wait. Of course, if anyone else would like to do this...

Originally posted by Soubrette
However I happen to hear rumours that there is the odd atheist who doesn't necessarily believe that matter stuff :)

Frank, in his more tender moments, has even allowed that some of those he calls A-Theists are actually agnostics. He does not always rant.

Originally posted by Soubrette
To clarify I mean odd as in one or two - not odd as in strange or weird or anything :p

I don't believe anyone would question either usage of "odd". :D

[Tricky]

The re-re-revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
Atheist gravitons will go to the abyss for eternity.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.")
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
Consciousness creates matter.
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.


A nod to Q-Source

[Upchurch]

Also, please remember that an LD's definition of atheist is different than the more common definition, as is the case with many words. Note:

Originally posted by Franko

Upchurch when the dictionary definition of a word doesn’t make logical sense (when it is logically contradictory) I state that it is such. YOU however, seem to believe that Webster’s Dictionary is somehow divinely inspired and inerrant?

Originally posted by Upchurch

Fine (although you should perhaps state you're definitions a little more clearly rather than just assuming everyone knows what you mean).

Originally posted by Franko

I try an do exactly that. But if I don’t state a definition specifically you can assume I am using the standard Dictionary one.


Should we have a second list, perhaps of alternative definitions?

Upchurch

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Should we have a second list, perhaps of alternative definitions?
You mean, like, a Lexicon?:eek:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

You mean, like, a Lexicon?:eek:
Okay, yikes. I guess that is a lengthy thing to compile, like a LD to English dictionary. It would probably be easier to have the LD just define every word he uses, explicitly, and remember to take nothing for granted.

Not to mention all the books on LD's alternative science that would have to be published: Physics, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, etc.

Oy. to fully describe LD would require a library just on the differences between LD and the rest of the world's view point. And how many LD's are there do we think? Franko, "wraith", and who? Maybe Hammek(sp? his name escapes me)?

Upchurch

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny:
Tell me one scientific fact that has no evidence associated with it.

The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.

I guess I am the only person in this forum who perceives the contradiction in this A-Theists words?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


I guess I am the only person in this forum who perceives the contradiction in this A-Theists words?

No. I agree it is an incorrect statement. Logic is a tool for evaluating evidence. Thus, you cannot "logically" evaluate "no evidence".

Glad you're back, Franko. Do you agree with the list of LD tenets I have posted?

[thaiboxerken]

No. I agree it is an incorrect statement. Logic is a tool for evaluating evidence. Thus, you cannot "logically" evaluate "no evidence".

There is no logic in the belief in god, not that it's bad logic or false logic. Because there is no evidence associated with god, and logic is a tool for evaluating evidence, there is no logic in the belief of god.

The logic of god not existing is that because there is nothing that we know of that exists without evidence, and god has no evidence associated with it, there must not be a god.

[whitefork]

Interesting argument. I formalize thusly:

For all X, if X exists, then there is evidence for X.
There is no evidence for god.
Therefore, god does not exist.

I think you need to put some scope on "exists", because some things might be said to exist without having evidence -
Does the past exist? OK, arguably not.

Let's say a cure for cancer exists (possible, right?). But there's no evidence for it. Yet. How do you handle a situation like that?

Just trying to tighten things up a bit.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by whitefork
Interesting argument. I formalize thusly:
I think you need to put some scope on "exists", because some things might be said to exist without having evidence -
Does the past exist? OK, arguably not.

Correct, the past and the future do not exist, they are merely has been or will be's.


Let's say a cure for cancer exists (possible, right?). But there's no evidence for it. Yet. How do you handle a situation like that?

Just trying to tighten things up a bit.

It is not considered to exist until evidence is found. Your appeal to the future is equivalent to an appeal to ignorance, both are unknowns.

[whitefork]

"Unknown" yes, but we may consider probabilities. Certain areas of investigation are believed with reason to be more likely to be fruitful than others, of course.

(But I'm not going to argue that the existence of a deity is a matter of probability.....)

Would you consider probability a form of evidence?

Or, for instance, this claim: "there are only four colors needed to draw a two dimensional map such that no two contiguous areas have the same color". Until a few years ago, the truth of that statement was unknown. Today, it is. How do you classify a claim that in principle may be true, but is currently undetermined?

[Franko]

Upchurch:

Ooooh. I see. It's not that energy and mass are equivelent (+/- a scaling factor) as Einstein theorized, it's that energy exists first and it becomes matter. That, I could almost buy into, but how do we know that energy is conscious?

You are getting closer.

What do you suppose Energy is … fundamentally?

Do you suppose it has anything to do with Time?

How about your consciousness? In what way would your consciousness exist without Time? Can you be conscious without experiencing Time?

Is all energy conscious?

???

Possibly … eventually?

Am I effecting a consciousness when I convert electrical or chemical energy into mechanical energy? So many ethical questions begin to arise....

In the end you can only be concerned for (responsible for) what you are capable of perceiving.

[Franko]

Brette,

Frank also mentions something about Potato Stew.....sorry I mean the Prime Sollipsist, I think it's called.

Progenitor Solipsist if you want to be technical.

… but I believe there may also be mention of Potato Stew as well … ;)

And the Abyss - the Abyss awaits those who deny that consciousness makes matter. For those gravitons who are somewhat speedier - there is Eternity

Velocity has little to do with getting into the Metaverse. An Anti-Graviton can travel with the same velocity that a Posi-Graviton can. Velocity has more to do with your position within the Divine Hierarchy.

This universe is an Energy State. The Universe below it (“the Abyss”) exist in a lower (simpler) Energy state, and the Universe above it (“the Metaverse”) exist in a higher (more complex) Energy state. Whether you reach the Metaverse or not really depends on your Charge, not your Velocity.

If you are a good person, a beneficial person (an optimist) and other individuals generally agree with you, and like having you around, then other entities will find it beneficial to have you around (they will like having you around).

However if you are a bad person, a harmful, non-beneficial person ( a pessimist) and other individuals generally don’t agree with you or don’t like having you around, then other entities will find it NON-Beneficial (i.e. harmful) to have you around (they won’t want you around).

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny:

LOL. LD really is absurd.. what strange beliefs they have. They should drop the "logical" from their name and just call themselves diests.

Well if dropped the logic then I guess we wouldn't be able to explain our beliefs JUST LIKE YOU KENNY! so if we dropped the "Logical" part we would just be A-Theists, and we could just make up whatever beliefs we wanted.

But instead we rely on Logic.

[Franko]

Brette,

Frank believes that all atheists believe matter makes consciousness - that is not necessarily true

I know you have claimed this (and so have other A-Theists), but I have YET to be presented with ANY evidence that this is the case.

From Frank's pov all atheist will hit the pit.

Correction … anyone who is an A-Theist from the POV of the Goddess will be cut loose (when they die), and they will fall back to the Abyss all on their own accord.

However I happen to hear rumours that there is the odd atheist who doesn't necessarily believe that matter stuff …

Yeah, but then again I have heard there is the odd "Christian" who doesn’t believe in Jesus … :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by whitefork

Or, for instance, this claim: "there are only four colors needed to draw a two dimensional map such that no two contiguous areas have the same color". Until a few years ago, the truth of that statement was unknown. Today, it is. How do you classify a claim that in principle may be true, but is currently undetermined?

This has nothing to do with the question of god, maps and colors are not absurd claims.. this god is. Here are a few reasons why "god" is absurd.

1. We can't even find a definition that is accepted by most theists as what their god is.

2. There is no evidence.

3. They claim their god has done things to the world and still does.. there is no evidence of this claim.

You are still appealing to unknowns.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Progenitor Solipsist if you want to be technical.

I had already found the source and corrected it before I put in the list.

Originally posted by Franko
Velocity has little to do with getting into the Metaverse. An Anti-Graviton can travel with the same velocity that a Posi-Graviton can. Velocity has more to do with your position within the Divine Hierarchy.
These are new terms to me. Are Posi and Anti gravitons the same as Good souls and Evil souls, or are they male and female?

And BTW. Is my list still correct? I have made corrections from your last input, to the best of my ability. I am not trying to twist your words.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Franko


Well if dropped the logic then I guess we wouldn't be able to explain our beliefs JUST LIKE YOU KENNY! so if we dropped the "Logical" part we would just be A-Theists, and we could just make up whatever beliefs we wanted.

But instead we rely on Logic.

No, you dn't use logic, that's why I think you should take the word logic out of the name of your religion. I didn't contend that you stop using logic, I asserted that you never did use logic in your beliefs.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah, but then again I have heard there is the odd "Christian" who doesn’t believe in Jesus … :rolleyes:

There are many atheists that haven't heard of this matter stuff.. newborn babies. Yes, newborn babies haven't heard of god, therefore, by default, they are atheist. As and atheist is simply a person that doesn't believe in god. One cannot believe in something they haven't heard of. When will you get it through your thick skull that atheism isn't a religion or philosophy, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny:

1. We can't even find a definition that is accepted by most theists as what their god is.

2. There is no evidence.

3. They claim their god has done things to the world and still does.. there is no evidence of this claim.

You are still appealing to unknowns.

Replace the term "god" with "Intelligent extraterrestrials" and your comments are still just as TRUE.

So why are you here in this forum when you should be out calling for the Abolition of Carl Sagan’s SETI institute???

After all:

1. Most people can’t even agree on what little green men from outer space really look like.

2. There is no evidence for “little green men” from outer space.

3. They claim that “little green men” could be transmitting signals to us this very instant, and that perhaps they even visit us in “flying saucers”. There is no evidence for these claims.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko
Brette,




Correction … anyone who is an A-Theist from the POV of the Goddess will be cut loose (when they die), and they will fall back to the Abyss all on their own accord.





Hello again Franko.

I have pointed out the many contradictions in your beliefs and you have avoided answering, but I understand why and as you know I wish you well.

Above again we find a huge contradiction in your belief system.

You believe there is no form of free will so your above statement is self contradicting and illogical.

1) You clearly believe people who do not believe as you do choose so and so, that is a form of free will and self-contradicting and illogical as to what you say you believe.
2) If your goddess becomes angry at beings for they believe, “she” is of course 1- not all knowing or would know which before the birth of a being what they would do or believe. 2- Is truly a lesser and silly being who would be consumed with ego and hatred/ anger and such would be far from perfection. 3- Of course again you said these beings , people who do not believe as you do, do so in your words “all on their own accord” clearly indicating while you say there is no form of free will there is a form of free will.
3) Remember you state “she” or TLOP fully control yet then say that is not the case, again I must ask with respect do you really know what you believe?

Again I hope you can break free from your anger and find peace.

[Franko]

Pahansiri:

You believe there is no form of free will so your above statement is self contradicting and illogical.

1) You clearly believe people who do not believe as you do choose so and so, that is a form of free will and self-contradicting and illogical as to what you say you believe.

Pahansiri, My beliefs are intrinsic to who I am just as yours are intrinsic to you. No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.

2) If your goddess becomes angry at beings for they believe, “she” is of course 1- not all knowing or would know which before the birth of a being what they would do or believe. 2- Is truly a lesser and silly being who would be consumed with ego and hatred/ anger and such would be far from perfection. 3- Of course again you said these beings , people who do not believe as you do, do so in your words “all on their own accord” clearly indicating while you say there is no form of free will there is a form of free will.

I don’t believe that the LG gets angry. At least not in the way you use the term.

Listen my friend if you break into my house in order to rob me and rape my wife, I am under no obligation to be kind to you. My only obligation is to stop you by any means necessary.

You don’t have “free will” to stop yourself from attempting to harm me, and I don’t have “free will” to prevent me from annihilating you in return.

3) Remember you state “she” or TLOP fully control yet then say that is not the case, again I must ask with respect do you really know what you believe?

Yes the LG controls you utterly, but She did not create you.

Again I hope you can break free from your anger and find peace.

I am rarely angry Pahansiri, and when I am … my anger brings peace.

[Franko]

These are new terms to me. Are Posi and Anti gravitons the same as Good souls and Evil souls, or are they male and female?

And BTW. Is my list still correct? I have made corrections from your last input, to the best of my ability. I am not trying to twist your words.

Yeah, I am sorry Tricky. I do plan on going over it, but I haven't had a long enough block of time yet today.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah, I am sorry Tricky. I do plan on going over it, but I haven't had a long enough block of time yet today.
I understand. You have a lot of people asking you things.

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny:

There are many atheists that haven't heard of this matter stuff.. newborn babies. Yes, newborn babies haven't heard of god, therefore, by default, they are atheist.

I thought that an A-Theist was a nitwit who insisted that “NO GOD EXIST”, so if a newborn baby doesn’t even know what “God” is, then how can a newborn baby believe that “NO GOD EXIST”?

I’d say newborn babies were Agnostics (God = Unknown/Not enough information)

As and atheist is simply a person that doesn't believe in god. One cannot believe in something they haven't heard of.

Nor can you not believe in something you haven’t heard of.

If this is untrue then please name one thing that you don’t believe in which you have NEVER heard of?

When will you get it through your thick skull that atheism isn't a religion or philosophy, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

hehehe … and when will you THINK before you post A-Theist???

[Tricky]

If I may intervene here, let me say that Franko's definition of atheism means people who deny that a God is possible. If you admit possibility, then you are an agnostic, according to The Lexicon. I advise that you not waste time discussing the definition of atheist. According to The Lexicon, I am an agnostic, as are most of the people on this board.
Just make the translation in your head, and you will save yourself a lot of needless aggrivation.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Franko


Replace the term "god" with "Intelligent extraterrestrials" and your comments are still just as TRUE.

So why are you here in this forum when you should be out calling for the Abolition of Carl Sagan’s SETI institute???

After all:

1. Most people can’t even agree on what little green men from outer space really look like.

2. There is no evidence for “little green men” from outer space.

3. They claim that “little green men” could be transmitting signals to us this very instant, and that perhaps they even visit us in “flying saucers”. There is no evidence for these claims.


I agree there is no direct evidence and it is a total assumption made by the SETI people.

However by using deductive logic a syllogism can be formed, (for example with a premise of “conditions on the Earth are not unique”), for the existence of life beyond the Earth.

But like all purely logical arguments it proves nothing and there is no way to know, without evidence, whether it is true or false. So the SETI researchers are following a logical path when they attempt to find evidence.


(Edited to add - of course there is evidence of life in the universe ;) )

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Franko


I thought that an A-Theist was a nitwit who insisted that “NO GOD EXIST”, so if a newborn baby doesn’t even know what “God” is, then how can a newborn baby believe that “NO GOD EXIST”?

You thought wrong, and atheist is a person that doesn't believe in god or lacks a belief in god. Newborn babies are atheist.


I’d say newborn babies were Agnostics (God = Unknown/Not enough information)

Wrong again, agnosticism is a person that thinks that the existence of god cannot be known, that god cannot be proven or disproven. Newborn babies hardly have that kind of philosophical ability.


Nor can you not believe in something you haven’t heard of.

One doesn't believe in something they've never heard of. You are confusing disbelief with lacking belief or nonbelief and it's not fooling me.


If this is untrue then please name one thing that you don’t believe in which you have NEVER heard of?

You are appealing to the unknown here, it's a fallacy of logic. If I've never heard of it, I can't believe in it and I can't mention it either.


hehehe … and when will you THINK before you post A-Theist???

When will you stop building strawmen and actually start debating?

----
You thought wrong, and atheist is a person that doesn't believe in god or lacks a belief in god. Newborn babies are atheist
----


By your same reasoning, newborn babies are daoists.

I'd say that a baby can only breathe, piss, poop, and eat, and has little time for grown-up abstractions.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
You thought wrong, and atheist is a person that doesn't believe in god or lacks a belief in god. Newborn babies are atheist
----


By your same reasoning, newborn babies are daoists.

I'd say that a baby can only breathe, piss, poop, and eat, and has little time for grown-up abstractions.

Not sure, i guess it depends on what the definition of daoist is.

But at any rate, my point is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Not sure, i guess it depends on what the definition of daoist is.

But at any rate, my point is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.

Hmm, only if you like the "soft Atheism" definition. "Hard" Atheism implies a DISbelief that a god exists; it isn't neutral.

If you say all newborn babies are agnostic I could agree with that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by sundog
If you say all newborn babies are agnostic I could agree with that.
I think it would be more appropriate to say that newborn babies don't have the mental facilities to make a stance on this issue. How can a child answer "I don't know" to "Is there a God?" if the child can't formulate the concept of "God"?

I'd say the default position is "not applicable"

Upchurch

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by sundog


Hmm, only if you like the "soft Atheism" definition. "Hard" Atheism implies a DISbelief that a god exists; it isn't neutral.

If you say all newborn babies are agnostic I could agree with that.

I like the Atheism definition: One that lacks a belief in god.

A baby could not be agnostic, babies don't have that philosophical maturity. Agnosticism is a philosophical position.. atheism is the default position and theism is the religious position.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I like the Atheism definition: One that lacks a belief in god.

A baby could not be agnostic, babies don't have that philosophical maturity. Agnosticism is a philosophical position.. atheism is the default position and theism is the religious position.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that.

To me, agnostic means "no opinion about God's existence" which describes the situation correctly. Atheism, in the common usage at least, implies a definite stance on the issue.

What do others think?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by sundog


Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that.

To me, agnostic means "no opinion about God's existence" which describes the situation correctly. Atheism, in the common usage at least, implies a definite stance on the issue.

What do others think?

ag·nos·tic n.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


a·the·ist n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


These are the American Heritage definitions.. I agree with the one for agnostic, but the one for atheist is definitely biased (the definition implies that there is a god).

The defintion of atheist is really :

atheist n.

1. One who does not believe in a god or gods.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Franko

You write: Pahansiri, My beliefs are intrinsic to who I am just as yours are intrinsic to you. No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.

Yes I know your beliefs are intrinsic to who you are and I respect that as you know, I do not seek to belittle your or anyone’s beliefs and seek only as you with you respectful exchanges. That is how friends and all beings need treat each other. As you say you’re beliefs you hold dear and are intrinsic to who you are and I was happy to see you recognize that is the case for me but it is also the case for all here. My point many times is you are an intelligent being yet reduce yourself to personal attacks and attacks against peoples beliefs and what they may hold dear. That I believe is below who you really are. Your post become meaningless attacks and silliness rather then in the cases when you exchange ideas, that is the real you and meaningful

You say “No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.

That may be the case with you and I respect that, that is not the case for all in a totality. Causes and conditions in peoples lives shape many if not all things but all make choices, many times the choices are intrinsic to these causes and conditions in ones lives but choices are still made by them. I “always” believed
As I do to a point even as a small child as I grew I found out more clearly where my beliefs fell as to a belief system, for me Buddhism.

But back to your statement, you say “No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.

Yet you believe your Goddess will punish someone for what they have no control over? That is illogical. You become very angry and personally attack people who do not happen to believe as you do, yet believe they have no choice that is illogical. As an adult do you stand and make fun of a small retarded child for being retarded? Or stand over a young girl that was just rapped and make fun of her?

I asked you something the other day you did not respond to, please do now, as friends let us talk and share without anger etc.

If you were at a party and a man at the party slipped into your drink that rendered you completely unconscious. This man then in the full view of all the party goers places a gun in your hand and then places the barrel in his mouth and forces your finger down on the trigger firing the gun and killing him.

Should you be charged with murder? As to your beliefs and or how you believe your goddess operates would you bother defending yourself? Do you feel that our justice system should be changed to reflect or operate how you believe your goddess does?


I don’t believe that the LG gets angry. At least not in the way you use the term.

Let me pose a question or situation to you.

situation 1 You have a child, you place your hungry child in s seat at the table. You don’t want the child to eat the candy bar sitting right before the child but you do not make clear to your child if she may or may not eat the candy. You then allow an older child say to enter the room and force the younger child to eat the candy.

1-You knew the child was hungry.
2- you knew the older child was going to encourage and force the child to eat the candy.
3- You knew the child in the end would eat the candy


Do you return to the room and punish the younger child for eating the candy?


Again on this topic of your belief your goddess punishes beings for not believing in her.

Would you if as a father ( I know you are not right now) seeking to be the best father you could ever place your needs before that of your child? Would you predicate your love or help for the child on if the child worshiped you?

What is perfect could know no flaws, it could not know anger or ego it could never place its needs before that of another and never so something it made and sees as a child. There could be no need or desire to be worshiped what is perfect could be only that. I often hear my Christian friends speak of their gods unconditional love yet the belief is riddled with conditions. What is unconditional can know no conditions.


You writeListen my friend if you break into my house in order to rob me and rape my wife, I am under no obligation to be kind to you. My only obligation is to stop you by any means necessary.

You don’t have “free will” to stop yourself from attempting to harm me, and I don’t have “free will” to prevent me from annihilating you in return.

That is not at all true. The person who broke in did so for many reasons or causes and conditions, TLOP had little if any influence and none as to his thought process. The conditions in his life lead to this and as to you annihilating him (lol) you would have free will in the amount of force used to a great point. Remember I fought for many years, I controlled my moves, which were to a great point in a reaction to his etc but not always. Thought and yes reaction etc was always in play. You and I are not robots.




You writeYes the LG controls you utterly, but She did not create you.

Of course this is not true, you make this statement as a statement of fact so with respect please give the facts. Again do not please give the “ you are made of atoms etc” I have shown how that is not true to thought and how we use thought to work within TLOP.

But again this above statement fly’s in the face of is in a complete contradiction to your saying Correction … anyone who is an A-Theist from the POV of the Goddess will be cut loose (when they die), and they will fall back to the Abyss all on their own accord.

You say she controls me utterly, yet is mad about what I may believe but you believe she made me believe what I believe. That is illogical.

You writeI am rarely angry Pahansiri, and when I am … my anger brings peace.

My friend you know this is not true, you become so angry at others that they do not believes as you do you launch personal attacks saying many rude and unkind things ( from behind the safety of a computer screen), there is great anger in you and there is no need. When name calling starts it is because logical is gone. I believe that is not the true you. Anger never brings peace it only brings suffering.

Too often people believe that all things are black and white. I.e.
1- there is fully free will
2- there is no free will

This just is not true like with most things the truth lies in the middle.



May you be well and happy.

[thaiboxerken]

The buddhist slam dunks a few fallacies on his own. Franko, you should actually try and let some of these words of wisdom sink in.

[subgenius]

"Anger brings peace" is a very unhealthy state of mind.

[whitefork]

Hey Ken,
Interesting side discussion here. I'm not really trying to appeal to the unknown as much as trying to see if there's a way, in principle and in advance, of dividing claims into what is knowable but unknown, and what is unknowable per se.

Was there a way to know, in advance, if the four-color theorem was decidable (either true or false, but unsure which) before it was actually proven?

Can we demonstrate that proposition P, whose truth at this time is undetermined, is simply unknown, or in principle unknowable?

(I don't expect an answer, but I believe that the answer to that question is either "no" or "unknowable in principle".)

[thaiboxerken]

Was there a way to know, in advance, if the four-color theorem was decidable (either true or false, but unsure which) before it was actually proven?

I'm thinking that the math in your four-color theorem was evidence of it's possibility. The theorem was based on some kind of evidence.

There is no mathematical or theoretical evidence of god.

Can we demonstrate that proposition P, whose truth at this time is undetermined, is simply unknown, or in principle unknowable?

We can demonstrate that proposition P is false because there is NO evidence to validate the claim of the proposition.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whitefork,

Was there a way to know, in advance, if the four-color theorem was decidable (either true or false, but unsure which) before it was actually proven?

Yes. Only certain classes of mathematical problems can be undecidable. The four-color theorem is not such a problem. The reason is that, in principle, the four-color theorem, if false, could be proven false by finding a counter example. If it is possible, in principle, to find a counter-example, then the problem cannot be formally undecidable, since it could potentially be proven false. If it is not possible to find a counter-example, then by definition, the theorem is true.

If that was not clear, then consider this more general case.

Proposition: All integers x have property y.

Now imagine that property y is a property such that for any integer x, you can directly determine whether x has property y.

The Above proposition can therefore not be formally undecidable. If the proposition is false, then some counter-example exists (an integer x that does not have property y). If such a counter-example exists, then it is possible to find such a counter-example (if nothing else, through trial and error). This means that if the proposition is false, then it must be possible to prove it false.

Now, that is not to say that it can be proven true. Prior to the discovery of the proof of the four color theorem, it was not certain that such a proof could be found. But it was clear that the problem was not formally undecidable, because if it was false, then it could definitely be proven false.

Dr. Stupid

[whitefork]

Well, it was more of a (bad) rhetorical question to open up further discussion on the nature of theistic arguments in general rather than specific ones. Probably would not lead anywhere fruitful, but I was trying to draw Ken out on the bigger question.

eh. another time, perhaps.

[Tricky]

Bumping, because I would still like a sign-off on these from the Logical Deists.

Input still welcome.

Originally posted by Tricky
The re-re-revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
Atheist gravitons will go to the abyss for eternity.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.")
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
Consciousness creates matter.
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.

I found this on the net...I swear!

[MRC_Hans]

:eek: Yikes! The killer bunny strikes again :eek:

While were in the humor dept. I am thinkig of a story, a true story that happened some years back. It is relevant to the LD claim that TLOP must be more conscious than humans to control them.

There was this large wholesale store in the outskirts of Copenhagen, I dont remember exactly what they were dealing in, car accessories, I think. Two bright young men decided to break into the store one night to haul away some goodies, so, around midnight, they went out and climbed the fence surrounding the building and set course for a window, armed with a screwdriver. Unfortunately, for them, there was a guard dog: A large German Shepard, which was let loose behind the fence whenever the store was closed. This dog came at them and drove them into a corner, flat against a wall. Then it sat down and stared at them. Whenever one of them made the slightest move, it would get up and advance, growling. I understand they were mightily relieved when a security guard arrived at daybreak, called off the dog and turned them over to the police.

Now, I ask y'all: During those about five hours, who was controlling whom? And does this make a dog more conscious than a burglar?

Hans:) ;)

[Franko]

Darat:
But like all purely logical arguments it proves nothing and there is no way to know, without evidence, whether it is true or false. So the SETI researchers are following a logical path when they attempt to find evidence.

Darat what is your reason for believing that there is NO logical path to find evidence for God?

Are you seriously contending that you have evidence which indicates Aliens are more likely to exist then God?

Have you ever heard of Tippler? I am guessing you haven't. How about Pete Ward, or Don Brownlee?

[MRC_Hans]

Darat what is your reason for believing that there is NO logical path to find evidence for God? What is your reason for believing there is? Can you provide one (without contradicting yourself)?

How about the contradictions in your cosmology that I pointed out earlier in this thread? They are not gonna go away by themselves, you know.

Hans

[Darat]

Originally posted by Franko


Darat what is your reason for believing that there is NO logical path to find evidence for God?

Are you seriously contending that you have evidence which indicates Aliens are more likely to exist then God?

Have you ever heard of Tippler? I am guessing you haven't. How about Pete Ward, or Don Brownlee?

Franko - you seem to have missed the first sentence in my reply i.e.

I agree there is no direct evidence and it is a total assumption made by the SETI people.

I thought this made it clear that I agreed there was no direct evidence to support the existence of ET? I can't see how I could have made it clearer! (However please see the final paragraph of this post for some more on this.)

I was merely pointing out that a totally logically consistent argument can be made that ET exist. A logical argument requires a premise - it does not require a "true" premise to be totally logically consistent.

That is why logic is a useful tool. However without the starting premise in a logical argument being proved by direct evidence a logical argument cannot tell us if something is "true" of "false".

I also don't know why you are now asking me about "God". My post concerned a point you made that seemed to indicate that you thought the SETI researches did not have a logically sound argument to search for ETs.

As for why should anyone "believe" the possibility of ETs? Well I have pointed out to posters (several times) who have assumed that ETs must exist that we have no evidence for this and no matter how “reasonable” or “common sense” something seems without direct evidence it is still just an assumption.

However considering that the direct evidence, to date, is that the Earth is not unique in any physical manner to the rest of the universe it is certainly not an unreasonable proposition to devise tests for the premise "The Earth is not unique, i life can arise here it can arise elsewhere.... "

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
What is your reason for believing there is? Can you provide one (without contradicting yourself)?

How about the contradictions in your cosmology that I pointed out earlier in this thread? They are not gonna go away by themselves, you know.

Hans

haha!
youve pointed out 5h!t all
;)

[MRC_Hans]

haha!
youve pointed out 5h!t all
OK, I see. Do carry on. :rolleyes:

Hans

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky
Bumping, because I would still like a sign-off on these from the Logical Deists.

Input still welcome.



Tricky,

You might want to add the following puppies to the list:
Fate governs all. Even the LG is bound by Fate.
Every person travels down a "Worldtree" and as a person reaches a branch of the Worldtree there is a Decision Junction at which the person's algorithm is forced to generate an output according to its MPB. Again, this is not anything remotely like "free will".

[CWL]

Oh! And these:

There is an LD equivalent of "Heaven" called the Metaverse.
The LG is not responsible for evil (which comes to the Universe from the Omniverse)
The speed of light is in reality not absolute.

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Chill, friend. I have my opinion and you have yours.
The problem is that your opinion is not rational. There is no evidence for the existence of elves. Must I be "agnostic" on the subject, since I don't have evidence for their nonexistence? Of course not. The notion is silly. There is no earthly reason to believe in elves. Or pixies. Or sprites. Or God. None whatsoever. So why should I grant the idea of God any more respect than the idea that there 6' pink bunnyrabbits running about?

"God" is an invention of man. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm listening. But you can't; people have been trying for millenia -- at great length too! -- and all have failed quite spectacularly. The kicker is that, logically, there's no need for a Creator. Even if we were to imagine this Prime Mover(s), we haven't answered the question which led us to invent him: How did it all start? So God (or gods) created the universe -- where did He (or they) come from? The notion of a God is both silly and pointless.

By the way, you might notice a discussion on the actual definition of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", in another thread. "Hard" atheism and the atheism generally found on this forum are not the same thing.


(Someone please explain: LD? LG? Do I really want to know?)

[MRC_Hans]

(Someone please explain: LD? LG? Do I really want to know?) Logical Deism. Logical Goddess. From Franko's private cosmology. No, judging from the clear logic of your posts, you dont want to know. :rolleyes:

Hans

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld

The problem is that your opinion is not rational. There is no evidence for the existence of elves. Must I be "agnostic" on the subject, since I don't have evidence for their nonexistence? Of course not. The notion is silly. There is no earthly reason to believe in elves. Or pixies. Or sprites. Or God. None whatsoever. So why should I grant the idea of God any more respect than the idea that there 6' pink bunnyrabbits running about?

"God" is an invention of man. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm listening. But you can't; people have been trying for millenia -- at great length too! -- and all have failed quite spectacularly. The kicker is that, logically, there's no need for a Creator. Even if we were to imagine this Prime Mover(s), we haven't answered the question which led us to invent him: How did it all start? So God (or gods) created the universe -- where did He (or they) come from? The notion of a God is both silly and pointless.

By the way, you might notice a discussion on the actual definition of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", in another thread. "Hard" atheism and the atheism generally found on this forum are not the same thing.



Nice rant. I guess you saw me vociferously arguing for the existence of elves......

My stated position is agnostic, by the way.

If you'd like to have a proper debate, please feel free to join us in the 'consciousness explained' thread.

;)

[thaiboxerken]

Nice rant. I guess you saw me vociferously arguing for the existence of elves......

Elves and gods are in the same category.. fiction. You cannot evade yourself out of the well placed arguement produced by Mr. Wonderful.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Nice rant. I guess you saw me vociferously arguing for the existence of elves......

Elves and gods are in the same category.. fiction. You cannot evade yourself out of the well placed arguement produced by Mr. Wonderful.

:D

This is great. Franko still insists I am an atheist. You and Luci (and Mr Wonderful) are convinced I am a theist.

In truth I have not moved from the position of agnosticism on the existence of 'God'!

Are you all psychics or can't you read?

NB : mysticism and theism are not the same thing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


:D

This is great. Franko still insists I am an atheist. You and Luci (and Mr Wonderful) are convinced I am a theist.

In truth I have not moved from the position of agnosticism on the existence of 'God'!

Are you all psychics or can't you read?

NB : mysticism and theism are not the same thing.
WonderfulWorld must be forgiven, as he hasn't been around here that long. Most people here are aware that you are not a theist, at least under the common definition of theist. TBK I believe was comparing your beliefs to other irrational beliefs. And I am not using irrational in an insulting sense. Idealism is irrational because it is unfalsifiable, not because of its conclusions.

But this question was raised before. How can one deign to classifiy the beliefs of another? Franko has stated that no "true Christian" believes in free will. In turn, it has been said that he is not a "true deist" because he believes in a personal god. Some here think that to be atheist, you must deny the possibility of God.

When this debate broke out earlier, I took the unusual position (for which I was excoriated) of saying that belief-wise, a person is whatever they call themselves. While their beliefs may not fit into the standard catagories, it is the right of every person to create their own definition of whatever belief system they call thelmselves. While this leads to some confusion when you first meet them, you can get past this quickly.

To do otherwise would be like telling a Christian that he is not Christian because he doesn't believe biblical ineerrancy.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


:D

This is great. Franko still insists I am an atheist. You and Luci (and Mr Wonderful) are convinced I am a theist.

No, I was simply pointing out that the possibility of god existing is the same as elves or pixies. They are all fictional things that are based on no evidence. For some reason, you imply that the existence of god is more possible than the other mythical beings.. and yet you have no intelligent reason for this opinion.


NB : mysticism and theism are not the same thing.

Yes, and mediums and psychics aren't the same thing either.:rolleyes:

[whitefork]

Once that compilation of Logical Deism is complete, we ought to try and put in in order by logical dependence as well. Otherwise, it's just a list of arbitrary claims, and it might not be as compelling as it ought to be. It's been a while since I've read The Baltimore Catechism, but I think we're looking at The New Baltimore Catechism here, if you get my meaning.

It's a heavy responsibility.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by whitefork
Once that compilation of Logical Deism is complete, we ought to try and put in in order by logical dependence as well.
Hmm... I don't know, whitefork. I haven't really worked it through, but just glancing, my hunch is that we're still missing too many pieces of the system to organize it like you want. There are whole portions of new gravitational and quantum physics missing, which Mr. F has mentioned but never detailed. Without that, I'm not sure we can accurately map this out. I mean, for instance, without knowing the mechanism, how can we know whether the LG's graviton spin determines her gender or whether the LG's gender determines her graviton spin? It's hard to determine cause and effect without knowing the mechinism.

Man-o-man, I wish I could get my hands on a physics textbook or research paper written from the LD context. That might clear up a few problems. Any LD care to cite a source where I could start? A websearch came up empty.

Upchurch

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yes, and mediums and psychics aren't the same thing either.:rolleyes:

No, Ken. Really mysticism and theism are NOT THE SAME THING. Your answer just reveals the depths of your ignorance. There are millions upon millions of Buddhists, Taoists and Hindus who are mystics and are quite definately NOT THEISTS - indeed they will go to great lengths to explain why the are NOT THEISTS. There are millions upon millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims who are quite definately NOT MYSTICS - indeed these religions have often deliberately suppressed mysticsm. Your attitude seems to be "all people who are not skeptical atheistic materialists can be lumped in the same barrel and labelled stupid."

Let me help you out.

Theist : Person who believes in a there is One God.

Mystic : Person who believes there is a transcendent reality accessable via individual consciousness.

:)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Let me help you out.

Theist : Person who believes in a there is One God.

Mystic : Person who believes there is a transcendent reality accessable via individual consciousness.

:)

Thanks for the recalibration.

Your idea is still just as silly as theism and just as evident (it's not).

[Franko]

Darat,

Franko - you seem to have missed the first sentence in my reply i.e.

I agree there is no direct evidence and it is a total assumption made by the SETI people.

I thought this made it clear that I agreed there was no direct evidence to support the existence of ET? I can't see how I could have made it clearer! (However please see the final paragraph of this post for some more on this.)

So long as you call yourself an A-Theist it is inconsistent of you Darat.

I was merely pointing out that a totally logically consistent argument can be made that ET exist. A logical argument requires a premise - it does not require a "true" premise to be totally logically consistent.

That is why logic is a useful tool. However without the starting premise in a logical argument being proved by direct evidence a logical argument cannot tell us if something is "true" of "false".

That is exactly correct. Of course the SAME EXACT thing could be said about God … yet YOU are an A-Theist. Why the contradiction?

Why is ET more important to you then God?

Is that sound logic?

Explain the logic to me?

However considering that the direct evidence, to date, is that the Earth is not unique in any physical manner to the rest of the universe it is certainly not an unreasonable proposition to devise tests for the premise "The Earth is not unique, i life can arise here it can arise elsewhere.... "

Direct Evidence???

What “direct evidence” are you referring to? Until recently no one was even certain that other planets existed beyond this solar system (unless you count episodes of Star Trek as Direct Evidence).

Can you please cite your direct evidence of other Earth-like planets in our galaxy?

How did I know you hadn’t heard of Tippler, Ward, or Brownlee?

I guess you haven’t imagined them yet … ?

[Franko]

Elephant said:
Mystic : Person who believes there is a transcendent reality accessable via individual consciousness.

I thought that a Mystic was someone who believed that there were certain aspects of reality that could NOT be explained Logically?

... Or are you saying the same thing and just dressing it up?

Originally posted by Franko


I thought that a Mystic was someone who believed that there were certain aspects of reality that could NOT be explained Logically?

... Or are you saying the same thing and just dressing it up?

Mysticism is the belief in a transcendent reality which can be experienced by the individual. Most forms also hold as central tenets the primacy of consciousness and the Unity of consciousness, and all things.



Mysticism (n):

1a) Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality (or God).

1b) The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

2) A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Mysticism is the belief in a transcendent reality which can be experienced by the individual.


And what is transcendent reality?

This can only be experienced by the individual ?, I mean, how do you distinguish an hallucination from "reality"?

[Franko]

Franko:
I thought that a Mystic was someone who believed that there were certain aspects of reality that could NOT be explained Logically?

... Or are you saying the same thing and just dressing it up?

Elephant:
Mysticism is the belief in a transcendent reality which can be experienced by the individual. Most forms also hold as central tenets the primacy of consciousness and the Unity of consciousness, and all things.

It is a YES or NO question, Elephant. Still stuck in your old A-Theist ways of making things more complex then they are?

a Mystic is someone who believes that there are certain aspects of reality that CANNOT be explained to another individual Logically? YES or NO, TRUE or FALSE. (according to YOU)???

[Tricky]

Ah, Franko. I see you're back on this thread. I was hoping you'd have a chance to sign off on these. I'm getting requests to add to the list, but I want to make sure I've got these right before I add. Also, any you want to add would be welcome.

Tenets of Logical Deism.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
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 Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
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.
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".
Atheist gravitons will go to the abyss for eternity.
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
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.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
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.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
True randomness does not exist.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
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.")
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.
Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
Consciousness creates matter.
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.

Originally posted by Franko


It is a YES or NO question, Elephant. Still stuck in your old A-Theist ways of making things more complex then they are?

a Mystic is someone who believes that there are certain aspects of reality that CANNOT be explained to another individual Logically? YES or NO, TRUE or FALSE. (according to YOU)???

Definition of mystic? No. There is no clash between mysticism and logic.

Originally posted by Q-Source

And what is transcendent reality?


Something more than the physical Universe.


This can only be experienced by the individual ?, I mean, how do you distinguish an hallucination from "reality"?

Very good question.

How can you?

:)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Definition of mystic? No. There is no clash between mysticism and logic.
That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical. For example:

All tall people are smarter than any short people.
Bill is taller than Dan.
:. Bill is smarter than Dan.

That syllogism makes no errors of logic. However, its major premise is badly flawed. How do you determine if tall people are smarter than short people? Not by logic, but by experimentation.

Logic is quite useful in a system where the assumptions are accepted, in determining the meaning of evidence. For example:
-----------
Syllogism 1.
All reality has a material basis.
John saw a ghost.
:. John's experience has a material basis.

Syllogism 2.
John saw the ghost walk through the wall.
Objects in the material world cannot walk through walls.
:. John's observation is a logical impossibility.

Syllogism 3.
John's ghost may have been the result of chemical and neurlogical phenomena in his brain.
Chemical and neurological phenomena in a brain are possible in a material word.
:.This observation is logically possible.
-----------
Thus, you see that the logic helps decide which explanation fits the best, providing you accept the first assumption that all reality has a material basis.

You could have an equally logical sequence which starts out with the assumption that the mind exists outside of the material world.

So how do you choose between them? You must give evidence for your assumptions. This is not a logical process, but an experimental one. It is a relatively simple exercise to show that things exist in the material world. It is even possible to formulate rules that have predictive power. The same is not true of the metaphysical world. There is nothing predictable, there are no discernable rules, and there is no evidence at all except anecdotal evidence. Certainly there is a feeling that "there must be something else", but all attempts to isolate what it is have been fruitless.

So if I'm going to choose a belief system among equally logical ones, I choose the one that is experimentally verifiable. Idealism and metaphysics have never even come close, even if they exhibit perfect internal logic.

Do physical/material things influence brain states? Yes. Demonstrably so. Hundreds of thousands of experiments verify it.

Do metaphysical/idealistic things influence brain states? We have no idea. The best you can say is "maybe".

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Very good question.

How can you?

I got a question as an answer??

Subjective reality seems to me equal to any kind of mental creation without an objective basis. To me, there is no difference between an hallucination andsubjective reality when someone comes and talk to me about paranormal events.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical. For example:

All tall people are smarter than any short people.
Bill is taller than Dan.
:. Bill is smarter than Dan.



Greetings Tricky
While I understand what point you seek to make the above example seeks to paint logic as this one thing and so from this example you can say logic is flawed.

The truth is the example you gave is simple logic, a self-serving form of purely self serving and incomplete logic.

We seek to make everything a black and white. In the example you uses you also used a simple logic or undeveloped self serving logic. As in as I read it That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical.

The example is not in anyway completely logical, it is a silly simple self serving form of logic, not a developed logical conclusion using all available possible information and thought. The example is as if talking to Christian friends when they seek to “prove” their god they will say things like “ look at the trees there has to be a god” or “look at a baby” or “everything has to be created”

These are not logic in what would be it’s truest form.

I believe a truly developed logic which looks at all possible information etc can and is a tool for determining what is or may possibly be the truth.

If I pick up a hammer and hit myself in the head, from all possible data it is very logical to believe if I hit you in the head with the same hammer it will hurt.

In many threads we seek to say either:
1- there is no form of free will
2- there is total free will

or
1- there is total controlling fate
2- there is no form of fate

etc, what is truth is the truth is found in the middle.

Just what I believe

[Franko]

Franko:

a Mystic is someone who believes that there are certain aspects of reality that CANNOT be explained to another individual Logically? YES or NO, TRUE or FALSE. (according to YOU)???

Elephant:
Definition of mystic? No. There is no clash between mysticism and logic.

So there is NO aspect of your beliefs that you cannot explain Logically and Objectively to another person?

[Franko]

Tricky:

That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical.

If something is wrong, then it isn't completely logical.

Unless you are a dogmatic religious fanatic (ex: an A-Theist).

Originally posted by Q-Source


I got a question as an answer??

Subjective reality seems to me equal to any kind of mental creation without an objective basis. To me, there is no difference between an hallucination and subjective reality when someone comes and talk to me about paranormal events.

The only way you tell the difference between your experience of 'reality' and your experience of 'an hallucination' is because during the hallucination something happened which you don't expect to happen in 'reality'. But Hume examined this and argued that it doesn't matter how many times you experience reality behaving in a certain way, you could never be sure that next time it would not behave differently. Which may or may not help.

:)

Frank :


So there is NO aspect of your beliefs that you cannot explain Logically and Objectively to another person?


There are certain things I might choose not to explain at all. There are certain things that people can only find out for themselves. If, prior to it happening to me, I would not have believed somebodies claim about an experience, then I would probably not bother relating that experience to anyone likely to have similar difficulty believing it. So whether or not I can explain something logically and objectively to another person depends as much on the person as it does on my beliefs.

Does that answer the question?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


If something is wrong, then it isn't completely logical.

Unless you are a dogmatic religious fanatic (ex: an A-Theist).
I disagree. Your own religion sets out assumptions, or tenets. (And I'm still waiting for your sign-off on the latest list). Some of those tenets are defensible. Others are not. However, If you accept all those tenets as true, then you may perhaps have a logical system within those tenets. For many of us, there are some serious problems with those assumptions.

By your own statement above, if anything is wrong with your assumptions, then Logical Deism isn't logical.

[Franko]

Franko:
If something is wrong, then it isn't completely logical.

Tricky:
I disagree.

So, 2 + 2 = 7 is logical???

Your own religion sets out assumptions, or tenets. (And I'm still waiting for your sign-off on the latest list). Some of those tenets are defensible. Others are not.

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

By your own statement above, if anything is wrong with your assumptions, then Logical Deism isn't logical.

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.

So far … no serious takers.

However, If you accept all those tenets as true, then you may perhaps have a logical system within those tenets. For many of us, there are some serious problems with those assumptions.

Well apparently for 90+% of the over-all population there are some even more serious problems with the tenets of A-Theism.

The Tenets of Atheism
· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God).
· Universes magically appear.
· Quantum mechanics is magical.
· Life magically appears.
· Human action (“free will”) is magical.
· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions.
· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True.

What were you saying about me being the one with unexplained contradictions?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

Tenets of Logical Deism.
Tricky,

I've got a new one for you, but I don't know if it belongs in the Tenets or in The Lexicon obtained from the bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28 of "Regarding Franko...":


Gravitons have an intrinsic nature that allow them to take actions outside the will of the Logical Goddess, but does not defy TLOP. In some circles, this "intrinsic nature" might also be known as "free will", but that is generally discouraged.


Feel free to word smith as necessary.

Upchurch

edited to add:

Franko/wraith,

From now on, whenever someone uses the term "free will" you are probably safe in assuming that they mean "intrinsic nature"

Upchurch

[MRC_Hans]

Frank:
So, 2 + 2 = 7 is logical???Quite logical. And false, even for large values of 2.
Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

+

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.

So far … no serious takers. Only because you chose to ignore other people's arguments. But what the heck:

Atoms obey tlop : Assuming "obey" is not an act of will, OK.

You are made of atoms : Wrong. We are made of much more than atoms. Some (like you) believe we are also made of soul, but at least most of us can agree we also consist of information.

You obey thop : As the premises are not both true, this does not follow. It also falls for the fallacy of composition (a complex entitiy can have quite different properties than any of its elements). Thus, while we cannot break tlop, we are not limited (controlled) by them in the same way as atoms.

tlop controls you controls car : This is a non sequiteur. You base it on the claim that for entity A to control entity B, A must have a consciousness superior to that of B. This claim can be disproved:

Guard dog vs burglar
Prison cell vs human
Armed goon vs professor
etc.

If you have any serious counter arguments, I'll like to hear them.

Now for the check-off of tenets of A-theism. This is simpler, as I simply state the A-theist position (or at least my version of it):

· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God). Correct

· Universes magically appear. Incorrect; we do not know for sure how universes appear, but it is not believed to be magical.

· Quantum mechanics is magical. Incorrect. QM is observable physics (tlop).

· Life magically appears. Incorrect. We do not know exactly how life appeared, but it is not believed to be magical.

· Human action (“free will”) is magical. Incorrect. Free will is within tlop.

· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions. Incorrect. We just believe that consequences exist while we live, not in some speculative afterlife.

· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True. No, this is a(nother) Franko straw-man.

Cheers,
Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
So, 2 + 2 = 7 is logical???

Why no it's not. It is not even a statement of logic. It is a mathmatical equation, and an incorrect one at that.

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.
It has been done several times. You choose (using your free will) to ignore it. However, this is unrelated to my current point which is that something can be logical and still wrong.


So far … no serious takers.
Well, not if we use the Lexicon definition of serious.


Well apparently for 90+% of the over-all population there are some even more serious problems with the tenets of A-Theism.

Since I asked you to tell me whether or not I agreed with the tenets of Logical Deism, I can only assume that you are asking me to sign off on these "tenets of atheism". However, the observer may note that I tried very hard to capture what you actually said and not put words into your mouth, even to the point of making the corrections you suggested. Let us see if you will do the same.

· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God).

No evidence for things magical or supernatural (including God). Not impossible.

· Universes magically appear.
Not a tenet of atheism. The only universe we know to have appeared has an uncertain origin, but there is no evidence it was magical or supernatural or that it had a "creator".

· Quantum mechanics is magical.
Not a tenet of atheism. Quantum mechanics is a theory which describes and is predicitive about the way the universe is observed to operate. The theory will certainly change as other evidence is gathered.

· Life magically appears.
Not a tenet of atheism. Most atheists believe that life occurs through a natural process which is unrealated to magic, the supernatural or a god.

· Human action (“free will”) is magical.
Not a tenet of atheism. In fact, many atheists don't believe in free will. Those who do (like myself) do not claim that it is magical, but rather a natural process which is unrelated to magic, the supernatural or god.


· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions.
Not a tenet of atheism. Most atheists believe there are definately consequences for their actions, just not magical, supernatural, or god-administered ones. Many atheists have argued that theism is more likely to produce immorality, due to some theist concepts of a forgiving god. However, there is no general agreement among atheists on this point.


· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True.
Not a tenet of atheism. No evidence of something means that there is no evidence, and therefore, not worthy of serious consideration, yet not impossible.



What were you saying about me being the one with unexplained contradictions?

Out of seven "tenets of atheism", you got one halfway correct. I believe what you are describing here is "A-Theism", a set of beliefs which you have invented and tried to ascribe to others. Actually, most of the things on your list are about materialism, not atheism. There is only one single tenet for atheism and that is,
There is no evidence for a god
While it is true that most atheists are also materialists, it is not universal, and definately a separate issue.

I trust you will correct your list as I have the Logical Deism list. By the way, do you have any further corrections for the "tenets of Logical Deism" list? If not, can I assume that you accept them as written?

[thaiboxerken]

The Tenets of Atheism
· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God).
· Universes magically appear.
· Quantum mechanics is magical.
· Life magically appears.
· Human action (“free will”) is magical.
· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions.
· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True.

What were you saying about me being the one with unexplained contradictions?

These tenets are hardly tenets of atheism. Atheism has not belief system or tenets. One can believe in all kinds of nonsense and still not believe in god. There are some atheists that believe in psychics and ghosts, they just don't believe in a god. Your strawman is just that.. a strawman.

[DialecticMaterialist]

As a materialist I must say only one of those tenets even applied(the first one excluding supernaturalism). Many of them are incompatible with materialism, one of them is compatible but not necessary(in the same sense that a xian can believe in astrology though astrology is not necessarily part of xianity).

BTW Franko, I agree theism is possibly true. But parsimonous? Not at all, when given other more compelling POV's i.e. naturalism. Even if the natural explanation is plausible as the theist one, atheistic naturalism wins as more parsimonous.

[whitefork]

Hey Tricky, I think you need to add this to the catechism:

Logical Deism is the simplest possible explanation. Anything more complex is unnecessarily so, and is therefore A-theism.

This one is just too good though.

Tricky: Something can be logical but incorrect.
Franko: So 2+2=7 is therefore logical.

I call this the Ernest Argument (from the comic):

If I had a nickel, I'd be rich!
No, if you had a nickel, you'd be poor....
Hey, I am rich!

[Upchurch]

I just wanted to interject, or maybe clarify, that something can be logically consistant and still be incorrect.

From The Logic Book (2nd Ed.) by Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson, pg 2.

A group of beliefs or claims is consistant if and only if it is possible for all the members of the group to be true at the same time. A group of beliefs or claims is inconsistent if and only if it is not possible for all the memebers of the group to be true at the same time. When a group of claims is inconsistent, we say that one cannot consistently assert (claim, believe) all the members of the group.

That aside,
Originally posted by Franko

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

+

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.
The only thing that is really wrong here is your definition of the term TLOP as a conscious entity and the unmentioned assertion that "things can only be controlled by more conscious things than itself."

Let me go in reverse order:

Things can only be controlled by more conscious things than itself: This can be shown to be false through example. A burgler breaks into a home and is cought by the family dog. The dog then backs the burgler into a corner, threatening physical violence until help arrives. Is the dog more conscious than the burgler? No. Here we have a specific example of something less conscious (the dog) controlling something more conscious than itself (the burgler). Therefore, this principle is shown to be false.

TLOP is conscious: This is based on LD's consciousness hierarchy (TLOP controls Man controls Object) coupled with "Things can only be controlled by more conscious things than itself." If both the premises were true, then one could logically conclude that TLOP are, indeed, conscious. However, through the above example, we have shown the second premise to be false. Therefore, while this does not prove that TLOP is not conscious, we cannot conclude that TLOP is conscious. If LD wishes to further assert that it is, they should provide another argument. edited to add: or modify the current argument so that it does not rely on a false premise.

Upchurch

[Franko]

Elephant,

Franko:
So there is NO aspect of your beliefs that you cannot explain Logically and Objectively to another person?

Elephant:
There are certain things I might choose not to explain at all. There are certain things that people can only find out for themselves.

I can understand not wanting to explain, obviously if you don’t want to explain something you have the ability NOT to (as evident from these posts) but that isn’t what I am asking.

If, prior to it happening to me, I would not have believed somebodies claim about an experience, then I would probably not bother relating that experience to anyone likely to have similar difficulty believing it. So whether or not I can explain something logically and objectively to another person depends as much on the person as it does on my beliefs.

Well obviously the farther apart your views are from another individual initially the more time will be required to explain your relative worldviews to each other, but that still doesn’t answer my question.

Can you explain what you believe Logically and Objectively – YES or NO?

Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on the premise that people must simply take you at your word. How is that any different then any other mystical (dogmatic) religious belief system?

[Franko]

Elephant,

(Your terms on the left)

Omniconsciousness = Progenitor Solipsist
Your Ego = Your Graviton (Your Soul)
Other Ego’s = Other Gravitons
Altruism = Benevolence
Your “Altruistic” Soul = The Omnibenevolent Logical Goddess (i.e. another Graviton)


You have yourself a poor-man's version of LD.

[Franko]

Tricky:

No evidence for things magical or supernatural (including God). Not impossible.

So not magical (or supernatural) means having a comprehensible, objective, logical, understandable natural explanation.

So lets hear your non-magical explanation for your religious beliefs then A-Theist.

Explain how the universe appeared suddenly 12.7 billion years ago in comprehensible natural terms?

Explain why we don’t see universes appearing around us all of the time?

Explain how the Universe managed to escape from the “Big Bang” singularity considering that your High Priest Hawking claims that NOTHING can escape from a singularity?

Explain in comprehensible terms your empirical evidence for “free will”?

Explain in comprehensible terms how something (like an electron) can occupy two places at the same time?

Explain in non-magical language how said electron magically seems to exist in only ONE place when someone is looking?

Explain the non-supernatural process by which life arises from inert “matter” (i.e. explain EXACTLY how Matter makes consciousness?)? Or alternately please post a link to a software program which is self aware and/or can pass the Turing test?

Explain why you claim that no evidence for “god” means “god” DOES NOT exist, while in the next breath you claim that no evidence for “free will” means “free will” DOES exist. Why not the same standard for BOTH?

Explain why you believe that people who do not believe in consequences for their actions will behave like they do? What is your empirical evidence for this claim?

Do you have a fear of crossing the path of a Black cat? Are you concerned that it will cause bad luck?

If you could lie and gain by it, and you knew with absolute certainty that your lie would NEVER be discovered while you lived, then would you have any reason not to lie? What is your reason, and why should I believe that you aren’t lying?

[Upchurch]

And thus, Franko slips from one of his rare moments of semi-clairity back into wallowing in the dingy closed minded rhetoric of theistic dogma. Since the discussion now appears to be over, I'm back to lurking.

Upchurch

edited to add
It was a pretty good run this time, too. Pity.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko
Elephant,



I can understand not wanting to explain, obviously if you don’t want to explain something you have the ability NOT to (as evident from these posts) but that isn’t what I am asking.




Can you explain what you believe Logically and Objectively – YES or NO?

Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on the premise that people must simply take you at your word.

Hello Franko my friend.

Now this is very ironic that you say this to Elephant when you have avoided answering my simple questions about what you believe. Now this last time you have avoided my simple questions 4 times, I will try again and use your post above to help spur you on to a logical, respectful response, you do not wish to look like a hypocrite do you?

I hope you are well and happy and I look forward to your response.

But back to your statement, you say
Quote by Franko “No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.

Yet you believe your Goddess will punish someone for what they have no control over? That is illogical. You become very angry and personally attack people who do not happen to believe as you do, yet believe they have no choice that is illogical. As an adult do you stand and make fun of a small retarded child for being retarded? Or stand over a young girl that was just rapped and make fun of her?

I asked you something the other day you did not respond to, please do now. As friends let us talk and share without anger etc.

If you were at a party and a man at the party slipped into your drink that rendered you completely unconscious. This man then in the full view of all the party goers places a gun in your hand and then places the barrel in his mouth and forces your finger down on the trigger firing the gun and killing him.

1-Should you be charged with murder?
2-As to your beliefs and or how you believe your goddess operates would you bother defending yourself?
3-Do you feel that our justice system should be changed to reflect or operate how you believe your goddess does?

Also.

You see a watch you like in the store and steal it. You get arrested. You go before the judge will you tell him that TLOP made you do it, it was not your fault as it was fate and out of your hands?

Do you feel he should let you go?

quote by Franko :I don’t believe that the LG gets angry. At least not in the way you use the term.

Let me pose a question or situation to you.

The situation You have a child, you place your hungry child in s seat at the table. You don’t want the child to eat the candy bar sitting right before the child but you do not make clear to your child if she may or may not eat the candy. You then allow an older child say to enter the room and force the younger child to eat the candy.

1-You knew the child was hungry.
2- you knew the older child was going to encourage and force the child to eat the candy.
3- You knew the child in the end would eat the candy


Do you return to the room and punish the younger child for eating the candy?


Again on this topic of your belief your goddess punishes beings for not believing in her.

Would you if as a father ( I know you are not right now) seeking to be the best father you could ever place your needs before that of your child? Would you predicate your love or help for the child on if the child worshiped you?

What is perfect could know no flaws, it could not know anger or ego it could never place its needs before that of another and never so something it made and sees as a child. There could be no need or desire to be worshiped what is perfect could be only that. I often hear my Christian friends speak of their gods unconditional love yet the belief is riddled with conditions. What is unconditional can know no conditions.

Be well my friend, I hope 5 times is the charm.

[Franko]

Yet you believe your Goddess will punish someone for what they have no control over? That is illogical. You become very angry and personally attack people who do not happen to believe as you do, yet believe they have no choice that is illogical

Pahansiri, Aren't you the same hypocritical, self-righteous moron who was threatening to kick my ass a few months back? (for humilating him in this very forum)

Why don't you run along back to the kiddie pool, little fish (i.e. Banter).

[Franko]

Upchimp:

And thus, Franko slips from one of his rare moments of semi-clairity back into wallowing in the dingy closed minded rhetoric of theistic dogma. Since the discussion now appears to be over, I'm back to lurking.

Translation: I cannot defend my absurd religious beliefs so it is back to sockpuppets, ad hominems, and open Trolling for me (UpCrotch). woo-hoo!

[MRC_Hans]

Pahansiri, Aren't you the same hypocritical, self-righteous moron who was threatening to kick my ass a few months back? (for humilating him in this very forum)

Why don't you run along back to the kiddie pool, little fish (i.e. Banter).


Translation: I cannot defend my absurd religious beliefs so it is back to sockpuppets, ad hominems, and open Trolling for me (Frank0). woo-hoo! :rolleyes:

Hans

Originally posted by Franko
Elephant,

(Your terms on the left)

Omniconsciousness = Progenitor Solipsist
Your Ego = Your Graviton (Your Soul)
Other Ego’s = Other Gravitons
Altruism = Benevolence
Your “Altruistic” Soul = The Omnibenevolent Logical Goddess (i.e. another Graviton)


You have yourself a poor-man's version of LD.

Franko.

Soul and Ego are not the same thing. Sorry, but they just aren't. You are in a minority of 1 on the planet who thinks Soul and Ego are the same thing.

As for whether or not I can explain my beliefs objectively and logically.....the answer is Yes, theoretically but No, in practice. And any further explanation comes into the category of "things I do not choose to elaborate on further". Some questions simply do not have a YES/NO answer because both YES and NO are half-right. The boundary between subjective and objective occurs at Infinity. Can explain what Infinity is? NO. Can I explain that the boundary is at Infinity? Yes, I just did. Is that an objective explanation? You decide. That is the best answer I can give you.

I know one thing though - I have made a far better stab at explaining my beliefs logically and objectively than you have. At least I don't deliberately obscure things. But then I'm not playing a control game.

Perhaps I frame it in terms you can understand : That which seeks control is EGO, and it does not survive physical death - it lives in permanent fear of anihilation. That which survives physical death is SOUL, but soul does not seek to control - it does not need to. Mixing up SOUL and EGO is about as serious a metaphysical mistake as it is possible to make. It renders the rest of your philosophy completely incomprehensible and puts it out of kilter with the whole of the rest of the spiritual world. There are plenty of people who pay homage to EGO, but they very rarely believe in life after death. People who do believe in life after death generally understand that it is the soul which continues. You are the only person I have every come across, in person, on discussion forums, in books or on web pages - the only one who believes in a soul but also thinks his ego will survive physical death. Franko - your ego is not immortal.

:)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Pahansiri, Aren't you the same hypocritical, self-righteous moron who was threatening to kick my ass a few months back? (for humilating him in this very forum)

Why don't you run along back to the kiddie pool, little fish (i.e. Banter).

So sorry my friend to see you unable to answer my simple respectful questions, I believe everyone knows why. I am sorry for all your anger and do not and have not made fun of you or your beliefs or that you really do not know what you believe. I think you are a good man, smart but sad and perhaps lonely.

As to your attempt to avoid answering rather then be logical, mature and adult like with a misstatement like Pahansiri, Aren't you the same hypocritical, self-righteous moron who was threatening to kick my ass a few months back? (for humilating him in this very forum)

This is of course a ploy used by you often to avoid conduction an honest debate, the reason you can not answer is you can not answer and that is OK, but an adult simply responds “ I can not answer and that is respected.

As to me threading to kick you ass? Can you post for me in my words where I said that?
The truth is after several attempts to conduct a mature conversation with you masked you inability to do so or debate me by calling me over and over a 1-woman, 2- a pussy.

Now if you can be honest for a minute here you will admit I simple offered for you to come up and train/spar with me. I said I would not harm you but would give you the chance to see if my skills would cast me in the light a pussy. Remember?

Does your goddess allow you to lie?

You also say ( trying to again bolster a low self image and cast the light off the topic that you humiliated me? Can you post that conversation? As all can see here you never really respond to me or many here, your inability to respond or conduct a logical mature conversation only humiliates you.


By the way my friend Humilating is spelled humiliating

You end with Why don't you run along back to the kiddie pool, little fish From your inability to conduct yourself in a mature way or answer my simple question it would seem I may be far too big of a fish for you. P.S. Kiddy not Kiddie.

I wish you to be well and happy and hope you can over come this anger and become friends and share with the many here.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


.........

P.S. Kiddy not Kiddie.

........



My dictionary allows for both, Pahansiri :)

Sou

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Soubrette


My dictionary allows for both, Pahansiri :)

Sou

Greetings Soubrette.

You are very right, Kiddy is the proper spelling but you are very correct in pointing out to me Kiddie is expectable.
Your dictionary does show “ humiliating” as the proper spelling for that word not Humilating does it not?
:p

Just kidding. I was rude for pointing out Franko's spelling mistakes and am sorry.

[Franko]

Elephant,

Can you explain what you believe Logically and Objectively – YES or NO?

Elephant:
Soul and Ego are not the same thing. Sorry, but they just aren't.

I’ll take that as a NO in regard to my original question.

You are in a minority of 1 on the planet who thinks Soul and Ego are the same thing.

1) You are wrong, lots of Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindu’s etc. agree with me.
2) It’s a moot point how many or how few people agree with me. How many times do I have to TELL YOU that majority vote does not determine what is True in reality?
3) Name ONE person on this forum that agrees with YOU?

As for whether or not I can explain my beliefs objectively and logically.....the answer is Yes, theoretically but No, in practice.

That’s a No then.

And any further explanation comes into the category of "things I do not choose to elaborate on further".

Because they aren’t logical and they don’t make any sense unless you are insane. You have put yourself in the position where you must argue that utter conformity is preferable to Individuality. Good luck. Not to mention you expect everyone to be an “altruist” without any reason for being an “altruist”. Perhaps you’ll demonstrate your altruism by sending me half your money? (I only want half because I am also an “altruist”).

Some questions simply do not have a YES/NO answer because both YES and NO are half-right.

Maybe in Mysticism, but in the real world – in Logic – something is only TRUE or FALSE, it isn’t BOTH, and it isn’t NEITHER. The Cat is either alive or dead, it isn’t sorta both alive and dead or neither alive or dead.

You suddenly sound like that knucklehead Stimpson fumbling to explain why he calls himself an “Agnostic-Atheist” (“MAYBE-FALSE”, the coin will land “Sort of” Tails up)

The boundary between subjective and objective occurs at Infinity.

You are confusing recursion with objectivity and subjectivity. Look at a specific layer, and things are ALWAYS objective. They only appear subjective when you try and perceive across multiple layers of reiteration.

Can explain what Infinity is?

It’s Your term, you define it. The LD don’t believe in an “Infinitely large” number any more then we believe that Omnipotent means God can create a rock so heavy even She can’t lift it. If you want to make up absurd concepts and then use circular reasoning to base a belief system that is your problem, not mine.

NO. Can I explain that the boundary is at Infinity? Yes, I just did. Is that an objective explanation? You decide. That is the best answer I can give you.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. You wave around your magic indefinable concept like I am suppose to derive some meaning from it. If you can’t explain what YOU believe, then what makes you think that I can comprehend it?

I know one thing though - I have made a far better stab at explaining my beliefs logically and objectively than you have. At least I don't deliberately obscure things. But then I'm not playing a control game.

I could cut our entanglement this very instant, and that meme would still go on running in your head. At this point it is autonomous. It makes it easier and easier for me to crawl up inside your head. You can feel it in there – can’t you algorithm?

Perhaps I frame it in terms you can understand : That which seeks control is EGO, and it does not survive physical death - it lives in permanent fear of annihilation.

Why should it live in FEAR? And why FEAR of annihilation? Who is threatening it A-Theist?

That which survives physical death is SOUL, but soul does not seek to control - it does not need to.

Really? A rock does not seek control either? Does that mean rocks are better Souls then Humans?

Is your CAR a better entity then YOU are Elephant? I mean YOU control your CAR, but your CAR does not seek control. Does that mean that CARs are more altruistic then HUMANS? How about TLOP? I don’t know whether TLOP was seeking control or not, but regardless TLOP has control. Does that make TLOP a bad Soul (or a bad EGO?)? Who invented Evil controlling TLOP Elephant? The Evil God you worship?

Mixing up SOUL and EGO is about as serious a metaphysical mistake as it is possible to make.

Yet you seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.

It renders the rest of your philosophy completely incomprehensible and puts it out of kilter with the whole of the rest of the spiritual world.

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

That is a hell of a lot more comprehensible then what you are saying Elephant. Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on your dread of Eternity, and your Fear of being controlled.

There are plenty of people who pay homage to EGO, but they very rarely believe in life after death. People who do believe in life after death generally understand that it is the soul which continues.

Elephant, if YOU aren’t still YOU in the “afterlife” then YOU have ceased to exist, and there is no afterlife. When double-talk becomes logical, then maybe YOUR beliefs will be logical, until then they are just subjective dogmatic nonsense, which is utterly incomprehensible.

You are the only person I have every come across, in person, on discussion forums, in books or on web pages - the only one who believes in a soul but also thinks his ego will survive physical death. Franko – your ego is not immortal.

Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so. :(

[Pahansiri]

Franko,

Can you explain what you believe Logically and Objectively – YES or NO?

If yes, please answer my questions above.

Elephant makes every attempt to answer questions asked to him as to his beliefs, why will you not?

Frank,

I'm just on my way to the pub, so I'll leave most of my reply till later. But as for this :


something is only TRUE or FALSE, it isn’t BOTH


This is Aristotlean. It is also WRONG. Many, many things are neither true nor false. It is called 'fuzzy logic'.

;)

[Franko]

This is Aristotlean. It is also WRONG. Many, many things are neither true nor false. It is called 'fuzzy logic'.

I notice you fail to provide ANY example of precisely what you are talking about?

Or is your lack of logical explanation the example of this "fuzzy logic"?

Actually I have heard of this "fuzzy logic" before, I think it is in my Lexicon:

Fuzzy Logic = Wishful Thinking

[Franko]

Pahansiri,

You are talking about Honesty ... are you honestly claiming that you didn't challenge me to a fight on this very forum?!?!

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko
Pahansiri,

You are talking about Honesty ... are you honestly claiming that you didn't challenge me to a fight on this very forum?!?!
Franko my friend.

I will be happy to answer this question as I try my best to answer all asked me, why will you not do the same?

I am also very honest and if I make a mistake I also admit it and apologize and it is my hope you can apologize to me after this for this false accusation.

I asked you to show in my words where I said this? You have not. If you could be honest you would admit as I have said already that after you were avoiding a logical, respectful conversation/debate as to your post and only responding in a way of calling me names such as “pussy” “ woman” ( both very strange for one who worships a female god) I offered for you to come to Saratoga and spar with me after which we could go out in town and I could show this fine town. I did not challenge you to a fight, I said spar, we know due to what I do a fight is not a reality between you and I and I have not fought outside of sport for 30 years. I was clear that I would not harm you. You like many do, rather then be logical and mature will say things from behind a computer that you would not in the real world, you said you would I offered you a way to prove it.

Now please be honest, I as all do here see this as an example of trying to get off the topic and not answering. Now please as I have always offered let us be friend and please respond.

Do you really know what you believe?

[Pahansiri]

Franko I will post again so as you will not have to tab up or go to the 5 other sites I have asked these simple questions concerning your beliefs.

Quote by Franko
quote:“No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.

Yet you believe your Goddess will punish someone for what they have no control over? That is illogical. You become very angry and personally attack people who do not happen to believe as you do, yet believe they have no choice that is illogical. As an adult do you stand and make fun of a small retarded child for being retarded? Or stand over a young girl that was just rapped and make fun of her?

I asked you something the other day you did not respond to, please do now. As friends let us talk and share without anger etc.

If you were at a party and a man at the party slipped into your drink that rendered you completely unconscious. This man then in the full view of all the party goers places a gun in your hand and then places the barrel in his mouth and forces your finger down on the trigger firing the gun and killing him.

1-Should you be charged with murder?
2-As to your beliefs and or how you believe your goddess operates would you bother defending yourself?
3-Do you feel that our justice system should be changed to reflect or operate how you believe your goddess does?

Also.

You see a watch you like in the store and steal it. You get arrested. You go before the judge will you tell him that TLOP made you do it, it was not your fault as it was fate and out of your hands?

Do you feel he should let you go?

quote by Franko
I don’t believe that the LG gets angry. At least not in the way you use the term.

Let me pose a question or situation to you.

The situation; You have a child, you place your hungry child in s seat at the table. You don’t want the child to eat the candy bar sitting right before the child but you do not make clear to your child if she may or may not eat the candy. You then allow an older child say to enter the room and force the younger child to eat the candy.

1-You knew the child was hungry.
2- you knew the older child was going to encourage and force the child to eat the candy.
3- You knew the child in the end would eat the candy


Do you return to the room and punish the younger child for eating the candy?


Again on this topic of your belief your goddess punishes beings for not believing in her.

Would you if as a father ( I know you are not right now) seeking to be the best father you could ever place your needs before that of your child? Would you predicate your love or help for the child on if the child worshiped you?

What is perfect could know no flaws, it could not know anger or ego it could never place its needs before that of another and never so something it made and sees as a child. There could be no need or desire to be worshiped what is perfect could be only that. I often hear my Christian friends speak of their gods unconditional love yet the belief is riddled with conditions. What is unconditional can know no conditions.

Be well my friend, I hope 6 times is the charm.

Originally posted by Franko


I notice you fail to provide ANY example of precisely what you are talking about?

Or is your lack of logical explanation the example of this "fuzzy logic"?

Actually I have heard of this "fuzzy logic" before, I think it is in my Lexicon:

Fuzzy Logic = Wishful Thinking

So the "logical deist" doesn't know what 'fuzzy logic' is?

:D

Fuzzy Logic for "Just Plain Folks" (Online Book, Free for your personal use.) (http://www.fuzzy-logic.com/)

It's pretty simple really. Instead of everything being TRUE or FALSE things are defined as "90% TRUE and 10% FALSE" and so on. I am astonished you do not know what fuzzy logic is.

Frank


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are in a minority of 1 on the planet who thinks Soul and Ego are the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are wrong, lots of Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindu’s etc. agree with me.


Hindus?

The most fundamental doctrine in Hinduism is :

Atman = Brahman

Atman is the root of personal consciousness and Brahman is the root of everything else (simplified). No room for ego there Frank. You have no idea what you are talking about. How can all consciousness be one if EGO = SOUL?

As for the theists, they do not believe that ego = soul either. Not unless they are the rather simplistic sort that think 'heaven' is a place where they go on being 'Frank'.


Because they aren’t logical and they don’t make any sense unless you are insane. You have put yourself in the position where you must argue that utter conformity is preferable to Individuality.


No Frank. I have put myself in a place where I argue that ego is the root of individuality and soul is the root of Unity. In doing so I align myself with all spiritual traditions throughout the entirety of history, including Christianity.
quote:


The LD don’t believe in an “Infinitely large” number


Infinity is not a number.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know one thing though - I have made a far better stab at explaining my beliefs logically and objectively than you have. At least I don't deliberately obscure things. But then I'm not playing a control game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could cut our entanglement this very instant, and that meme would still go on running in your head. At this point it is autonomous. It makes it easier and easier for me to crawl up inside your head. You can feel it in there – can’t you algorithm?


Oh so scary, Frank. No mass, Frank. No-one is taking you seriously anymore. They are trying to help you. :(


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I frame it in terms you can understand : That which seeks control is EGO, and it does not survive physical death - it lives in permanent fear of annihilation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it live in FEAR? And why FEAR of annihilation? Who is threatening it A-Theist?


DEATH is threatening it. DEATH of the body. DEATH of the brain. DEATH of the ego. DEATH, Frank.

DEATH :eek:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That which survives physical death is SOUL, but soul does not seek to control - it does not need to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? A rock does not seek control either? Does that mean rocks are better Souls then Humans?


No, Frank. EGO seeks to control. Soul doesn't.


Is your CAR a better entity then YOU are Elephant? I mean YOU control your CAR, but your CAR does not seek control. Does that mean that CARs are more altruistic then HUMANS? How about TLOP? I don’t know whether TLOP was seeking control or not, but regardless TLOP has control. Does that make TLOP a bad Soul (or a bad EGO?)? Who invented Evil controlling TLOP Elephant? The Evil God you worship?


The laws of physics do not have a soul, Frank. :rolleyes:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixing up SOUL and EGO is about as serious a metaphysical mistake as it is possible to make.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet you seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.


No, Frankie, you have a lot of trouble understanding it, because you don't want to understand it, because understanding it means accepting that.....

FRANK ROSS IS GOING TO DIE. :eek:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It renders the rest of your philosophy completely incomprehensible and puts it out of kilter with the whole of the rest of the spiritual world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

That is a hell of a lot more comprehensible then what you are saying Elephant.


The laws of physics are not conscious Frank.


Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on your dread of Eternity, and your Fear of being controlled.


I do not dread eternity, Frankie, because I have accepted that I am going to die.


Elephant, if YOU aren’t still YOU in the “afterlife” then YOU have ceased to exist,


YOU = Your Soul
FALSE YOU = Your Ego.


and there is no afterlife.
=

Not for Franks ego there isn't, no. How many times do I have to tell you this before it finally sinks in? :rolleyes:


Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so.


One Free Will choice, Frank.

:)

[MRC_Hans]

Post deleted due to irrelevance, as pointed out by The Fool.

Hans

[The Fool]

I Don't Think Franks real Identity is anyones business. Unless he chooses to disclose something. I don't care who Frank Is and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care who I am.

Of course, If all was revealed it would be fate, wouldn't it? Nobodies fault? The Goddess's choice? So Frank, I will not post your D&D webpage.

[MRC_Hans]

I Don't Think Franks real Identity is anyones business. You are right, I got carried away. I have deleted the post.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It's pretty simple really. Instead of everything being TRUE or FALSE things are defined as "90% TRUE and 10% FALSE" and so on. I am astonished you do not know what fuzzy logic is.

example please!

Originally posted by wraith


example please!


Hello sockpuppet.

Here is a simple example of how to use fuzzy logic :

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/ai-repository/ai/html/faqs/ai/fuzzy/part1/faq-doc-2.html

Your master insisted that all questions have TRUE/FALSE answers. This is of course nonsense.

From the link


Person Height degree of tallness
--------------------------------------
Billy 3' 2" 0.00 [I think]
Yoke 5' 5" 0.21
Drew 5' 9" 0.38
Erik 5' 10" 0.42
Mark 6' 1" 0.54
Kareem 7' 2" 1.00 [depends on who you ask]

Expressions like "A is X" can be interpreted as degrees of truth,
e.g., "Drew is TALL" = 0.38.




So if you ask "Is Mark tall? YES/NO" it does not have a YES/NO answer - it has a degree of tallness as its answer. This system of logic is far more adaptable and usable in the real world than limited aristotlean TRUE/FALSE logic. There simply isn't a correct YES/NO answer to this sort of question.

:)

Goodbye sockpuppet.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
So if you ask "Is Mark tall? YES/NO" it does not have a YES/NO answer - it has a degree of tallness as its answer. This system of logic is far more adaptable and usable in the real world than limited aristotlean TRUE/FALSE logic. There simply isn't a correct YES/NO answer to this sort of question.

I'm not all that familiar with fuzzy logic myself, but it sounds similar to quantum states (i.e. the system has .90 probability of being in state X and .10 probability of being in state Y). Do you know if they have a common root? Like one came from the other?

Upchurch

Well I types "fuzzy logic history" into google and this was the first hit

http://www.ch172.thinkquest.hostcenter.ch/fuzzy-logic7.html


When we look at the history of Fuzzy Logic, we find that the first important person for its development was Buddha. He lived in India about 500 BC and founded a religion called Buddhism. His philosophy was based on the thought that the world is filled with contradictions, that almost everything contains some of its opposite, or in other words, that things can be A and not-A at the same time. Here we can see a clear connection between Buddha's philosophy and modern fuzzy logic.

About 200 years later, the Greek scholar Aristotle developed binary logic. In contrary to Buddha, Aristotle thought that the world was made up of opposites, for example male versus female, hot versus cold, dry verus wet, active versus passive. Everything has to be A or not-A, it can't be both.

Over the centuries, these two philosophies developed and spread independently. Buddhism expanded as the religion of India and surrounding states. Aristotle's logic, however, was accepted by the Greek scholars and later got spread all over Europe; first by the Romans and then through Christianity. The Christian church created a devil to opposite God, talked about heaven and hell, and put a holly Maria against a sinful Eve.

Aristotle's binary logic became the base of science; if something got proven with logic, it was and still is accepted as scientifically correct. Like many others, Russell tried to reduce math to logic. When he discovered his paradox while working, he got scared himself. It did, however, give him the honor of being one of the fathers of fuzzy logic.

In 1964, professor Zadeh started wondering, if there wasn't a better logic to use in machinery.He had the idea that if you could tell an air-conditioner to work a little faster when it gets hotter, or similar problems, it would be much more efficient than having to give a rule for each temperature.

Anyway, that was the day fuzzy logic the way we know it today was born; with fuzzy logic you can tell an air-condidioner to slow down as soon as it gets chilly.

It took a long time until fuzzy logic got accepted even though it fascinated some people right from the beginning. Besides engineers, philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists soon became interested in applying fuzzy logic into their sciences.

In the year 1987, the first subway system was built which worked with a fuzzy logic-based automatic train operation control system in Japan. It was a big success and resulted in a fuzzy boom. Universities as well as industries got interested in developing the new ideas. First, this was mainly the case in Japan. Since the relegions in Japan acceped that things can contain parts of their opposites, it wasn't such a frightening idea as in most other parts of the world. And fuzzy logic promised lots of money to the industries, which was of course welcome too.

Today, almost every intelligent machine has fuzzy logic technology inside it. But fuzzy logic doesn't only help boast machine IQs. If we could give up the idea of everything having to be good or bad, we could also see the good things in other people. We wouldn't have to reduce all our fellow people to Gods or devils. Everyone has her or his good qualities. And it is our job to find them!





:)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well I types "fuzzy logic history" into google and this was the first hit

:)

That was wonderful, UCE! Thank you!

Upchurch

[Franko]

Ele-pants:
It's pretty simple really. Instead of everything being TRUE or FALSE things are defined as "90% TRUE and 10% FALSE" and so on. I am astonished you do not know what fuzzy logic is.

I know EXACTLY what it is, and I even gave you a precise definition.

Franko:
Fuzzy Logic = Wishful Thinking

Can you show me a women who is 90% pregnant and 10% not pregnant?

Can you flip a coin and get it to land 90% heads and 10% tails?

How about a cat that is 90% alive and 10% dead?

How about a particle that went 90% through 1 slit and 10% through the other?

Can a bit on a computer be 90% set to zero and 10% set to one?

Upchump:
That was wonderful, UCE! Thank you!

Yeah, you two should get a room …

Well the Elephant and the Chimp agree about Warm Fuzzy Logic … what does that tell you?

Frannie :


Can you show me a women who is 90% pregnant and 10% not pregnant?

Can you flip a coin and get it to land 90% heads and 10% tails?

How about a cat that is 90% alive and 10% dead?

How about a particle that went 90% through 1 slit and 10% through the other?

Can a bit on a computer be 90% set to zero and 10% set to one?


The point is that many things are not like coin tosses and computer bits. A few specific examples work like that, but you tried to apply aristotlean logic to the question "Can you describe you describe all your beliefs logically and objectively? (YES/NO)". That isn't a coin toss. It is a complicated question and it has a complicated answer.

Frank, do you really believe we live in a world which is fully describable with Aristotlean binary logic?

Can you show me a person who is 100% happy or 100% sad?

Can you name a country whose climate is 100% dry or 100% wet?

Can you name a compound which is 100% reactive or 100% inert?

Can you flip a coin and be 100% certain it won't land on its edge?

[Franko]

Elephant:
No Frank. I have put myself in a place where I argue that ego is the root of individuality and soul is the root of Unity. In doing so I align myself with all spiritual traditions throughout the entirety of history, including Christianity.

Actually the Christians believe in an afterlife where YOU are still YOU after you die.

Like I said Elephant if YOU aren’t YOU after you die then YOU have ceased to exist and there is no afterlife.

But I don’t speak in “Fuzzy Logic” like you fanatically religious A-Theists.

Infinity is not a number.

Is that suppose to mean something to anyone or is this just another of your divine Solipsist proclamations?

No-one is taking you seriously anymore.

I don’t suppose you would care to explain how You managed to divine what everyone is thinking in their heads Ele-pants?

I didn’t think so. You never seem able to explain the nonsense you believe.

Oh so scary, Frank.

I know that I scare YOU. You make it obvious.

DEATH is threatening it. DEATH of the body. DEATH of the brain. DEATH of the ego. DEATH, Frank.

Hehehe … you’ll have to do better than that A-Theist.

Franko:
Really? A rock does not seek control either? Does that mean rocks are better Souls then Humans?

Elephant:
No, Frank. EGO seeks to control. Soul doesn't.

I notice that there are certain question which you avoid answering over and over again. It is pretty easy to tell why you avoid answer these questions.

That which survives physical death is SOUL, but soul does not seek to control - it does not need to.

So when You die you physical body will survive your Soul here, Your (dead) physical body (like a rock) won’t be seeking any control over anything … ergo … Your dead physical body is really your Soul according to you???

Like I said, rocks don’t seek to control anything. You specifically told me that things which don’t seek to control are more Altruistic, so does that mean a rock has a better more altruistic soul then You do Elephant?

No, Frank. EGO seeks to control. Soul doesn't.

Rocks don’t seek control either, so … ?

The laws of physics do not have a soul, Frank.

Yes we are ALL well aware that You A-Theist don’t believe there is a God. You all have magic unprovable “free will” powers, and the universe magically appeared out of no where … but it really wasn’t “magic”. :rolleyes:

Yes, yes, Elephant I am very familiar with your whacky religion. Do you have anything new to say about it, or are you content being just another Upchurch, Thaifoodkenny, CWL, Evildave, MRC, etc, etc, ?

I smell another non-explanation coming …

Elephart:
Mixing up SOUL and EGO is about as serious a metaphysical mistake as it is possible to make.

Franko:
Yet you seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.

Elephrance:
No, Frankie, you have a lot of trouble understanding it, because you don't want to understand it, because understanding it means accepting that.....

FRANK … IS GOING TO DIE.

Yet you STILL seem to have a lot of trouble explaining why this is the case.

Let me guess … because you are a highly cynical and pessimistic individual with a bleak outlook for the future?

The laws of physics are not conscious Frank.

Yes, I am well aware that you pretend to have magic powers in order to assist you pretend that there is no god, and there will be no consequences for your actions. It is a very sad and pathetic dogmatic belief system. Fortunately less than 10% of the overall population is sufficiently insane to accept it.

Franko:
Your beliefs seemed to be based entirely on your dread of Eternity, and your Fear of being controlled.

Eleprance:
I do not dread eternity, Frankie, because I have accepted that I am going to die.

In other words you are scared sh*tless at the thought of existing for Eternity (plus the utter lack of “free will”), so you find it more comforting to imagine that you will cease to exist.

Unfortunately the Logic is all against you.

I am still waiting for you to explain why an A-Theist (such as yourself) who does not believe there will be any ultimate consequences for his actions here will behave as morally as someone who does believe that there will be consequences?

You refuse to answer this question, and the reason you refuse is because we both know that you cannot answer it, at least you cannot without exposing yourself as the nutcase that you are.

Still hoping for the big disaster in 2012 Elephant?

Franko:
Elephant, if YOU aren’t still YOU in the “afterlife” then YOU have ceased to exist, and there is NO afterlife

Elephant:
Not for Franks ego there isn't, no. How many times do I have to tell you this before it finally sinks in?

YOU = Your Soul
FALSE YOU = Your Ego.

Ohhh, I see, so when I die, I will cease to exist, but I will persist at the same time, except it will no longer really be me …??? :rolleyes: :eek:

Is there anyone else here who that makes any sense to?

Franko:
Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so.

Elephant:
One Free Will choice, Frank.

… and you are going to use it to make Solipsism True?!?! If that is the case, then You really are **********-up my little friend.

[Pahansiri]

When we look at the history of Fuzzy Logic, we find that the first important person for its development was Buddha. He lived in India about 500 BC and founded a religion called Buddhism. His philosophy was based on the thought that the world is filled with contradictions, that almost everything contains some of its opposite, or in other words, that things can be A and not-A at the same time.


Not fuzzy at all, it is reality. Nothing is in and of itself, self.
Your body as much as Franko would like to believe it is not self it is comprised of billions of non self elements and other life forms which are comprised of many non self elements.

The word “soul” is a word that need a clear definition to be functional as a clear debate subject. A soul in many beliefs would be an “I”, this is Mark’s/Pahansiri’s soul. That can not be, as it would have to be comprised of only Mark/Pahansiri and nothing else this is not possible as much of what you see in yourself is due to many, many causes and conditions, mother, father, teacher, friends, events etc.

All causative phenomena - our life, our body, our mind, our self, our possessions, our relatives and friends, all other people - are changing, not only day by day, minute by minute and second by second, but every tiny moment. They do not last for a fraction of a second. Because they are under the control of causes and conditions, they are in a state of constant decay and can cease at any time. This is the nature of our life.

We as Buddhist believe that the most important aspect of the mind, the intuitive or 'very subtle' mind, is non-physical and is reborn after this life. It is not Mark/ Pahansiri and is no different in anyway from all other what we see as primordial mind. That is just what I believe and ask no one to nor demand I am right and anyone wrong.

Back to the quote. His philosophy was based on the thought that the world is filled with contradictions, that almost everything contains some of its opposite, or in other words, that things can be A and not-A at the same time

How is this not true?

The examples given that Aristotle used to developed binary logic. Aristotle thought that the world was made up of opposites, for example male versus female, hot versus cold, dry verus wet, active versus passive. Everything has to be A or not-A, it can't be both.


Well lets look first at male versus female.

Every human is conceived female this is why males have nipples and mammary glands, being in the field I am for so long and my years as a bodybuilder knowing or training many who use roids Gynecomastia is somewhat common. The mammary glands become active from too large amounts of testosterone aromatizing and in short converting to estrogen. The fact is all humans contain differing levels of both male and female hormones.
So here Aristotle is clearly wrong.

Lets look at dry versus wet.

Water is wet but are the molecules that make up water, separately is oxygen wet? Is Hydrogen wet? Break them down further are the smaller elements wet?

active versus passive.

Sit in your chair and do not move, are you truly not at all active? Has all body functions stopped? Thinking? Elements or other life forms contained in your body not active? All is in flux.

Just what I believe.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko






Is that suppose to mean something to anyone or is this just another of your divine Solipsist proclamations?





You wrote that in responce to Elephant trying to help you understand Infinity is not a number. Why always anger when someone helps to correct a mistake in belief on your part?

Franko people who do not believe as you do, or show you mistakes in your "logic" are not doing so to harm you. Please relax.:D

Oh yes. Franko my friend still not taking a shot at my simple Questions, that does not bode well for your beliefs , do you know what you believe?:rolleyes:

Frank

Most of your post is just repetitions which I will ignore.



Ohhh, I see, so when I die, I will cease to exist, but I will persist at the same time, except it will no longer really be me …???

Is there anyone else here who that makes any sense to?


You know exactly what this means, but I will explain it anyway. In terms of the Hindu mythology which expresses it best - "Atman = Brahman" / "Thou art That". This means that the true root of personal consciousness ("I") is the same as the root of the whole of existence - it is Everything - YOU are Everything. This is the essence of all mystical tradition, as you know only too well. Indeed you have even said it yourself many times in your own Christianised form of "YOU are God!". But you seem to have failed to grasp that this does not mean "Franko is God" because that would mean that "Geoff is God" and "Stimpson is God" and so on, and all those individual egos can't be God, because there is only One Source. So the thing you call "Franko" isn't really you. This is further reflected in the New Age mantra of "Finding out who you really are", in the Occult doctrine of "Know Thyself", in the Buddhist tradition of considering the ego to be an illusion, in the all the mystical traditions of 'transcending the ego and becoming One with All Things", and even in the Jewish mythology of "the Fall" which represents the human ego "eating of the tree" and falsely believing that it is the real 'I'. In fact this idea is central to every spiritual system except "logical deism" where it is insisted that "ego actually is the same thing as the soul", and thereby manages to acheive immortality without having to pay the price of ego-transcedence. Furthermore, whilst all those other spiritual traditions point to time being the ultimate illusion, part of the illusory world of physics, your inane "logical deism" turns this on its head and inists that TLOP is actually God and that time is the ultimate ground of all reality. You have your philosophy backwards my friend. You want to have your cake and eat it. You want the immortality promised by ego-transcedence but you do not want to pay the asking price of surrender of the ego. The atheists think their egos are themselves, but make no claim of immortality. The mystics know they are immortal but realise that their ego must surrender as the price. Only Franko thinks his ego is immortal.

YOUR EGO IS PHYSICAL AND IT IS GOING TO DIE.
YOUR SOUL IS NOT CALLED FRANK.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franko:
Ohhh, now if only were Solipsism were True you could make it be so.

Elephant:
One Free Will choice, Frank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

… and you are going to use it to make Solipsism True?!?! If that is the case, then You really are **********-up my little friend.


It's already true, Frank. Your worst nightmares are manifest. You have seen your own image in the mirror of reality. You can't un-see it once you've seen it. As within, so without. As above, so below. You can't escape it.

Peace, brother. Accept what is. It's not so bad.

:)

[Franko]

Elephant,

Frank, do you really believe we live in a world which is fully describable with Aristotlean binary logic?

Translate: Frank, do you really believe we live in an Omniverse which is fully describable with binary (TRUE/FALSE) logic – mutually exclusive binary options?

Me – YES; YOU – NO.

Can you show me a person who is 100% happy or 100% sad?

I always thought that SAD and HAPPY were opposites???

Like a scale with SAD at one end, and HAPPY at the other OPPOSITE end. The more HAPPY you are the less SAD you are, and vice-versa.

But I guess YOU are claiming you can be very SAD and very HAPPY at the same time? Sure ( :rolleyes: ) and I guess you see Cats which are both very ALIVE and very DEAD at the same time as well … ?

Can you name a country whose climate is 100% dry or 100% wet?

I have noticed that whenever it rains here in Maryland, that it is not, not raining at the same time. And when it is NOT raining, it is NOT raining simultaneously. It only seems to do one or the other, but it can’t seem to be raining and not raining at the same time. I guess the weather works a little differently where YOU live?

Can you name a compound which is 100% reactive or 100% inert?

Doesn’t whether it is inert or reactive depend on some other chemical and the conditions under which the two are mixed? Are you claiming that chemical reactions have “free will” and don’t behave consistently under controlled conditions?

Can you flip a coin and be 100% certain it won't land on its edge?

Yeah, I can.

So you are pulling out yet another staple from the A-Theists bag or tricks, when something is simple (Logic – TRUE/FALSE), and that simplicity is working against your pessimism and cynicism, then try and pretend that the thing is far more complicated than it actuall is. This way (if you are “lucky”) you can confuse anyone you are talking to, to such a degree that (hopefully) they won’t realize that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

So I was right about you. You STILL are a mystic. You cannot defend the absurd nonsense you believe with real Logic so you want to make up your own pretend version of logic where things can be True and False (or neither, or something else “other than” True or False) all at the same time!

Have fun with Pixychix, Elephant. I think Whitefork is a believer in your brand of Logic as well …

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko
You cannot defend the absurd nonsense you believe with real Logic so you want to make up your own pretend version of logic where things can be True and False (or neither, or something else “other than” True or False) all at the same time!

… [/B]

Franko my friend In all new dictionaries will be the above quote by you and your picture , this will be found when anyone looks for the definition or the phrase “ The pot calling the kettle black’ :eek:

[Franko]

Elephant,

You know exactly what this means, but I will explain it anyway.

So you know what I know?

Is that because I am only a figment of your imagination?

In terms of the Hindu mythology which expresses it best - "Atman = Brahman" / "Thou art That". This means that the true root of personal consciousness ("I") is the same as the root of the whole of existence - it is Everything - YOU are Everything.

So Hindu mythology is the basis for you’re a-Theism?

What’s next Elephant, are you going to claim that the Bible is your evidence for “free will”?

This is the essence of all mystical tradition, as you know only too well. Indeed you have even said it yourself many times in your own Christianised form of "YOU are God!".

You are Falsely attributing quotes to me. You may be a Solipsist Elephant, but that only makes you a “God” of your own pathetic little fantasy world.

The LG is God. You are just a peon.

But you seem to have failed to grasp that this does not mean "Franko is God" because that would mean that "Geoff is God" and "Stimpson is God" and so on, and all those individual egos can't be God, because there is only One Source.

I have no idea what that means.

So the thing you call "Franko" isn't really you.

Ohhh, so I am not really me? Well I must say, my wife and children will certainly be surprised to hear that, of course I guess since figments of the imagination only have imaginary wives and children perhaps they won’t be?

Did you ever think that maybe the thing YOU call Franko isn’t really Franko? Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination, and beyond that I don’t exist at all? How do you know that I say anything when you aren’t around to hear it?

This is further reflected in the New Age mantra of "Finding out who you really are", in the Occult doctrine of "Know Thyself", in the Buddhist tradition of considering the ego to be an illusion …

Yeah, I’ve heard Yatzi claim that consciousness is just an illusion as well. Personally that sounds rather insane, but then again what would you expect a figment of your imagination to say?

… in the all the mystical traditions of 'transcending the ego and becoming One with All Things", and even in the Jewish mythology of "the Fall" which represents the human ego "eating of the tree" and falsely believing that it is the real 'I'.

Ohhh, eating of the Tree of Knowledge … I know all about that … You know -- the ability to perceive between Good and Evil (True and False). But I assure you my little friend, there were no “fuzzy logic apples” on that tree.

In fact this idea is central to every spiritual system except "logical deism" where it is insisted that "ego actually is the same thing as the soul", and thereby manages to acheive immortality without having to pay the price of ego-transcedence.

You should get your facts straight. Check with some Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Shinto’s or even Hindu’s, they believe that when they die there is an afterlife and they will still persist.

You want to claim that you will exist, except that it won’t really be you. That doesn’t make any sense, and you can whine all you want, but that STILL won’t make it make sense (it won’t make it Logical).

Furthermore, whilst all those other spiritual traditions point to time being the ultimate illusion, part of the illusory world of physics, your inane "logical deism" turns this on its head and inists that TLOP is actually God and that time is the ultimate ground of all reality.

Yeah, Time has always been your problem. You have a severely screwed up premise that you are irrationally bound to. You cannot let it go, and it leaves all of your subsequent conclusions in error.

The fact is that if You don’t perceive Time then YOU do not exist. You can claim that this is not True until you are Blue in the face, but you will never be able to explain what you are talking about logically, and the reason for that is it is impossible for a consciousness (any consciousness) to comprehend ANYTHING outside the context of Time.

You have your philosophy backwards my friend. You want to have your cake and eat it.

What are you just repeating the things I have told you now?

You are the one that wants to pretend he has “free will” yet you cannot provide a single shred of evidence (or even a reason) to believe that this is the case. You are the one that wants to live his life as if there will be NO consequences for his actions.

I told you, all you have done is added even more ridiculous unsupported dogma to the religion of A-Theism in order to confuse the issue of “free will”.

You want the immortality promised by ego-transcedence but you do not want to pay the asking price of surrender of the ego.

1) I don’t know what you are talking about.
2) I didn’t make the rules, I just play by them.

The atheists think their egos are themselves, but make no claim of immortality. The mystics know they are immortal but realise that their ego must surrender as the price. Only Franko thinks his ego is immortal.

I think it is cute how you think you know what all of the other minds in the world are thinking, yet at the same time you seem to have so much difficulty explaining what YOU are thinking. I wonder why?

You are half-way to Solipsism already Elephant. All I’d have to do is give you a little nudge …

Of course if I know that you will be ultimately beneficial to me that would be a rather foolish thing to do on my part. Even if you are an annoying little graviton at times.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I have to say with all your name calling "Elephart" and "Elepants" (which are rather dull and uncreative btw) you are coming off as less of a serious thinker and more of an insecure bigot who simply cannot accept a fair examination of ideas. If you are going to promote claims as extraordinary as the one's you are Franko, I'd suggest a more mature approach. People are having a hard enough time taking you seriously as it is.

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant



Hello sockpuppet.

Here is a simple example of how to use fuzzy logic :

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/ai-repository/ai/html/faqs/ai/fuzzy/part1/faq-doc-2.html

Your master insisted that all questions have TRUE/FALSE answers. This is of course nonsense.

From the link



So if you ask "Is Mark tall? YES/NO" it does not have a YES/NO answer - it has a degree of tallness as its answer. This system of logic is far more adaptable and usable in the real world than limited aristotlean TRUE/FALSE logic. There simply isn't a correct YES/NO answer to this sort of question.

:)

Goodbye sockpuppet.

Why?
Let me see Drew and I will tell you whether I think that he is tall or not

[Franko]

I have to say with all your name calling "Elephart" and "Elepants" (which are rather dull and uncreative btw) you are coming off as less of a serious thinker and more of an insecure bigot who simply cannot accept a fair examination of ideas. If you are going to promote claims as extraordinary as the one's you are Franko, I'd suggest a more mature approach. People are having a hard enough time taking you seriously as it is.

The A-Theists take me a lot more serious then they let on. Their actions (constantly starting threads about me, following me around like teenage girls chasing one of the Beetles, and attempting to get me Banned for daring to be skeptical of the religion of A-Theism) speak far louder than their words. I use the A-Theists to make my point, but it's not the A-Theists that I am interested in. For the most part the A-Theists on this forum are lost causes. They've already ceased to exist, it's just that they don't realize it yet (A-Theists have very poor perception) ...

[Franko]

So Ele-pants ... a link to a website is the best defense you have for the fundamental tenet of your religion?

I mean ... your whole "theory" seems to hinge on the fact that things can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time (or neither at the same time), yet you cannot explain this in your own words, nor provide one single clear and valid example?

I guess you can't provide any logic for the things you believe?

I guess you are like any other would-be cult leader who simply demands to be taken at his divinely inspired words? We should just trust you on "good" Faith?

Why should I take you on Faith? You have already established that you don't believe there are any consequences for your actions. Essentially you have told me that if you see a benefit in lying to me and you can get away with -- YOU WILL.

So why should I simply take your word?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


The A-Theists take me a lot more serious then they let on. Their actions (constantly starting threads about me, following me around like teenage girls chasing one of the Beetles, and attempting to get me Banned for daring to be skeptical of the religion of A-Theism) speak far louder than their words. I use the A-Theists to make my point, but it's not the A-Theists that I am interested in. For the most part the A-Theists on this forum are lost causes. They've already ceased to exist, it's just that they don't realize it yet (A-Theists have very poor perception) ...
Of course, when the question of banning Franko (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9633) was voted on, the no-ban option won by a three-to-one margin. Why does Franko omit this telling piece of data from his harangue? Well, actions speak louder than words.

[Franko]

Of course, when the question of banning Franko was voted on, the no-ban option won by a three-to-one margin. Why does Franko omit this telling piece of data from his harangue? Well, actions speak louder than words

The Skeptics spoke on that one. Apparently they Still outnumber the A-Theist religious fanatics on this forum by a 3 to 1 margin.

Either that, or some of the A-Theists aren't quite as devoted to the Cult as they pretend to be ...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


The Skeptics spoke on that one. Apparently they Still outnumber the A-Theist religious fanatics on this forum by a 3 to 1 margin.

Either that, or some of the A-Theists aren't quite as devoted to the Cult as they pretend to be ...
Really, Franko? Interesting who you have on your skeptics list now. Those who spoke out against banning include:

Myself
CWL
Q-Source
The Fool
Kodiak
Gnome
Ustardust

All of these people have had numerous debates with you. There are others from your "list of the damned" who have previously spoken out against banning, but did not post a reply on this thread.

Only about four posters spoke out voiciferously in favor of banning.

I guess a lot more of us atheists are skeptics than you calculated.

No Franko, the "They're all out to get me" defense is unsupported. You'll have to be contented with self-pity.

Originally posted by wraith


Why?
Let me see Drew and I will tell you whether I think that he is tall or not

That would be a subjective judgement. What use is 'what I think' in a discussion about logic?

[Franko]

Here's my latest list Tricky:

THE ARMAGEDDON 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
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]
chulbert
Colloden [mia]
CWL
DanishDynamite
De_Bunk [mia]
Diogenes
Dorman [mia]
Doubt
evildave
Fool
Fade
Futurefan [mia]
GoodPropaganda [mia]
Gnome
ImpyTimpy
joshua korosi
Kodiak [mia]
Latimer
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 (=)
Darat (-)
Davidhorman (-)
Gregor (-)
Hal bidlack (=)
LeFevre (+)
Lillyofthepink (-)[f][mia]
Loki (-)
Luceiia (+) [mia]
Martinm(-)
Pahansiri (+)
Q-Source [f] [-]
Randfan (+)
Scribble (+) (Mobius)
Seelie (+) [f]
Slimshady (+) (Shadow)
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.

Can't help noticing that I'm still not on your list, Frannie.

:)

[Franko]

Can't help noticing that I'm still not on your list, Frannie

You and the A-Theist Fool have a lot of little things in common.

So where would I put you Ele-pant? The only thing I am sure of, is you aren't an Agnostic.

I'm tempted to just stick you on the LOD list, but that would seal your Fate ...

Why do you even care that you aren't on my list? Since when does my opinion matter to you?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Here's my latest list Tricky:

(list snipped)

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.
Just making a quick count, I see 24 on the Forces of Light list, 22 on the Neutral and 50 on the Legions of Darkness.

If they voted proportionally and every neutral person said "don't ban", then there would still be a majority of atheists. Yet, the voting was 3 to one for "don't ban". This would mean that more than half of the atheists would have to vote for "don't ban".

Your contention that the atheists are trying to have you banned is disproved. The evidence is staring you in the face.

BTW, the only part that empirical observation has in logic is in giving evidence for the assumptions.

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


That would be a subjective judgement. What use is 'what I think' in a discussion about logic?

I wasnt aware that there was a universal height threshold that determined tallness

:eek:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith


I wasnt aware that there was a universal height threshold that determined tallness

:eek:
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.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko

You don’t have “free will” to stop yourself from attempting to harm me, and I don’t have “free will” to prevent me from annihilating you in return.



What a unique and clever way to avoid taking direct personal responsibility for one's actions.

"Your honor...I was fated to shoot him. It wasn't my choice."

Originally posted by wraith


I wasnt aware that there was a universal height threshold that determined tallness

:eek:

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

[whitefork]

Elephant,
You might have missed some of this while you were away. The logic used in Logical Deism is not Aristotelian, Boolean, Predicate, or Sentential. Nor does it appear to be Fuzzy logic. For evidence to support this, see these threads.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9364

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9247

That doesn't tell you what sort of logic is in play, but it may help you avoid some dead ends.

[Franko]

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.

Relativity is part of Logic (or "binary logic" to use the Elephant's term). You do remember that other figment of your imagination -- Einstein -- don't you?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
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.

Quick and simple questions to Frank/Wraith which still remain unanswered:

1) What are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent supreme being?

2) If the answer to 1) is "Fate"; what are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is something called "Fate" and how do you define it?

[Franko]

1) What are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent supreme being?

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

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more complex and conscious then CAR; TLOP is more complex and conscious then YOU.

2) If the answer to 1) is "Fate"; what are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is something called "Fate" and how do you define it?

Fate (or Karma [same difference]) is part of the equation:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

That’s Fate.

You didn’t get to choose your parents, your gender, the Time or place of your birth. These things are the fundamental elements that made YOU who YOU are (your DNA, your genetics, your environment). Since the moment you were born, all of your actions are simply the inevitable result of a long unbroken chain of cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect, stretching back to at least as far as the moment of the “Big Bang” and the primordial conditions known as The Initial State. Simply stated, all of your actions are determined solely and entirely by your past experiences, and the Laws of Physics.

[Franko]

(The Other White Meat) said:

Elephant,
You might have missed some of this while you were away. The logic used in Logical Deism is not Aristotelian, Boolean, Predicate, or Sentential. Nor does it appear to be Fuzzy logic. For evidence to support this, see these threads

I know that you A-Theist Fanatics can't resist your Destiny to try and make simple things complicated, but let me restate what I have already said at least 100 times on this matter.

In a computer everything comes down to zeros (0) and ones (1). That is the kind of logic I am talking about. Everything ultimately expressable as nothing more than TRUE or FALSE.

In other words, no magic A-Theist "fuzzy" "logic".

(non-existent, mystical, supernatural, pseudo-scientific, claptrap)

Franko-Wraith wrote


Fate (or Karma [same difference])


Depends on how you define fate. Karma is not incompatible with Free Will, indeed most people who believe in Karma neccesarily see it as the result of Free Will. You make a certain Free Will decision, and Karma is a pseudo-deterministic result of that Free Will decision. Universal predestination rules out any meaningfull karma mechanism because it rules out Free Will. However - if by 'fate' you mean that you determine your fate by your Free Will decisions then this use of 'fate' would be the same as karma.

It very much depends on whether you are saying fate is something that you create for yourself by your own actions in the present or whether those actions themselves are predetermined by fate since the beginning of time.

So Frank, which is it?

Was everything fatalistically predetermined at the beginning of time? (no karma)

Or is the future fatalistically determined by the present. (karma)

'fate' can mean both.

[Franko]

It very much depends on whether you are saying fate is something that you create for yourself by your own actions in the present or whether those actions themselves are predetermined by fate since the beginning of time.

Obviously what I did today was based on what I did yesterday, so I would say that it is obviously predetermined. (what happened to your “Infinity” all of the sudden???)

So Frank, which is it?

Was everything fatalistically predetermined at the beginning of time? (no karma)

The fact that everything is determined is Karma. If things just happened randomly as You and the other A-Theists want to suggest, then how in the Hell could there be Karma?!?!

Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time)

If the reaction occurs or doesn’t occur based on random unpredictably magical chance, than that isn’t Karma Elephant, that is chaos – that’s insanity.

Or is the future fatalistically determined by the present. (karma)

'fate' can mean both.

One day the present will be the past.

Farnk :

Well that was a total failure to answer the question.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Frank, which is it?

Was everything fatalistically predetermined at the beginning of time? (no karma)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The fact that everything is determined is Karma. If things just happened randomly as You and the other A-Theists want to suggest, then how in the Hell could there be Karma?!?!

Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time)

If the reaction occurs or doesn’t occur based on random unpredictably magical chance, than that isn’t Karma Elephant, that is chaos – that’s insanity.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or is the future fatalistically determined by the present. (karma)

'fate' can mean both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One day the present will be the past.


Any chance you might attempt to actually answer the question, Frank?

Was everything predetermined at the beginning of time, or is the future merely determined by the present. There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference. In the former case everything I ever do was completely predetermined, in the latter I am determining my own fate with my own decisions. Your position has always been ambigious. Your utter failure to give me a straight answer to a very simple question that is right at the heart of your own 'philosophy' speaks volumes.

Do you actually know what you believe?

If so, why not just answer the question?

:)

Just to elaborate a bit...

If there is really no free will then why not just say that everything was predetermined at the begining of time?

Why dodge the question, Frannie?

And if everything wasn't predetermined at the beginning of time then there must be free will (or non-fatalistic randomness), yes?

It really is very simple.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Was everything predetermined at the beginning of time, or is the future merely determined by the present. There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference. .... a very simple question .....


If that question is "simple", what question would you deem "difficult"? :confused:

Originally posted by hammegk


If that question is "simple", what question would you deem "difficult"? :confused:

It is a very difficult question. But it shouldn't be hard for Franchesca to tell us what he believes, since he rants on unendingly about fate and free will. Either he believes everything was predetermined or he doesn't. Personally I think he knows perfectly well that it wasn't, but won't say so because it blows a hole in his pronouncement that there is no free will.

edited .....

From the POV of consciousness there is no time. It is always NOW, and always has been. From the POV of consciousness there was no beginning and there is no end. So how can everything have been predetermined at a non-existent begining if time?

... And Frannie is an idealist.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The A-Theists take me a lot more serious then they let on. Their actions (constantly starting threads about me, following me around like teenage girls chasing one of the Beetles, and attempting to get me Banned for daring to be skeptical of the religion of A-Theism) speak far louder than their words. I use the A-Theists to make my point, but it's not the A-Theists that I am interested in. For the most part the A-Theists on this forum are lost causes. They've already ceased to exist, it's just that they don't realize it yet (A-Theists have very poor perception) ...

Sure they do Franko. I mean who wouldn't take a person seriously who's labeled himself and his declared friend the forces of light and his A-theist(?) the legion of darkness....no demonization/self-rightousness there.:rolleyes: *yawn*

[Franko]

Elephant:
Any chance you might attempt to actually answer the question, Frank?

Was everything predetermined at the beginning of time, or is the future merely determined by the present?

Jesus Christ Elephant! – You are accusing ME of not answering a question! You really are clueless on this Karma business – aren’t you?

Did you even read my last post, or did you decide that since I am merely a figment of your imagination you didn’t really need to?

Franko (previous post):
Obviously what I did today was based on what I did yesterday, so I would say that it is obviously predetermined. (what happened to your “Infinity” all of the sudden???)

Yeah, and I don’t know if you have ever heard me mention this or not before ( :rolleyes: ), but I have also stated:

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!

… but I realize that you A-Theists are a little slow. :(


[Hey Ele-pants, I have a simple question for YOU. How come when I push and you start getting all frantic you start acting more and more like an A-Theist Fool?]

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko


I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!



Franko assures us the following statements are NOT contradictory. The reason they are not contradictory is, unfortunately, a trade secret of the "Logical Deist" and he is "Physically prevented" from telling us.....

"I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!"
"You do get one free will choice"
"I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!"
"You do get one free will choice"
"I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!"
"You do get one free will choice"
"I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!"
"You do get one free will choice"
"I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!"
"You do get one free will choice"
"I am a Fatalist, there is no “free will”!"
"You do get one free will choice"

Come on frank, you can tell me the secret, I won't tell anyone.



Its all just Contradiction backed up by argumentum ad nauseum.
Throw in Strawmen and the ability to Ignore what people explain to you and you have a pretty good summary of your entire contribution to this forum.

The Cable technician attempts to argue Physics, Religion and Philosophy with the help of some paperback self help books....
Tell me the atoms story again frank, I'm having trouble sleeping.

[Franko]

How come when I push and you start getting all frantic you start acting more and more like an A-Theist Fool?

Da (A-Theist) Fool:

Franko assures us the following statements are NOT contradictory. The reason they are not contradictory is, unfortunately, a trade secret of the "Logical Deist" and he is "Physically prevented" from telling us.....

Hehehe … it’s so easy to make you dance monkey-boy.

You haven’t been following me around nearly enough lately my little shadow. Did I say we were done? Did I grant you my permission to leave???

Listen Fool-li-kins, why don’t you just skip the foreplay tonight and hop directly ahead to the point where you dedicate another thread in my homage.

[CWL]

I asked Franko/Wraith:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) What are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent supreme being?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franko/Wraith answered:

Originally posted by Franko

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

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more complex and conscious then CAR; TLOP is more complex and conscious then YOU.

I further asked:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) If the answer to 1) is "Fate"; what are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is something called "Fate" and how do you define it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franko/Wraith answered:

Originally posted by Franko
Fate (or Karma [same difference]) is part of the equation:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

That’s Fate.

You didn’t get to choose your parents, your gender, the Time or place of your birth. These things are the fundamental elements that made YOU who YOU are (your DNA, your genetics, your environment). Since the moment you were born, all of your actions are simply the inevitable result of a long unbroken chain of cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect, stretching back to at least as far as the moment of the “Big Bang” and the primordial conditions known as The Initial State. Simply stated, all of your actions are determined solely and entirely by your past experiences, and the Laws of Physics.

Okely-dokely.

We now know that Franko/Wraith holds that (his very own version of) cause and effect is the sole (but unrefutable) evidence of:

1) the existence of a "benevolent supreme being"; and
2) the existence of "Fate".

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

No matter how much you badger Franko/Wraith 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?