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

[Kullervo]

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

[Kullervo]

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?

[Kullervo]

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.

[Kullervo]

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.

[Kullervo]

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.

[Kullervo]

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).

[Kullervo]

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.

[Kullervo]

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.

[Kullervo]

"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 smal