Regarding Franko...

[urstardust]

Franko the spin MASTER and a pain in the ASS!!

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky


Very good, wraith. You have correctly identified that you made at least two decisions. As I mentioned earlier, this example was given to show the difference in the MPB type of free will, versus free will with no MPB. The decision to pick a number probably had an MPB element. It might have been a wish to be seen as amicable. It might have been curiosity as to what I was going to do with it. Actually, I considered that you might refuse to pick a number and then your free will would have thwarted my experiment. However, you came through like a champ.

When I pick a number between 1-100, if I preferred a certain number over the others, then I would have "choosen" it.
What if I dont perceive a number that is more beneficial than another? 33 was the first number that came to my head. It looked good, so I "chose" it.
You claim this to be free-will? For you argument to be consistent, my perceived benefits must be all "equal" and that my every action is spontaneous.


Your second decision was to pick the number 33, and you even admitted you didn't know why. Well my friend, if YOU don't know why, how can you possibly hypothesize some other entity that not only knows you better than you know yourself, but is able to "force" you to pick a certain number without giving you a clue why? This is the free will decision that occurred without any MPB input, illustrating a fairly minor difference between free will and MPB. Apart from that, they are virtually identical.

?
I obey TLOP, dont you?
and
read above ;)

So what you are saying is you still can't rationalize why you would pick a certain number. Don't try. It was essentially random. ("More sexier"? :rolleyes: )

Was I obeying TLOP?
Is obeying TLOP random?


Calm down, hormone boy. You're not likely to impress any women here unless you stop talking gibberish.

Im not here to make friends
;)

Misa is probably just using his favorite Anime character as an icon. He has already disclosed his gender and has never claimed to be female. The fact that you cannot look at that icon without having carnal thoughts says more about you than him.

Carnal thoughts?
I said that Pixy is pretending to be a woman....X-rated stuff is it?
haha

But I hope you had a good (and safe) birthday party.

THANKS! ;)
Yeah, it was dandy
:cool:

I'm claiming every decision you make is free will in action, including the first thing that pops into your head. Some of your free will actions involve thought and careful selection (MPB) and some are apparently random (non-MPB), but both are free will.

Like I had said before....for your argument about free-will to be consistent, my actions would have to spontaneous, and I perceived all outcomes to be equally beneficial.

[urstardust]

"66"

1 TO 1000 ? Waith

[wraith]

Originally posted by PixyMisa



Yes, you have blithered about this before. So, what is it that I think I have, wraith? I observe that I have free will. What am I observing?

You observe free-will like a child observing a santa clause....
but really, 4 sided tris dont exist
;)


I have never once run a red light.

yeah, it's called MBP
and in every situation where you come to a red light and the conditions are the "same" you will ALWAYS stop

And we have established that MPB is free will.

because you said so?
lol

Do you buy your stupid questions cheap by the case-load? If I didn't have consciousness, I wouldn't think anything. And you have now reversed your position. Which is it?

!!!!!!!!
You said
"I'm not sure that the argument of free will is related to the functioning of consciousness."

wraith: Are your "choices" based on how YOU interpret information?

Pixy: Yes. No. Maybe.

dont want to give an answer?
suit yourself
;)


wraith: Just how often do you use "free-will" to ask someone to tie up your shoe laces?

Pixy: Oh, it's been several minutes at least.

In other words youre saying
"Ill just plead sarcasm, in the hope that the question goes away. Then I will be "right" by default."

wraith: No. You cant have both.

Pixy: Why not?

The moon cant "choose" it's orbit and obey TLOP at the same time.
A soldier cant be commanded to go to war and claim that it was his "choice".

Ah. So you choose to misunderstand what it means to obey the laws of physics now. Well, you are still wrong. Obeying the laws of physics allows choice. It doesn't remove it. Nor is there anything that does not obey the laws of physics. But not everything is capable of making choices. You, for example.

Yet your evidence is where exactly?
Saying that you have free-will is not evidence Pix.


Why? If you can't see that the atoms in the brain are arranged diferently to the atoms in the moon, you're a hopeless case as well as a mindless zombie.

Point?
You both obey TLOP.
And you cant have "choice" and obey TLOP at the same Time...


The brain processes information. Consciousness is an illusion presented by this information processing system. It's the user interface.

hahaha

Vote Pixy for Solipsism

wraith: What is something that obeys something and has "choice"

Pixy: Me. And all other humans. And bunnies which are not dead. You have to understand what "obey" means, and what the laws of physics are, and as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you do not.

Whats an example involving you and everyone else?

You may think so. You are wrong. I have explained why the moon does not and cannot choose anything.

LOL
did all the atheist miss the hint of sarcasm in my post?
you have failed to prodice free-willy too
;)

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by wraith
You observe free-will like a child observing a santa clause....
but really, 4 sided tris dont existWhy are you refusing to answer the question? You have stated that there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will. What then is it that I observe?yeah, it's called MBPWhich as you well know has been shown to be free will.

Oh, and no, that's not the reason. Not the reason at all or in any way.and in every situation where you come to a red light and the conditions are the "same" you will ALWAYS stopDo you have any more evidence for this now than you did the last dozen times you were shown to be wrong?because you said so?No. Because I have shown it to be so. The Banana Pancakes and the Fork of Doom utterly demolish your concept of MBP. I note that you have not even attempted to debate this, but have retreated to ever more desperate assertions.You said
"I'm not sure that the argument of free will is related to the functioning of consciousness."Yes. I did. And I will ask again:

Do you buy your stupid questions cheap by the case-load? If I didn't have consciousness, I wouldn't think anything. And you have now reversed your position. Which is it?dont want to give an answer?Very well: my conscious choices are based on how I interpret information, various irrational factors, the chemicals that may be sloshing about in my bloodstream at that time, stray quantum influences, my present physical environment, and possibly other factors as well. Not everything I do is the result of a conscious decision, either. Since you are a mindless zombie, you will of course understand none of this.In other words youre saying
"Ill just plead sarcasm, in the hope that the question goes away. Then I will be "right" by default."No, I'm saying the question is stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll ask my imaginary friend Bob to tie my shoelaces for me. There. Happy now?The moon cant "choose" it's orbit and obey TLOP at the same time.The Moon cannot choose anything.A soldier cant be commanded to go to war and claim that it was his "choice".Soldiers have been known to disobey orders, wraith.Yet your evidence is where exactly?
Saying that you have free-will is not evidence Pix.I have defined free will as the ability to choose between possible courses of action. I do this. It is objectively observable behaviour. Six billion other people also manage to do this. Only you, the sole mindless zombie on our fair plant, lack this ability.Point?
You both obey TLOP.Actually, given your recent definition of "obey":Obeys = is controlled by = is moved by = under the authority of = is governed by = is subordinate toNo. Nothing "Franko-obeys" the laws of physics.And you cant have "choice" and obey TLOP at the same Time...It may be true that you can't have free will and "Franko-obey" the laws of physics, though you have not shown this. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, since nothing "Franko-obeys" the laws of physics. We live in the Universe, not in your confused imaginings.Vote Pixy for SolipsismNothing I have said suggests solipsism, and I have categorically denied it both as my position and as a useful position in an way.Whats an example involving you and everyone else?Everything we choose to do.did all the atheist miss the hint of sarcasm in my post?Sarcasm? You wouldn't know sarcasm from a hole in the ground with you at the bottom.you have failed to prodice free-willy tooWrong. You persistently deny evidence presented to you. There are six billion humans in the world who do nothing but exhibit free will. And there's you, the sole member of the mindless zombie clan. And even you make the occasional slip.

[wraith]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Why are you refusing to answer the question? You have stated that there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will. What then is it that I observe?Which as you well know has been shown to be free will.

What are you talking about? I did answer it. Youre blind woMAN!

wraith: and in every situation where you come to a red light and the conditions are the "same" you will ALWAYS stop

Pixy: Do you have any more evidence for this now than you did the last dozen times you were shown to be wrong?

Yeah Pix, the only way that I can be wrong is if you run red lights at "random"
or ask your mum to tie up your shoe laces or not use dunny paper when youre in the loo
;)


No. Because I have shown it to be so. The Banana Pancakes and the Fork of Doom utterly demolish your concept of MBP. I note that you have not even attempted to debate this, but have retreated to ever more desperate assertions.

no it hasnt...it doesnt even make sense ;)

OH, I havent attempted to debate what?
I dont bother to reply to your replies that involves gibberish...(youre whole post is actually gibberish)


If I didn't have consciousness, I wouldn't think anything. And you have now reversed your position. Which is it?

I have reversed nothing.

Yeah, your free-will argument has a lot to do with consciousness actually.

Very well: my conscious choices are based on how I interpret information, various irrational factors, the chemicals that may be sloshing about in my bloodstream at that time, stray quantum influences, my present physical environment, and possibly other factors as well. Not everything I do is the result of a conscious decision, either. Since you are a mindless zombie, you will of course understand none of this.

I do actually ;)

but you dont....
youre obeying TLOP, yet you maintain that you have "choice"

No, I'm saying the question is stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll ask my imaginary friend Bob to tie my shoelaces for me. There. Happy now?

because it challenges yours beliefs?

The Moon cannot choose anything.

neither do you

Soldiers have been known to disobey orders, wraith.

Then they are not obeying their commander.
Can you disobey TLOP?

I have defined free will as the ability to choose between possible courses of action. I do this. It is objectively observable behaviour. Six billion other people also manage to do this. Only you, the sole mindless zombie on our fair plant, lack this ability.

Ultimately, youre saying that 2 + 2 can "choose" to equal 3...sometimes 8

It may be true that you can't have free will and "Franko-obey" the laws of physics, though you have not shown this. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, since nothing "Franko-obeys" the laws of physics. We live in the Universe, not in your confused imaginings.

Im not the one who is confused
;)

Nothing I have said suggests solipsism, and I have categorically denied it both as my position and as a useful position in an way.

yeah, im an illusion too...
youre thinking me up right now

wraith: Whats an example involving you and everyone else?

Pixy: Everything we choose to do.

That doesnt answer the question.
You obey TLOP
You dont choose anything.
You want to say that we are different to the moon, in terms of obeying TLOP, by saying that the moon doesnt have a mind. You say that the mind is a product of matter. Even so, so what? Youre still obeying TLOP.

You cant obey something and claim to have "choice"
:rolleyes:

Wrong. You persistently deny evidence presented to you. There are six billion humans in the world who do nothing but exhibit free will. And there's you, the sole member of the mindless zombie clan. And even you make the occasional slip.

"Pixy says so" does not equal evidence
lol

[Franko]

Hey Wraith …

An important thing you have to keep in mind when you debate Pixy is that Pixy has a non-standard (A-Theist) definition of the term “Truth”.

To Pixy, a thing doesn’t just need to be TRUE to be TRUE, it also has to be “Useful”. In other words, if something is TRUE, but Pixy doesn’t consider it “Useful”, then Pixy considers it FALSE.

In other words Pixy is NOTHING more than a dogmatic Religious Fanatic, but I have the feeling you already knew that … :cool:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
When I pick a number between 1-100, if I preferred a certain number over the others, then I would have "choosen" it. Yes, even if you don't know why you preferred it. Free will in action.


What if I dont perceive a number that is more beneficial than another? 33 was the first number that came to my head. It looked good, so I "chose" it.
You claim this to be free-will? For you argument to be consistent, my perceived benefits must be all "equal" and that my every action is spontaneous.
No, every action is not spontaneous. Some are carefully reasoned. But you have demonstrated that some of your actions are spontaneous. As I have said before, the purpose of this little exercise was to demonstrate the relatively rare situation where free will does not use MPB. However, even if you are using MPB, you can still be spontaneous and do something unpredictable. The "Fork of Doom" scenario demonstrates this.


?
Was I obeying TLOP?
Is obeying TLOP random?
TLOP include both randomness and non-randomness. You are not operating outside TLOP if you do something completely random (such as choose a number between 1 and 100). TLOP are quite capable of dealing with random data, as it does with certain aspects of quantum mechanics. For someone who holds such high esteem for TLOP, you give them too little credit.


Im not here to make friends
;)
Must resist.... not going to be so obvious....engaging free will.


Carnal thoughts?
I said that Pixy is pretending to be a woman....X-rated stuff is it?
haha.
Hey, I'm not judgmental, wraith. If it turns you on to imagine PixyMisa as a woman, then go for it. Twenty is a very itchy age. :D


Like I had said before....for your argument about free-will to be consistent, my actions would have to spontaneous, and I perceived all outcomes to be equally beneficial.
No, that is only true for the rare non-MPB case of free will. Every decision you make gives evidence for free will. Some are spontaneous, some use MPB. Some are smart. Some are dumb. The only common factor is that they are all your decisions.

[Franko]

Yes, even if you don't know why you preferred it. Free will in action.

Kind of like if you don't "know" what causes Lightning and Thunder then you say "God must be the one causing it"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Kind of like if you don't "know" what causes Lightning and Thunder then you say "God must be the one causing it"?
No. Not a thing like that. I can't use free will to cause lightening and thunder because it is not an available, perceived option.. If you believe in God, you could use your free will to say God causes it. Personally, I prefer more sensible explanations.

[Franko]

Yes, even if you don't know why you preferred it. Free will in action.

Tricky just explain how NOT knowing the correct answer means you actually know the correct answer?

You don’t know why he “choose” what he did … how does that make it definitely “free will”?

You could have just as easily said that he picked the number he did because “god” made him do it.

So why the double standard (yet again)???

[alfaniner]

How nice that I don't have to read Franko's/wraith's posts, as someone will undoubtedly quote his most ridiculous sayings. What I had read before putting them on ignore was the same thing repeated over and over again redundantly. It's like reading the same word over and over in a magazine. Pretty soon it loses all meaning and just becomes a jumble of heiroglyphics. So much for TLOP.

However, I am inspired to try a little experiment. I thought about the "choose a number from 1-100" question and have a theory I'd like to check out. I want to ask 100 or so different people to "Choose a number between 1 and 100" (using that exact quote every time). I am betting that the numbers will fall in a certain range and not spread evenly over the 98 available ("between" means 1 and 100 are excluded!)

My guess is that the most common ranges will be in the 30's and the 60's, with the most common choice being 37. Why? I will go through the thought processes that may occur instantaneously while making a decision. (Assuming I was the one asked......

1. You gave me a range between 1 and 100. With such a wide range, I don't want to choose from the lower end as I had probably used those numbers before if I had the question with a 1-20 or 1-50 range.

2. Even numbers don't seem "random" enough.

3. 40's and 50's are too "in the middle". You said "between" but that doesn't mean I want to go right in the middle. I have to fool you a little bit and go slightly outside of that range (hence the 30's and 60's).

4. 70 and up seems a little high because it seems like I had to think too long about the answer (I had choose and discard all the lower ranges.)

5. So I settle on something not too high, not too low, not in the middle, that's an odd number.

I don't think that the process of a person choosing a number is random at all. There are many factors that come into play. Whether this proves anything about free will or just human nature, I think it will be fun to see the results. I'll also record age and gender with their guesses. It's also important that each person be asked individually, i.e. not ask one of a group, then the next (I'd never choose the same number as the person next to me, unless it's done privately, as in written).

(Changed "from 1 to 100" to "between 1 and 100")

[Legallee Insane]

What Franko thinks that I think:
Because I am an atheist Franko assumes that I believe that the fact that there is no evidence for god proves that there is no god. He also assumes that I believe that lack of evidence for free will means that it must exist.

What I think:
I believe that there is no way of proving, one way or the other, if god exists, but it is my personal belief that he does not. It is partially bases on lack of evidence and partially based on experiences.

I believe that the concept of what "free will" is changes from person to person. My concept of "free will" is my ability to make choices for myself that will affect my actions and their consequent outcome. Franko's apparent concept of "free will" is whether or not things are predetermined (which he apparently believes they are). From that perspective I also have to take up an agnostic standpoint, as I believe that we truly have no way of knowing for sure.


Franko, it would be greatly appreciated if, instead of preaching about how wrong everyone else is, you could respect people's beliefs, not make assumptions about other people's beliefs, and perhaps try to argue (not preach) a point about what makes you think you are right.

[The Fool]

I asked Franko


Franko.
Remind me...Is spin=2 male or female. Is a graviton with spin=2 a little boy Graviton or a little Girl Graviton? Are girl gravitons pink? No, sorry, ignore that last question, I was just being silly......But I would like to know how to sex a graviton, so what is it? spin=2 is male or female?


Franko Replied with

What ... you mean Stimpson didn't know the answer??? Why would you expect me to know Fool -- I'm just a VB programmer (hehe)? Stimpson is the one who spent 8 years in the seminary learning the divine rights of the priestly class. If he can't help you, then I sure can't.

Frank....
I'm disappointed that you won't or can't answer this question. We've got a long road ahead frank, this is not a good start. You collapsed into a sobbing heap when you could not explain your contradictory position on free will , Eventually throwing a huge tantrum and claiming youe explanation for the conradiction is a "secret" that you are "physically prevented" from divulging.....(ya just gotta laugh eh?)

I hope your not just going to go belly up on this one too?
Is spin=2 a little boy graviton or a little girl graviton?

[Franko]

Legally-Insane,

Well like all A-Theists I find your “mind reading powers” unimpressive to say the least …

What Franko thinks that I think:
Because I am an atheist Franko assumes that I believe that the fact that there is no evidence for god proves that there is no god. He also assumes that I believe that lack of evidence for free will means that it must exist.

What I think:
I believe that there is no way of proving, one way or the other, if god exists, but it is my personal belief that he does not. It is partially bases on lack of evidence and partially based on experiences.

Either your “experiences” are evidence, or they are not.

SO what you are Really saying is it is my personal belief that he [Goddess] does not [exist]; and I have no evidence for this belief – just “experiences”

Yeah … very “sighantific” of you … :rolleyes:

I believe that the concept of what "free will" is changes from person to person.

Kind of like people’s concept of “god” changes from person to person?

My concept of "free will" is my ability to make choices for myself that will affect my actions and their consequent outcome.

You are an Algorithm. You obey the laws of Physics. You don’t have magic powers, and you can’t produce ANY evidence that you have magic powers. If you are claiming you can do it, then I will personally help you fill out your application for Randi’s Million.

Franko's apparent concept of "free will" is whether or not things are predetermined (which he apparently believes they are). From that perspective I also have to take up an agnostic standpoint, as I believe that we truly have no way of knowing for sure.

How about we consult the evidence?

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

Franko, it would be greatly appreciated if, instead of preaching about how wrong everyone else is, you could respect people's beliefs, not make assumptions about other people's beliefs, and perhaps try to argue (not preach) a point about what makes you think you are right.

How about if I do a little from column A, and a little from column B???

No seriously Graviton, it's my experience that A-Theists ALWAYS end up getting pissed off at me, I just try and expedite the process by giving them a reason from the get-go. Believe me, I may only be a figment of your imagination, but even I get bored hearing you think about that Atoms obey TLOP over and over again ...

[Legallee Insane]

Franko, I don't suppose you've ever bothered to really think about this but in some of your statements you claim TLOP to be the "atheist version of god" or something to that effect.

Let's just think about this..... that's right..... think a little harder..... bingo:
You spend more time arguing that the "atheist god" exists than you do arguing that the god (sorry, goddess) you believe in exists.

[Franko]

Let's just think about this..... that's right..... think a little harder..... bingo:
You spend more time arguing that the "atheist god" exists than you do arguing that the god (sorry, goddess) you believe in exists.

Actually I don’t “think” at all – only YOU do. I am just a figment of Your imagination, I don’t even exist, so “the Goddess” is just a figment of a figment of your imagination.

Look at the bright side … if Solipsism is True, then at least you have your Free Will. Unfortunately none of us will, but at least you’ll have it!

[Legallee Insane]

Franko:
Actually I don’t “think” at all – only YOU do. I am just a figment of Your imagination, I don’t even exist, so “the Goddess” is just a figment of a figment of your imagination.

Look at the bright side … if Solipsism is True, then at least you have your Free Will. Unfortunately none of us will, but at least you’ll have it!
I hope that wasn't meant to be an intelligent post. How many people on this forum do you think would agree that none of us actually think? Sure, we wish you were a figment of our imagination, but unfortunately we all have read your constant über-babble.

[Franko]

I hope that wasn't meant to be an intelligent post. How many people on this forum do you think would agree that none of us actually think?

Well considering that the person reading this post this very instant is the only conscious entity to actually exist, I would venture to guess ONE.

Sure, we wish you were a figment of our imagination, but unfortunately we all have read your constant über-babble.

There is no “we” if you want to be perfectly honest with yourself; furthermore, it wasn’t really “my” constant uber-babble it was just YOU imagining “my” constant uber-babble. … Ahhh, blame “me” what do I care? … I don’t even exist you nitwit!

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
Hey Wraith …

An important thing you have to keep in mind when you debate Pixy is that Pixy has a non-standard (A-Theist) definition of the term “Truth”.

To Pixy, a thing doesn’t just need to be TRUE to be TRUE, it also has to be “Useful”. In other words, if something is TRUE, but Pixy doesn’t consider it “Useful”, then Pixy considers it FALSE.

In other words Pixy is NOTHING more than a dogmatic Religious Fanatic, but I have the feeling you already knew that … :cool:

haha!

Frank, it's reassuring when another mind thinks the same thing :)

oh! congrats on passing the 5000 mark! ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The Fool
I asked Franko


Franko.
Remind me...Is spin=2 male or female. Is a graviton with spin=2 a little boy Graviton or a little Girl Graviton? Are girl gravitons pink? No, sorry, ignore that last question, I was just being silly......But I would like to know how to sex a graviton, so what is it? spin=2 is male or female?


Franko Replied with

What ... you mean Stimpson didn't know the answer??? Why would you expect me to know Fool -- I'm just a VB programmer (hehe)? Stimpson is the one who spent 8 years in the seminary learning the divine rights of the priestly class. If he can't help you, then I sure can't.

Frank....
I'm disappointed that you won't or can't answer this question. We've got a long road ahead frank, this is not a good start. You collapsed into a sobbing heap when you could not explain your contradictory position on free will , Eventually throwing a huge tantrum and claiming youe explanation for the conradiction is a "secret" that you are "physically prevented" from divulging.....(ya just gotta laugh eh?)

I hope your not just going to go belly up on this one too?
Is spin=2 a little boy graviton or a little girl graviton?

crickets are chirping on this one frank?
Don't you even have time to cut-n-paste your standard "I don't even exist" question avoider?

[Franko]

You expect me to read that entire long repetitious rant, quote-fabricating A-Theist sock-puppet?

Is it possible you boil what ever you are whining about down to a sentence or two?

If not, just start another thread about me.

[neutrino_cannon]

Franko, as I see it, the problem is that your ideas are simply too advanced for us A-theists. We have no free-willy, and don't talk to the godde$$$$$$$$.


;)


I'm not really sure what to say, I geuss the interplay between you and the rest of the forum is proof that while some veiws of the universe are not ireconsilable, some of their owners are.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky
Yes, even if you don't know why you preferred it. Free will in action.

I was obeying TLOP actually
;)


No, every action is not spontaneous. Some are carefully reasoned. But you have demonstrated that some of your actions are spontaneous. As I have said before, the purpose of this little exercise was to demonstrate the relatively rare situation where free will does not use MPB. However, even if you are using MPB, you can still be spontaneous and do something unpredictable. The "Fork of Doom" scenario demonstrates this.

Me picking a number between 1 and 100 wasnt "carefully reasoned" ;)
I also didnt see any number being a more "beneficial" number than another

Fork of doom?
Just what are you on this morning?
:rolleyes:


TLOP include both randomness and non-randomness. You are not operating outside TLOP if you do something completely random (such as choose a number between 1 and 100). TLOP are quite capable of dealing with random data, as it does with certain aspects of quantum mechanics. For someone who holds such high esteem for TLOP, you give them too little credit.

I obeyed TLOP.
33 was selected.
No number was more "beneficial" than another. You claim that QM is the reason for this "random" decision.
Just when do you at random run red lights?
Or wear a dress to work?


Hey, I'm not judgmental, wraith. If it turns you on to imagine PixyMisa as a woman, then go for it. Twenty is a very itchy age. :D

yeah I know
;)

No, that is only true for the rare non-MPB case of free will. Every decision you make gives evidence for free will. Some are spontaneous, some use MPB. Some are smart. Some are dumb. The only common factor is that they are all your decisions.

My decisions are based on experiences. There is no free-will.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
I was obeying TLOP actually
;)
Fair enough. Now all you have to do is show how TLOP prohibit free will. That's the toughie.

Me picking a number between 1 and 100 wasnt "carefully reasoned" ;)
I also didnt see any number being a more "beneficial" number than another
My point exactly. You can make a decision even when you don't "think" about it. By your own admission, no MPB was involved.


Fork of doom?
Just what are you on this morning?
:rolleyes:
You've discussed this with PixyMisa. Surely you remember him?


I obeyed TLOP.
33 was selected.
No number was more "beneficial" than another. You claim that QM is the reason for this "random" decision.

I do not claim that QM is the reason for the decision. I only use QM to show that TLOP are not deterministic. If TLOP allows some things to be non-deterministic, why not others?



Just when do you at random run red lights?
Or wear a dress to work?
Did you know that in the US, you have run a red light if you are still in the intersection when it turns red? Sometimes when a light turns yellow, one has to make a snap judgment as to whether or not to try to stop quickly or go through the intersection. Of course, usually one tries to evaluate the situation before making a decision, but sometimes it happens too fast, and one may wind up running the red light (because the car is still in the intersection) without meaning to. So I very rarely, run red lights at random, but I have before. You probably have too. This is another of those rare situations where free will is different from MPB.


My decisions are based on experiences. There is no free-will.
And what "experience" was your decision to pick 33 based on? Free will wins again.

[Franko]

Trickster (deceitful A-Theist):

Fair enough. Now all you have to do is show how TLOP prohibits free will. That's the toughie.


By what rule of Logic do I have to prove that YOUR GOD ("Free willy") DOES NOT EXIST?

You are the one CLAIMING "free will" Tricky A-Theist -- You make the claim -- you PROVE the claim!

You do understand how Logic is suppose to work -- don't you hypocrite-boy???

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko



By what rule of Logic do I have to prove that YOUR GOD ("Free willy") DOES NOT EXIST?

You are the one CLAIMING "free will" Tricky A-Theist -- You make the claim -- you PROVE the claim!

You do understand how Logic is suppose to work -- don't you hypocrite-boy???
Simmer down, youngun.

[Franko]

hehehe! Are you using the Titanpout defense of A-Theism now Tricky? At least he posted pics of naked women ...

Trickster (deceitful A-Theist):

Fair enough. Now all you have to do is show how TLOP prohibits free will. That's the toughie.


By what rule of Logic do I have to prove that YOUR GOD ("Free willy") DOES NOT EXIST?

You are the one CLAIMING "free will" Tricky A-Theist -- You make the claim -- you PROVE the claim!

You do understand how Logic is suppose to work -- don't you hypocrite-boy???

So your brain is made of chemicals and nothing more -- correct materialist?

Do chemicals have "free will" Tricky?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Fair enough. Now all you have to do is show how TLOP prohibit free will. That's the toughie.

As tough as showing the moon orbiting the earth?
Or some leaves falling off a tree?

My point exactly. You can make a decision even when you don't "think" about it. By your own admission, no MPB was involved.

?
My decesion was to answer your question. When you said to pick a number between 1-100, I was thinking "pick a number from 1 - 100". 33 was the first number. Maybe I saw it on the steet ;)

You claim this to be evidence of free-will?
Randomness = free will?

You've discussed this with PixyMisa. Surely you remember him?

I remember him mentioning something about this "fork of doom". I skipped that crap
;)
maybe you can explain it to me?

I do not claim that QM is the reason for the decision. I only use QM to show that TLOP are not deterministic. If TLOP allows some things to be non-deterministic, why not others?

again
randomness = free-will?

Did you know that in the US, you have run a red light if you are still in the intersection when it turns red? Sometimes when a light turns yellow, one has to make a snap judgment as to whether or not to try to stop quickly or go through the intersection. Of course, usually one tries to evaluate the situation before making a decision, but sometimes it happens too fast, and one may wind up running the red light (because the car is still in the intersection) without meaning to. So I very rarely, run red lights at random, but I have before. You probably have too. This is another of those rare situations where free will is different from MPB.

HEY!?!?!?!
You run red lights at random?
Where is the random element in the above post?

And what "experience" was your decision to pick 33 based on? Free will wins again.

My history made me select 33.
Would you agree?

You said "choose a number between 1 and 100". I saw a benefit in doing so. My head scanned the numbers 1 to 100. 33 was the one that I though of first. It felt good. I went with it.

[Franko]

Did anyone see South Park last night?

Cartman: The only thing that will teach parents a lesson is if they understand that there are consequences for their actions!

hehehe! That Fat little bastard cracks me up!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
As tough as showing the moon orbiting the earth?
Or some leaves falling off a tree?
Alas, no. You would actually have to study physics and make the amazing discovery, against the majority of current evidence, that TLOP are completely deterministic. It is a hard thing to do. Are you up to it?

Originally posted by wraith
?
My decesion was to answer your question. When you said to pick a number between 1-100, I was thinking "pick a number from 1 - 100". 33 was the first number. Maybe I saw it on the steet ;)

Oh, yeah, you can give plenty of explanations in hindsight, but when the time came you just did it. You didn't know why. You made a choice. Two of them actually, including the one to actually pick a number. No one compelled you to do so.

Originally posted by wraith
You claim this to be evidence of free-will?
Randomness = free will?
Not exactly, but it demonstrates that the universe is not deterministic. If it can be non-deterministic in one instance, then why not others?

Originally posted by wraith
I remember him mentioning something about this "fork of doom". I skipped that crap
;)
maybe you can explain it to me?
Well, this might explain why you are having such a hard time in here Wraith. You really must read what others are saying in order to reply intelligently. Or is that unimportant to you?
Originally posted by wraith
HEY!?!?!?!
You run red lights at random?
Where is the random element in the above post?
The random element was that I ran a light that I did not intend to. It means that I occasionally, at random intervals, do things directly opposed to my MPB. As I have said (many times) not everything is random. In fact, true randomness is relatively rare. However, the fact that exists at all means that predestination does not exist.

Originally posted by wraith
My history made me select 33.
Would you agree?
No I would not agree. And of course I am familiar with all of the arguments about "prior brain states". All of those arguments are hypothetical. Since we can probably never know the difference between "true free will" and the "illusion of free will", it is my contention that there is no need to make a distinction.
Originally posted by wraith

You said "choose a number between 1 and 100". I saw a benefit in doing so. My head scanned the numbers 1 to 100. 33 was the one that I though of first. It felt good. I went with it.

Yes, the first decision was the MPB type of free will. The second decision, by your own admission, was not. If there was a benefit to the number 33, you certainly didn't perceive it.

[Franko]

Tricky (deceitful) A-Theist:
Alas, no. You would actually have to study physics and make the amazing discovery, against the majority of current evidence, that TLOP are completely deterministic. It is a hard thing to do. Are you up to it?

Contrary to what you want everyone to believe Trixy, it is far easier for me or the Wraith to demonstrate that the present is based on the past, then it is for you to demonstrate that it is not.

[Franko]

bump

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Contrary to what you want everyone to believe Trixy, it is far easier for me or the Wraith to demonstrate that the present is based on the past, then it is for you to demonstrate that it is not.
Well it it is so easy, then why don't you do it? Go win the lottery. Tell us the final score of the Super Bowl. Tell us who the Democratic nominee for president will be. Do something useful, or quit whining because everybody's making fun of you.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Alas, no. You would actually have to study physics and make the amazing discovery, against the majority of current evidence, that TLOP are completely deterministic. It is a hard thing to do. Are you up to it?

just how is cause and effect magical? ;)
under it's present state, how will it crash into the earth?
when do you run red lights at random?


Oh, yeah, you can give plenty of explanations in hindsight, but when the time came you just did it. You didn't know why. You made a choice. Two of them actually, including the one to actually pick a number. No one compelled you to do so.

MPB told me to actually answer your question and choose a number between 1 and 100!
When you told me to pick a numnber between 1 and 100, my mind had a mental picture of "a number between 1 and 100". 33 was a number that I had visualised. Are you saying that this event was not based on my past?
When I say to you "USA and terrorism" what was the first image that came to your head? Are you saying that this image was due to free-will?

Not exactly, but it demonstrates that the universe is not deterministic. If it can be non-deterministic in one instance, then why not others?

in what instance was it not deterministic?
If you wound back Time 5 minutes, would things turn out differently?
If so, just how can anything be predicted?

Well, this might explain why you are having such a hard time in here Wraith. You really must read what others are saying in order to reply intelligently. Or is that unimportant to you?

Pixy lost the plot. Why would I listen to him?
Maybe you could explain this fork of doom business? ;)

The random element was that I ran a light that I did not intend to. It means that I occasionally, at random intervals, do things directly opposed to my MPB. As I have said (many times) not everything is random. In fact, true randomness is relatively rare. However, the fact that exists at all means that predestination does not exist.

How did you run the red light when it was opposed to your MBP?


No I would not agree. And of course I am familiar with all of the arguments about "prior brain states". All of those arguments are hypothetical. Since we can probably never know the difference between "true free will" and the "illusion of free will", it is my contention that there is no need to make a distinction.

?
So the present is not based on the past?
Back to magic hey? :rolleyes:

Just let us know when you run red lights and stop at green ones ;)

Yes, the first decision was the MPB type of free will. The second decision, by your own admission, was not. If there was a benefit to the number 33, you certainly didn't perceive it.

Farm yard animals Trix!
What animal came to mind?
Is this free-will in action Twix?
:rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well it it is so easy, then why don't you do it? Go win the lottery. Tell us the final score of the Super Bowl. Tell us who the Democratic nominee for president will be. Do something useful, or quit whining because everybody's making fun of you.

It's pretty hard when you dont have the info ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
just how is cause and effect magical?
It's not. Why do you ask?

when do you run red lights at random?
LOL. If I knew that, then it wouldn't be random, now would it?


MPB told me to actually answer your question and choose a number between 1 and 100!
Did it? Why didn't you know why you chose it then? Did you not understand what MPB said?

How can you tell the difference between these two?
1) MPB makes all our choices, but we don't know what they will be

vs

2) We make our own choices.


When you told me to pick a numnber between 1 and 100, my mind had a mental picture of "a number between 1 and 100". 33 was a number that I had visualised. Are you saying that this event was not based on my past?
I'm saying you can't tell if it was or if it wasn't. You said you don't know why you chose it. If you, the person who is choosing, doesn't know, then how can you say that some other unprovable entity knows? All the evidence says YOU made the choice.

When I say to you "USA and terrorism" what was the first image that came to your head? Are you saying that this image was due to free-will?
Yup. I'll bet you can't tell me what image came to my mind. Even if you tried, how could you prove it?

in what instance was it not deterministic?
If you wound back Time 5 minutes, would things turn out differently?
Well, see, that's the funny thing. Time can't be reversed. I know you wish it could be sometimes, but try as you might, you can't . What you propose is a totally untestable scenario. If I say, "yes, things would turn out differently", how would you prove me wrong? If you say, "They would be exactly the same", how do I prove you wrong? It is futile to discuss the results of an impossible situation.

If so, just how can anything be predicted?
Some things can be predicted by analyzing patterns. For example, you can predict when the moon will rise tomorrow because it follows a very repetitive pattern. Other things are probablistic. You can probably predict the high temperature tomorrow within ten degrees because it follows a fairly repetitive pattern. However, other things are not as probablistic. You can't pick the lottery numbers, because there is no pattern at all. I recommend a basic statistics class for you.

Pixy lost the plot. Why would I listen to him?
Maybe you could explain this fork of doom business? ;)
The basic idea is to show that sometimes things happen against MPB and against prediction. The cowardly soldier throws himself on a grenade, for example. Pixy is... well... creative in his scenarios, but I would have thought that most people would have understood it. Oh that's right. You didn't read it.

How did you run the red light when it was opposed to your MBP?
I didn't mean to. I was caught in the middle and couldn't stop. It would never be in my MPB to run red lights on purpose.

So the present is not based on the past?
Back to magic hey? :rolleyes:
Of course, a lot of present is based on the past. Most of it in fact. But not all of it. Some of it is completely random. This is why I went to great lengths to illustrate the difference between the MPB version of free will, and the random version of free will.

Just let us know when you run red lights and stop at green ones ;)
If you want to make bets, you can lay good money that I will stop at the overwhelming majority of red lights. On the rare occasion that I don't, it won't be intentional, so I can't let you know in advance.


Farm yard animals Trix!
What animal came to mind?
Is this free-will in action Twix?
:rolleyes:
If it's not, then you should be able to tell ME what came to my mind.

[Franko]

Tricky:
Well it it is so easy, then why don't you do it?

I predict that after dedicating 30+ years of your life to the Religion of A-Theism that there is no way you will ever admit you are wrong. I predict that you will continue to be a dogmatic old fool and you will continue to demonstrate your religious fervor and devotion day after day in this forum.

You will do this despite the stunning and complete lack of evidence for any of the things you believe. You will continue to make obvious logical fallacy, after fallacy and continue to demonstrate that you are simply a brainwashed moron from a cult of utter pessimism.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Franko
I predict that after dedicating 30+ years of your life to the Religion of A-Theism that there is no way you will ever admit you are wrong. I predict that you will continue to be a dogmatic old fool and you will continue to demonstrate your religious fervor and devotion day after day in this forum.

You will do this despite the stunning and complete lack of evidence for any of the things you believe. You will continue to make obvious logical fallacy, after fallacy and continue to demonstrate that you are simply a brainwashed moron from a cult of utter pessimism.
*Aardvark collapses to the floor soiling his trousers and vomiting blood from laughter*

[Franko]

*Aardvark collapses to the floor soiling his trousers and vomiting blood from laughter*

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Aardvark A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Aardvark A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

If you want to come to this forum and remind people of this over and over again Aardvark, I don’t mind assisting you one bit. You might say it is my destiny to do just that.

What's the matter Aardvark, is Fate preventing you from simply conceding the obvious? Like I said ... YOU obey TLOP.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
I predict that after dedicating 30+ years of your life to the Religion of A-Theism that there is no way you will ever admit you are wrong. I predict that you will continue to be a dogmatic old fool and you will continue to demonstrate your religious fervor and devotion day after day in this forum.
And let me guess. You will be the one who decides whether or not these "predictions" are correct, right? If you learned anything from the Randi Challenge, it should be that no judging is required. Make us some predictions that anyone can verify. I've already given you a few examples. I predict you will continue to refuse to do so. I further predict that you will continue to make straw men in great profusion.

Originally posted by Franko
You will do this despite the stunning and complete lack of evidence for any of the things you believe. You will continue to make obvious logical fallacy, after fallacy and continue to demonstrate that you are simply a brainwashed moron from a cult of utter pessimism.
Such wit! Such passion! Surely you must have been Oscar Wilde in your previous life.

[Max560]

Franko-

Why don't you just trot out this Logical Tart that you worship?

That would wrap up this whole arguement.

-just trying to help

[Aardvark_DK]

Oh, Franko! If at least you had any idea what a fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index) is... Alas, no. Perhaps you go by The Lexicon's definition of fallacy?

Anyway, click on the provided link and be sure to read about the Straw Man fallacy. When you've read it - and understood it, then... Well, I'm sure I have no idea what happens then.

[Starshark]

Because I am now drunk, I am going to read this whole thread from start to finish.

Does anyone want to bet how many toes I'll have left when I'm finished? Something tells me I'll have bitten more than a few of them off before I'm done.


(edditteded to correcct shepelliing)

[Starshark]

Christ, I only made it to the second post and I've lost a toe already.

Why the Hell does Franko keep using the term "A-Theist"? What's with the dash? Is it a secret code for the Fellows of the Secret Society of Morons?

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Franko
Doubt,



Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS.

When you have EVIDENCE that refutes this obvious TRUTH, then you will have evidence for “free will”. Until that Time you are a Religious Nitwit, who prefers Wishful Thinking to Logic and Reason.

BTW - You are a Nitwit for pretending that you are NOT religious, when you clearly are.



Perhaps that is Your Destiny, but I assure you … it is NOT mine.



Yeah … you need more bad Karma (especially from Me), like you need a bullet in your temple.



AAaaaagh!

Another toe!

Jedi Knight has a post next... Gawd... not another toe, please!

[Starshark]

Okay... I got to page 2 and I gave up. I'm not that drunk. Nor do I have that many toes.


Someone has already asked Franko, "If you don't believe in free will, why do you bother trying to prove to people that it doesn't exist?", did he have an answer to that? Or is it just something he ignores like everything else?

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Starshark
Someone has already asked Franko, "If you don't believe in free will, why do you bother trying to prove to people that it doesn't exist?", did he have an answer to that? Or is it just something he ignores like everything else?
I think he's trying to save us. Not sure though.

Henceforth you shall be known as Starshark the Almost Toeless.

[Franko]

Tricky: (A-Theist)
And let me guess. You will be the one who decides whether or not these "predictions" are correct, right? If you learned anything from the Randi Challenge, it should be that no judging is required. Make us some predictions that anyone can verify. I've already given you a few examples. I predict you will continue to refuse to do so. I further predict that you will continue to make straw men in great profusion.

You say the present isn’t based on the past Trixy? You really believe that? I bet that out of all the teams in the NFL I can narrow the winner down to one of only two teams, in fact … I bet I could tell you who will win …

Okay here’s another prediction. You don’t have ANY evidence for your Religious beliefs, and despite this fact you are going to continue to post on this forum demanding that we accept a view of the origin and nature of the Universe that YOU yourself concede you cannot explain! You are going to demand that we accept your religion as the “one true faith” based solely on your word.

And since you have also stipulated that you don’t believe there will be any consequences for your actions if you lie to us (“Tricky”) then we really have no logical reason for taking you at your word.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

If you want to come to this forum and remind people of this over and over again Trixy, I don’t mind assisting you one bit. You might say it is my destiny to do just that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
You say the present isn’t based on the past Trixy? You really believe that? I bet that out of all the teams in the NFL I can narrow the winner down to one of only two teams, in fact … I bet I could tell you who will win …
Oh Franko, these powers of LD are just amazing! Out of two teams in a game in which ties are impossible ONE TEAM WILL WIN! You really are the clever chap. I notice that you you say you think you know who will win, but with a typical show of your brand of courage, you decline to do so. Is the LD not speaking to you anymore? Don't tell me SHE put you on "ignore' too.:eek:

Originally posted by Franko
Okay here’s another prediction. You don’t have ANY evidence for your Religious beliefs, and despite this fact you are going to continue to post on this forum demanding that we accept a view of the origin and nature of the Universe that YOU yourself concede you cannot explain! You are going to demand that we accept your religion as the “one true faith” based solely on your word.
You are right in one sense that I don't have any evidence for my religions beliefs, because I don't have any religious beliefs. Nor have I asked you to accept my views of the origin and nature of the universe. Hasn't Aardvark shamed you into looking up the definition of "straw man" yet? Well, I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by Franko
And since you have also stipulated that you don’t believe there will be any consequences for your actions if you lie to us (“Tricky”) then we really have no logical reason for taking you at your word.
As I have mentioned before, my lad, if you are going to lie, at least make it a good lie. Don't lie when it is so incredibly easy to prove you wrong. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=300071&highlight=consequences+peeved#post300071)

And what's with this new tactic of making up false quotes? In the real world, that could land you a libel suit. Of course, I realize that your bravery quotient is too low to do anything that might have adverse consequences for you. :rolleyes:

[Max560]

Show us this Logical Tart that you worship!

I'm here to help.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

It's not. Why do you ask?

it's not?
you believe in pure randomness....pretty magical to me

LOL. If I knew that, then it wouldn't be random, now would it?

Hence me saying that you dont run red lights at "random".
Although, you did say that you ran red lights at "random" sometimes, did you not? :rolleyes:


Did it? Why didn't you know why you chose it then? Did you not understand what MPB said?

How can you tell the difference between these two?
1) MPB makes all our choices, but we don't know what they will be

vs

2) We make our own choices.

I think that you are confusing the issue.
33 was the number that came to my head when I thought "numbers between 1 and 100"

when I say "farm yard animals" Trix, what animal did you initially think of?
Is this evidence for free-will?


I'm saying you can't tell if it was or if it wasn't. You said you don't know why you chose it. If you, the person who is choosing, doesn't know, then how can you say that some other unprovable entity knows? All the evidence says YOU made the choice.

Again, when I say "farm yard animals" Trix, what animal did you initially think of?
Is this evidence for free-will?

Are you saying that my decision to "choose" 33 wasnt based on logic? The present is not based on the past?
When I say "farm yard animals" do you instantly think of cars? ;)


wraith: When I say to you "USA and terrorism" what was the first image that came to your head? Are you saying that this image was due to free-will?

Tricky: Yup. I'll bet you can't tell me what image came to my mind. Even if you tried, how could you prove it?

LET ME GET THIS!
Lets just say that the image that you thought of was a tank. Are you telling me that when I said "USA and terrorism" you just though of a tank? Are you saying that this image that you thought of was not based on the past? Are you saying that if you didnt know what "USA" and "terrorism" meant, you would still be thinking of a tank?

now thats magic ;)

oh, and why would I have to prove it? lol


Well, see, that's the funny thing. Time can't be reversed.

You sure about that?
muhaha

I know you wish it could be sometimes, but try as you might, you can't . What you propose is a totally untestable scenario. If I say, "yes, things would turn out differently", how would you prove me wrong? If you say, "They would be exactly the same", how do I prove you wrong? It is futile to discuss the results of an impossible situation.

just how can we predict anything if the present is not based on the past?


Some things can be predicted by analyzing patterns. For example, you can predict when the moon will rise tomorrow because it follows a very repetitive pattern. Other things are probablistic. You can probably predict the high temperature tomorrow within ten degrees because it follows a fairly repetitive pattern. However, other things are not as probablistic. You can't pick the lottery numbers, because there is no pattern at all. I recommend a basic statistics class for you.

Are you saying that these events are not logical?

The basic idea is to show that sometimes things happen against MPB and against prediction. The cowardly soldier throws himself on a grenade, for example. Pixy is... well... creative in his scenarios, but I would have thought that most people would have understood it. Oh that's right. You didn't read it.

How is the cowardly soldier throwing himself onto a grenade, acting against his MPB? If that wasnt the max perceived benefit, then he wouldnt have thrown himself onto the grenade.


I didn't mean to. I was caught in the middle and couldn't stop. It would never be in my MPB to run red lights on purpose.

So you didnt see the red light till you were in the middle of the intersection?
How is that against MPB?
You didnt see the red light, so how did you know when to stop? Then when you finally saw it, you kept on going, perhaps you even accelerated.
All this falls under MPB...


Of course, a lot of present is based on the past. Most of it in fact. But not all of it. Some of it is completely random. This is why I went to great lengths to illustrate the difference between the MPB version of free will, and the random version of free will.

MBP does not equal free-will!
oh..and random version of free-will? :rolleyes:
free-will is magic...all versions!


If you want to make bets, you can lay good money that I will stop at the overwhelming majority of red lights. On the rare occasion that I don't, it won't be intentional, so I can't let you know in advance.

In other words, your actions are logical


If it's not, then you should be able to tell ME what came to my mind.

lol
yes Trix, assuming that I had all the info, I could...
give it time, perhaps Ill be able to read your mind
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Maxdickhead
Show us this Logical Tart that you worship!

I'm here to help.

no youre not
;)

[neutrino_cannon]

Franko, this adressed to you:

What is it that bothers you about atheism? As far as I can tell, the primary motivation behind atheism is not at all the avoidance of morals, which cannot logicaly exist without free will, but the conclusion that it is unlikely, at best that there is any sort of "un-moved prime mover" in the universe or anywhere else.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
you believe in pure randomness....pretty magical to me
I know it does to you. You believe that every throw of the dice, every spin of the roulette wheel, every deal of the cards is predestined. Thats why people like you are beloved by casinos. Without a knowledge of random distributions, you have no conception of how to "play the odds".


Hence me saying that you dont run red lights at "random".
Although, you did say that you ran red lights at "random" sometimes, did you not? :rolleyes:
Did you not understand the explanation? I really don't know how to make it simpler. It's like someone saying "prepare for the unexpected". Well if it's unexpected, then you can't prepare for it, right? If you do prepare, then it's expected. Similarly, if you can predict, with minimal error, the outcome of future events, then they are not random.

when I say "farm yard animals" Trix, what animal did you initially think of?
Is this evidence for free-will?
If you can't tell me what I thought of, then it is evidence for free will. If you want to try this, I would be willing to set up a test where you submit your guess and I submit my answer to a third party. If you guess right, then you have a single datum for predestination. However, unless you can do it again and again with a high percentage of accuracy, then you are giving evidence for free will again and again.


Again, when I say "farm yard animals" Trix, what animal did you initially think of?
Is this evidence for free-will?
What is your point, Wraith? The only important thing is that I can choose to think of something. The number of common farm animals is fairly low, probably less than ten, so the chances you could predict what I said are much higher than if you said "pick your favorite song". Nevertheless, I suspect you still couldn't predict what I picked. My free will trumps your predestination.
Are you saying that my decision to "choose" 33 wasnt based on logic? The present is not based on the past?
When I say "farm yard animals" do you instantly think of cars? ;)
LOL. I'm a little worried about your fascination with farm animals, Wraith. Do you honestly think that free will means that people cannot answer a question? If so, it is even more proof that Logical Deists have free will.


LET ME GET THIS!
Lets just say that the image that you thought of was a tank. Are you telling me that when I said "USA and terrorism" you just though of a tank? Are you saying that this image that you thought of was not based on the past? Are you saying that if you didnt know what "USA" and "terrorism" meant, you would still be thinking of a tank?
(sigh) No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that given a range of choices, I am free to choose within that range. If you really want to know what I thought of, I will tell you later. It involves a bit of history.

oh, and why would I have to prove it? lol
Because you are saying my choices are predetermined. If you want to prove it, you have to show that they are. You can't quote some piece of illogic that says "TLOP" knows what they are. You have to show it. Can you?

You sure about that?
muhaha
Let's just say that every single piece of evidence I've ever collected says that time is not reversible (much as I'd like it to be sometimes). If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear it.


just how can we predict anything if the present is not based on the past?
You can't. Evaluation of patterns is critical to analysis. I'm a geologist and my whole science is based on the predicate, "The present is the key to the past". That means that the things we see operating today operated much the same way in the past. And yet, in spite of careful analysis, some things simply cannot be predicted. If they could, then lotteries would soon be out of business.

Are you saying that these events are not logical?
Again, you confuse logic with prediction. It is LOGIC that says you cannot predict the outcome of a roll of dice. I'm afraid your concept of logic has been badly warped by people who don't understand it. You would be better served by studying it yourself or taking a course, rather than relying on questionable sources.

How is the cowardly soldier throwing himself onto a grenade, acting against his MPB? If that wasnt the max perceived benefit, then he wouldnt have thrown himself onto the grenade.
A benefit that he will never see? No, he had what is called "empathy", or caring about others. He used his free will to do something which had no possible benefit for himself, contrary to all the prior evidence of his self-protective nature.

So you didnt see the red light till you were in the middle of the intersection?
How is that against MPB?
You didnt see the red light, so how did you know when to stop? Then when you finally saw it, you kept on going, perhaps you even accelerated.
All this falls under MPB...
You have no idea what happened. Your weren't there. You asked me if I ever ran red lights at random. I gave you a case where I did. Why is it that every time I answer your questions you remain unsatisfied?


MBP does not equal free-will!
oh..and random version of free-will? :rolleyes:
free-will is magic...all versions!
So you say (and say, and say and say....). Yet, i have given you several instances which indicate otherwise. Why is it that I have to continually provide evidence and examples, while you do nothing but fall back on your unsupported claims?

In other words, your actions are logical.
Most of my actions are logical (though I have my moments ;) ) but as I have shown, logic is not anthical to free will. I have done some things that seemed completely logical at the time, but in retrospect were incredibly stupid. Haven't you? If not, you are probably the only human who has never made a mistake.

yes Trix, assuming that I had all the info, I could...
give it time, perhaps Ill be able to read your mind
;)
Untill you are able to prove that you or some other entity has "all the info" then your contentions are mere speculation without a shred of evidence. But keep gathering information. It is how you learn. Maybe one day you will learn about physics, statistics, logic and all sorts of wonderful things!

[Max560]

So the Logical Tart sits around and reads the book of the universe, and crosses out the naughty characters with the Red Pen of Justice.

Does that cover it?

Just trying to help.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

I know it does to you. You believe that every throw of the dice, every spin of the roulette wheel, every deal of the cards is predestined. Thats why people like you are beloved by casinos. Without a knowledge of random distributions, you have no conception of how to "play the odds".

if you think that the outcome of a casion game is magic, be my guest ;)

Did you not understand the explanation? I really don't know how to make it simpler. It's like someone saying "prepare for the unexpected". Well if it's unexpected, then you can't prepare for it, right? If you do prepare, then it's expected. Similarly, if you can predict, with minimal error, the outcome of future events, then they are not random.

your actions are logical...no matter how "stupid" they are are


If you can't tell me what I thought of, then it is evidence for free will. If you want to try this, I would be willing to set up a test where you submit your guess and I submit my answer to a third party. If you guess right, then you have a single datum for predestination. However, unless you can do it again and again with a high percentage of accuracy, then you are giving evidence for free will again and again.

so you want me to mind read now?
you want me to make a prediction, based on incomplete information?
haha, well done Trix :rolleyes:

What is your point, Wraith? The only important thing is that I can choose to think of something. The number of common farm animals is fairly low, probably less than ten, so the chances you could predict what I said are much higher than if you said "pick your favorite song". Nevertheless, I suspect you still couldn't predict what I picked. My free will trumps your predestination.

lol
again you want me to mind read and make a prediction based on incomplete information...
does this make you feel good? ;)

LOL. I'm a little worried about your fascination with farm animals, Wraith.

and you say that I have a problem with carnal knowledge
haha! get with it Twix :)

Do you honestly think that free will means that people cannot answer a question? If so, it is even more proof that Logical Deists have free will.

Did I imply that? :rolleyes:

(sigh) No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that given a range of choices, I am free to choose within that range. If you really want to know what I thought of, I will tell you later. It involves a bit of history.

thats exactly what youre saying


Because you are saying my choices are predetermined. If you want to prove it, you have to show that they are. You can't quote some piece of illogic that says "TLOP" knows what they are. You have to show it. Can you?

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

I know that you want this to be false ;)


Let's just say that every single piece of evidence I've ever collected says that time is not reversible (much as I'd like it to be sometimes). If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear it.

Give it Time ;)
Maybe you can change your Destiny?


You can't. Evaluation of patterns is critical to analysis. I'm a geologist and my whole science is based on the predicate, "The present is the key to the past". That means that the things we see operating today operated much the same way in the past. And yet, in spite of careful analysis, some things simply cannot be predicted. If they could, then lotteries would soon be out of business.

Lotto is magic now?
Their operation is entirely magical?
They dont obey TLOP?


Again, you confuse logic with prediction. It is LOGIC that says you cannot predict the outcome of a roll of dice.

So the roll of the dice is magical?
It doesnt obey TLOP?

I'm afraid your concept of logic has been badly warped by people who don't understand it. You would be better served by studying it yourself or taking a course, rather than relying on questionable sources.

classic ;)

A benefit that he will never see? No, he had what is called "empathy", or caring about others. He used his free will to do something which had no possible benefit for himself, contrary to all the prior evidence of his self-protective nature.

He saw a benefit to protect someone else at the sacrifice of himself

You have no idea what happened. Your weren't there. You asked me if I ever ran red lights at random. I gave you a case where I did. Why is it that every time I answer your questions you remain unsatisfied?

Didnt you say that you didnt run red lights at random?
Now you say that you do?

Most of my actions are logical (though I have my moments ;) ) but as I have shown, logic is not anthical to free will. I have done some things that seemed completely logical at the time, but in retrospect were incredibly stupid. Haven't you? If not, you are probably the only human who has never made a mistake.

How does a mistake = not logical?

Untill you are able to prove that you or some other entity has "all the info" then your contentions are mere speculation without a shred of evidence. But keep gathering information. It is how you learn. Maybe one day you will learn about physics, statistics, logic and all sorts of wonderful things!

TLOP is non-consciousness?
That is something that you have to show...not me ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Maximumdick
So the Logical Tart sits around and reads the book of the universe, and crosses out the naughty characters with the Red Pen of Justice.

Does that cover it?

Just trying to help.

youve lost the plot monfre :rolleyes:

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith
TLOP is non-consciousness?
That is something that you have to show...not me ;)

Frankowraith,

Here we go again. "Prove that TLOP is not conscious", "Prove your outrageous claim of No-God", etc.

Come on, I though you LD guys were SKEPTICS! Are you seriously asking us to prove negatives?

First you have to shift the burden of proof by providing evidence for your positive claims.

Thus, pray tell, what is your evidence that TLOP is conscious?

If you are about to reply with the assertion "TLOP controls YOU control CAR" (which is just that - an assertion, not evidence) please riddle me this:

1) What do you mean when you say that YOU are "more conscious" than CAR? As far as I know (and probably the vast majority of the sane human population of this planet) a car is not conscious at all. How do you "grade" consciousess anyway? Isn't something either conscious or non-conscious?

2) What is your evidence that everything must be controlled by someting that is "more conscious"? Does this apply to your Goddess as well? Is she also in need of control by a more conscious entity?

[Franko]

CWLoser:
Here we go again. "Prove that TLOP is not conscious", "Prove your outrageous claim of No-God", etc.

Come on, I though you LD guys were SKEPTICS! Are you seriously asking us to prove negatives?

There is no such thing as a negative hypothesis CWL. And I find it odd that you claim TLOP is non-conscious and then you claim that the Wraith and myself are not being Skeptical for refusing to believe your claim without ANY evidence to support it. Taking someone at their word is not skepticism CWL, especially if the person who’s word you are accepting is an A-Theist religious fanatic.

“Proving a negative”, you mean like proving that you don’t have magic “free will” powers? Ohhh, it’s easy to prove your False-God doesn’t exist CWL. Things which are FALSE are easy to disprove:

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

Didn’t anyone ever tell you CWL, Atoms don’t have “free will”.

First you have to shift the burden of proof by providing evidence for your positive claims.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

Thus, pray tell, what is your evidence that TLOP is conscious?

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU. If you are disputing this then please provide YOUR evidence that your CAR is actually more conscious then YOU are.

If you are about to reply with the assertion "TLOP controls YOU control CAR" (which is just that - an assertion, not evidence) please riddle me this:
1) What do you mean when you say that YOU are "more conscious" than CAR? As far as I know (and probably the vast majority of the sane human population of this planet) a car is not conscious at all.

Well if you concede that the Car is not conscious at all, and you also concede that You are conscious, then it is fairly simple to conclude that YOU and more conscious then the Car.

How do you "grade" consciousess anyway? Isn't something either conscious or non-conscious?

You grade consciousness by observing control. Entities which are more conscious tend to control entities which are less conscious over Time.

2) What is your evidence that everything must be controlled by someting that is "more conscious"? Does this apply to your Goddess as well? Is she also in need of control by a more conscious entity?

I never claimed that everything needs to be controlled by something. But I have stated that more conscious entities tend to control less conscious entities. As far as I know The Logical Goddess is the Top of the Pyramid, and without ANY evidence to the contrary it is blasphemy for me to think otherwise.

[Franko]

neutrino:

What is it that bothers you about atheism?

You mean aside from the fact that it is an evil, pessimistic, dogmatic religion completely unsupported by ANY evidence who’s followers non-the-less claim to be skeptics?

As far as I can tell, the primary motivation behind atheism is not at all the avoidance of morals …

Is this an un-biased opinion? You aren’t an A-Theist yourself, by any chance?

[morals] … which cannot logicaly exist without free will

Since you can’t even define “free will”, and since you have no evidence for “free will”, and since morals obviously exist anyway, I’d ask how you arrived at this conclusion?

… but the conclusion that it is unlikely, at best that there is any sort of "un-moved prime mover" in the universe or anywhere else.

What? NC, you do agree that the Universe exist – correct?

Was the Universe always here in it’s present form?

If not, then how did it get here, and where did it come from? If you can’t explain it too me logically, then you might as well be telling me that the Universe magically appeared out of no where.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
CWLoser:

There is no such thing as a negative hypothesis CWL.

Yes there is. A claim of the existence of something is positive. A claim of the non-existence of something is negative.

The burden of proof is placed on the one making a positive assertion. Once evidence has been presented, the burden is shifted to the one making a negative assertion. 'Taint rocket science you know.

And I find it odd that you claim TLOP is non-conscious and then you claim that the Wraith and myself are not being Skeptical for refusing to believe your claim without ANY evidence to support it. Taking someone at their word is not skepticism CWL, especially if the person who’s word you are accepting is an A-Theist religious fanatic.

You are making the positive claim (that TLOP is conscious) - you prove it.

If you provide evidence of TLOP being conscious I will gladly assume the burden of disproving the assertion.

BTW - if I am an "A-theist", does this make you a "B-Theist"? :p

“Proving a negative”, you mean like proving that you don’t have magic “free will” powers?

Yes! Only, I have never claimed to have any "free will powers". I have observed myself and others "making choices between perceived and available options". In what way is this any different from standing at a "decision junction" and choosing according to one's "maximum perceived benefit"? Exactly what do you feel is "magical" about what I am saying?

Ohhh, it’s easy to prove your False-God doesn’t exist CWL. Things which are FALSE are easy to disprove:

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

Didn’t anyone ever tell you CWL, Atoms don’t have “free will”.

That might be so. Neither do atoms have consciousness or are atoms visible to the naked eye. Does this mean that humans aren't conscious or visible to the naked eye?

But let's leav the Fallacy of Composition behind for now. You would have me believe that we are not made of atoms, but also of a "Graviton". Just how do we know that "Gravitons" do not have "free will"?

And what exactly do you mean by "free will"? Who is this "False-God" you claim that I believe in?

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU. If you are disputing this then please provide YOUR evidence that your CAR is actually more conscious then YOU are.

I am not disputing that I am "more conscious" than my car. How does this prove your claim that TLOP is conscious?

Well if you concede that the Car is not conscious at all, and you also concede that You are conscious, then it is fairly simple to conclude that YOU and more conscious then the Car.

Again, fair enough, but besides the point. That I control my car (which isn't conscious, agreed) does not prove that TLOP is conscious.

You grade consciousness by observing control. Entities which are more conscious tend to control entities which are less conscious over Time.

Ok. I understand the assertion. How do you prove it?

I never claimed that everything needs to be controlled by something. But I have stated that more conscious entities tend to control less conscious entities. As far as I know The Logical Goddess is the Top of the Pyramid, and without ANY evidence to the contrary it is blasphemy for me to think otherwise.

"Tend to control" is not the same as "control", Franko. "Blasphemy" is nothing that should bother a true skeptic.

How do you know the Logical Goddess to be "on the Top of the Pyramid"?

[Franko]

CWL: (A-Theist Hypocrite)

Yes there is. A claim of the existence of something is positive. A claim of the non-existence of something is negative.

The burden of proof is placed on the one making a positive assertion. Once evidence has been presented, the burden is shifted to the one making a negative assertion. 'Taint rocket science you know.

So your claim that “free will exists” is a positive claim. Exactly the same as someone claiming that “god exist”.

Yet you’ll notice I’ve had no trouble providing evidence for NO “free will” while you have been completely incapable of providing any positive evidence for the existence of “free will”?

So you acknowledge the standard, and yet you STILL fail to meet it. That’s called YOU being a HYPOCRITE CWL!

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

CWL:
You are making the positive claim (that TLOP is conscious) - you prove it.

Actually you are also making a “positive claim”, you are claiming that TLOP is non-conscious. If that isn’t a positive claim, then explain why it isn’t?

What is your evidence for believing that TLOP is non-conscious?

Franko:
“Proving a negative”, you mean like proving that you don’t have magic “free will” powers?

CWL:
Yes! Only, I have never claimed to have any "free will powers". I have observed myself and others "making choices between perceived and available options". In what way is this any different from standing at a "decision junction" and choosing according to one's "maximum perceived benefit"? Exactly what do you feel is "magical" about what I am saying?

This just demonstrates you inherent dishonesty CWL. Obviously you have been arguing for “free will” for quite some time now (and fanatically so), yet suddenly you want to backtrack and pretend that you might no longer believe?

You need to pick a side in this debate, and stick to it, and either provide evidence for Your belief, or concede that you cannot provide any evidence because you don’t have any evidence for the things you believe.

That might be so. Neither do atoms have consciousness or are atoms visible to the naked eye. Does this mean that humans aren't conscious or visible to the naked eye?

Groups of Atoms are visible to the naked eye. As for groups of Atoms being “conscious”, that is up for debate. According to some A-Theists (Yatzi for example), consciousness is just an illusion.

As for “free will”, I don’t believe Atoms have “free will”, and I don’t perceive any “free will” in humans either, but since you have never even bothered to supply a logically consistent and precise definition of “free will” – who knows? I’ve noticed that you A-Theists like to keep your terms as vague as possible. That way it prevents people from detecting that you are utterly clueless about what you are talking about.

But let's leav the Fallacy of Composition behind for now.

Ahhh yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is incorrect, but you can’t explain why? Kind of like an A-Theist version of the emperor’s new clothes? Ahhh, CWL, if only us Theists and Deists were as smart as you, then perhaps we would be able to perceive the emperor’s new clothes, and the invisible flaws you perceive in valid syllogisms.

You would have me believe that we are not made of atoms, but also of a "Graviton". Just how do we know that "Gravitons" do not have "free will"?

Gravitons are bound by the laws of Gravity (Gravity being one of the 4 forces making up TLOP).

And what exactly do you mean by "free will"? Who is this "False-God" you claim that I believe in?

“free willy” is the “god” of A-Theism. All devout A-Theists pay homage to this “god” even though many A-Theists have been so thoroughly brainwashed they do not realize it. Without “free willy” there is no A-Theism.

I am not disputing that I am "more conscious" than my car. How does this prove your claim that TLOP is conscious?

Okay, so now YOU = CAR, and TLOP = YOU, and just like YOU, TLOP is not disputing that She is “more conscious” then YOU.

TLOP is controlling you, You think you are using “free will” to respond to these posts? If that’s the case, then how come your responses are so predictable? You were an A-Theist yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that? It seems to me that the present is based on the past, yet YOU and TRICKY STILL want to claim that Determinism is False … ?

Again, fair enough, but besides the point. That I control my car (which isn't conscious, agreed) does not prove that TLOP is conscious.

TLOP is controlling your actions to a far greater degree than YOU are controlling your CAR’s actions, so how can you make this claim? If YOU need to be more conscious then CAR then how on Earth can TLOP be less conscious than YOU, yet control you better and more completely then YOU control CAR? Can you explain that to us, because it doesn’t make ANY sense what-so-ever.

It sounds like you are claiming that Your CAR (a part of TLOP) is actually more conscious then YOU are, and when you are driving your CAR, it is actually the CAR controlling YOU. How is what you are claiming ANY different?

Ok. I understand the assertion. How do you prove it?

Well I guess you never really prove anything – do you? You just go with what your best evidence and Logic tell you. The main difference between Me and You is that you just make up evidence (or your own “logic”) when you don’t like the Truth in reality. Like all A-Theist you fear the Truth.

How do you know the Logical Goddess to be "on the Top of the Pyramid"?

Because I’ve never observed any entity more powerful then Her. Ergo, She is the most powerful entity that I have evidence for.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Because I’ve never observed any entity more powerful then Her. Ergo, She is the most powerful entity that I have evidence for.

How did you observe your Goddess? What is this evidence of which you speak?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
So your claim that “free will exists” is a positive claim. Exactly the same as someone claiming that “god exist”. It is in the same category, yes.Yet you’ll notice I’ve had no trouble providing evidence for NO “free will”Actually, I haven't seen you provide any evidence of anything at any point. You have provided a series of exceedingly confused, illogical, unsupported, contradictory and poorly written statements arguing that free will cannot exist.while you have been completely incapable of providing any positive evidence for the existence of “free will”?Apart from the six billion walking talking examples, that is.So you acknowledge the standard, and yet you STILL fail to meet it. That’s called YOU being a HYPOCRITE CWL!Sad, Franko. That's not even ironic, it's just dumb.What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?People. Make. Choices.CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway! Hey, Franko, that strawman has your face on it!What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?Don't know that CWL has claimed that "God" does not exist. Certainly I merely point out the total lack of evidence supporting claims of such a critter's existence.CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron! Another Straw-Franko bites the dust!What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOPFalse. Based on your definition of the word "obey" and our current understanding of the laws of physics, nothing "Franko-obeys" the laws of physics.You are made of AtomsInaccurate. I am not merely a random arrangement of atoms. I am a specific arrangement of atoms; I am atoms and information and energy.YOU OBEY TLOP!Again, nothing in the universe "Franko-obeys" the laws of physics.

Total worthless arguments against free will: 1
Total actual evidence presented: 0What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”)Objection: Defendent has redefined the claim!makes/controls YOUFalse. The laws of physics make nothing. The laws of physics control nothing.makes/controls CAR.Note that this last is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather an argument for free will.In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.False. No evidence for the consciousness of the laws of physics has been presented. In fact, all human knowledge and reason indicates that such a thing is entirely impossible.

Total meaningless and/or irrelevant arguments: 2
Total evidence presented for the existence of God: 0
Total own goals: 1Actually you are also making a “positive claim”, you are claiming that TLOP is non-conscious. If that isn’t a positive claim, then explain why it isn’t?This can be phrased as a positive claim. As such, it is indeed self-evident that the laws of physics are not and cannot be conscious, and that any claim that they are is utterly absurd.What is your evidence for believing that TLOP is non-conscious?The laws of physics are a set of mathematical equations. Mathematical equations are not and cannot be conscious.This just demonstrates you inherent dishonesty CWL.Well, that's almost irony.Obviously you have been arguing for “free will” for quite some time now (and fanatically so), yet suddenly you want to backtrack and pretend that you might no longer believe?Eh?You need to pick a side in this debate, and stick to it, and either provide evidence for Your belief, or concede that you cannot provide any evidence because you don’t have any evidence for the things you believe.And since Franko is invariably wrong, it shouldn't be hard to pick.Groups of Atoms are visible to the naked eye.Yes. So?As for groups of Atoms being “conscious”, that is up for debate.No, it isn't. Individual atoms are not and cannot be conscious.According to some A-Theists (Yatzi for example), consciousness is just an illusion. Yes. So?As for “free will”, I don’t believe Atoms have “free will”Clearly they do not and cannot.and I don’t perceive any “free will” in humans eitherWell, the fault obviously lies in your perception, since everyone else is able to see this.but since you have never even bothered to supply a logically consistent and precise definition of “free will” – who knows?A logically consistent and precise defintion has been provided to you at least a hundred times. Apparently this is not sufficient to actually impinge upon your dim and cloudy awareness.I’ve noticed that you A-Theists like to keep your terms as vague as possible.Ah! Irony! At last, irony!That way it prevents people from detecting that you are utterly clueless about what you are talking about. Ah, no, Franko, we are quite capable of detecting your utter cluelessness, thank you.Ahhh yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is incorrect, but you can’t explain why?Now what are you blithering about?Kind of like an A-Theist version of the emperor’s new clothes? Ahhh, CWL, if only us Theists and Deists were as smart as you, then perhaps we would be able to perceive the emperor’s new clothes, and the invisible flaws you perceive in valid syllogisms. You have never produced a valid syllogism, Franko darling. Your sillygisms run like this:

Flour is a white dust.
Bread is made of flour.
Therefore bread is a white dust.

That's the fallacy of composition for you.Gravitons are bound by the laws of Gravity (Gravity being one of the 4 forces making up TLOP).Bleah. Gravitons aren't bound by the law of Gravity. They're the (theoretical) mediating particle for the gravitational force.“free willy” is the “god” of A-Theism.Yes, well, since "A-Theism" is your personal religion, Franko, you can make it anything you choose.All devout A-Theists pay homage to this “god” even though many A-Theists have been so thoroughly brainwashed they do not realize it. Without “free willy” there is no A-Theism. Well, that's nice, Franko dear. Have you finished now?Okay, so now YOU = CAREh?and TLOP = YOUI'm the laws of physics? Or is it just CWL who is the laws of physics?and just like YOU, TLOP is not disputing that She is “more conscious” then YOU.What are you talking about, Franko?TLOP is controlling youThis is, to the best of our scientific understanding, simply untrue. Perhaps you'd care to present some evidence for this claim? Or perhaps you'd rather simply present your sillygisms again.You think you are using “free will” to respond to these posts?Yes.If that’s the case, then how come your responses are so predictable?That's because there's an elephant in your refrigerator.You were an A-Theist yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that?And once again Franko shows his unerring ability to predict things that have already happened. Well, actually, even that goes wrong a lot of the time.It seems to me that the present is based on the pastYes. So?yet YOU and TRICKY STILL want to claim that Determinism is False … ?Yes. And CWL and Tricky are correct. Predict the time of breakdown of a tritium atom, Franko dear. Whenever you're ready.TLOP is controlling your actions to a far greater degree than YOU are controlling your CAR’s actions, so how can you make this claim?Perhaps they can make the claim because they have free will? Or perhaps it's because your statement is complete nonsense?If YOU need to be more conscious then CAR then how on Earth can TLOP be less conscious than YOU, yet control you better and more completely then YOU control CAR?Simple. The laws of physics are not conscious. The laws of physics do not control anything.Can you explain that to us, because it doesn’t make ANY sense what-so-ever. Done.It sounds like you are claiming that Your CAR (a part of TLOP)A car is a physical object, Franko. The laws of physics are a set of mathematical equations. Car. Equations. Car. Equations. Can you see the difference? You can kick one of them. The other one you have to write down in a book first, and even then all you can kick is the book.is actually more conscious then YOU areA car, indeed, a spark plug or mudflap is likely more conscious than you, Franko. However, no-one else has ever suggested that a car is conscious at all.and when you are driving your CAR, it is actually the CAR controlling YOU.No.How is what you are claiming ANY different?Well, what we are saying actually makes sense and is almost certainly correct, while what you are saying is akin to the random babbling of a low-grade Markov-chain sentence generator. Is that sufficient difference for you?Well I guess you never really prove anything – do you?Nope. We can falsify claims. We can support claims. Proof is for mathematicians.You just go with what your best evidence and Logic tell you.Blink. Well, yes. That's correct. Who are you, and what have you done with Franko?The main difference between Me and YouHmm. Will this be ironic or just stupid?is that you just make up evidence (or your own “logic”) when you don’t like the Truth in reality.Both!Like all A-Theist you fear the Truth. Franko, I have a big bowl of the Truth for breakfast every morning. I don't fear the Truth. The Truth is a cuddly puppy. It will poop in your shoes if you make unsupported claims, though. Better check your sneakers before you put them on tomorrow.Because I’ve never observed any entity more powerful thenTHAN. THAN. Look it up, Franko. THEN and THAN are not the same word.Her.Or indeed less powerful. Or as powerful. Any conclusion can be reached from a false premise, particularly if your logic is sufficiently twisted.Ergo, She is the most powerful entity that I have evidence for. Ah. And what exactly would this evidence be again? I don't recall you ever mentioning it before.

Edited to add an of.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


CWL, how did you observe that TLOP is non-conscious? What is the evidence of which you speak for this claim? What is your evidence for magic “free will” powers?

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Why didn't you respond to my last post? Why do you repeatedly refuse to explain your beliefs A-Theist? Why are you trolling on this forum? Why don't you just go back to infidels.org where you belong?

Actually I did respond to your little strawmen here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12112&perpage=40&pagenumber=12). I thought I would avoid cross posting. You managed to see my reply in the other thread just fine. Doesn't it count in this thread?

Never mind. You have obviously reset (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810).

Obviously you have no intention of proving any of your absurd claims, and you are just here to spam us with your ridiculous double standards and obvious logical contradictions.

Says the guy who claims to a Goddess who is "the most powerful entity that I have evidence for". Present the evidence in question instead of just talking about it. Afraid it doesn't hold water?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


CWL, how did you observe that TLOP is non-conscious? What is the evidence of which you speak for this claim? What is your evidence for magic “free will” powers?

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Why didn't you respond to my last post? Why do you repeatedly refuse to explain your beliefs A-Theist? Why are you trolling on this forum? Why don't you just go back to infidels.org where you belong?

Obviously you have no intention of proving any of your absurd claims, and you are just here to spam us with your ridiculous double standards and obvious logical contradictions.

I don't mind pointing out what a religious fanatic you are CWL/Trixy/Pixy.

Are we back to the old deleting-reposting-deleting-reposting routine now?

That is a sure tell-tale sign that you have no more arguments.

No matter. I am done playing BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) for today.

See you around your Holiness. Tell your evidence for the Logical Goddess I said "Hi".

[Franko]

CWL:

Are we back to the old deleting-reposting-deleting-reposting routine now?

That is a sure tell-tale sign that you have no more arguments.

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed CWL, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by CWL
Are we back to the old deleting-reposting-deleting-reposting routine now?I wondered why I couldn't respond to that one. And then it wasn't there.That is a sure tell-tale sign that you have no more arguments. Ayup.No matter. I am done playing BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) for today.Me too. I'll be back when he resets himself. Or maybe not. When is BOBS 2.0 due out? Or even 1.1?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Since its been over a yearLess than two months for me. But you don't seem to be talking to me any more.and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefsWhat relgious beliefs. Franko, please sit down, as this may come as a nasty shock. Atheists do not have any religious beliefs.and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over againUnlike, say, you, for example, Franko, the paragon of innovation and information.what do you want me to say?Something coherent, perhaps?If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefsHard to argue for religious beliefs when you have none.some evidenceHard to present evidence for beliefs you don't have.I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious.Franko, you have never stated the obvious. You have stated the obviously false, and the obviously incoherent, but never the obvious.I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed CWLHardly germane, since no such thing has happened.perhaps you should run along then?His choice, since he has free will.I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?Because you're wrong? Because you're flagrantly, aggressively, hilariously wrong?Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs. Mirror, mirror, teapot and kettle.What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?Six billion people.What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?Never claimed that. What is your evidence for it's existence?What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
[b]Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP! BZZT! I'm sorry, the answer is: you have no evidence whatsoever, and cannot even put together a syllogism after five thousand attempts. You lose 10 points, bringing your score to an even negative one hundred and fifty. Next question:What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.BZZZT! No, I'm sorry, the answer is: you have none, so you will redefine the question and provide a compactified pair of sillygisms that have no bearing on the matter anyway. That puts you at, let's see, minus one hundred and sixty. Let's take it to the audience!

Presenter: OK folks, what's it to be?
Audience: THE ELEPHANTS' LATRINE! THE LATRINE!
Presenter: The people, they have spoke. The little-known Elephants' Latrine is located conveniently close to the Elephants' Burial Ground - though downwind of course - and is, uh, visited by over sixty thousand elephants on a daily basis. You can either clean the latrine daily for a month - with your own toothbrush - or bet your life against what's in this box. What's it to be?
Audience: THE LATRINE! NO, THE BOX!
Presenter: I'll give you thirty seconds to think. While you're thinking, I'll play this soothing music:

AND IIIIIII WILLL ALWAYYS LOVE YOOOOOO...

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Is this evidence for "free willy"? Or evidence for Religious Fanaticism???Neither, actually. It's just idle speculation on what nature of critter you are.Pixypants, are you ever going to bother explaining Your belief that there is a difference between "useful truth", and the regular variety of Truth? What, again? You don't read too well, do you Franko dear?

[Franko]

Pixy, You told me that Solipsism couldn't be True, because even if it were True it would not be a "useful" Truth.

You said that this was your "proof" that Solipsism was False.

That's not logic or skepticism. That's called being afraid of the Truth. And being afraid of the Truth is what A-Theism is all about.

Now either you can define what the difference is between "useful" truth, and the regular variety truth, or you can explain why you don't believe Solipsism is true.

... or you can go on looking like a complete and total religious nutcase just like your friends CWL and Trixy.

It's your Fate ... what do I care?

[Max560]

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

Because Atoms obey TLOP, they can be said to be stupid.
Franko is made of Atoms.
Franko is stupid.

Did I get it right?

Just trying to help.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Pixy, You told me that Solipsism couldn't be TrueNo. I didn't.because even if it were True it would not be a "useful" Truth. Yes. Which clearly contradicts what you just said.You said that this was your "proof" that Solipsism was False. No. I didn't.That's not logic or skepticism.No. And it's also not what I said.That's called being afraid of the Truth.Well, no. There's no evidence of fear in your statements, merely confusion.And being afraid of the Truth is what A-Theism is all about. Oh, so now I'm not an "A-Theist" after all? Jeeze, Franko, make up your mind. I just had all these false gods delivered and now I have to get rid of them again?Now either you can define what the difference is between "useful" truthWhich I have done twice, my little mindless forgetful zombie puppetand the regular variety truth"Regular" variety?or you can explain why you don't believe Solipsism is true.Because Materialism denies Solipsism, and Materialism works.... or you can go on looking like a complete and total religious nutcase just like your friends CWL and Trixy. Can I choose the box instead?It's your Fate ... what do I care? That's a good question. Neither you nor I can do anything to change our minds - according to you. So why do you care?

Oh, yes: useless truths, third time:

Tautologies.

Either it will rain tomorrow, or it will not rain tomorrow.

True.

Not useful.

And have you finished thinking yet? I getting sick of this song.

[Franko]

Can you explain why you believe Solipsism is False (what is your evidence)?

PixyChixy:
Because Materialism denies Solipsism, and Materialism works.

hehehe!!

That’s so funny Pix, it’s like déjà vu … because just the other day a Christian friend of mine was telling me …

Can you explain why you believe A-Theism is False (what is your evidence)?

A Christian:
Because Christianity denies A-Theism, and Christianity works.

Then a Hindu friend told me …

Can you explain why you believe in Reincarnation (what is your evidence)?

A Hindu:
Because Hinduism denies we cease to exist when we die, and Hinduism works.

Hmmmm … or maybe You just imagined that my “friends” said that “stuff” … ?

How in the Omniverse did You ever get to be “god”? … Pfffh!

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
hehehe!!

That’s so funny Pix, it’s like déjà vu … because just the other day a Christian friend of mine was telling me …

Then a Hindu friend told me …

Hmmmm … or maybe You just imagined that my “friends” said that “stuff” … ?Nope. I'm taking some time off from being your Goddess. I've delegated that function to a small shell script.

I'll merely point out that your "friends" are clearly and observably wrong, and that I am equally clearly and observably right. Did you just post your message either by praying to a single omnipotent god or by the direct intercession of one of a million minor gods?

No. You used a computer. Which is the product of engineering, which is founded on science, which is built on materialism.

If you prayed your posts in to JREF, it would be a lot quieter here.How in the Omniverse did You ever get to be “god”? … Pfffh! You chose me. Must have been that free will of yours acting up again.

[Franko]

Pixypants:

You chose me. Must have been that free will of yours acting up again.

I don't believe in "free will" Pixy. Unlike yourself, I can't believe in things there's no evidence for.

[Franko]

Pixypuffgurl:
Me too. I'll be back when he resets himself. Or maybe not. When is BOBS 2.0 due out? Or even 1.1?

Is this evidence for "free willy"? Or evidence for Religious Fanaticism???

Pixypants, are you ever going to bother explaining Your belief that there is a difference between "useful truth", and the regular variety of Truth?

[Max560]

Are there any properties of atoms that we don't share?

[Max560]

I like this whole LD/Fatalism thing.

Its kinda like Anselm lite.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Franko
Is this evidence for "free willy"? Or evidence for Religious Fanaticism???

Pixypants, are you ever going to bother explaining Your belief that there is a difference between "useful truth", and the regular variety of Truth? Either there's an echo in here, or Franko is even more confused than usual.

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


Frankowraith,

Here we go again. "Prove that TLOP is not conscious", "Prove your outrageous claim of No-God", etc.

Come on, I though you LD guys were SKEPTICS! Are you seriously asking us to prove negatives?

First you have to shift the burden of proof by providing evidence for your positive claims.

Thus, pray tell, what is your evidence that TLOP is conscious?

If you are about to reply with the assertion "TLOP controls YOU control CAR" (which is just that - an assertion, not evidence) please riddle me this:

1) What do you mean when you say that YOU are "more conscious" than CAR? As far as I know (and probably the vast majority of the sane human population of this planet) a car is not conscious at all. How do you "grade" consciousess anyway? Isn't something either conscious or non-conscious?

2) What is your evidence that everything must be controlled by someting that is "more conscious"? Does this apply to your Goddess as well? Is she also in need of control by a more conscious entity?

These points have been answer by Frank, so all I can say is read it again and suck it down ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Frano and Wraith, did you not go to the same school? Since you are not able to spell in the same way? :rolleyes:

Hans

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith


These points have been answer by Frank, so all I can say is read it again and suck it down ;)

Frank has answered jack diddle. All there is to "suck down" is the usual cut-and-paste insults. But, that's BOBS (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=304810&highlight=reset#post304810) for you.

[CWL]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
I wondered why I couldn't respond to that one. And then it wasn't there.Ayup.Me too. I'll be back when he resets himself. Or maybe not. When is BOBS 2.0 due out? Or even 1.1?

I have been told that the new versions (with more difficult levels - this version obviously only has "beginner") are shareware. I am seriously considering spending a few bucks on an upgrade. This version got pretty old pretty fast...

[PixyMisa]

Uh-oh. We've got BOBS stuck in a loop. Can someone hit reset?

[Franko]

Pixymoron:
Uh-oh. We've got BOBS stuck in a loop. Can someone hit reset?

Is that your best defense of A-Theism religious fanatic? It sounds like TROLLing to me?

Look, I don’t care that you have renamed your god – “free willy”, I don’t care that you pretend your god is a non-conscious. It doesn’t make you any less of a religious fanatic, because you have even less evidence for Your god than Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus have for theirs.

Make my point for me again A-Theist.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko


Is that your best defense of A-Theism religious fanatic? It sounds like TROLLing to me?

No, no Frankster. TROLLING would be something along the lines of slavishly cutting and pasting the same old assertions over and over again without considering any valid arguments from other posters and robotically insulting such posters.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
I don't believe in "free will" Pixy. Unlike yourself, I can't believe in things there's no evidence for.
ROTFLMAO!

Well, then, perhaps you could give us the evidence for these things you have claimed you believe.

This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)
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.
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.
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
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 abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)

[Franko]

CWLoser (brainwashed A-Theist)

No, no Frankster. TROLLING would be something along the lines of slavishly cutting and pasting the same old assertions over and over again without considering any valid arguments from other posters and robotically insulting such posters.

Well considering the “content” of ALL your posts CWL (and Tricky, and MRC, and Pixy, etc) I think my responses are more than YOU deserve A-Theist.

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed CWL, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
CWL, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Legallee Insane]

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.
I know people have pointed this out to you before but here we go again. That isn't proof by any stretch of the imagination, its just a simple assertion on your part. Now I will join in the crowd asking you, "Please provide evidence for YOUR beliefs."
Franko (aka Wraith):
Well considering the “content” of ALL your posts CWL (and Tricky, and MRC, and Pixy, etc) I think my responses are more than YOU deserve A-Theist.

Hmmmm. Yes, yes Franko, for once you are absolutely correct. None of us deserve to hear your pearls of wisdom, so please cease and desist posting here immediately so as to torture us with your absence.

[Max560]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Atoms obey TLOP
Chickens are made of Atoms
Chickens obey TLOP

TLOP makes/controls CHICKEN crosses/controls ROAD

[wraith]

Originally posted by Legallee Insane

I know people have pointed this out to you before but here we go again. That isn't proof by any stretch of the imagination, its just a simple assertion on your part. Now I will join in the crowd asking you, "Please provide evidence for YOUR beliefs."

Are you some kind of looney toon?!

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

Where is this invisible flaw?

CAR obeys YOU obeys TLOP

How can you be more conscious than TLOP without pulling a double standard out of your pants?
:rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


Are you some kind of looney toon?!

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

Where is this invisible flaw?

CAR obeys YOU obeys TLOP

How can you be more conscious than TLOP without pulling a double standard out of your pants?
:rolleyes:

Ahh, I found the invisible flaw! It is not a RESET; what we are seing is a REBOOT. Thus, no information carries over from previous sessions.

Now seriously, Wranko/Fraid: The flaw seems to be only invisible to you. As you can see it in other versions of the same syllogism, the double standard is yours.

Anyhow, your statement has been rejected in this debate, but you just keep restating it. When others then produce the same counter arguments, you accuse them of repeating themselves. Again the double standard is yours.

I, for one, have been tolerant of your lies and insults for a long time now, because I felt that somewhere down under all the gibberish, there were a real person, actually seeking debate.

Well, it seems I was mistaken. Present something new, and I'll gladly engage you in a sober debate. But as it is now, you are not worth it. For several months now, you have been presenting nothing but unfounded claims, lies and self-contradictions. Add to this your insolent and condescenting tone, you come out as a total creep.

You claim to believe in a benevolent goddess. Do you really think she endorses lies and insults? Do you really think she endorses namecalling and telling people to go jump of a building. Do you really think you are able to tell people what your goddess thinks about them?

---- Oh, well. It felt good to type it. :rolleyes:

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Ahh, I found the invisible flaw! It is not a RESET; what we are seing is a REBOOT. Thus, no information carries over from previous sessions.

Now seriously, Wranko/Fraid: The flaw seems to be only invisible to you. As you can see it in other versions of the same syllogism, the double standard is yours.

Anyhow, your statement has been rejected in this debate, but you just keep restating it. When others then produce the same counter arguments, you accuse them of repeating themselves. Again the double standard is yours.

I, for one, have been tolerant of your lies and insults for a long time now, because I felt that somewhere down under all the gibberish, there were a real person, actually seeking debate.

Well, it seems I was mistaken. Present something new, and I'll gladly engage you in a sober debate. But as it is now, you are not worth it. For several months now, you have been presenting nothing but unfounded claims, lies and self-contradictions. Add to this your insolent and condescenting tone, you come out as a total creep.

You claim to believe in a benevolent goddess. Do you really think she endorses lies and insults? Do you really think she endorses namecalling and telling people to go jump of a building. Do you really think you are able to tell people what your goddess thinks about them?

---- Oh, well. It felt good to type it. :rolleyes:

Hans

this sunflower couldnt answer me....oh well...

next!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
this sunflower couldnt answer me....oh well...

next!
Actually, wraith, Hans directly answered everthing you asked, except the "looney tunes" ad hom, which he answered indirectly by showing that he was not one.

In fact, every serious question you have asked has been answered. Evidence of free will has been provided (by you!:D), the flaws in the syllogism have been pointed out, and the double standard has been shown to be yours.

Now, I realize that you do not accept any of the answers, but it is an easy matter to show you the posts where you have been answered. If you want to be honest, you would say, "None of you have provided the kind of answers I was looking for." You do want to be honest, do you not?

[Franko]

Franko:
TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Legally-an-A-Theist
I know people have pointed this out to you before but here we go again. That isn't proof by any stretch of the imagination, its just a simple assertion on your part. Now I will join in the crowd asking you, "Please provide evidence for YOUR beliefs."

Just an assertion?!?!

Are you actually claiming that your CAR may be more conscious then You?

I realize that a lot of A-Theists think they are really “smart”. I realize that a lot of you A-Theists are required to believe that TOAST and CARs are more complex and conscious then HUMAN BEINGs, but personally I think it makes you sound Legally Insane when you claim it.


Hmmmm. Yes, yes Franko, for once you are absolutely correct. None of us deserve to hear your pearls of wisdom, so please cease and desist posting here immediately so as to torture us with your absence.

You really ought to apply the principle of “empirical evidence” a little more often … For starters try reading the thread title next time before you post.

[Franko]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Atoms obey TLOP
Chickens are made of Atoms
Chickens obey TLOP

Ohhh, are you sure A-Theist? Maybe the chicken used his magic “free willy” powers to disobey TLOP and he crossed the Road because he knew there wouldn’t be any consequences for his actions?

Either that, or the chicken crossed the road because chemistry made him do it.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Ohhh, are you sure A-Theist? Maybe the chicken used his magic “free willy” powers to disobey TLOP and he crossed the Road because he knew there wouldn’t be any consequences for his actions?

Either that, or the chicken crossed the road because chemistry made him do it.

Relax Franko, its just a joke. Come to think of it, the punchline is also a joke!

Here's another question:

What inspired DaVinci to paint the Mona Lisa?

Atoms obey TLOP
DaVinci is (was) made of Atoms
DaVinci obeys (obeyed) TLOP

TLOP makes/controls DaVinci made/painted Mona Lisa

Mystery Solved!

[Max560]

Franko:

If someone kicked you in the groin, would it be because that was their fate, or because they believed that solipsism was true?

Just wondering

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Max560


What inspired DaVinci to paint the Mona Lisa?

Atoms obey TLOP
DaVinci is (was) made of Atoms
DaVinci obeys (obeyed) TLOP

TLOP makes/controls DaVinci made/painted Mona Lisa

Mystery Solved!

Is there something about your analysis you are disputing?

If so, which part or parts?

[whitefork]

The point may be that the existence of the Mona Lisa and its creation by Leonardo are not completely or even meaningfully addressed by the role played by the laws of physics, that something else is required to account for its existence.

One might also ask whether the laws of physics have any explanatory value with regard to the impossibility of trisecting an angle with compass and straightedge.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork
something else is required to account for its existence.



Unfortunately for atheists/materialists, they *have* nothing else.

[whitefork]

*have*

[hammegk]

The sound of one hand clapping???

[Franko]

What inspired DaVinci to paint the Mona Lisa?

A woman?

Atoms obey TLOP
DaVinci is (was) made of Atoms
DaVinci obeys (obeyed) TLOP

TLOP makes/controls DaVinci made/painted Mona Lisa

Mystery Solved!

Was it a mystery?

I take it by your sarcasm that you believe TLOP didn’t cause Da Vinci to paint the Mona Lisa? I suppose you believe it was all Magic? Maybe Da Vinci used his “free willy” to create the Mona Lisa?

Then again maybe TLOP used Her “free willy” to create the Earth, and the Moon, and the Stars???

If someone kicked you in the groin, would it be because that was their fate, or because they believed that solipsism was true?

If Solipsism is True, then you would have free will, but me and everyone else would simply be algorithms obeying a fixed set of laws (laws like TLOP). Kicking me in the groin would have the same effect as when you kick any of the other figments of your imagination.

----------------------------------------

Whitebread:

The point may be that the existence of the Mona Lisa and its creation by Leonardo are not completely or even meaningfully addressed by the role played by the laws of physics, that something else is required to account for its existence.

How specifically is the creation of the Mona Lisa not completely or meaningfully addressed by TLOP? Are you claiming that paintings are not made of Atoms? Are you claiming that paintings exist beyond or above the Laws of Physics? How so?

What are you claiming whitemeat? I smell another of your diversions into Logic La-la-land.

[Max560]

What were the main factors which led to the Meiji Restoration?

Atoms obey TLOP
Japan is made of Atoms
Japan obeys TLOP

TLOP makes/controls Japan makes/controls Meiji Restoration

I had this question during a history midterm back in the day. If only I had provided the answer above, I could have aced the midterm. On the other hand, I may have lost points on the style of my prose. Perhaps the better response would be:

The Meiji Restoration happened because that was Japan's fate.

[Max560]

Originally posted by hammegk


Is there something about your analysis you are disputing?

If so, which part or parts?

What's there to dispute? It provides the entire answer, and sure saves on thinking!

[Max560]

You ever play that game Dungeons & Dragons?

Heh.

I bet you always insisted on being the DM.

:)

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, well. Same person has repeatedly stated that D&D is a good analogy of real life. I guess that really says it all. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hans

[CWL]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Yeah, well. Same person has repeatedly stated that D&D is a good analogy of real life. I guess that really says it all. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hans

Well of course it is:

Atoms obey TLOP
D&D is made of Atoms
D&D obeys TLOP

See?

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, I thought it was

Dungeon master controls YOU controls D&D character

---- Or was it the other way around?

I'd better ask my toaster.

On that line, I just changed my car, as the old one was beginning to evolve a little too much free will. :rolleyes:

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Max560


What's there to dispute? It provides the entire answer, and sure saves on thinking!
True, and in the same sense a meeting of egg & sperm provides the entire answer for your physical body.

No one has ever suggested the path from root cause to final product does not involve intermediate -- perhaps noteworthy --changes.

[Franko]

The Meiji Restoration happened because that was Japan's fate.

Yeah.

So how are you claiming it happened? Let me guess ... through the magic of "free willy"??? :rolleyes:

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah.

So how are you claiming it happened? Let me guess ... through the magic of "free willy"??? :rolleyes:

So far, you have failed to demonstrate your magic ability to "argue". You are just obeying The Law Of Letters (TLOL).

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

Where is your magical "argument" ability?

[Max560]

So how many hitpoints does the Logical Godess have?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Max560
So how many hitpoints does the Logical Godess have?
LOL. Depends on if she's wearing her "Girdle of Omnibenevolence".

[Max560]

Originally posted by hammegk


No one has ever suggested the path from root cause to final product does not involve intermediate -- perhaps noteworthy --changes.

Noteworthy? Remember this?

Franko:

"How specifically is the creation of the Mona Lisa not completely or meaningfully addressed by TLOP? Are you claiming that paintings are not made of Atoms? Are you claiming that paintings exist beyond or above the Laws of Physics? How so?"

Be careful about exploring these "intermediate -- perhaps noteworthy -- changes"

You may unleash a 3d20 attack from Dungeon Master Franko.



:)

[Franko's Goddess]

Originally posted by Tricky

LOL. Depends on if she's wearing her "Girdle of Omnibenevolence".

That's the brassiere of omnicleavageance. And the Luckies of omninicotineance.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


If you are claiming that all of these posts are also preordained then I agree -- they are all preordained by TLOP and the Initial State. That is called Determinism. And once you arrive at the conclusion that Determinism is True you are crazy if you call yourself an A-Theist (brainwashed fool).

TLOP (god) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

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

I am sure that you hold the delusion that you have just made an "arguement" of some sort, and that you have made some "point". You are simply obeying TLOL:

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

See?

You may not fully grasp the magnitude of this. Perhaps I can help you understand by posting :

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

about 500 more times or so.

Just trying to help.

[Franko]

So far, you have failed to demonstrate your magic ability to "argue". You are just obeying The Law Of Letters (TLOL).

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

Where is your magical "argument" ability?

If you are claiming that all of these posts are also preordained then I agree -- they are all preordained by TLOP and the Initial State. That is called Determinism. And once you arrive at the conclusion that Determinism is True you are crazy if you call yourself an A-Theist (brainwashed fool).

TLOP (god) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

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

[Aardvark_DK]

Hey, can I have a go? Ok, let's see:

YOU control STEERING WHEEL controls WHEELS.

Therefore the steering wheel of a car is more conscious than the wheels of a car. Kewl!

[Franko]

Hey, can I have a go? Ok, let's see:

YOU control STEERING WHEEL controls WHEELS.

Therefore the steering wheel of a car is more conscious than the wheels of a car. Kewl!

The STEERING WHEEL and the WHEELS of a CAR are not Gravitons, whereas YOU and TLOPIS are.

technically speaking STEERING WHEEL and WHEELS have an equal amount of consciousness relative to you or me -- Zero.

Relative to each other however, you could be correct. It depends upon how you have configured the system.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


If you are claiming that all of these posts are also preordained then I agree -- they are all preordained by TLOP and the Initial State. That is called Determinism. And once you arrive at the conclusion that Determinism is True you are crazy if you call yourself an A-Theist (brainwashed fool).

TLOP (god) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

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

This is simply faulty thinking. Your "opinion" on determinism is irrelevant. You have merely shuffled some letters together, and thrown in some punctuation and spaces.

This fundamental truth supercedes any delusional notion you might have about your magic ability to "make an arguement".

Read carefully:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

Perhaps if solipsism were true, you could have the ability to argue.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


The STEERING WHEEL and the WHEELS of a CAR are not Gravitons, whereas YOU and TLOPIS are.

technically speaking STEERING WHEEL and WHEELS have an equal amount of consciousness relative to you or me -- Zero.

Relative to each other however, you could be correct. It depends upon how you have configured the system. Provide evidence for your claimed distribution of gravitons, please!

Otherwise you are just using one unfounded claim to support another unfounded claim.

Hans

[Aardvark_DK]

What Hans said.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Provide evidence for your claimed distribution of gravitons, please!

Otherwise you are just using one unfounded claim to support another unfounded claim.

Hans

thats going to be a bit hard when someone looks at the universe through a "matter creating consciousness" view point...

for starters, you cant explain how you can be more conscious than TLOP and more conscious than your car without your double standard...

[MRC_Hans]

Evation. Provide evidence and lets see if it makes sense.

Cars and tlops are covered in detail elsewhere, and are irrelevant. Unless you are going for a circular argument:

Gravitons are conscious
Cars are not conscious
ERGO: Cars are not Gravitons

Hans :rolleyes:

[wraith]

what are you trying to say? :eek:

[MRC_Hans]

Nah, you wouldnt recognize a circular argument even it yanked you in the nose-hairs.

Hans http://www.hans-egebo.dk/images/mrcgrin.gif

[wraith]

right!
so, is a car conscious according to you?

[MRC_Hans]

:rolleyes: Ehrm, no Wraith. A car is not conscious according to me or indeed to anybody I know. Why do you ask? :rolleyes:
Hans

[wraith]

Im not sure what youre trying to say in regards to cars and Gravitons :eek:

[MRC_Hans]

I' saying absolutely nothing. I'm waiting for some Logical Deist to provide evidence for the absense of gravitons in cars.
Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
I' saying absolutely nothing. I'm waiting for some Logical Deist to provide evidence for the absense of gravitons in cars.

What makes you suddenly believe that your CAR is conscious MRC?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
What makes you suddenly believe that your CAR is conscious MRC?
He didn't say it was conscious. But since by your own definition:

From a Franko post of 1-24-2003
Under Logical Deism you (your consciousness/your “Soul”) is actually a Graviton (fundamental force carrying particle of Gravity and Time). (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311228&highlight=force+particle+gravity+time#post311228)
It means that anything that has gravity has gravitons. Cars have gravity. That is, unless you are saying things without souls have something else besides gravitons which carry their gravity. Really, Franko, try to keep your own beliefs straight. I have to do all your bookkeeping for you.

[Franko]

Tricky:

It means that anything that has gravity has gravitons. Cars have gravity. That is, unless you are saying things without souls have something else besides gravitons which carry their gravity. Really, Franko, try to keep your own beliefs straight. I have to do all your bookkeeping for you.

I like when you pretend that you are actually trying to figure it out Tricky.

It is very simple … Consciousness is the source of all Gravity. That is not the same as saying that anything with Gravity is conscious.

Let’s say you are playing D&D and you “see” a Cart or a Chariot. That “cart” or “chariot” only exists because the DM (God) says that they exist. The “matter” that they are made from only exist so long as the DM exist to generate it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


I like when you pretend that you are actually trying to figure it out Tricky.

It is very simple … Consciousness is the source of all Gravity. That is not the same as saying that anything with Gravity is conscious.
Does this mean that not all gravitons carry souls?

[Franko]

Does this mean that not all gravitons carry souls?

No: 1 Graviton [always equals] 1 Soul.

A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


No: 1 Graviton [always equals] 1 Soul.

A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information.
Then what do things without souls use to carry their gravity?

[Franko]

Then what do things without souls use to carry their gravity?

You mean like the Moon, or a Car?

They don't really exist in the way that You or I do. For all intent and purpose, they are merely projections.

This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

You mean like the Moon, or a Car?

They don't really exist in the way that You or I do. For all intent and purpose, they are merely projections.

This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality.
Is this elaboration in the mind of the Progenitor Solipsist?

Are TLOP the rules by which the elaboration is executed?

[Franko]

Is this elaboration in the mind of the Progenitor Solipsist?

I've had a lot of debates about that very subject.

To be honest, the concensus seems to be ... it's possible.

Are TLOP the rules by which the elaboration is executed?

Exactly.

(well technically Gravity works across ALL universes, but the other 3 laws of TLOP only function here)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

I've had a lot of debates about that very subject.

To be honest, the concensus seems to be ... it's possible.

Exactly.

(well technically Gravity works across ALL universes, but the other 3 laws of TLOP only function here)
Interesting. I guess that means that gravitons only have charge in THIS universe, since only gravity works outside of it. Do they acquire charge and spin as they cross the border to this universe?

[Franko]

Interesting. I guess that means that gravitons only have charge in THIS universe, since only gravity works outside of it. Do they acquire charge and spin as they cross the border to this universe?

No they acquired Spin and Charge as soon as Mass and Velocity were split. Basically Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity.

There really isn't a "border" to this universe per sae. This universe is basically a subset of the Omniverse. It exist within the Omniverse, it is a region of the Omniverse.

You exist in this universe because the LG happens to be entangled and communicating with you (she's transmitting and receiving information with you).

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


What makes you suddenly believe that your CAR is conscious MRC? Lying wont help you.

Hans

[Franko]

Lying wont help you.

I realize that MRC.

The question is why do you think lying will help You?

[MRC_Hans]

*Yawn* Have you any serious arguments to present?

Hans

[Franko]

Yawn* do you?

How about explaining why I should believe you have magic powers?

[MRC_Hans]

Ahh, thats easy: You shouldn't.

[Franko]

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed MRC, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
MRC, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
MRC, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[MRC_Hans]

Lies and slander. You really are a sorry sight.

Hans

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.



I am still waiting for proof of your magic "arguement" abilities, letter shuffler.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

The above arguement is of course perfect. Any assertion on your part that you have made any "point" at any time is therefore a result of some sort of brain lesion.

How many lead figurines do you own?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560


I am still waiting for proof of your magic "arguement" abilities, letter shuffler.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"



what does this mean?

[Franko]

what does this mean?

Apparently our little A-Theist friend has somehow confused himself into believing that the fact there are only 26 letters in the Alphabet, yet all these posts can be written based on that simple system, is evidence for "free willy".

[Franko]

MRC:
Lies and slander. You really are a sorry sight.

Why don’t you set us all straight then?

What is the empirical evidence for your “free willy” god MRC? Is it a secret, or are you simply unable to be honest and concede that there is no evidence for your religious beliefs???

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed MRC, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
MRC, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
MRC, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Apparently our little A-Theist friend has somehow confused himself into believing that the fact there are only 26 letters in the Alphabet, yet all these posts can be written based on that simple system, is evidence for "free willy".

Wrong Sparky!

Its proof that you have nothing to say. Free will or Determinism simply don't enter into it. Your belief in this magic ability to "communicate" your "ideas" is an illusory artifact of TLOL

Read this carefully:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

Why won't you show your magic "ideas" instead of just shuffling letters?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

Why don’t you set us all straight then?

What is the empirical evidence for your “free willy” god MRC? Is it a secret, or are you simply unable to be honest and concede that there is no evidence for your religious beliefs???

I dont have a free willy god. Our present discussion is not about free will at all, it is about Determinism, but since you can't answer my questions you are now trying to change the subject.

Since its been over a year,

Well, I started here in August 2002, .... but dont let little details bother you.

and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs,

Since I have not stated my religious beliefs, it would be seem a bit superflous to start arguing them.

and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say?

Says the compulsory cut-and-paste jockey, heheh :rolleyes:

If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious.

As I have just said, I'm not discussing my religious beliefs, but you seem to want to discuss yours, --at least until somebody asks you to come up with any evidence.

I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed MRC, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, neither do I. Likewise I dont know why you keep posting the same old arguments for - did you say over a year?

But at least I can have a little fun with your crap below:

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of the "Logical Goddess”?
Franko, adolescent genious: Atoms obey TLOP. You are made of atoms. You obey TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “The Progenitor Solipsist”?
Franko, adolescent genious: Atoms obey TLOP. You are made of atoms. You obey TLOP!!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, adolescent genious: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!!!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, adolescent genious: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Mmmm, didnt require much editing, that.http://www.hans-egebo.dk/images/mrcgrin.gif

So, in short, cutting out superflous non-sequiteurs, you base your cosmology on the following:

Humans can't fly, and cars can't drive themselves.

---- Well good for you, but you will excuse me if I remain unconvinced. :rolleyes:

Have a nice multiverse,
Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko


Apparently our little A-Theist friend has somehow confused himself into believing that the fact there are only 26 letters in the Alphabet, yet all these posts can be written based on that simple system, is evidence for "free willy".

haha
thats one for the books :cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560


Wrong Sparky!

Its proof that you have nothing to say. Free will or Determinism simply don't enter into it. Your belief in this magic ability to "communicate" your "ideas" is an illusory artifact of TLOL

Read this carefully:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

Why won't you show your magic "ideas" instead of just shuffling letters?

maybe you can use another example?
I dont see how this argument supports your belief :eek:

[wraith]

Hans
As I have just said, I'm not discussing my religious beliefs, but you seem to want to discuss yours, --at least until somebody asks you to come up with any evidence.

atheism is a religion actually :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
atheism is a religion actually :rolleyes: Not the way I play it, son.

Hans ;)

[Franko]

Not the way I play it, son.

Define "Religion" moron-boy ... then let us see?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Define "Religion" moron-boy ... then let us see?
How about

Religion - Belief and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/r/r0140600.html)

I don't believe in anything supernatural, least of all your strawmen. I don't believe in a creator of the universe. Yes, I am aware that you will try to tell me what I believe, but I think it can be truthfully said that I am more of an authority on what I believe than you.

Atheism is not a religion, except by your definition. Those of us dwelling in the real world do not accept your definitions, just as you do not accept the verdict of legitimate lexicographers.

[Franko]

I don't believe in the Supernatural either.

I guess that means I'm not Religious either.

I think there are a lot of Christians who don't believe in the "Supernatural" (God is natural) ergo I guess christainity isn't a religion either?

[Franko]

Okay, MRC (delusional A-Theist) so you claim that you are not bound by the laws of Physics (TLOP) correct? You do not OBEY TLOP? Or is that not what you are claiming?

If you are controlled by TLOP then:

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

Ergo your claim that there is no evidence for “god” would be absurd. Obviously if TLOP is controlling you then the Source of TLOP must be more conscious then you, otherwise you would control the Source of TLOP.

But I take it that you are claiming NOT to be controlled by TLOP, so explain what that means? What does it mean when you say that YOU are “choosing” from “available options”? Aren’t chemical reactions in your brain controlled the TLOP “choosing” from “available options”? “Matter” is all that exist according to you, so if “matter” is all that exist, what is the YOU that you are claiming is doing the choosing? Or are YOU claiming that YOU are the source of TLOP?

Why won’t you just state what you believe MRC? Why are you trying to hide your beliefs and make them obscure. It looks like you are ashamed of your beliefs? Why would someone who claims that their beliefs are superior to all others be ashamed of his “superior” beliefs? Perhaps you really don’t believe it yourself?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
Okay, MRC (delusional A-Theist) so you claim that you are not bound by the laws of Physics (TLOP) correct? You do not OBEY TLOP? Or is that not what you are claiming?

Wow! You are right, thats not what I'm claiming.

If you are controlled by TLOP then:

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

"Bound" does not equal "control" in my dictionary. How does tlop bind me differently from my car? Which law of physics is it that you claim is controlling me?

Ergo your claim that there is no evidence for “god” would be absurd. Obviously if TLOP is controlling you then the Source of TLOP must be more conscious then you, otherwise you would control the Source of TLOP.

Aren't you afraid to wear out your cut and paste keys? I've answered this a dozen times. Enough is enough. If you can't understand it, then you can't understand it. There is no reason to reiterate this anymore.

But I take it that you are claiming NOT to be controlled by TLOP, so explain what that means? What does it mean when you say that YOU are “choosing” from “available options”? Aren’t chemical reactions in your brain controlled the TLOP “choosing” from “available options”? “Matter” is all that exist according to you, so if “matter” is all that exist, what is the YOU that you are claiming is doing the choosing? Or are YOU claiming that YOU are the source of TLOP?

You are concluding too much.

Why won’t you just state what you believe MRC? Why are you trying to hide your beliefs and make them obscure. It looks like you are ashamed of your beliefs? Why would someone who claims that their beliefs are superior to all others be ashamed of his “superior” beliefs? Perhaps you really don’t believe it yourself?

Read my posts. Or don't. Its all your choice.

Hans

You still haven't explained how phosphorescence happens in a deterministic universe.:D

Hans

[Franko]

So MRC by your definition of the term "OBEY" can you NOT obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

[MRC_Hans]

In no way.

Hans

[Franko]

(#1)
Franko:
Okay, MRC so you claim that you are not bound by the laws of Physics (TLOP) correct? You do not OBEY TLOP? Or is that not what you are claiming?

MRC:
Wow! You are right, thats not what I'm claiming.

I notice that you go to great lengths to Not Say a lot. I know that a lot of other people notice it too. It makes you look weak and afraid A-Theist.

Okay so here: [MRC] = NOT[Not ]

Same as: [MRC] = Bound by TLOP

(#2)
[b]Franko:
So MRC by your definition of the term "OBEY" can you NOT obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

MRC:
In no way.

And here: [MRC] <> NOT[Obey TLOP]

Same as: [MRC] = Obeys TLOP

So from #1: MRC is Bound by TLOP.
And by #2: MRC Obeys TLOP.

Franko:
If you are controlled by TLOP then:

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

MRC:
"Bound" does not equal "control" in my dictionary.

Since YOU are the one claiming there is a difference why don’t YOU explain what that difference is? (or were we all suppose to read your mind?)

How does tlop bind me differently from my car?

You won’t like my answer, so why don’t you tell me?

Which law of physics is it that you claim is controlling me?

You have stated that YOU are BOUND by TLOP, YOU have stated that YOU OBEY TLOP. Which of your actions are NOT controlled by TLOP MRC? Since you are the one making this ridiculous claim why is it that you believe I must provide the evidence for it?

Franko:
Ergo your claim that there is no evidence for “god” would be absurd. Obviously if TLOP is controlling you then the Source of TLOP must be more conscious then you, otherwise you would control the Source of TLOP.

MRC:
Aren't you afraid to wear out your cut and paste keys? I've answered this a dozen times. Enough is enough. If you can't understand it, then you can't understand it. There is no reason to reiterate this anymore.

Apparently You are afraid of wearing out your cut and paste keys. Either that or (more likely) you NEVER answered this point. Ohhh well, it is like I always say A-Theism is the ultimate Fear-based Religion.

MRC when you go for a drive, does your less conscious Car have more “free will” than You do? If not, then why not? How is it that less conscious TLOP (according to you) is able to control you, but not your less conscious Car?

This seems like a huge contradiction on your part, and the fact that no A-Theists ever wants to even attempt to address this point makes me conclude it is because they realize that they cannot address it. At least not logically.

Franko:
But I take it that you are claiming NOT to be controlled by TLOP, so explain what that means? What does it mean when you say that YOU are “choosing” from “available options”? Aren’t chemical reactions in your brain controlled the TLOP “choosing” from “available options”? “Matter” is all that exist according to you, so if “matter” is all that exist, what is the YOU that you are claiming is doing the choosing? Or are YOU claiming that YOU are the source of TLOP?

MRC:
You are concluding too much.

Well then Why on Earth don’t you set me straight? What are you afraid of/Hiding? Is it like some secret of the Illuminati or something MRC?

But I take it that you are claiming NOT to be controlled by TLOP, so explain what that means? What does it mean when you say that YOU are “choosing” from “available options”? Aren’t chemical reactions in your brain controlled the TLOP “choosing” from “available options”? “Matter” is all that exist according to you, so if “matter” is all that exist, what is the YOU that you are claiming is doing the choosing? Or are YOU claiming that YOU are the source of TLOP?

Franko:
Why won’t you just state what you believe MRC? Why are you trying to hide your beliefs and make them obscure. It looks like you are ashamed of your beliefs? Why would someone who claims that their beliefs are superior to all others be ashamed of his “superior” beliefs? Perhaps you really don’t believe it yourself?

MRC:
Read my posts. Or don't. Its all your choice.

Let me give you some advice. I doubt you will take it, but I like when I predict your future and you still let it happen. If you aren’t going to respond to my posts, then you shouldn’t be so public about not responding.

… Unless you are just a masochist at heart? :(

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

I notice that you go to great lengths to Not Say a lot. I know that a lot of other people notice it too. It makes you look weak and afraid A-Theist.

I notice you go to great lengths to try to claim what I say, instead of just reading my statements. I makes you look dogmatic and unreliable.


Okay so here: [MRC] = NOT[Not ]

Same as: [MRC] = Bound by TLOP




And here: [MRC] <> NOT[Obey TLOP]

Same as: [MRC] = Obeys TLOP

So from #1: MRC is Bound by TLOP.
And by #2: MRC Obeys TLOP.

Since YOU are the one claiming there is a difference why don’t YOU explain what that difference is? (or were we all suppose to read your mind?)

[b]What is this, the fifth post where you are circling about this? What is it you don't understand? I am bound by/restrained by/obeying the laws of physics, take your pick, anyhow, last time I looked, I could not break the laws of physics. In my cosmology, however, tlop are probabilistic, a non-conscious set of rules that the universe functions by.

(I ask how does tlop bind me differently from my car)
You won’t like my answer, so why don’t you tell me?

Whether people like your answers dont usually bother you. But my answer is: No difference.

You have stated that YOU are BOUND by TLOP, YOU have stated that YOU OBEY TLOP. Which of your actions are NOT controlled by TLOP MRC? Since you are the one making this ridiculous claim why is it that you believe I must provide the evidence for it?

Mmmm which claim?

Apparently You are afraid of wearing out your cut and paste keys. Either that or (more likely) you NEVER answered this point. Ohhh well, it is like I always say A-Theism is the ultimate Fear-based Religion.

Or it might be that i dont expect you to understand it this time, either.

MRC when you go for a drive, does your less conscious Car have more “free will” than You do? If not, then why not? How is it that less conscious TLOP (according to you) is able to control you, but not your less conscious Car?

This seems like a huge contradiction on your part, and the fact that no A-Theists ever wants to even attempt to address this point makes me conclude it is because they realize that they cannot address it. At least not logically.

Imagine you are driving your car. Suddenly, on the way down a hill, the steering wheel comes off in your hands, and when you try to slam the brakes, you find the dont work. Now your car is controlling you. Does this mean, according to your logic, that it has suddenly become more conscious than you?


(I say "You conclude too much")
Well then Why on Earth don’t you set me straight? What are you afraid of/Hiding? Is it like some secret of the Illuminati or something MRC?

(Whereafter Franko pastes in the same wacky and unfoundes conclusions again, below: )
But I take it that you are claiming NOT to be controlled by TLOP, so explain what that means? What does it mean when you say that YOU are “choosing” from “available options”? Aren’t chemical reactions in your brain controlled the TLOP “choosing” from “available options”? “Matter” is all that exist according to you, so if “matter” is all that exist, what is the YOU that you are claiming is doing the choosing? Or are YOU claiming that YOU are the source of TLOP?

You still conclude too much, and I'm not going to bother with sorting it out all the time.

Let me give you some advice. I doubt you will take it, but I like when I predict your future and you still let it happen. If you aren’t going to respond to my posts, then you shouldn’t be so public about not responding.

Try and read the above again. Isnt that a very very strange thing to say when you claim that I "have no more free will than (sorry, then) the Moon"? If you think you are right, and I assume you think that, then just exactly how am I going to be able follow your kind advice?

… Unless you are just a masochist at heart? :(

You mean by trying to talk sense to a bonehead like you? ...Guess you're right, maybe I should stop.

Hans

[Franko]

MRC,

how would you define "Indeterminism"? Be precise. Don't just say "NOT DETERMINISM" unless you spell out specifically and exactly what you mean by Determinism.

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


maybe you can use another example?
I dont see how this argument supports your belief :eek:

Which part are you not able to understand?

Look:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

What example are you looking for?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
MRC,

how would you define "Indeterminism"? Be precise. Don't just say "NOT DETERMINISM" unless you spell out specifically and exactly what you mean by Determinism. I dont seem to have used the word "indeterminism" in this debate, so I see no reason why I should define it for you, but there is always www.dictionary.com (you should use it more!) :


Indeterminism (n):
1 Unpredictability.
2 Philosophy. The doctrine that there are some events, particularly some human actions or decisions, which have no cause.

I have mainly used three therms in this debate, and they're adjectives:

Deterministic: Completely based on previous state.
Random: Completely independent on previous state.
Probabilistic: Partly based on previous state. There is a catch to this, because you can show that there exists probabilistic functions that are not based on any previous states.

So it might be better to define a probabilistic event as an event, the outcome of which, can predicted with some finite precision.

If we use predictability as definition, deterministic events are completely predictable (knowable), whereas random events are completely unpredictable (unknowable).

There is a special class of random events that seem probabilistic, but are not: Ranged random events. The roll of a die is one such event; it can be predicted to yield a value from one to six (incl.), but because all outcomes in the range are (in theory) equally likely, it is still unpredictable and thus random.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560


Which part are you not able to understand?

Look:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

does it?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
does it?
Yes.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

There is a special class of random events that seem probabilistic, but are not: Ranged random events. The roll of a die is one such event; it can be predicted to yield a value from one to six (incl.), but because all outcomes in the range are (in theory) equally likely, it is still unpredictable and thus random.

Hans

You lose me here. The fact that a 6-die can direct subsequent action down 1 of 6 possible paths does not sound "random" to me.

A die with sides ranging from infinity+ to infinity- would be random, but no bound set can meet this criterion.


BTW, YOU seem to believe you are made of atoms.

[Franko]

Which part are you not able to understand?

Look:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

What example are you looking for?

Right, the English language is a fractal, just like the Mandelbrot set. In fact, if you ask MRC I am sure he will tell you that since the 26 letters of the English alphabet are Determined and no new information is entering the "English Language System" that all posts, essays, novels, all forms of writting in English which could possible exist already exist in a way right now.

That's called Fatalism.

[Franko]

MRC: (severely delusional A-Theist fanatic)

Deterministic: Completely based on previous state.
Random: Completely independent on previous state.
Probabilistic: Partly based on previous state. There is a catch to this, because you can show that there exists probabilistic functions that are not based on any previous states.

So it might be better to define a probabilistic event as an event, the outcome of which, can predicted with some finite precision.

If we use predictability as definition, deterministic events are completely predictable (knowable), whereas random events are completely unpredictable (unknowable).

There is a special class of random events that seem probabilistic, but are not: Ranged random events. The roll of a die is one such event; it can be predicted to yield a value from one to six (incl.), but because all outcomes in the range are (in theory) equally likely, it is still unpredictable and thus random.

So essentially your argument for A-Theism all boils down to ...

If we cannot comprehend (predict) the behavior of a system in the present, then surely that system must be Magical and completely unpredictable for all times.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by hammegk


You lose me here. The fact that a 6-die can direct subsequent action down 1 of 6 possible paths does not sound "random" to me.

A die with sides ranging from infinity+ to infinity- would be random, but no bound set can meet this criterion.


BTW, YOU seem to believe you are made of atoms.

A random range is: All values within the range are equally likely.

I am made of atoms + information. You can put all the atoms needed to make a human in a vat. They don't make a human. You lack the information of how they are put together.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


So essentially your argument for A-Theism all boils down to ...

If we cannot comprehend (predict) the behavior of a system in the present, then surely that system must be Magical and completely unpredictable for all times. How do you make that conclusion from me defining a set of mathemathical terms?

Hans

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


does it?

Yes.

[Franko]

MRC:
How do you make that conclusion from me defining a set of mathemathical terms?

Well, if that is not what you are saying, then please specify exactly how you are claiming anything different? You seem to be claiming that (like the Aether) it is impossible that Heisenberg and his divinely inspired inerrant Uncertainty principle could possibly be wrong.

It's cute because you remind me of Cardinal Bellarmine or one of his little flunkies when you say it.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Right, the English language is a fractal, just like the Mandelbrot set. In fact, if you ask MRC I am sure he will tell you that since the 26 letters of the English alphabet are Determined and no new information is entering the "English Language System" that all posts, essays, novels, all forms of writting in English which could possible exist already exist in a way right now.

That's called Fatalism.

What's all this jibber jabber about fractals?

You have nothing to say.

Read and understand:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

In your simple head, you believe that you have something to say. Take that whole quote of yours up there, sub it in wherever you see "arguement" in the proof shown above, and all should make sense to you. Any meaning that you think is ascribed to your "arguement" is an artifact caused by a mental shortcoming of yours.

[Franko]

MaxFactor: (a-Theist nitwit)
What's all this jibber jabber about fractals?

Talk to the Hans, man.

You see, according to MR.C no new information can possibly enter a closed system (like the 26 letter English language). Since everything possible to write is dictated by those 26 letters and a finite number of possible combinations, everything which could have been written – in a way – already has been written.

You have nothing to say.

Well not according to nitwit A-Theists like you and MRC. At least not unless someone adds a couple of new letters to the alphabet.

Read and understand:

First you will need to write in a manner that can be comprehended by people who haven’t been brainwashed into your pessimistic little cult (A-Theism).

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Okay, so far you have a subroutine of Fatalism …

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Argument"

So if by TLOL you mean the English rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. then yes, I would agree. All of you posts in English are bound by your knowledge of the rules of the English language. The same is True for me and everyone else here.

Is this your way of being a mini-Fatalists?

In your simple head, you believe that you have something to say.

No … apparently that is what You thought. 1) we have your post here as evidence of this, 2) since I doubt you can read minds, I seriously doubt that you know what I believe, and 3) I am most likely just a figment of your imagination anyway.

Take that whole quote of yours up there, sub it in wherever you see "arguement" in the proof shown above, and all should make sense to you.

It made sense to me before. You are the one who seems to have trouble comprehending it A-Theist. Gee, I wonder what your malfunction is … ? :rolleyes:

Any meaning that you think is ascribed to your "arguement" is an artifact caused by a mental shortcoming of yours.

Are you sure I even exist mentally? Can a figment of your imagination have “shortcomings”? I mean seriously … the whole figment thing is a pretty big “shortcoming” all on it’s own. Would you like me to pretend that I am concerned about my mental state now? Look, whatever you want, I am your figment after all …

[MRC_Hans]

Franko blabbers:
Talk to the Hans, man.

You see, according to MR.C no new information can possibly enter a closed system (like the 26 letter English language). Since everything possible to write is dictated by those 26 letters and a finite number of possible combinations, everything which could have been written – in a way – already has been written. As usual, Franko misinterprets, misquotes, mixes his own cosmology with that of others. Since he does this consistently, I assume that it is deliberate. If he was just imbicile, he would get it right by chance sometimes.

Frank'o: The above is crap, and you know it. Why dont you demonstrate how information enters a closed, deterministic system, if thats what you believe is possible? Why dont you explain how new words and sentences enters a book, once it is printed? Or you could explain your claim that language is a closed system. Or your claim that the 26 letters of the English alphabet dictates what can ever be written (tell that to the Chinese, heheh).

Hans

[CWL]

... and let's not forget the fact that the Scandinavian alphabets have 29 letters. :p

[Aardvark_DK]

I thought Swedish had something like 35 since you like to put little dots over every bloody vowel you come across.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
I thought Swedish had something like 35 since you like to put little dots over every bloody vowel you come across.

Nope, just å, æ, ø. Of course we write them properly (and in the correct order): å, ä, ö. What is that little letter conspiracy you guys have going with the Norwegians anyway?

[Franko]

MRC:

Frank'o: The above is crap, and you know it. Why dont you demonstrate how information enters a closed, deterministic system, if thats what you believe is possible? Why dont you explain how new words and sentences enters a book, once it is printed? Or you could explain your claim that language is a closed system. Or your claim that the 26 letters of the English alphabet dictates what can ever be written (tell that to the Chinese, heheh).

But Han-Job, you told me specifically that the Mandelbrot set was a closed system, and that the image of the Mandelbrot set was not art because it was determined by the algorithm that generated it.

I would assume that be the same token the English language is also a fractal, because the English language is determined by the 26 letter character set, and the rules (algorithm) of English grammar and spelling. Ergo in the same way that the Mandelbrot image is not an artwork because it is determined, no written word can be considered "Art" because everything written with the English language is determined by the Laws of English.

If not, then explain the contradiction? I kept asking you to precisely define the term "Art", but you A-Theists Hate to actually pin yourselves down by defining a term.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
But Han-Job, you told me specifically that the Mandelbrot set was a closed system, and that the image of the Mandelbrot set was not art because it was determined by the algorithm that generated it.

Right. Wheee, you actually understood.

I would assume that be the same token the English language is also a fractal, because the English language is determined by the 26 letter character set, and the rules (algorithm) of English grammar and spelling. Ergo in the same way that the Mandelbrot image is not an artwork because it is determined, no written word can be considered "Art" because everything written with the English language is determined by the Laws of English.

If not, then explain the contradiction?

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: You obey the laws of physics.
I say: You obey the laws of physics.

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "of", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, language is not deterministic.

I kept asking you to precisely define the term "Art", but you A-Theists Hate to actually pin yourselves down by defining a term.

And I kept answering that "art" is not definable. Actually, the lack of definability (if such a word exists) is one of the main characteristics of art.

Hans

[Franko]

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: You obey the laws of physics.
I say: You obey the laws of physics.

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "of", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, language is not deterministic.

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: 2 + 2 = 4
I say: 2 + 2 = 4

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "=", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, mathematics is not deterministic. And ergo neither is the Mandelbrot set, or any fractals.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko




First you will need to write in a manner that can be comprehended by people who haven’t been brainwashed into your pessimistic little cult (A-Theism).

Okay, so far you have a subroutine of Fatalism …

So if by TLOL you mean the English rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. then yes, I would agree. All of you posts in English are bound by your knowledge of the rules of the English language. The same is True for me and everyone else here.

Is this your way of being a mini-Fatalists?



Come on Sparky, try to keep up. You keep frothing about fatalism, "mini-Fatalists"(whatever that means). This of course is irrelevant. What you are saying is meaningless. You are merely shuffling letters about.

Look:

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

Is this not clear enough for you, or is it hard for someone who believes they have A_soul to understand logic?

blah blah blah Fatalism blah blah. Show me some arguements instead of letter shuffling! Either that, or go study your Dungeon Master's Guide for more of your quasi-religious nonsense.

[Franko]

Come on Sparky, try to keep up. You keep frothing about fatalism, "mini-Fatalists"(whatever that means). This of course is irrelevant. What you are saying is meaningless. You are merely shuffling letters about.

Right … we have already agreed on that. So why are you telling us again that we are merely shuffling letters around? Do you have to say everything 10 times to yourself before it fully sinks in?

Look:

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

So if by TLOL you mean the English rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. then yes, I would agree. All of you posts in English are bound by your knowledge of the rules of the English language. The same is True for me and everyone else here.

Is this your way of being a mini-Fatalists?

Is this not clear enough for you, or is it hard for someone who believes they have A_soul to understand logic?

No … apparently that is what You thought. 1) we have your post here as evidence of this, 2) since I doubt you can read minds, I seriously doubt that you know what I believe, and 3) I am most likely just a figment of your imagination anyway.

blah blah blah Fatalism blah blah. Show me some arguements instead of letter shuffling! Either that, or go study your Dungeon Master's Guide for more of your quasi-religious nonsense.

Yeah! Another A-Theist Sockpuppet! Wow! How totally unpredictable? Why would someone dedicate their Time and Identity to Me? It seems so counter-productive to your unconsciously stated goals and purpose?

I guess more evidence of A-Theist predictability (repetitious logical fallacy) is more evidence for “free willy”? :rolleyes:

Hey Maxipad, I suggest you run along and argue with that idiot MRC. He claims you are all wrong, because of something or another about semantics, and 2 + 2 not equaling 4.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: 2 + 2 = 4
I say: 2 + 2 = 4

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "=", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, mathematics is not deterministic. And ergo neither is the Mandelbrot set, or any fractals.
No comments. No comments at all.

Hans

[Franko]

You said that your fractal logic did not apply to written language, because written language is subject to interpretation.

But aren't TWO and FOUR also simply words MRC? Why doesn't your semantics argument apply to ALL words? Why does it only seem to apply to words that don't contradict your a priori religious conclusions?

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko




Yeah! Another A-Theist Sockpuppet! Wow! How totally unpredictable? Why would someone dedicate their Time and Identity to Me? It seems so counter-productive to your unconsciously stated goals and purpose?

I guess more evidence of A-Theist predictability (repetitious logical fallacy) is more evidence for “free willy”? :rolleyes:

Hey Maxipad, I suggest you run along and argue with that idiot MRC. He claims you are all wrong, because of something or another about semantics, and 2 + 2 not equaling 4.

What are you trying to say Sparky? Consider the following before you compose your thoghts:


Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

What this means is that "meaning" in what you are trying to say does not exist.

You don't seem to understand this. Perhaps your myopic Anselm-lite view of the universe has clouded your ability to think clearly.

BTW, Why do you keep insisting that you are a fignut in everyone else's imagination?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Max560



BTW, Why do you keep insisting that you are a fignut in everyone else's imagination?

I'll never touch fignuts again/:rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
You said that your fractal logic did not apply to written language, because written language is subject to interpretation.

So you did understand it. Then why play dumb?

But aren't TWO and FOUR also simply words MRC? Why doesn't your semantics argument apply to ALL words? Why does it only seem to apply to words that don't contradict your a priori religious conclusions?

One of you strange things about you, Frank, is that you seem to view the world as some exclusive binary system. Is it really so incomprehensible for you that not all rules are universal?

So, in semantics, the words "two" and "four" have very well-defined meanings.Thus, there can be little debate about the sentence "two plus two equals four". In contrast,the meanings of the words "God", "rules", and "you" are far more ambigous, so the sentence "God rules you" can be (and has been) discussed for centuries, even among people who do not question the existence of God.

Hans

[fsol]

Fractal logic does not apply to written language because...

Grammer rules change, the number of symbols in the alphabet change, the symbols themselves change. There is no need to argue about the meanings of words because they change too.

As MRC Hans stated the Mandelbrot set has always been the same.

[Franko]

Franko:
You said that your fractal logic did not apply to written language, because written language is subject to interpretation.

MRC:
So you did understand it. Then why play dumb?

Who’s playing Dumb MRC? You are the one with the stated Logical Contradiction. Why are YOU playing dumb instead of addressing it? It’s like I told you before, if you are going to NOT respond to my post, you shouldn’t do it so publicly.

If words cannot be precisely defined because of semantics, then how are we able to do mathematics? Are numbers just words with precise definitions? Why don’t you explain yourself for once A-Theist??/

Ohhh, that’s right! If you actually explain yourself then everyone would just see the utter absurdity of the nonsense you believe.

Franko:
But aren't TWO and FOUR also simply words MRC? Why doesn't your semantics argument apply to ALL words? Why does it only seem to apply to words that don't contradict your a priori religious conclusions?

MRC:
One of you strange things about you, Frank, is that you seem to view the world as some exclusive binary system. Is it really so incomprehensible for you that not all rules are universal?

Really? How about an example? Are you claiming that 2 + 2 is not ALWAYS equal to 4?

MRC, I realize that as an A-Theist you believe we live in a magical universe where things happen for magical reasons without prior cause or logical reason.

I see no evidence for your claim, and I lack-o-belief in your whacky magical universe.

MRC:
So, in semantics, the words "two" and "four" have very well-defined meanings.Thus, there can be little debate about the sentence "two plus two equals four". In contrast,the meanings of the words "God", "rules", and "you" are far more ambigous, so the sentence "God rules you" can be (and has been) discussed for centuries, even among people who do not question the existence of God.

Well explain how computer languages work then? I notice you tend to skip questions in my posts when they point out the obvious flaws in your arguments. Face it MRC, you are a brainwashed A-Theist desperately trying to cling to your absurd dogmatic magical beliefs. You have NO evidence for “free will”, and without “free will” your no god claim has more holes than Swiss cheese. You A-Theists all think you are so smart, but the fact is you are the biggest bunch of religious idiots to ever walk the Earth. You all going down …

[Franko]

Grammer rules change, the number of symbols in the alphabet change, the symbols themselves change. There is no need to argue about the meanings of words because they change too.

As MRC Hans stated the Mandelbrot set has always been the same.

Listen nitwit boy (MRC's sockpuppet) fractal programs are written on computers. Are you claiming that all computer programs are limited to numbers only?

If not, then MRC's math only fractal nonsense is just that -- nonsense.

[MRC_Hans]

fsol,

In the past, Franko ignored newbies, but lately his paranoia has progressed and he's looking for sockpuppets (other posters using alternative names) everywhere, so now you get the full treatment right away. Take it as a compliment, have fun, but dont expect logic.

Cheers,
Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
Who’s playing Dumb MRC? You are the one with the stated Logical Contradiction. Why are YOU playing dumb instead of addressing it? It’s like I told you before, if you are going to NOT respond to my post, you shouldn’t do it so publicly.

Uhhh, I lost track, sorry: Which logical contradiction are we talking about presently?

If words cannot be precisely defined because of semantics, then how are we able to do mathematics? Are numbers just words with precise definitions? Why don’t you explain yourself for once A-Theist??/

Mmmm, I do belive that was exactly what I said: Words for numbers have exact and unambigous definitions. --- Just looked, yeah, that was what I said, glad you sorta understood it.

Ohhh, that’s right! If you actually explain yourself then everyone would just see the utter absurdity of the nonsense you believe.

Really? How about an example? Are you claiming that 2 + 2 is not ALWAYS equal to 4?

No, thats not what I claim. Provided 2 and 4 are integers, of course ;)

MRC, I realize that as an A-Theist you believe we live in a magical universe where things happen for magical reasons without prior cause or logical reason.

No, you seem to get that wrong. Magic is not included in the atheist cosmology, the way I understand it. But of course, atheist cosmology is not well standardized, so SOME atheists may belive in magic, but I dont. ---- Mmmm, I do believe I told you this several times before?

I see no evidence for your claim, and I lack-o-belief in your whacky magical universe.

Me too, no whacky magical universe for me, thanks.

Well explain how computer languages work then?

Computer languages are also very precisely defined. Actually, they are so well-defined that they dont HAVE semantics, just syntax. Human languages, on the other hand ----

I notice you tend to skip questions in my posts when they point out the obvious flaws in your arguments.

Mmm, we could make a tally of who have skipped most questions, but ----- are you SURE you wanna do that?

Face it MRC, you are a brainwashed A-Theist desperately trying to cling to your absurd dogmatic magical beliefs. You have NO evidence for “free will”, and without “free will” your no god claim has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Oh? I thought this was about semantics and Determinism. Why is free will such a big issue for you?

You A-Theists all think you are so smart, but the fact is you are the biggest bunch of religious idiots to ever walk the Earth. You all going down …

Well, certainly a bigger bunch than the Logical Deists, --- go figure.

Hans

[Franko]

So MRC, convert me to A-Theism.

Why should I believe your "superior" metaphsical belief system based on absolutely no evidence?

What about Fatalism and Determinism. They seem like direct evidence for God to me? How do you refute this? Why do you believe that there is more evidence for "free will" then there is for "God"? If you honestly believe this then why have you repeatedly refused to provide a side by side comparsion of the evidence?

I don't see any evidence that YOU have "free will'. I don't see ANY evidence that Indeterminism is True. I don't see any evidence that there is a "YOU" to even make decisions, "YOU" are nothing but a physical brain made up of atoms (chemicals) and obeying the natural laws of chemistry (TLOP).

Besides if your decisons are not made algorithmically (deterministically, like a computer), then how exactly are they being made? That makes no sense what-so-ever, and you have repeatedly refused to address this point? Why are you so embarassed to posts your beliefs?!?!

MRC, why would the Universe make us, and then force us to watch a show? It is not like we can actually change anything that is going to happen, because it is all cause and event as decreed by TLOP and the Initial State. That doesn't seem to jive with your belief that there is no "God".

[Q-Source]

Upchurch, Tricky, MRC_Hans, CWL and Franko,

Come on guys give us all a rest on the R&P forum!

Why don't you bring new ideas and topics?.
You all are spamming the forum with the same stuff. Stick to one or two threads only please.

Of course you can ignore me, but this is a sincere opinion of someone who feels the same as many people.

Q-S

This is a copy. Just in case anyone may misundestand the purpose of my post on the flame war forum.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
So MRC, convert me to A-Theism.

Oh, no, heaven forbid! Frank, in any competition, I would always want you on the side of the opposition! ;)

Why should I believe your "superior" metaphsical belief system based on absolutely no evidence?

Why, you shouldnt. First of all, my belief system is not metaphysical, secondly, one of the few dogmas of my belief system is that nobody should believe in anything without evidence.

What about Fatalism and Determinism. They seem like direct evidence for God to me? How do you refute this? Why do you believe that there is more evidence for "free will" then there is for "God"? If you honestly believe this then why have you repeatedly refused to provide a side by side comparsion of the evidence?

I quite agree, Fatalism and Determinism don't make sense at all without a god. However, Fatalism and Determinism have some difficulties in the face of empirical evidence (you have still ignored my challenge to explain a simple phenomenon like phosphorescense in a deterministic way).

I don't see any evidence that YOU have "free will'. I don't see ANY evidence that Indeterminism is True. I don't see any evidence that there is a "YOU" to even make decisions, "YOU" are nothing but a physical brain made up of atoms (chemicals) and obeying the natural laws of chemistry (TLOP).

If you dont see an evidence of a "ME" why do you keep trying to communicate with me? If you dont believe I can make decisions, why do you keep telling me what I should do?

Besides if your decisons are not made algorithmically (deterministically, like a computer), then how exactly are they being made? That makes no sense what-so-ever, and you have repeatedly refused to address this point? Why are you so embarassed to posts your beliefs?!?!

I dont know, Frank. All I know is that observations show that the world is not Deterministic.

MRC, why would the Universe make us, and then force us to watch a show? It is not like we can actually change anything that is going to happen, because it is all cause and event as decreed by TLOP and the Initial State.

Thats your cosmology, not mine. Do try not to mix our beliefs up, it makes you seem insincere.

That doesn't seem to jive with your belief that there is no "God".

It certainly doesn't. But then, neither is part of my belief system, so I can live with that.

Hans

[Franko]

Whats the YOU making the decisons Han-job?

You never could explain that? Aren't YOU just atoms obeying TLOP?

How can TLOP control your brain and be less conscious then YOU?

I guess the same way that YOU control CAR while being less conscious then CAR? Or is it more like your BRAIN controls your LEGs, ergo LEGS are more conscious then your BRAIN (for you that's prabably True).

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
Whats the YOU making the decisons Han-job?

I dont know.

You never could explain that? Aren't YOU just atoms obeying TLOP?

I dont know.

How can TLOP control your brain and be less conscious then YOU?

The same way as a wall can control me and be less conscious than me. The same way as the rules of baseball can control the players and be less conscious than them.

I guess the same way that YOU control CAR while being less conscious then CAR? Or is it more like your BRAIN controls your LEGs, ergo LEGS are more conscious then your BRAIN (for you that's prabably True).

I think not.

Hans

[Franko]

Okay ... lets try this ...

How do you know that you are more "intelligent" ("more conscious") then a chimpanzee, a dog, or a cat?

[Franko]

Franko:
Why should I believe your "superior" metaphsical belief system based on absolutely no evidence?

MRC:
Why, you shouldnt. First of all, my belief system is not metaphysical, secondly, one of the few dogmas of my belief system is that nobody should believe in anything without evidence.

So what if your evidence for believing you have “free will”? And if you do not have any evidence for “free will”, then how can you claim that there is no evidence for “God”?

Franko:
What about Fatalism and Determinism. They seem like direct evidence for God to me? How do you refute this? Why do you believe that there is more evidence for "free will" then there is for "God"? If you honestly believe this then why have you repeatedly refused to provide a side by side comparsion of the evidence?

MRC: (Bug in the code)
I quite agree, Fatalism and Determinism don't make sense at all without a god. However, Fatalism and Determinism have some difficulties in the face of empirical evidence (you have still ignored my challenge to explain a simple phenomenon like phosphorescense in a deterministic way).

Actually I did explain it. But why are you trying to shift the burden onto me? If you are claiming that phosphorescence is evidence of Indeterminism, then please explain what you mean? Why am I required to read your mind?

Just for the record though … are you seriously contending that phosphorescence is not controlled/governed by the Laws of Physics? Once AGAIN you are confusing Determinism with OMNISCIENCE! Why don’t you go and check one of your inerrant Dictionaries for the well documented Differences in the meaning of those two terms!

Franko:
I don't see any evidence that YOU have "free will'. I don't see ANY evidence that Indeterminism is True. I don't see any evidence that there is a "YOU" to even make decisions, "YOU" are nothing but a physical brain made up of atoms (chemicals) and obeying the natural laws of chemistry (TLOP).

MRC:
If you dont see an evidence of a "ME" why do you keep trying to communicate with me? If you dont believe I can make decisions, why do you keep telling me what I should do?

Actually I ask you a lot of questions about what You think, and why you think it. Probably exactly what you would have programmed me to do if you got stuck in this algorithm for too long.

Franko:
Besides if your decisons are not made algorithmically (deterministically, like a computer), then how exactly are they being made? That makes no sense what-so-ever, and you have repeatedly refused to address this point? Why are you so embarassed to posts your beliefs?!?!

MRC:
I dont know, Frank. All I know is that observations show that the world is not Deterministic.

Congratulations MRC, You manage to contradict yourself in only Two sentences. If you “don’t know”, then you “DON’T KNOW” that the world is NOT Deterministic.

Besides, ALL of the evidence shows that the world is clearly Deterministic.

You explain it too me MRC. Explain the traffic light. How does it work in your universe. You approach the red traffic light. You clearly perceive and recognize that it is red.

Now, I say that based on your previous experiences you quickly extrapolate:

1) STOP = Good
2) GO = Bad

But you seem to be saying that even in situations when You clearly perceive and recognize that the traffic light is red, that occasionally you will not base your decision on the past, and “randomly” run the red light because of the magic of Quantum mechanics?

MRC, you are looking more and more like a dancing monkey.

Franko:
MRC, why would the Universe make us, and then force us to watch a show? It is not like we can actually change anything that is going to happen, because it is all cause and event as decreed by TLOP and the Initial State.

MRC:
Thats your cosmology, not mine. Do try not to mix our beliefs up, it makes you seem insincere.

Okay, so the only difference I see in our cosmologies at this level of detail is that I believe the “giant sky program” is completely deterministic based on a fixed initial dataset, whereas you believe that some of the variables in the program are randomly generated.

You know a little programming MRC – don’t you? Are you telling me that it is impossible to write a computer program with random variables? That would give you your magic “Indeterminancy” … unfortunately for you it would still make you an Algorithm, and there would still be a bigger more conscious Algorithm controlling You.

Franko:
What’s the YOU making the decisions Han-job?

MRC:
I dont know.

Well how can you claim to have “free will” then? The atoms in your physical brain obey TLOP exactly the same as the atoms in the ham sandwich you ate for lunch. Ergo your brain has just as much “free will” as a (toasted) ham sandwich.

Franko:
You never could explain that? Aren't YOU just atoms obeying TLOP?

MRC:
I dont know.

Yet Christians and Theists everywhere are idiots for thinking similarly?

Franko:
How can TLOP control your brain and be less conscious then YOU?

MRC:
The same way as a wall can control me and be less conscious than me.

What makes you think that wall would even exist if the Dungeonmaster hadn’t told you where it was? Besides TLOP controls you regardless of the presence of Walls.

[quote]Franko:
How can TLOP control your brain and be less conscious then YOU?

MRC:
The same way as the rules of baseball can control the players and be less conscious than them.

Ohhh, so now you are claiming that the “rules of baseball” magically appeared out of the void JUST LIKE TLOP? Because I always thought that “the rules of baseball” were created by a CONSCIOUSNESS!?!? I thought you were going to give us an example of a non-conscious creation controlling you?

Were you ever emotionally moved by a film, or a book? You do realize that when a book, or film communicates an idea (a meme) to you, it is really just communicating by proxy for the original consciousness who transmitted the meme. Take this post for example … it’s not me talking to you directly … it’s TLOP relaying to you what I have transmitted.

Franko:
I guess the same way that YOU control CAR while being less conscious then CAR? Or is it more like your BRAIN controls your LEGs, ergo LEGS are more conscious then your BRAIN (for you that's prabably True).

MRC:
I think not.

I don’t know MRC … I think your legs put up a much stronger argument.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
Well explain how computer languages work then? I notice you tend to skip questions in my posts when they point out the obvious flaws in your arguments. Face it MRC, you are a brainwashed A-Theist desperately trying to cling to your absurd dogmatic magical beliefs. You have NO evidence for “free will”, and without “free will” your no god claim has more holes than Swiss cheese. You A-Theists all think you are so smart, but the fact is you are the biggest bunch of religious idiots to ever walk the Earth. You all going down …

phark yeah!

[the_ignored]

from Franko:
You know a little programming MRC – don’t you? Are you telling me that it is impossible to write a computer program with random variables? That would give you your magic “Indeterminancy” … unfortunately for you it would still make you an Algorithm, and there would still be a bigger more conscious Algorithm controlling You.

Hah! So it IS God's fault when someone goes to hell!
He actually does choose who goes! The SOB! I knew it!

[wraith]

Originally posted by the_ignored
from Franko:


Hah! So it IS God's fault when someone goes to hell!
He actually does choose who goes! The SOB! I knew it!

What makes you so sure that you were created by God?

[Franko]

The Wraith:

phark yeah!

hehehe ... imagine me banging my fist on the pulpit while I shout it, does that make it look/sound better? ... hehe ... :cool:

[Franko]

(Another A-Theist)
Hah! So it IS God's fault when someone goes to hell!
He actually does choose who goes! The SOB! I knew it!

God’s fault? Why is it that You A-Theists are always sooo eager to have someone else be responsible for your bad karma? If you can’t believe you have magic “free willy” powers that alleviate you from consequences you quickly have to find a way to blame God for your bad behavior.

Here’s a suggestion for you: Why don’t you just start behaving as if there might be consequences for your actions? Wouldn’t that be the better play for everyone concerned? Besides, since there is no possible way you are certain that there is no God, you might actually exist a little longer if you modify your behavior thusly. At very least you will be spared from casting yourself as a dishonest, hypocritical religious fanatic.

Ohh, and you should listen to the Wraith … God didn’t make you.

[the_ignored]

God’s fault? Why is it that You A-Theists are always sooo eager to have someone else be responsible for your bad karma? If you can’t believe you have magic “free willy” powers that alleviate you from consequences you quickly have to find a way to blame God for your bad behavior.If you don't believe we have "free will" but are rather just puppets of some higher being, then how in hell could it be our fault, eh? We're just puppets, he's pulling the strings.

Guess what? We atheists don't believe in god. We do believe in free will, and we do believe in consequences for our actions. We just believe the consequences are in this world, for us and those that come after us. Since we know that there is no god, we also know that when we do something bad, we have no choice but to take the responsibility for the actions ourselves. So, therefore, your statement about athests always wanting to find a way to blame someone else for what we do is pure ********. Not even many christian apologetics sites are that ignorant.

I am just trying to show you the holes in your own premise. You argue against free will, yet you still assign blame to us, when we're just doing what god makes us do.

Here’s a suggestion for you: Why don’t you just start behaving as if there might be consequences for your actions? Wouldn’t that be the better play for everyone concerned? Besides, since there is no possible way you are certain that there is no God, you might actually exist a little longer if you modify your behavior thusly. At very least you will be spared from casting yourself as a dishonest, hypocritical religious fanatic. Guess what, that's what atheists do generally already. (go to "Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers Website") for example.

No problem. As for casting anyone as "dishonest, hypocritical religious fanatics", since atheism is not a religion, I'll leave that kind of behavour up to christians like you who show again and again that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by the_ignored
We atheists don't believe in god. We do believe in free will, and we do believe in consequences for our actions.

Can you do anything you want to? Can you jump from a 50 story building, get up and wipe the dust off and then go have a beer? No, you are restricted by TLOP. You do not have free will and never will.

It always interests me how A-Theists do think they have free will. Always remember that you as an individual operate in a very chaotic system with rules. Since there are rules, you have no free will.

JK

[the_ignored]

Can you do anything you want to? Can you jump from a 50 story building, get up and wipe the dust off and then go have a beer? No, you are restricted by TLOP. You do not have free will and never will.

It always interests me how A-Theists do think they have free will. Always remember that you as an individual operate in a very chaotic system with rules. Since there are rules, you have no free will.Free will does not mean that we can do anything and everything. There is free will, it's just not absolute. If you can't tell the difference between having some free will and not having any free will then this conversation is useless because we'll be talking about two different things.

While we won't survice that fall, we can decide to: either take the elevator down or walk back down the stairs. How do the laws of physics take away our "free will" there?

More examples:
(ie. What career do I take, what person do I decide to be friends with, who do I marry? Should I marry, should we have kids, etc) Again, what do the laws of physics have to do with that?


While the laws of physics are useful in helping us make some decisions, ie. whether to jump off or not, (why the hell would I want to anyway?!) We can still make an adundance of choices on our own. Just see the examples above.

Also, is there some hidden meaning or insult that we're to take from the spelling of A-Theist? Do the laws of physics compell you to spell "atheist" as "A-Theist"? Or is it something you've decided to do to try and honk somebody off?

If you don't believe in free will at all, then try answering these:
1) How do the laws of physics compel you to sign up here and debate?

2)How do the laws of physics compell you to take Ian McDiarmid's character's picture as an avatar?

[hammegk]

Damn. Speaking of RESET. :(

Come on, somebody fess up it's a sock puppet. Or are we going to do it all over again from scratch? :D

[Franko]

I keep saying that reality is a lot more like Groundhog Day then people think, but the A-Theists just don't seem to perceive it.

[Max560]

Can you jump from a 50 story building, get up and wipe the dust off and then go have a beer?

Can you identify anyone who has made this claim? Show me their quotes.

No, you are restricted by TLOP.

No, TLOP simply describe the nature of the universe.

You do not have free will and never will.

If the only thing that you will accept as evidence of free will is activity outside that which is described by TLOP, then you are merely argueing with a strawman. If someone has made the claim that they have free will because they can act outside TLOP, please show me their quotes. You get extra points if you can provide quotes which demonstrate that you must also be an atheist in order to hold this belief.

It always interests me how A-Theists do think they have free will. Always remember that you as an individual operate in a very chaotic system with rules. Since there are rules, you have no free will.

Have you ever played Monopoly? If you have the rules handy, pull them out. You will see that they describe the entire monopoly universe:

TROM = The Rules Of Monopoly

Players obey TROM.
You are a Player.
You obey TROM.

TROM makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR (or tophat, or thimble, iron, whatever)

I am sure that you find no flaws in the TROM arguement.

So with TROM in hand, which are much more simplistic than TLOP, please let me know how I will fare in the next ten games of monopoly that I play with three other players. Please let me know what place I will finish, and which square on the board I will occupy at the end of each game. If you are unable to do this with the monopoly rulebook (TROM) in hand, please explain what additional information is required.

I don't think the heretical practice of winning money for landing on free parking need be discussed.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560
Can you jump from a 50 story building, get up and wipe the dust off and then go have a beer?

Can you identify anyone who has made this claim? Show me their quotes.

No, you are restricted by TLOP.

No, TLOP simply describe the nature of the universe.

You do not have free will and never will.

If the only thing that you will accept as evidence of free will is activity outside that which is described by TLOP, then you are merely argueing with a strawman. If someone has made the claim that they have free will because they can act outside TLOP, please show me their quotes. You get extra points if you can provide quotes which demonstrate that you must also be an atheist in order to hold this belief.

It always interests me how A-Theists do think they have free will. Always remember that you as an individual operate in a very chaotic system with rules. Since there are rules, you have no free will.

Have you ever played Monopoly? If you have the rules handy, pull them out. You will see that they describe the entire monopoly universe:

TROM = The Rules Of Monopoly

Players obey TROM.
You are a Player.
You obey TROM.

TROM makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR (or tophat, or thimble, iron, whatever)

I am sure that you find no flaws in the TROM arguement.

So with TROM in hand, which are much more simplistic than TLOP, please let me know how I will fare in the next ten games of monopoly that I play with three other players. Please let me know what place I will finish, and which square on the board I will occupy at the end of each game. If you are unable to do this with the monopoly rulebook (TROM) in hand, please explain what additional information is required.

I don't think the heretical practice of winning money for landing on free parking need be discussed.

You don't get it and it is so simple. If there are rules, which there are, you have no free will. Philosophy 099.

JK

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko


hehehe ... imagine me banging my fist on the pulpit while I shout it, does that make it look/sound better? ... hehe ... :cool:

NOW THAT would echo power!

[wraith]

Originally posted by the_ignored
If you don't believe we have "free will" but are rather just puppets of some higher being, then how in hell could it be our fault, eh? We're just puppets, he's pulling the strings.

Yes, but that doesnt imply that we're not responsible for our actions

Guess what? We atheists don't believe in god. We do believe in free will, and we do believe in consequences for our actions. We just believe the consequences are in this world, for us and those that come after us..

youre "free-will" is your Free-Willy God....you dont what to know life without Him ;)

How do you believe that you have consequences for your actions?
Whats to stop you from stealing a million bucks if know one is watching?

Since we know that there is no god,

The fatal flaw... :eek:

we also know that when we do something bad, we have no choice but to take the responsibility for the actions ourselves. So, therefore, your statement about athests always wanting to find a way to blame someone else for what we do is pure ********

Perhaps you should understand Fate first?

I am just trying to show you the holes in your own premise. You argue against free will, yet you still assign blame to us, when we're just doing what god makes us do.

Again, you dont understand Fate...
Do your desires/emotions warp from the void aswell?

No problem. As for casting anyone as "dishonest, hypocritical religious fanatics", since atheism is not a religion, I'll leave that kind of behavour up to christians like you who show again and again that you don't know what you're talking about.

actually, atheism is a religion...you guys go around saying that TLOP is a non-conscious force, then demand that people should take on board what youre saying as being "true" without ANY evidence/logic

sounds like the words of a religious fanatic to me

[Franko]

If the only thing that you will accept as evidence of free will is activity outside that which is described by TLOP, then you are merely argueing with a strawman. If someone has made the claim that they have free will because they can act outside TLOP, please show me their quotes. You get extra points if you can provide quotes which demonstrate that you must also be an atheist in order to hold this belief.

Why don’t you start by defining “free will”. I bet you cannot do it without a logical contradiction in the process. If you were a real Skeptic you would have bothered to take the time and consider this before embarrassing yourself here.

How exactly is arguing against “free will” a “strawman”? I notice that every time someone is Skeptical of the religion of A-Theism some A-Theists starts screaming “Strawman”!

Seriously, you nitwits are like Pavlov’s Dog’s on that. If you cannot precisely define what the specific “strawman” is then all you are doing is making yourself look like a religious nitwit with nothing to back up his absurd dogma. Either explain the “strawman”, or shut the f*ck up.

If you are obeying TLOP then your claim that there is no “god” looks as ridiculous as Willy Nelson at a “Just Say No Rally”.

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

Unless you want to claim that your CAR has more “free will” than YOU do?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
Jedi says: No, you are restricted by TLOP.

Max: No, TLOP simply describe the nature of the universe.

TLOP describes the moon, yet the moon has the ability to disobey TLOP?

If the only thing that you will accept as evidence of free will is activity outside that which is described by TLOP, then you are merely argueing with a strawman. If someone has made the claim that they have free will because they can act outside TLOP, please show me their quotes. You get extra points if you can provide quotes which demonstrate that you must also be an atheist in order to hold this belief.

Anyone who argues for free-will is really saying that the present is not based on the past aka magic

Have you ever played Monopoly? If you have the rules handy, pull them out. You will see that they describe the entire monopoly universe:

TROM = The Rules Of Monopoly

Players obey TROM.
You are a Player.
You obey TROM.

TROM makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR (or tophat, or thimble, iron, whatever)

I am sure that you find no flaws in the TROM arguement.

So with TROM in hand, which are much more simplistic than TLOP, please let me know how I will fare in the next ten games of monopoly that I play with three other players. Please let me know what place I will finish, and which square on the board I will occupy at the end of each game. If you are unable to do this with the monopoly rulebook (TROM) in hand, please explain what additional information is required.

I don't think the heretical practice of winning money for landing on free parking need be discussed.

In other words, youre saying that TROM should also take control of TLOP?

The roll of the dice for example, should obey TROM.

YOU obey TLOP obeys TROM...

I dont think so Max ;)

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You don't get it and it is so simple. If there are rules, which there are, you have no free will. Philosophy 099.

JK

No, you don't get it. We do have free will, since you can't use the rules to demonstrate with absolute certainty all outcomes.

I asked some specific questions in that post. Can we safely assume that you lack the courage to answer them?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560


No, you don't get it. We do have free will, since you can't use the rules to demonstrate with absolute certainty all outcomes.

I asked some specific questions in that post. Can we safely assume that you lack the courage to answer them?

Did the folks who were roasted alive inside the nightclub in Rhode Island recently (all 96 of them) have free will? I think they were willing themselves a way out of there, but TLOP nailed them.

All outcomes are absolute beyond the scope of human interference. There is no free will.

JK

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Why don’t you start by defining “free will”. I bet you cannot do it without a logical contradiction in the process. If you were a real Skeptic you would have bothered to take the time and consider this before embarrassing yourself here.

How exactly is arguing against “free will” a “strawman”? I notice that every time someone is Skeptical of the religion of A-Theism some A-Theists starts screaming “Strawman”!

Seriously, you nitwits are like Pavlov’s Dog’s on that. If you cannot precisely define what the specific “strawman” is then all you are doing is making yourself look like a religious nitwit with nothing to back up his absurd dogma. Either explain the “strawman”, or shut the f*ck up.

If you are obeying TLOP then your claim that there is no “god” looks as ridiculous as Willy Nelson at a “Just Say No Rally”.

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

Unless you want to claim that your CAR has more “free will” than YOU do?

So I take it that you can't answer any questions in my quote either.

The way you abuse semantics to get your point across is astounding. You want everyone to ascribe to your strawman definition of Free Will so that you can ridicule it. Your strawman definition seems to be "the ability to break TLOP" or some elaboration on that theme. This is why you whip out Your TLOP arguement repeatedly.

I reject your TLOP controls YOU controls CAR statement because TLOP are descriptions of how the universe works, and not an entity with agency.

You would argue with a statistician that there is no such thing as magical "degrees of freedom": How can the number six choose? Does the number 5.7 have more freedom than 3.2? Etc.

In any case where I have 2 or more alternatives to choose from, and only I can predict which I will choose, thats Free Will in action. I don't care what factors come into play when making the decision- as long as I get the final word, thats free will.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Did the folks who were roasted alive inside the nightclub in Rhode Island recently (all 96 of them) have free will? I think they were willing themselves a way out of there, but TLOP nailed them.

All outcomes are absolute beyond the scope of human interference. There is no free will.

JK

Still no courage to reply to my questions? Or do you consider evasion a suitable response?

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Did the folks who were roasted alive inside the nightclub in Rhode Island recently (all 96 of them) have free will? I think they were willing themselves a way out of there, but TLOP nailed them.


JK

Are you suggesting that someone has put forth the idea that Free Will makes someone invincible?

If so, please provide links to their quotes.

Otherwise no further response is required, and we can move back to you answering my previous questions.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560


Are you suggesting that someone has put forth the idea that Free Will makes someone invincible?

If so, please provide links to their quotes.

Otherwise no further response is required, and we can move back to you answering my previous questions.

I do not waste my time with unecessary questions. You haven't been on this forum long, have you?

The universe is governed by rules. Those rules are regulated by TLOP. Since TLOP regulates the universe, men have no free will. If men had free will, they would make the rules and would be immune to TLOP.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

JK

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I do not waste my time with unecessary questions. You haven't been on this forum long, have you?

The universe is governed by rules. Those rules are regulated by TLOP. Since TLOP regulates the universe, men have no free will. If men had free will, they would make the rules and would be immune to TLOP.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

JK

Are you confirming that the only thing that you will accept as evidence of Free Will is the ability to break TLOP?

Are you also confirming that when questions get difficult, you turn and run with your tail between your legs? Or are you confirming that you are not smart enough to answer them?

BTW, I still reject the notion that TLOP controls anything. It merely describes the nature of the universe.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560


Are you confirming that the only thing that you will accept as evidence of Free Will is the ability to break TLOP?

Are you also confirming that when questions get difficult, you turn and run with your tail between your legs? Or are you confirming that you are not smart enough to answer them?

BTW, I still reject the notion that TLOP controls anything. It merely describes the nature of the universe.

Run? No, more like rolling in laughter at sophomoric questions.

Look, you have formed a self-opinion about free-will. Nothing I say to you will change your mind, right? That is what being self-appointed with thought means.

When the atomic bomb detonated over Nagasaki, was that a description of "the nature of the universe" or was it, in fact, TLOP? Did the hundreds of thousands that died express any free will? No. When TLOP grabbed them, they died. There was no free will. They simply died.

If a human gets cancer, are they expressing free-will? Again, is that free-will or TLOP? It is certain to be sure that all humans would love to use a touch of free-will and get rid of that cancer. But they can't. They can't, because TLOP makes the rules.

The nature of the universe is TLOP. No human can escape that which is inescapable. That is why humans do not have free-will.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Oh yeah, one more point. Since humans cannot rule TLOP, that means it is a mechanism of omnipotence. It was something created that didn't involve humans.

Knowing that then, what omnipotent being created it?

JK

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Run? No, more like rolling in laughter at sophomoric questions.

JK

So once again, are you not able to answer the questions, or are you afraid to?

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Oh yeah, one more point. Since humans cannot rule TLOP, that means it is a mechanism of omnipotence. It was something created that didn't involve humans.

Knowing that then, what omnipotent being created it?

JK

TLOP are merely descriptors of how the universe works.

Knowing that then, why do you conclude that an omnipotent being is required to create them?

[J3K]

Humans created "tlop" to explain how things in this universe work. It was just giving a name and definition to something like we do with everything.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560
TLOP are merely descriptors of how the universe works.

Knowing that then, why do you conclude that an omnipotent being is required to create them?

Humans didn't create TLOP. You can't be serious. If you are, that is careless thought.

Since humans did not create TLOP, what did?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by J3K
Humans created "tlop" to explain how things in this universe work. It was just giving a name and definition to something like we do with everything.

That was not his claim.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560


So once again, are you not able to answer the questions, or are you afraid to?

What, did IQ's just suddenly drop in the last hour? I already told you I do not answer sophomoric questions.

JK

[Max560]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TROM = The Rules Of Monopoly

Players obey TROM.
You are a Player.
You obey TROM.

TROM makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR (or tophat, or thimble, iron, whatever)

So with TROM in hand, which are much more simplistic than TLOP, please let me know how I will fare in the next ten games of monopoly that I play with three other players. Please let me know what place I will finish, and which square on the board I will occupy at the end of each game. If you are unable to do this with the monopoly rulebook (TROM) in hand, please explain what additional information is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[QUOTE]TLOP describes the moon, yet the moon has the ability to disobey TLOP?

Has anyone argued this to be the point? If so, please provide a link to their quote.


Anyone who argues for free-will is really saying that the present is not based on the past aka magic

I am argueing for free will, and I say that the present is based on the past. I also claim that my past decisions shaped my present status. You are implying that free will means the ability to do absolutely anything one can imagine. Again, provide some links which show that anyone holds this belief.

In other words, youre saying that TROM should also take control of TLOP?

Nope. TROM do nothing but describe the Monopoly universe in all aspects.

The roll of the dice for example, should obey TROM.

Virtual dice would suffice. You may supply the source code for the random dice and the hardware to run it. That should simplify your task.

I dont think so Max

I dont think you can answer my question either.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What, did IQ's just suddenly drop in the last hour? I already told you I do not answer sophomoric questions.

JK

Humor me

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Humans didn't create TLOP. You can't be serious. If you are, that is careless thought.

Since humans did not create TLOP, what did?

JK

Why is an omnipotent being necessary?

[the_ignored]

from JK:
What, did IQ's just suddenly drop in the last hour? I already told you I do not answer sophomoric questions.

Typical JK ad-hominem.

Originally posted by the_ignored
from JK:

Typical JK ad-hominem.


Typical JK worshipper reply.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Max560


Why is an omnipotent being necessary?

Why wouldn't an omnipotent being be necessary? Did humans create the universe?

JK

[the_ignored]

from Whodini:
Typical JK worshipper reply.
Worshipper? What the hell? I was criticizing him, not praising him.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Why wouldn't an omnipotent being be necessary? Did humans create the universe?

JK

No Jedi, as far as I know humans did not create the universe. If I don't know what did it... I say "I don't know what did It" I also don't assume it was ever "created" It may have always been...... In your case, the lack of knowledge of what happened leads you to create an explanation. Its nothing new, Different people generate different creation stories. Thats why there are so many gods hanging around. Your creation myth is no better or worse than any of the others....