Regarding Franko...

[Max560]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Why wouldn't an omnipotent being be necessary? Did humans create the universe?

JK

No direct answer here either then.

Have you found someone claiming that humans created the universe? If so please provide a link to their quote.

Why wouldn't an omnipotent being be necessary? Sounds to me like you're asking me to prove a negative. Sorry, no dice.

[Franko]

A-Theist Fool: (Imbecile)

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......

For a person who “doesn’t know” the answer you seem awfully certain that “God didn’t do it” you religious fruitcake.

In your case, the lack of knowledge of what happened leads you to create an explanation.

Kind of like you create “free will” so you can pretend that there is no “god”?

Its nothing new, Different people generate different creation stories.

Yeah, explain to us again how “Universes magically appear” is a more “Scientific” answer???

Thats why there are so many gods hanging around. Your creation myth is no better or worse than any of the others....

Yeah … speaking of which hypocritical moron, why don’t you tell us all some more fairy tales about your magic “free willy” powers?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool


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....

My only "claim" is that humans did not create the universe. Humans are governed against their will by TLOP--they have no free will.

Now, it is fully acceptable to speculate (be skeptical) about the origins of the universe. Since no one has the answer, [insert the reason here] and it is just as comparable as any other [insert reason here] as long as it doesn't defy common sense logic.

JK

[wraith]

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.

No one fell from a building until an equation was formed?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
Has anyone argued this to be the point? If so, please provide a link to their quote.

Remember this exchange?

Jedi says: No, you are restricted by TLOP.

Max: No, TLOP simply describe the nature of the universe.

Are you saying that youre not controlled by TLOP?

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.

If youre saying that the present is based on the past, then just where is your free-will?

Nope. TROM do nothing but describe the Monopoly universe in all aspects.

Then you will have to exclude everything that TLOP controls. Youre pretty much left with nothing then...

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.

The TROM should control the virtual dice?
That doesnt solve the problem at all...youre just assigning TLOP to TROM

I dont think you can answer my question either.

what question was that??

[Franko]

J3K: (he crazy)
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.

The Wraith:
No one fell from a building until an equation was formed?

Yeah, I guess the Earth was actually Flat and Motionless until Galileo and Copernicus worked their “magic” and made in a Sphere which started orbiting the Sun?

Of course since the present isn’t actually based on the past (according to the Religion of A-Theism anyway) maybe there never really was a Galileo or Copernicus to begin with?

Maybe they were all just figments of your imagination?

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


Remember this exchange?

Jedi says: No, you are restricted by TLOP.

Max: No, TLOP simply describe the nature of the universe.

Are you saying that youre not controlled by TLOP?



If youre saying that the present is based on the past, then just where is your free-will?



Then you will have to exclude everything that TLOP controls. Youre pretty much left with nothing then...



The TROM should control the virtual dice?
That doesnt solve the problem at all...youre just assigning TLOP to TROM



what question was that??

Fatalism means no choice right? You are claiming that the rules that govern the universe are the mechanism through which fatalism works right?

If this is so, and if there is no such thing as free will, then the future can be predicted, provided that you know enough about the past, present, and TLOP right?

I am willing to accept accurate prediction of the future as serious evidence in the favor of Fatalism.

I am trying to make this easy for you by proposing a simple experiment:

Tell me how I will fare in the next 10 games of monopoly that I play. Tell me what place I finish, and what square I occupy at the end of each game.

I have tried to simplify things for predicting the future by limiting the experimental universe to a board game with rules that govern all aspects of the game-TROM: the grand unification theory of monopoly. I have limited this little thought experiment to a universe which is much simpler than the one described by TLOP. I have given you sole control over the dice.

Armed with this, are you able to tell me how I will fare in those next 10 games? If not, why not? What extra resources do you require?

Really, all I want to know is if you can predict my fate. I am trying to make it easy for you.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560


Fatalism means no choice right? You are claiming that the rules that govern the universe are the mechanism through which fatalism works right?

If this is so, and if there is no such thing as free will, then the future can be predicted, provided that you know enough about the past, present, and TLOP right?

I am willing to accept accurate prediction of the future as serious evidence in the favor of Fatalism.

I am trying to make this easy for you by proposing a simple experiment:

Tell me how I will fare in the next 10 games of monopoly that I play. Tell me what place I finish, and what square I occupy at the end of each game.

I have tried to simplify things for predicting the future by limiting the experimental universe to a board game with rules that govern all aspects of the game-TROM: the grand unification theory of monopoly. I have limited this little thought experiment to a universe which is much simpler than the one described by TLOP. I have given you sole control over the dice.

Really, all I want to know is if you can predict my fate. I am trying to make it easy for you.

Are you saying that you want me to predict the outcome of a monopoly game? You know, I could if I had ALL the info. Do you want me to control TLOP?
Maybe if my Fate is "strong" enough, I may control you muhaha

besides, if you want human players to play, then only TROM will not suffice.

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


Are you saying that you want me to predict the outcome of a monopoly game? You know, I could if I had ALL the info. Do you want me to control TLOP?
Maybe if my Fate is "strong" enough, I may control you muhaha

besides, if you want human players to play, then only TROM will not suffice.

Ok so you need more information.

What I am trying to determine is what that extra information might be. I belive that the outcomes of the games are derived from a combination of TROM, the roll of the die, and the decisions that each player makes. I say those decisions are a result of free will, you say they are a result of fate.

Compelling evidence of fate would be specific, accurate predictions as I have outlined, as opposed to predictions like "I predict that money will change hands", or "I predict that all of the players will pass go, and collect $200", and so on.

I think we can agree that the choices that each player can make at each turn are limited to either a few (buy 1 house or 2?), or none (pay $14).

Can you suggest any other changes to simplify this little thought experiment such that the future can be predicted?

[wraith]

If I blind fold you, I can pretty much guarantee that I will win ;)

[Franko]

What I am trying to determine is what that extra information might be. I belive that the outcomes of the games are derived from a combination of TROM, the roll of the die, and the decisions that each player makes. I say those decisions are a result of free will, you say they are a result of fate.

Compelling evidence of fate would be specific, accurate predictions as I have outlined, as opposed to predictions like "I predict that money will change hands", or "I predict that all of the players will pass go, and collect $200", and so on.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between Fatalism and Omniscience. Fatalism simply means that ALL things happen as part of a logical sequence (a chain of cause and event) based on a consistent set of logical rules.

Omniscience on the other hand is the ability to perceive the future outcome of an event prior to the event actually occuring. Only a "God" has the power of Omniscience, so unless you believe that the Wraith is a "God", then I very seriously doubt he will be able to demonstrate Omniscience for you.

Instead why don't you just demonstrate your magic "free will" powers for us. That will prove Fatalism is False.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Apparently you don't understand the difference between Fatalism and Omniscience. Fatalism simply means that ALL things happen as part of a logical sequence (a chain of cause and event) based on a consistent set of logical rules.

So If you have all the rules, and all the info, is this enough to predict the future? Not necessarily by yourself or W. IE, could you feed all the Info, rules, etc into a computer of sufficient power to actually generate future outcomes?

[LW]

Originally posted by Max560
So If you have all the rules, and all the info, is this enough to predict the future? Not necessarily by yourself or W. IE, could you feed all the Info, rules, etc into a computer of sufficient power to actually generate future outcomes?
If we suppose that knowing everything about the universe allows us to predict the future with 100% accuracy, there's still one problem left on our way to omniscience:

Where would you store that data?

[Franko]

Max560:
So If you have all the rules, and all the info, is this enough to predict the future?

If you know all of the numbers, and the rules of addition and subtraction, can you add or subtract ANY two numbers for me?

Not necessarily by yourself or W. IE, could you feed all the Info, rules, etc into a computer of sufficient power to actually generate future outcomes?

We (consciousnesses) are the “computers” of “sufficient power”. The more self-aware you become the more “sufficient power” you accumulate.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Franko

We (consciousnesses) are the “computers” of “sufficient power”. The more self-aware you become the more “sufficient power” you accumulate.

Didn't you once warn me about statements like those? ;)

[Franko]

Did I Hand?

You'll have to refresh my memory.

[hammegk]

Yeah, it's been awhile.

Hypothetical: Would there be more atheists in a Dumbness, or in an Egotism?

[Franko]

Man, that's a tough call Mr. Hand ...

But I'm gonna go with ... Egotism.

[c4ts]

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

Humans created TLOP, and they did so through discovery and pattern recognition. That is why there are sometimes things that break the laws of physics, and why the laws are subject to revision when that happens. Wasn't that what the quantum physics revolution did?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by c4ts


Humans created TLOP...

"Map" not equal "Territory".

[Franko]

C4ts,

You are an erratic little Graviton – aren’t you?

Humans created TLOP, and they did so through discovery and pattern recognition.

hey look, this one is stirring …

You’re missing the point. What determined the “pattern” prior to it being “recognized”?

If it was the “matter” that determined the “pattern”, and “we” are “matter”, then how is that anything other than an ass-backwards way of saying that “consciousness” created the pattern?

That is why there are sometimes things that break the laws of physics, and why the laws are subject to revision when that happens.

No, no, no, no, my precious little Hellspawn, you are assuming that Solipsism is True again. Nothing ever “breaks” the rules (the pattern) … someone just realizes that we were not properly receiving (perceiving) and/or misunderstanding the nature of the pattern, or even the pattern itself.

Wasn't that what the quantum physics revolution did?

If by Quantum Physics you mean Heisenberg’s Magical Principle, Yes. That is when the forces of darkness mustered and began their slow miserably pathetic little attempt to “conquer the World” …

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by hammegk


"Map" not equal "Territory".

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many seem to have such a problem with this idea.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many seem to have such a problem with this idea.

Yeah, I wondered too if F made the best choice.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


If you know all of the numbers, and the rules of addition and subtraction, can you add or subtract ANY two numbers for me?



We (consciousnesses) are the “computers” of “sufficient power”. The more self-aware you become the more “sufficient power” you accumulate.

I think we are misunderstanding eachother.

From the fatalist perspective, i understand that there is no such thing as choice. All things that happen are a direct result of the rules of the universe or, TLOP as per your arguement.

Does this mean that X, Y, or Z may happen, or does this mean that A, B, and C will happen?

In other words, would having all the info, complete understanding of TLOP, and enough computational power to process this tell us what could possibly happen, or what definately will happen?

[Franko]

Max:
From the fatalist perspective, i understand that there is no such thing as choice. All things that happen are a direct result of the rules of the universe or, TLOP as per your arguement.

Does this mean that X, Y, or Z may happen, or does this mean that A, B, and C will happen?

In other words, would having all the info, complete understanding of TLOP, and enough computational power to process this tell us what could possibly happen, or what definately will happen?

Okay, think of it this way. We have two computers, A and B, and A is 10x faster processing than B. Now we load the same program onto both computers, and the programs require some input from a database and workspace, so we have both computer A and computer B sharing a hard drive with more than enough space for both.

Assuming that we start the same program running on both machines at the same time, and they are sharing a common fixed data file for any inputs required, computer A will ALWAYS anticipate the future outputs of computer B prior to B actually generating those outputs itself.

But you are really asking a different question, aren’t you?

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


Okay, think of it this way. We have two computers, A and B, and A is 10x faster processing than B. Now we load the same program onto both computers, and the programs require some input from a database and workspace, so we have both computer A and computer B sharing a hard drive with more than enough space for both.

Assuming that we start the same program running on both machines at the same time, and they are sharing a common fixed data file for any inputs required, computer A will ALWAYS anticipate the future outputs of computer B prior to B actually generating those outputs itself.

But you are really asking a different question, aren’t you?

Yes. I want to know if there is enough information in the present (in conjunction with TLOP) to calculate what will happen in the future, as opposed to what might happen. I mean this in the sense of taking a watch, and being able to predict what time it will show 17 minutes from now.

[Franko]

Max560:
Yes. I want to know if there is enough information in the present (in conjunction with TLOP) to calculate what will happen in the future, as opposed to what might happen. I mean this in the sense of taking a watch, and being able to predict what time it will show 17 minutes from now.

This is one of those fascinating little topics that I’d bet you could quite literally spend an Eternity discussing and pondering.

You can definitely predict the future – people do that all of the time.

So you want to predict the future, you have two parameters, You have the algorithm that is going to calculate what is suppose to happen, and you have the data (information) regarding the event you want to predict. Okay, now suppose that your algorithm is perfect, it mimics what The Laws of Physics (TLOP) does perfectly, and suppose that you data is also perfect, by which I mean it is “complete information”, it is everything relevant to the event, or point in time we are trying to calculate.

So, this is where you have the computer A and computer B business. Unless you have a computer that calculates faster than TLOP (the speed of light), then even if you had the perfect algorithm, and perfect database, you still couldn’t anticipate faster than TLOP makes the thing happen in reality (realtime).

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko


This is one of those fascinating little topics that I’d bet you could quite literally spend an Eternity discussing and pondering.

You can definitely predict the future – people do that all of the time.

So you want to predict the future, you have two parameters, You have the algorithm that is going to calculate what is suppose to happen, and you have the data (information) regarding the event you want to predict. Okay, now suppose that your algorithm is perfect, it mimics what The Laws of Physics (TLOP) does perfectly, and suppose that you data is also perfect, by which I mean it is “complete information”, it is everything relevant to the event, or point in time we are trying to calculate.

So, this is where you have the computer A and computer B business. Unless you have a computer that calculates faster than TLOP (the speed of light), then even if you had the perfect algorithm, and perfect database, you still couldn’t anticipate faster than TLOP makes the thing happen in reality (realtime).

So this is where the monopoly game comes in. Primarily, it is a device by which we can slash the information down to a more manageable size.

In this case, could the numbers be crunched prior to the games being played? Can we know exactly how the games will turn out exactly?

The thing that I would seriously consider as Strong evidence for Fate would be something like 20-20 hindsight applied to the future-- 20-20 foresight if you will.

You can definitely predict the future – people do that all of the time.

Sure one can make educated guesses and general projections (i.e., the sun will rise tomorrow morning.....I hope). The more impressive feat of course would be having some agreement between the predictor and the evaluator agreeing on what will constitute an accurate prediction prior to the actual prediction being made.

[Franko]

So this is where the monopoly game comes in. Primarily, it is a device by which we can slash the information down to a more manageable size.

Someone’s thinking …

In this case, could the numbers be crunched prior to the games being played? Can we know exactly how the games will turn out exactly?

Depends on the relative complexity of the game, depends on who’s playing. You against some kindergartners at checkers, my money’s on you.

Sure one can make educated guesses and general projections (i.e., the sun will rise tomorrow morning.....I hope). The more impressive feat of course would be having some agreement between the predictor and the evaluator agreeing on what will constitute an accurate prediction prior to the actual prediction being made.

You might be amazed what some people can do.

It looks like magic. … until they explain the logic behind the trick.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko

So you want to predict the future, you have two parameters, You have the algorithm that is going to calculate what is suppose to happen, and you have the data (information) regarding the event you want to predict. Okay, now suppose that your algorithm is perfect, it mimics what The Laws of Physics (TLOP) does perfectly, and suppose that you data is also perfect, by which I mean it is “complete information”, it is everything relevant to the event, or point in time we are trying to calculate.


Yes my friend, just don't forget those little disgusting acausal events... :p

You cannot hide them, you have to deal with them. If there is just only one single acausal event, then you cannot predict the future. As far as I know, there are millions of them in the Universe.

Q-S

[Franko]

Q-Source:
Yes my friend, just don't forget those little disgusting acausal events...

You cannot hide them, you have to deal with them. If there is just only one single acausal event, then you cannot predict the future. As far as I know, there are millions of them in the Universe.

Define “acausal event”?

I bet your definition makes acausal = magical.

And what millions of acausal events are you referring to (specifically)? Please don’t say QM Source! QM isn’t nearly as “random” (magical) as people think. Why is it that the magic only seems to happen when no one is looking? Why is it that you A-Theist ALWAYS want to pretend that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn’t a thousand, thousand times more solid that your Many-magical-worlds supernatural accounting of events?

[Max560]

Originally posted by Franko



You might be amazed what some people can do.

It looks like magic. … until they explain the logic behind the trick.

...hence the need for proper test conditions.

So in summary, is it fair to say that from a Fatalist standpoint, everything that is required to calculate the future that will happen (as opposed tho what might happen) is located in the data of the present plus TLOP?

[Franko]

Max:
is it fair to say that from a Fatalist standpoint, everything that is required to calculate the future that will happen (as opposed tho what might happen) is located in the data of the present plus TLOP?

Yes, I would agree with that completely.

[Fade]

It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Fade
It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

Yes, but it is a lot of fun. Isn't it?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko

Define “acausal event”?

Acausal event is one that happens randomly and is not the result of prior conditions.


I bet your definition makes acausal = magical.

No magic here. I also find difficult to assimilate how something has not a cause, how an event is not the result of a sequence...
But it is true.


And what millions of acausal events are you referring to (specifically)?

Specifically: atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang for example.

Anyway, you have said many many times that yout LG is bounded by Gravity. So, God does play dice.

Q-S

[Max560]

Originally posted by Fade
It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

Have you ever exercised to stay fit?

[Franko]

Q-Source:
Acausal event is one that happens randomly and is not the result of prior conditions.

Acausal = without logical cause.

Magic = without logical cause. = (Supernatural)

A-Theism = a mystical belief system based on the premise that reality is fundamentally magic/supernatural

Franko:
I bet your definition makes acausal = magical.

Q-Source:
No magic here. I also find difficult to assimilate how something has not a cause, how an event is not the result of a sequence...
But it is true.

That’s called you requiring Magic to support your absurd belief system, and then making a Special Plead to boot – I find difficult to assimilate how something has not a cause, how an event is not the result of a sequence...But it is true

No, it’s not True. It is just YOU claiming that things happen magically.

ACTION is based on BELIEF Q-Source – not magic. How often do you not do what you believe, and instead act “randomly”? :rolleyes:

Q-Source:
Specifically: atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang for example.

Not random (not magical).

… and even if they were you STILL wouldn’t have “free will” you would have “random will”. So I don’t see how this is any help to you even if this nonsense were True?

Anyway, you have said many many times that yout LG is bounded by Gravity. So, God does play dice.

Nope. She doesn’t.

Why do you assume QG is random now?

Let me guess, since the A-Theist have no idea how QG works, then that must mean it is magical?

Nothings is magical. Everything happens for a reason.

[Franko]

Fade: (Another A-Theist)
It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

Yep!

When are you hypocritical religious fanatics going to learn, not to believe things based on no evidence?

I see no reason to believe your extraordinary claim that you have magic "free will" powers. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. When will you credulous non-skeptics learn that you must PROVE your wild assertions with Logic and empirical evidence?

[J3K]

Ummm Franko, you believe in things that have no evidence. Your goddess for example. You simply believe so hard in her, that it becomes evidence that she must exist to you. Such a simple small mind you have.

[Franko]

Ummm Franko, you believe in things that have no evidence. Your goddess for example. You simply believe so hard in her, that it becomes evidence that she must exist to you. Such a simple small mind you have.

Wow ... it's like you were reading my mind!

how do you do that???

[J3K]

Now why on earth do you ask that Franko. You know you say I'm atheist so I have supernatural free willy powers remember. I can do anything.

[Franko]

Uce:
Now why on earth do you ask that Franko. You know you say I'm atheist so I have supernatural free willy powers remember. I can do anything.

Yes, but if someone ask me why I believe this, what exactly should I tell them? What is the reason I believe this? ... or is it just because You said so?

... or doesn't it matter? ... because none of "us" exist ... ?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko


Acausal = without logical cause.

Magic = without logical cause. = (Supernatural)


An acausal event is not supernatural. It is still natural.


No, it’s not True. It is just YOU claiming that things happen magically.

Let's say that we don't have enough information to determine whether or not Determinism is true. In the mean time, we assume that some events are acausal because that's how they appear to us. It is the only possible way to understand how the Universe works (unless you are God of course).
I don't deny the possibility of an underlying determinism, I think I've become an agnostic regarding this topic.


… and even if they were you STILL wouldn’t have “free will” you would have “random will”. So I don’t see how this is any help to you even if this nonsense were True?

At the micro level, I have random will. Well, my atoms and chemicals in my brain behave in that way.


Nope. She doesn’t.

You said so. You said that she is bounded by Gravity (a Law), so it means that she cannot control random events.


Why do you assume QG is random now?

It isn't :eek:


Let me guess, since the A-Theist have no idea how QG works, then that must mean it is magical?
Nothings is magical. Everything happens for a reason.

Yeah, and you have an idea how it works :rolleyes:
But you will refuse to share your knowledge with the scientific community.

Q-S

[Franko]

Franko:
Acausal = without logical cause.

Magic = without logical cause. = (Supernatural)

Q-Source:
An acausal event is not supernatural. It is still natural.

Ohh Great! In that case the Logical Goddess is acausal. Do you believe now?

Franko:
It is just YOU claiming that things happen magically.

Q-Source:
Let's say that we don't have enough information to determine whether or not Determinism is true. In the mean time, we assume that some events are acausal because that's how they appear to us. It is the only possible way to understand how the Universe works (unless you are God of course).

Ahhh, I am starting to see, so instead of assuming that there are logical rules, and the universe behaves entirely Deterministically and Objectively as it would appear by ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, we should simply assume that Reality is ultimately magical so we can pretend that there is no God, and no consequences for our actions???

I don't deny the possibility of an underlying determinism, I think I've become an agnostic regarding this topic.

Good Karma for You Darling. (sincerely)

Franko:
… and even if they were you STILL wouldn’t have “free will” you would have “random will”. So I don’t see how this is any help to you even if this nonsense were True?

Q-Source:
At the micro level, I have random will. Well, my atoms and chemicals in my brain behave in that way.

So how does your mind make the “random” into “non-random”? I thought that we BOTH agreed, ALL action is based on Belief? I don’t see where the “random” part fits into the equation? I don’t see the need for the magic of “ true randomness” (acausality)?

Q-Source:[/b]
You said so. You said that she is bounded by Gravity (a Law), so it means that she cannot control random events.

There are NO random events. Events only seem random when you do not comprehend the logic which governed (controlled) the event.

Q-Source:
Yeah, and you have an idea how it works
But you will refuse to share your knowledge with the scientific community

I’m more interested in sharing it with YOU, old friend, but you don’t seem to be listening …

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko


Ohh Great! In that case the Logical Goddess is acausal. Do you believe now?

No, I don't, because the LG is not acausal, she had an origin (according to you).



Ahhh, I am starting to see, so instead of assuming that there are logical rules, and the universe behaves entirely Deterministically and Objectively as it would appear by ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, we should simply assume that Reality is ultimately magical so we can pretend that there is no God, and no consequences for our actions???

Even if determinism were true, acausal events would still exist.
In fact, let's say that determinism is true, we still have acausal events that we cannot link to a sequence of events.


Good Karma for You Darling. (sincerely)

Tell to you Goddess that you just bump a Graviton towards her Omniworldline (temporally :) )


I’m more interested in sharing it with YOU, old friend, but you don’t seem to be listening …

Ohhh, but I am still waiting to hear that from you :(

Q

[Franko]

Franko:
Acausal = without logical cause.

Magic = without logical cause. = (Supernatural)

Q-Source:
An acausal event is not supernatural. It is still natural.

Franko:
Ohh Great! In that case the Logical Goddess is acausal. Do you believe now?

Q-Source:
No, I don't, because the LG is not acausal, she had an origin (according to you).

That is called YOU basing your beliefs on a Double Standard.

Why is it acceptable for you to cite Magic as the basis for your beliefs (acausal = magic), yet you are unwilling to accept Acausal explanations for the Religious beliefs of others (like Christians)?

… but you are correct, I do not claim that the LG had a supernatural origin. … at least, no more “supernatural” then your own.

Q-Source:
Even if determinism were true, acausal events would still exist.
In fact, let's say that determinism is true, we still have acausal events that we cannot link to a sequence of events.

The invisible world of QM not-withstanding, You have provided no evidence for acausal events. You can’t demonstrate ONE single event which is clearly not based on the past, nor based on ANY logical rules. You cannot produce a genuine Alive-Dead Cat, you cannot do magic by will alone, and the reason you cannot do these things is because “acausal” exist no where, except in the minds of deluded A-Theists.

What are you doing any differently than a Christian, Source? You are claiming a magical basis for reality as the foundation for your religion. You have no observable evidence for these beliefs, and you have no consistent logical argument, instead you just tell me I should believe you, because people who are “smarter” than us (“scientist” like that idiot Stimpson [priest of Atheism]) have assured you this is the “One True faith”.

[Q-Source]

O.K. Take a deep breath....

and calm down :)

Originally posted by Franko

You have provided no evidence for acausal events. You can’t demonstrate ONE single event which is clearly not based on the past, nor based on ANY logical rules.

I already did.
Atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang.



What are you doing any differently than a Christian, Source? You are claiming a magical basis for reality as the foundation for your religion. You have no observable evidence for these beliefs, and you have no consistent logical argument, instead you just tell me I should believe you, because people who are “smarter” than us (“scientist” like that idiot Stimpson [priest of Atheism]) have assured you this is the “One True faith”.

If it is true, then it is just a matter of time.

Hey, calm down :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang.



Those events appear acausal using the current physics models, but why is that even an indication that they are acausal (that is, not a function of past events)?

[Franko]

Franko:
The invisible world of QM not-withstanding, You have provided no evidence for acausal events. You can’t demonstrate ONE single event which is clearly not based on the past, nor based on ANY logical rules. You cannot produce a genuine Alive-Dead Cat, you cannot do magic by will alone, and the reason you cannot do these things is because “acausal” exist no where, except in the minds of deluded A-Theists.

What are you doing any differently than a Christian, Source? You are claiming a magical basis for reality as the foundation for your religion. You have no observable evidence for these beliefs, and you have no consistent logical argument, instead you just tell me I should believe you, because people who are “smarter” than us (“scientist” like that idiot Stimpson [priest of Atheism]) have assured you this is the “One True faith”.

Q-Source:
I already did.
Atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang.

Ahhh, so QM (Atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations), and something that no one witnessed or could have witnessed (according to you) – the beginning of the Universe is your “empirical evidence” for magic “free willy” powers? Why aren’t those same things evidence for God?

Franko:
Acausal = without logical cause.

Magic = without logical cause. = (Supernatural)

Q-Source:
An acausal event is not supernatural. It is still natural.

Franko:
Ohh Great! In that case the Logical Goddess is acausal. Do you believe now?

Q-Source:
No, I don't, because the LG is not acausal, she had an origin (according to you).

Franko:
That is called YOU basing your beliefs on a Double Standard.

Why is it acceptable for you to cite Magic as the basis for your beliefs (acausal = magic), yet you are unwilling to accept Acausal explanations for the Religious beliefs of others (like Christians)?

[Q-Source]

Franko:
Why is it acceptable for you to cite Magic as the basis for your beliefs (acausal = magic), yet you are unwilling to accept Acausal explanations for the Religious beliefs of others (like Christians)?

Because, you can observe and measure acausal events in the Universe. You can establish an atom's position or speed even though they behave randomly.

They are natural events. We have evidence for it. You can see atomic decay with your own eyes.

Regarding God, you cannot get any evidence of its existence because it would contradict its own definition.

Hammegk:
Those events appear acausal using the current physics models, but why is that even an indication that they are acausal (that is, not a function of past events)?

This is something that Physicists still don't know. But everything seems to indicate that they are not related to previous states.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Q-Source

This is something that Physicists still don't know. But everything seems to indicate that they are not related to previous states.

Statistics are nice. Be careful what you make of them.

Actuaries make insurance companies rich with longevity projections, but make zero predictions about any specific individual. Yet, will you postulate that a given death is acausal rather than a function (algorithym) of previous events -- karma --which lead exactly to that result?

[MRC_Hans]

Hammegk:
Those events appear acausal using the current physics models, but why is that even an indication that they are acausal (that is, not a function of past events)? This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it. This is not the same as religious "faith" or "belief", it is simply the way we navigate the real world. Since we observe that quantum events happen, and we observe no causes for them, and since the way they happen (their distribution in time) fits a random pattern, we have no choice but assume that they are acausal.

The speculation that we might one day discover a cause is irrelevant. After all, we might also discover a proof of their acausality. Or we might discover something entirely different.

Hans

[Franko]

Q-Source: (A-Theist)
Because, you can observe and measure acausal events in the Universe. You can establish an atom's position or speed even though they behave randomly.

They are natural events. We have evidence for it. You can see atomic decay with your own eyes.

Ahhh, I see … so when Jesus walked on water that wasn’t really “magic” or a “divine miracle”, it was just an ordinary everyday acausal event. The kind of thing that (according to A-Theists) happens ALL the time. In other words, just because every time you have tried to walk on water in the past you have failed, and just because the Laws of Physics prohibit you from actually walking on water doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t walk on water.

… because as ANY “right-thinking” A-Theist will tell you it is entirely “SCIENTIFIC” and “RATIONAL” to believe that what happens in the present is NOT based on the past, and besides there are really NO FIXED RULES anyway. Just because walking on water is usually impossible, doesn’t mean that it always is.

I guess that once you adopt a magical belief in “acausal reality” every miracle in the Bible is just as scientific as a belief in “free will” powers or believing coins ALWAYS land TAILs up?

Q-Source:
Regarding God, you cannot get any evidence of its existence because it would contradict its own definition.

You mean JUST like the magic randomness of Your Quantum mechanics?

MRC: (A-Theist)
This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it.

So what EXACTLY was your evidence for “free will”? … because THIS seems to contradict your theory …

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

MRC:
This is not the same as religious "faith" or "belief", it is simply the way we navigate the real world. Since we observe that quantum events happen, and we observe no causes for them, and since the way they happen (their distribution in time) fits a random pattern, we have no choice but assume that they are acausal.

But I thought that you were just saying that you COULDN’t ACTUALLY OBSERVE THESE EVENTS???

This is no different then your “proof” that God doesn’t exist. It is simply an erroneous assumption based on NO INFORMATION.

MRC:
The speculation that we might one day discover a cause is irrelevant. After all, we might also discover a proof of their acausality. Or we might discover something entirely different.

So in the mean time the “smart”, “rational” individual believes that EVERYTHING is fundamentally magical and non-comprehensible??? The “sane” person believes that the present is NOT based on the past, and that there is NO underlying fixed set of rules?!?!

You are nuts my little friend. You’re gone …

[MRC_Hans]

Just noticed that you cross posted this. I can cut and paste too.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC: (A-Theist)
This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what EXACTLY was your evidence for “free will”? … because THIS seems to contradict your theory …

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

This debate is not about free will, but your sillogism does not disprove free will, because tlop do not preclude free will.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC:
This is not the same as religious "faith" or "belief", it is simply the way we navigate the real world. Since we observe that quantum events happen, and we observe no causes for them, and since the way they happen (their distribution in time) fits a random pattern, we have no choice but assume that they are acausal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I thought that you were just saying that you COULDN’t ACTUALLY OBSERVE THESE EVENTS???

No, I did not.

This is no different then your “proof” that God doesn’t exist. It is simply an erroneous assumption based on NO INFORMATION.

I do not now and never have claimed that I have proof that God does not exist. On the contrary, I claim that God can be neither proved nor disproved. (Anyway I would not try to prove a negative)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC:
The speculation that we might one day discover a cause is irrelevant. After all, we might also discover a proof of their acausality. Or we might discover something entirely different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the mean time the “smart”, “rational” individual believes that EVERYTHING is fundamentally magical and non-comprehensible??? The “sane” person believes that the present is NOT based on the past, and that there is NO underlying fixed set of rules?!?!

The rational individual claims that reality functions according to physical laws, and that physical laws must confirm and be confirmed by observation. The present is based on the past, but not entirely determined by the past. For example, your coin throw is only based on the past to the extent that it will come out either heads or tail.

Since your "magic" strawman has been turned down consistently, I suggest you stop using it.





Hans

[Franko]

I claim that God can be neither proved nor disproved.

How about String Theory or Black Holes can they be proved or disproved?

Then why not God?

What are you basing this conclusion on MRC?

... other than wishful thinking?

[Franko]

MRC: (A-Theist)
This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
So what’s you evidential support for “free will”.

MRC:
because tlop do not preclude free will.

Tlop doesn’t preclude God either, but that doesn’t constitute a Proof of God.

… So I ask you (yet again) This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it.

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

Where is your “new evidence” which contradicts this? Where is the “You” (Soul) making the choices MRC???

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
How about String Theory or Black Holes can they be proved or disproved?

They can be proved or disproved.

Then why not God?

Since God could easily prove his existence, and hasn't done so, we might assume that God does not want his existence proved.

What are you basing this conclusion on MRC?

... other than wishful thinking?

The above logic. Wishful thinking? If we had proof for or against God, much would be easier, so its hardly wishful.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC: (A-Theist)
This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
So what’s you evidential support for “free will”.

MRC:
because tlop do not preclude free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is not a conversation we held. Its a row of lines you have taken out of concept. Your dishonesty is noted (again).

Tlop doesn’t preclude God either, but that doesn’t constitute a Proof of God.

… So I ask you (yet again) This is the way science works. If a theory is supported by evidence, it is assumed to be true until such time as new evidence appears to contradict it.

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

Where is your “new evidence” which contradicts this? Where is the “You” (Soul) making the choices MRC???

So I answer (yet again):

1) The "syllogism" does not constitute logical proof that humans function like atoms (fallacy of composition).

2) The third statement, "you obey tlop" is correct inasmuch that nobody has yet shown reliably that humans can transcend tlop. And I, for one, don't expect anybody to ever do.
It does not, however, constitute proof that tlop is anything but a set of constraining rules. Thus it is basically irrelevant to the discussion of free will.

Hans

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by hammegk


Statistics are nice. Be careful what you make of them.

He, he... I can do wonderful things with Statistics.


Actuaries make insurance companies rich with longevity projections, but make zero predictions about any specific individual. Yet, will you postulate that a given death is acausal rather than a function (algorithym) of previous events -- karma --which lead exactly to that result?

The purpose of Statistics is not to predict an specific individual's behaviour but to predict many individuals average behaviour.

I think you are mixing "no past history" with "acausal".
Acausal events are also subjected to probabilistic behaviour. For example, Scientists know (by past history) that atomic decay occurs within a probabilistic pattern. However, it does not imply that atomic decay is related with previous states.

Q-S

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko


Ahhh, I see … so when Jesus walked on water that wasn’t really “magic” or a “divine miracle”, it was just an ordinary everyday acausal event. The kind of thing that (according to A-Theists) happens ALL the time. In other words, just because every time you have tried to walk on water in the past you have failed, and just because the Laws of Physics prohibit you from actually walking on water doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t walk on water.

… because as ANY “right-thinking” A-Theist will tell you it is entirely “SCIENTIFIC” and “RATIONAL” to believe that what happens in the present is NOT based on the past, and besides there are really NO FIXED RULES anyway. Just because walking on water is usually impossible, doesn’t mean that it always is.

I guess that once you adopt a magical belief in “acausal reality” every miracle in the Bible is just as scientific as a belief in “free will” powers or believing coins ALWAYS land TAILs up?


I don't understand why you keep denying a whole Theory and empirical evidence that prove the existence of events no-related to previous states. It is not speculation, it is all we have.
On the other hand, biblical miracles are easy to falsify.

Q-S

[J3K]

Yes they are Q-source. Such as Jesus walking on water. All that would take is a little brains and you can easily acheive this effect with no true magical powers what so ever. That's a magician for you.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by J3K
Yes they are Q-source. Such as Jesus walking on water. All that would take is a little brains and you can easily acheive this effect with no true magical powers what so ever. That's a magician for you.

I think what I wanted to say was that biblical miracles are easy to fake.

[J3K]

I know. And I was telling how it could be faked. You can purchase things right now that will let you walk on water. You won't actually walk on water, but anybody that sees you will say you just did. Hence, no mircle working at all, just magic(illusion).

[Franko]

Q-Source:
I don't understand why you keep denying a whole Theory and empirical evidence that prove the existence of events no-related to previous states. It is not speculation, it is all we have.

OKAY! … so here is the ramification of that belief …

when Jesus walked on water that wasn’t really “magic” or a “divine miracle”, it was just an ordinary everyday acausal event. The kind of thing that (according to A-Theists) happens ALL the time. In other words, just because every time you have tried to walk on water in the past you have failed, and just because the Laws of Physics prohibit you from actually walking on water doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t walk on water.

… because as ANY “right-thinking” A-Theist will tell you it is entirely “SCIENTIFIC” and “RATIONAL” to believe that what happens in the present is NOT based on the past, and besides there are really NO FIXED RULES anyway. Just because walking on water is usually impossible, doesn’t mean that it always is.

I guess that once you adopt a magical belief in “acausal reality” every miracle in the Bible is just as scientific as a belief in “free will” powers

Q-Source:
On the other hand, biblical miracles are easy to falsify.

If an entire Universe magically appearing by your Quantum acausality is “scientific” then every miracle in the Bible in also “scientific”. If you can site Magic as the basis for YOUR BELIEFS then there is NOTHING wrong with a Theist (or John Edwards) doing the EXACT SAME THING!

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko


OKAY! … so here is the ramification of that belief …

when Jesus walked on water that wasn’t really “magic” or a “divine miracle”, it was just an ordinary everyday acausal event. The kind of thing that (according to A-Theists) happens ALL the time. In other words, just because every time you have tried to walk on water in the past you have failed, and just because the Laws of Physics prohibit you from actually walking on water doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t walk on water.

… because as ANY “right-thinking” A-Theist will tell you it is entirely “SCIENTIFIC” and “RATIONAL” to believe that what happens in the present is NOT based on the past, and besides there are really NO FIXED RULES anyway. Just because walking on water is usually impossible, doesn’t mean that it always is.

I guess that once you adopt a magical belief in “acausal reality” every miracle in the Bible is just as scientific as a belief in “free will” powers

If an entire Universe magically appearing by your Quantum acausality is “scientific” then every miracle in the Bible in also “scientific”. If you can site Magic as the basis for YOUR BELIEFS then there is NOTHING wrong with a Theist (or John Edwards) doing the EXACT SAME THING!

Cut and paste? :rolleyes:

Your debating skills are deteriorating, Frank.

[Franko]

Q-Source:

If an entire Universe magically appearing by your Quantum acausality is “scientific” then every miracle in the Bible in also “scientific”. If you can site Magic as the basis for YOUR BELIEFS then there is NOTHING wrong with a Theist (or John Edwards) doing the EXACT SAME THING!

[Q-Source]

What can I say, Frank?

The scientific magic is overwhelming.

Did you know that cynic is a synonymous of skeptic? :D

Q-S

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Did you know that cynic is a synonymous of skeptic? :D

I dunno, Q. To me, a cynic is more of a pessimist. A cynic might say, for example,
"There is a God, and He hates us.";)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Cut and paste? :rolleyes:

Your debating skills are deteriorating, Frank.

The very thought boggles my mind.

Hans

[Rosetta Stone]

Cynicism is good:

Cynic: A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.

from Dictionary.com

It's from the Greek word for "dog", the same root that "cynosure" shares. Which means "dog's tail" and refers to the Ursa Minor, due to the unvarying position of the Pole Star.

No need to thank me.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Rosetta Stone
Cynicism is good:

Cynic: A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.



Ahh, we should start a thread about Cynics and Cynicism.

I wonder if the conception of cynicism has deteriorated in modern times. It seems like the Greek sect had a very valid purpose (achieve virtue).

Q-S

[Rosetta Stone]

Hello Q -
Perhaps the next Philosopher of the Month should be Antisthenes or Diogenes, two of the classical Cynics.

Since Diogenes is already here we might ask him what he believes.

[Franko]

Franko:
If an entire Universe magically appearing by your Quantum acausality is “scientific” then every miracle in the Bible in also “scientific”. If you can site Magic as the basis for YOUR BELIEFS then there is NOTHING wrong with a Theist (or John Edwards) doing the EXACT SAME THING!

Q-Source:
What can I say, Frank?

The scientific magic is overwhelming.

Yes, I guess that explains why 95%+ of the worlds population “overwhelmed” by the “magic” of A-Theism. :rolleyes:

You have your magic, and they have theirs. No difference between you really … Except that THEY believe in ultimate consequences for their actions and A-Theists do not.

[Q-Source]

It is hard to believe how many people still believe in Creationism.

Science is still looking for answers, if Science to your eyes looks like magic, then it is a pity. Although, I think it is just a deist's hypocrisy.

To me, even with its shortcomings, Science's achievements are more real and important than any other attempt to explain how the Universe works.

[Franko]

It is hard to believe how many people still believe in Creationism.

It’s even harder to fathom that anyone thinks universes magically appear out of no where by magic.

Until A-Theism came along all religions were based on the notion of Fatalism. A-Theism is simply a rejection of Science in favor of Magic.

Science is still looking for answers, if Science to your eyes looks like magic, then it is a pity. Although, I think it is just a deist's hypocrisy.

I have no doubt that much of what you call “Science” I would also call science (and vice versa), but your acausal QM magic is not science by ANY stretch of the imagination. It’s simply absurd incomprehensible nonsense contradicted utterly by All observed reality.

To me, even with its shortcomings, Science's achievements are more real and important than any other attempt to explain how the Universe works.

We see things very much differently in this regard Source. I don’t see how a religion which has condemned thousands and thousands of Souls to an Eternity of Solipsism, conformity, and utter isolation can be called a “good” thing.

I have just as much appreciation for atoms, and quarks and gluons, etc. as you do, I just have an even greater appreciation for the things which make the atoms, and quarks and gluons, etc. etc.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Franko

I have no doubt that much of what you call “Science” I would also call science (and vice versa), but your acausal QM magic is not science by ANY stretch of the imagination. It’s simply absurd incomprehensible nonsense contradicted utterly by All observed reality.


Quantum mechanics is obviously a bankrupt system created by some of the most brilliant men of all time. Obviously no validity there, and all becasue Franko says so.

Obviously ignoring the fact that proof of QM would punch enourmous holes in Franko's philisophy... wait, we have posted links to QM sites showing evidence for QM!

:eek:
The mind boggles, the stomach reels.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Quantum mechanics is obviously a bankrupt system created by some of the most brilliant men of all time. Obviously no validity there, and all becasue Franko says so.

Obviously ignoring the fact that proof of QM would punch enourmous holes in Franko's philisophy... wait, we have posted links to QM sites showing evidence for QM!

:eek:
The mind boggles, the stomach reels.

here's another one to ignore:
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010927/010927-2.html

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
I have no doubt that much of what you call “Science” I would also call science (and vice versa), but your acausal QM magic is not science by ANY stretch of the imagination. It’s simply absurd incomprehensible nonsense contradicted utterly by All observed reality.
Yes, lad, you have a fondness for science, except when it conflicts with your strange religion. You like Hawking, except when he says that God plays dice with the universe. You like Einstein, except when he admits he is an atheist. You like Newton, except when his equations differ with your philosophy (gravity doesn't exist without mass, you know). You like the word "graviton" but you completely deny the scientifically accepted meaning of the word. You like logic, except when it traps you in a self-contradiction.

So yes, I can see you like science very much, except when it asks you to follow the rules. Damned intransigent, that science stuff.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tricky

Damned intransigent, that science stuff.

Indeed...the cheek! :o

[MRC_Hans]

Franko (prophet):
. I don’t see how a religion which has condemned thousands and thousands of Souls to an Eternity of Solipsism, conformity, and utter isolation can be called a “good” thing.
I assume you are here talking about Logical Deism. At least I know of no other religion that incorporates those concepts. But dont worry too much: Absolutely no evidence has ever been presented that Logical Deism might be true.

PS: Thousands of souls + Solipsism?? Are you sure you know what Solipsism is?

Hans

[Franko]

MRC: (A-Theist nitwit)
But dont worry too much: Absolutely no evidence has ever been presented that Logical Deism might be true.

Funny, because I was gonna say the same thing about A-Theism and your "free willy" god religious fanatic.

Of course with your firm belief in supernatural acausality I guess you could prove that the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God?

[MRC_Hans]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC: (A-Theist nitwit)
But dont worry too much: Absolutely no evidence has ever been presented that Logical Deism might be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, because I was gonna say the same thing about A-Theism and your "free willy" god religious fanatic.

Well, the problem is, Frank, I (and others) have actually presented evidence for free will. You have not accepted it, which is your right, but to say it hasn't been presented is a blatant lie.

You, on the other hand, have not presented any evidence of your Logical Deism cosmology. All you have ever presented is your "atoms obey" and "TLOP-you-car" slogans. But even if they were accepted, they obviously give no clue as to how the PS, LG, Gravitons, multiverse, etc. come into the picture. Those things still, after over a year, as you are fond of saying, appear to be simply constructs of your fantasy

Of course with your firm belief in supernatural acausality I guess you could prove that the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God?

Straw man, plus nonsense.


Hans