The Fallacy of Composition

[ImpyTimpy]

Ok Franko/Wraith, without ad hominem's:

Even so, the event had to have a starting point in order to cause/effect to work - even in infinite time, there HAS to be a starting point. Otherwise there is no cause/effect. Saying well, there is an infinite time, it's infinite cause and effect is pointless - because there must be a cause in the first place in order for there to be effect.

Hope that sinks in :)

Originally posted by Franko
Impotentguy …
… And the magical A-Theists answer to that very same question is … (crickets cirping …) …? …???

Listen, Godel explained the Big Bang, relative ages ago but as soon as you Religious fruitcakes (A-Theists) heard he was a Deist – you gave him the bums rush. (imagine that!)



Yeah Godel claims the sequence goes backwards in Time Infinitely. I personally believe there was an Origin – a starting point. Either way … there absolutely no need for randomness … just T i m e …

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Thus we can see that tlop must not affect humans in the same way as they affect atoms. Thus we cannot infer that anything general about humans from the observation of atoms.

If you could totally rearrange the process at the quantum level, would there be any change at the macro level?




wraith: "You obey TLOP" is false.

So TLOP obeys you?

Hans: Why do you keep saying this? It doesn't make sense, it is noise in this debate. It is, however, a typical example of the way you argue:

1) You make a statement.
2) Somebody refutes it.
3) You allege that he must then believe the oposite, and demand he proves that.

In other words, you claim that any statement you make must be true unless somebody can prove the opposite is true.

rofl
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahh thats right, whatever you say goes right?

You say that "you obey TLOP is false." OK, so what do you believe to be true? You say that you dont obey TLOP. Where is your evidence? Does TLOP obey you? This is not a trick question lol

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
Wraith:

The Laws of Physics that apply to atoms do not apply to the macroscopic world. TRUE.

To say that atoms obey the laws of physics is to make the error that the laws of physics that apply to atoms are deterministic. They are not. Proveably and demonstrably not.

Quantum transitions happen for no reason at all. They are not deterministic but can be described by probability functions.

If you could totally rearrange the process at the quantum level, would there be any change at the macro level?

Since you can't past these simple concepts of 20th Century physics, there seems no point in debating you.

Thanks for the compliment





:cool:

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Evildave,

… Goddess give me Strength …

Blah blah blah

2 + 2 = 4: "Look mommy, I can ADD!"

Blah blah case

Blah blah blah "powers" again

Blah blah 'solipsism' again

I command you to quickly and fluffly respond sock-puppet Dave ...

Your wish is my command. Make sure the car's got leather interior and a good sound system.

[wraith]

Originally posted by chulbert


Great Caesar's Ghost! I have to stand in awe at the size of Franko's balls! He has the audacity to insist on a definition of free will when he himself will not give one when asked. I bow.

Did you hear that Franko! The onus of proof of free will lies on you!

Since youre so on the ball chulbert, can you describe to me what free will is?

How about you show me free will in terms of a syllogism

:eek:

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by wraith
If you could totally rearrange the process at the quantum level, would there be any change at the macro level?

The point is, neither you nor anyone can arrange, rearrange or do diddlysquat to quantum transitions. They happen. They don't ask anyone for permission.

Thanks for the compliment

If you are honored by being outed as ignorant, you're welcome.

TP

[stamenflicker]

I completely refuse to even attempt to follow the logic or consistency of this thread. Franko, you are a good read but for Christ's sake get out and have beer from time to time so the rest of us can discuss items outside the reach of your godess. You interesting, bizarre ass freak.

I merely wanted to add that I think it is F&CKING hilarious that people start saying things like it depends on how you "define" X, Y, Z yet we seem (as a forum board) to wholly discount the arguments of language when they appear-- either from ignorance or malevolence, I know not which.

Flick

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


Let me make sure I understand your claim.. You're saying that TLOP can be used to show that on this very night, I will have dinner at McDonalds (Or wherever, we won't know until after I eat). Very specifically, on this night, that is the specific course of action that I will take.

You're not saying that TLOP will show a likelyhood of me eating at McDonalds at some point in time, but that it will occur at a specific time and date, and that date has already been determined (along with every other occurance, beginning with the Bang)?

Franko doesn't get it. He thinks that the laws of physics make everything determined.

They don't. But of course Franko knows better than the most brilliant scientists of the 20th Century. Maybe he should put in for the Nobel Prize.

TP

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


The point is, neither you nor anyone can arrange, rearrange or do diddlysquat to quantum transitions. They happen. They don't ask anyone for permission.

That doesnt answer my question

:cool:

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by wraith


That doesnt answer my question

:cool:

That's because your question is meaningless.

[ImpyTimpy]

You gotta give him credit, at least he answered. When the counter argument gets too tough he simply ignores it.

Originally posted by Titanpoint


That's because your question is meaningless.

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
You gotta give him credit, at least he answered. When the counter argument gets too tough he simply ignores it.



Just like Franko :eek:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


That's because your question is meaningless.

You said that we dont follow the laws at the quantum level. Which is, as I gather, the reason why you believe that the conclusion of the syllogism is false. (ie We obey TLOP is false.)

Im asking you that if those laws at the quantum level were to change, would we see a change at the macro level?

[wraith]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
You gotta give him credit, at least he answered. When the counter argument gets too tough he simply ignores it.



lol
so regardless if the answer means dick all, that gives him credibility in your books?

good work impy haha

You just scored some brownie points with TP

:rolleyes:

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by wraith


You said that we dont follow the laws at the quantum level. Which is, as I gather, the reason why you believe that the conclusion of the syllogism is false. (ie We obey TLOP is false.)

Im asking you that if those laws at the quantum level were to change, would we see a change at the macro level?

I'm talking about the syllogism at the level of physical possibility. The others are talking about the syllogism at the logical level.

There are no laws saying what must happen or not happen. Only descriptions based on probability functions. Within quantum transitions anything could happen, but probabilities are the some transitions are more likely than others.

There is no causality in quantum interactions. No internal clockwork, no nudge from the outside world causing quantum changes.

The point about all of this is that AT THE LEVEL OF THE ATOM THERE IS NO DETERMINISM. AT ALL. PERIOD.

So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world.

We don't obey the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe how we behave.

TP

[MRC_Hans]

You say that "you obey TLOP is false." OK, so what do you believe to be true? You say that you dont obey TLOP. Where is your evidence? Does TLOP obey you? This is not a trick question lol

No, its a stupid question. And, as I pointed out, its you answering my question by claiming the opposite and demand I disprove that. That is your way of avoiding my question.

To make your syllogism make (at least some) sense, TLOP in line 1 and 3 must be IDENTICAL, dont you agree?

And in that case the conclusion is false: I do not obey the physical laws that apply to atoms. And atoms dont obey the physical laws that apply to humans.

Several people around here have patiently tried to explain that to you for weeks now. What is it you do not understand?

Then you indicate that this must mean that the physical laws obey me. Why? What have those things to do with each other?

I dont obey the laws of the United States. Do you think the laws of the United States obey me?

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
There is no causality in quantum interactions. No internal clockwork, no nudge from the outside world causing quantum changes.

The point about all of this is that AT THE LEVEL OF THE ATOM THERE IS NO DETERMINISM. AT ALL. PERIOD.

So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world.

Looks like magic does it not? Sorry, that doesnt cut it :(

So what youre saying is that the moon will may one day crash into the earth?
Ill be able to lift buildings?
Even fly by flapping my arms?


:eek:


We don't obey the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe how we behave.

Ahh yes, we can describe the orbit of the moon, but the moon doesnt obey TLOP.
Great logic here. Tell me, do the equations that DESCRIBE the moon's orbit account for the possibility that the moon may crash into the earth for no reason?

How do you use TLOP to describe something if that something doesnt obey TLOP?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by wraith


Looks like magic does it not? Sorry, that doesnt cut it :(

So what youre saying is that the moon will may one day crash into the earth?


Jesuschrist!!!, I have heard this kind of "conterargument" before, the same words, the same strawman, but is it possible that Wraith is ....?

Q-S

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


No, its a stupid question.

Because you dont want to answer it?

And, as I pointed out, its you answering my question by claiming the opposite and demand I disprove that. That is your way of avoiding my question.

LOL
Do you obey TLOP or not?!

Im affraid youre the one avoiding the question

;)


To make your syllogism make (at least some) sense, TLOP in line 1 and 3 must be IDENTICAL, dont you agree?

In what way are they different?

And in that case the conclusion is false: I do not obey the physical laws that apply to atoms. And atoms dont obey the physical laws that apply to humans.

So what do you obey? You dont obey TLOP. TLOP obeys you?

Whats that? Im avoiding the question?
lol

Several people around here have patiently tried to explain that to you for weeks now. What is it you do not understand?

Their reasoning
muhaha

Then you indicate that this must mean that the physical laws obey me. Why? What have those things to do with each other?

I dont obey the laws of the United States. Do you think the laws of the United States obey me?

You have got to be kidding me...
You deny that you obey TLOP, then you turn around and say that TLOP obeying you makes no sense.
rofl

I see people breaking the law all the time...

So what laws of physics have you broken lately? Mind giving us all a demonstration?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Jesuschrist!!!, I have heard this kind of "conterargument" before, the same words, the same strawman, but is it possible that Wraith is ....?

Q-S

LOL
HAHAHA

let me refresh your memory

TP wrote

"So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world."

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by wraith


LOL
HAHAHA

let me refresh your memory

TP wrote

"So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world."


He, as many here, says the same, the syllogism is FALSE!!!!

It does not mean that we defy TLOP. It is your syllogism my friend Franko.

Q-S

[wraith]

Originally posted by Q-Source



He, as many here, says the same, the syllogism is FALSE!!!!

It does not mean that we defy TLOP. It is your syllogism my friend Franko.

Q-S

What are you saying then?

:eek:

[Titanpoint]

Wraith/Franko weaseled:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Titanpoint
There is no causality in quantum interactions. No internal clockwork, no nudge from the outside world causing quantum changes.

The point about all of this is that AT THE LEVEL OF THE ATOM THERE IS NO DETERMINISM. AT ALL. PERIOD.

So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like magic does it not? Sorry, that doesnt cut it



No its not magic. Because its beyond your comprehension doesn't make it beyond comprehension. Sorry but your pitiful excuse for argument doesn't cut it with me.

So what youre saying is that the moon will may one day crash into the earth?
Ill be able to lift buildings?
Even fly by flapping my arms?


Nope. But since creating stupid strawman arguments is your substitute for logic, please carry on making a fool of yourself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't obey the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe how we behave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh yes, we can describe the orbit of the moon, but the moon doesnt obey TLOP.
Great logic here. Tell me, do the equations that DESCRIBE the moon's orbit account for the possibility that the moon may crash into the earth for no reason?


The moon orbits the earth because of gravity. Not the law of gravity, but gravity.

How do you use TLOP to describe something if that something doesnt obey TLOP?

Perhaps, *******, you don't know the difference between an atom and a planet.

You ignorantly assume that THE SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS APPLY TO ATOMS AS THEY DO TO PLANETS. THEY DON'T.

TLOP does not cause obedience. Perhaps you should get your head from out of Franko's ass and actually study the philosophy of science.

Or science.

TP

Originally posted by Q-Source

He, as many here, says the same, the syllogism is FALSE!!!!

Q-S,

Syllogisms can only be valid or invalid. They are never true or false. A valid syllogism is one that, if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. With an invalid syllogism, there are no such guarantees.

Cheers,

[MRC_Hans]

Wraith (in his profile):
I am a glass, filled with emptiness

Well, I certainly agree there: Transparant, nothing inside.

But, I have just a little bit patience left still.

I see people breaking the law all the time...

I'm sure you do, but you miss my point. Actually, I'm beginning to doubt you are reading my posts at all before you answer, but maybe my English is too complicated or you? I'll try again:

(TLOUSA= The Laws of the USA)

I dont obey TLOUSA
TLOUSA apply to Americans
I am not an American

(TLOPa= physical laws that apply to atoms)

Atoms obey TLOPa
I am not an atom
TLOPa dont apply to me

Want me to break a TLOPa? I breathe. Ever heard of an atom breathing?

(No Wraith, I'm not gonna prove to you that I breathe, you gotta take my word for it)

Understand? Comprendo? Capisco? Verstanden?

No?? -- Why am I not surprised?

Hans

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Q-S,

Syllogisms can only be valid or invalid. They are never true or false. A valid syllogism is one that, if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. With an invalid syllogism, there are no such guarantees.

Cheers,

Thanks for the information.

Then, it means that the premises are false.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


No its not magic. Because its beyond your comprehension doesn't make it beyond comprehension. Sorry but your pitiful excuse for argument doesn't cut it with me.

Care to explain it to me?
haha



Nope. But since creating stupid strawman arguments is your substitute for logic, please carry on making a fool of yourself.

Dont remember saying this "So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world"?

:rolleyes:



The moon orbits the earth because of gravity. Not the law of gravity, but gravity.

ahhh so does the moon obey gravity or does it choose to obey it?



Perhaps, *******, you don't know the difference between an atom and a planet.

You ignorantly assume that THE SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS APPLY TO ATOMS AS THEY DO TO PLANETS. THEY DON'T.

SO youre saying that there are a set of laws at the quantum level and at the macro level?
But you dont obey them right?
Recall saying "So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE *ie we obey TLOP is false* even at the level of the physical world." Better watch out, the moon is going to CHOOSE to fall to earth ladies and gents

TLOP does not cause obedience. Perhaps you should get your head from out of Franko's ass and actually study the philosophy of science.

Or science.

LOL
of course not TP, of course not! You control TLOP. Or was it "TLOP only describes us it does not control us"
haha
Care to give us a demo of your powers or do you CHOOSE not to?

:eek:

Originally posted by Q-Source


Thanks for the information.

Then, it means that the premises are false.
I disagree. The problem is there are too many terms.

MP: Atoms obey the laws of physics

This is true.

mP: You are made of atoms

Also true, but the problem is here. "are made of atoms" is different from "are an atom". This is where the composition fallacy comes in.

Cheers,

[whitefork]

Since it's a FORMAL fallacy, the truth of the premisses and conclusion is irrelevant. There is no valid rule of inference involved. This is what our hero does not see.

He is insisting that the fallacy of composition is in fact a valid rule of inference.

[Franko]

Wraith – my Man … you are a juggernaut! ;)

… you always were … it’s no wonder our enemies Fear you, my Friend …

[Franko]

Impytimpy,

Even so, the event had to have a starting point in order to cause/effect to work - even in infinite time, there HAS to be a starting point.

Why? Based on what Logic or reason?

Imagine you have the Mandelbrot set in front of you … how could you tell if it was infinitely negatively recursive or not? The only way to know would be to trace backwards and see if you ever reached a starting point.

… unless you have another method?

Otherwise there is no cause/effect. Saying well, there is an infinite time, it's infinite cause and effect is pointless - because there must be a cause in the first place in order for there to be effect.

Well … I actually agree with you on this, but Godel would disagree.

Either way it is a moot point. Consciousness makes Matter, not the other way around.

[Franko]

Staymanflickedher,

I completely refuse to even attempt to follow the logic or consistency of this thread.

Yes, we are all aware of how you whacky A-Theists reject Logic and Consistency … Thanks for sharing.

Franko, you are a good read but for Christ's sake get out and have beer from time to time so the rest of us can discuss items outside the reach of your godess. You interesting, bizarre ass freak.

… I am going to error on the side of caution, and assume you meant that as a compliment …

I merely wanted to add that I think it is F&CKING hilarious that people start saying things like it depends on how you "define" X, Y, Z yet we seem (as a forum board) to wholly discount the arguments of language when they appear-- either from ignorance or malevolence, I know not which.

It is very simple … I lack-o-belief in the A-Theists “free willy” (God). I see no evidence for it.

Yet whitefork and Titanpoint swear that their invisible God exist in reality. Despite the fact that neither of them can produce ANY evidence for it – not one shred. Personally I just think they are a couple of Religious Nitwits …

[whitefork]

I swear nothing about any god, visible or invisible.
I merely point our your failure to form a valid argument.

Please get your roles straight, dungeonmaster.

Your mask is slipping. Have you coded that truth table to refute my contention that (P and not-P) implies Q?

I thought not.

Come back when you've finished your homework.

[LeFevre]

is a theist! And a preacher or some such as well:eek:

[Franko]

BullyBuoy,

Syllogisms can only be valid or invalid. They are never true or false. A valid syllogism is one that, if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. With an invalid syllogism, there are no such guarantees.

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Okay, so BOTH premises are TRUE (unless you are claiming an error). And The conclusion is TRUE (unless you can defy the Laws of Physics), and the Conclusion can be derived from the two premises. THAT MAKES THIS A VALID/TRUE SYLLOGISM – END OF STORY!!!

Now if You and whitehead want to claim that there is some “invisible” error which neither of you is able to explain or articulate … well that just continues to expose you two for the Religious Fruitcakes that you are.

Can only smart A-Theists like you and whitehead see the “invisible” flaw? Is it like the Emperors New clothes? You need to be really “smart” to see them?

We can do this all day, everyday, for all I care. This is the best way to demonstrate what a bunch of fanatics you A-Theists really are. I couldn’t ever make this case so well without you two.

Just keep on telling us about the invisible flaw, which you are unable to explain to us. Just keep talking about in BullyBoy. For good measure you should insult me whenever you can. That actually strengthens you case that there is a flaw in the syllogism. Also if you and the other A-Theists refer to it as a “sillygism”, that also helps reveal the “invisible” flaw to all the fence sitters contemplating becoming really smart A-Theists like You, and Whitehead, and Tightypoint, and Vicky D.

Of course you realize everybody wants to be a smart A-Theist like you Bullyboy. They all want to cease to exist so their meaningless lives will end – just like you, as well …

[whitefork]

Franko:

In claiming that your argument is valid you are asserting that all arguments of the form:

A has property X
B is made of A
B has property X

are valid. That's what an assertion of validity means.

This is untrue.

You are asserting that the fallacy of composition is a valid rule of inference.

Stop embarassing yourself. Go read a book.

[Franko]

Explain the flaw whitefork?

Are you going to defy the laws of physics for us, or what?

Stop beating around the bush? Where specifically is the "invisible" flaw?

Where is your evidence for "free willy"?

[whitefork]

Please demonstrate that your argument has a valid form.

Leave free will out of it. Content is irrelevant to validity.

Form. Only form.

A valid argument may have false premisses and a false conclusion.
It may not have true premisses and a false conclusion.
A sound argument is one with valid form and true premisses. Do you really not understand the distinction or are you playing some strange game here?

It does not follow that true premisses and a true conclusion make a valid argument.

You didn't respond to this:

Some Muslims are Saudis
Some Saudis are terrorists
Some Muslims are terrorists.

Valid or not?

[Franko]

Don't change the subject A-Theist! We all know that your really really want your sick and twisted Religion to be TRUE, but try and focus ...

Explain the flaw whitefork?

Are you going to defy the laws of physics for us, or what?

Stop beating around the bush? Where specifically is the "invisible" flaw?

Where is your evidence for "free willy"?

[whitefork]

Enough with the atheist business already, Franko.
Your argument is simply invalid.

What rule of inference do you use to derive your conclusion?

Simple question. If you can't supply an answer, you have conceded that you have no logical basis for the conclusion.

Please repeat your definition of validity for our studio audience.

I'll hold up the "Laugh" sign.

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by wraith


Care to explain it to me?
haha

Dont remember saying this "So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE even at the level of the physical world"?

:rolleyes:

ahhh so does the moon obey gravity or does it choose to obey it?

SO youre saying that there are a set of laws at the quantum level and at the macro level?
But you dont obey them right?
Recall saying "So the Franko/wraith sillygism is FALSE *ie we obey TLOP is false* even at the level of the physical world." Better watch out, the moon is going to CHOOSE to fall to earth ladies and gents
LOL
of course not TP, of course not! You control TLOP. Or was it "TLOP only describes us it does not control us"
haha
Care to give us a demo of your powers or do you CHOOSE not to?

:eek:

Wraith:

**** OFF AND DIE

Sincerely

TP

[whitefork]

As to changing the subject, Franko, I started this thread, you changed the subject.

It's clearly easier to violate the laws of logic than physics.

Keep going. That hole can get plenty deeper.

[Franko]

So what is the flaw whitehead?

Why are you unable to demonstrate it?

Are we to take your word for it?

... oh that right ... we should all go read books!!!

in the mean while A-Theism is still true?

[whitefork]

The truth or falsity of atheism has no bearing on the validity of your argument.

Back at you.

Rule of inference, please.

[Franko]

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t not equal 4.

Completely absurd, but if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” …

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are …

[whitefork]

Syllogism, Franko, your argument, validity?
Burden of proof, rule of inference?
remember?

Your move.

=yawn=

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Source,

How many times do I have to type the SAME response before you answer?

TLOP controls YOU.
YOU control a CAR.

Why do You (Q-Source) claim that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, but in the next breath claim that TLOP is less conscious then YOU?

Why the contradiction? Why the inconsistency in Your beliefs?

I have asked you –personally – this TLOP – YOU – CAR question 4 times now. Every time I ask, you vanish for a day or two without responding. Then you reappear, asking the EXACT same question again.

I can only assume that you will continue to follow this pattern …



Franko,

Your sense of humor is exquisite!:D

I don't want to miss this. It seems to you that I have not answered yet (which I have), maybe the reason is that you don't want an answer, you expect me to accept that TLOP is conscious.

I hope not to misrepresent your thoghts but it works like this for you:

Humans are conscious
Humans control cars
If TLOP control humans THEN
TLOP IS CONSCIOUS!

If you consider this to be enough evidence and proof of the existence of God. Then it is o.k. for me, I won't bother you again with the same questions.
I am going to take this as your response to my multiple posts. I was expecting an elaborated argument supporting your conclusions but since you find it sooo simple and obvious, then it case closed.

Take this as my response. For me, the Universe is so complicated and complex that is not possible to think that "as it is here it is up". To hold that it is conscious you need to know the nature of it and at this moment, you can't, you won't.

Q-S

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork


Some Muslims are Saudis
Some Saudis are terrorists
Some Muslims are terrorists.

Valid or not?
Three truisms that do not form a syllogism. So What? Does that make any statement untrue in your worldview?

Materialism=atheism=form over substance; is that your actual position?

[whitefork]

With all due respect, Hammegk, that IS a syllogism.

You can look it up.

My question is, is it valid? Easy one.

[Franko]

Q-Sauce,

Humans are conscious
Humans control cars
If TLOP control humans THEN
TLOP IS CONSCIOUS!

If you consider this to be enough evidence and proof of the existence of God. Then it is o.k. for me, I won't bother you again with the same questions.
I am going to take this as your response to my multiple posts. I was expecting an elaborated argument supporting your conclusions but since you find it sooo simple and obvious, then it case closed.

Yeah … I realize you A-Theists like to pretend that everything is very complicated. It’s harder for you to control peoples’ minds if you can’t make them believe they need YOU to interpret reality for them (because it is too difficult to do themselves).

Take this as my response. For me, the Universe is so complicated and complex that is not possible to think that "as it is here it is up". To hold that it is conscious you need to know the nature of it and at this moment, you can't, you won't.

Whatever you say Chicky? But you have done NOTHING to explain the double standard in your line of reasoning. Why are YOU more conscious then the CAR, but TLOP is also less conscious then YOU? Is that Logical? Is that consistent? It seems arbitrary and simply arrogant on your part.

… I sure hope you are not wrong about this … but I know you are …

[Franko]

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t NOT equal 4.

Completely absurd, but … if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” … ???

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are … Religious Fanatics!!!

[whitefork]

Hello again Franko.

No, you misheard me.

I just said that your argument is invalid. I'm not interested in god, free will, physics, or arithmetic.

Just sitting here waiting to hear your rule of inference.

Come on, you have one, please share it with the rest of us.

The atheist angle is not as acute as it once was, by the way. In fact, it's getting more and more obtuse, if you'll pardon a little geometry humor.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork
With all due respect, Hammegk, that IS a syllogism.

You can look it up.

My question is, is it valid? Easy one.

And we have an answer to the form or substance question! Yes! Form over substance wins again -- to hell with reality. Good going.

[whitefork]

I missed the answer there, sir. Did you say "yes" or "no"?

[Franko]

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t NOT equal 4.

Completely absurd, but … if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” … ???

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are … Religious Fanatics!!!

[whitefork]

Bye, Franko, you win.

Call me when you get published.

Two of them now who can't rub two premises together and start a conclusion. "Form over substance?" Absolutely incredible!

This is basic logic, you fools. This is basic induction. Not form over substance, but how to get at the substance through appropriate use of the form. The rules of inference.

It is little wonder you have made so many howlers, in post after post.

What really p***es me off, though, is that people here take the time to direct your attention to educational material and you have hubris to refuse to look or to acknowledge the reality of their assertions. Then you spit in their faces, and squeal all the louder that nobody has proved you wrong and nobody can answer you.

This isn't about trying to learn or to try to debate. This is about screeching and hollering how that infidel is trying to get you to look through the ocular. No, no, I will not look. I will not. Get thee behind me!

Look, beat yourself over the heads with whatever book you feel has all the answers. You certainly have neither the intellectual capacity nor the desire to honestly examine a subject. You can't even understand or won't even admit that you have a classically invalid syllogism here, and you wish to cast this as some horrid, scientistic / atheistic conspiracy.

Ya buy em books and ya buy em books and all they do is chew on the covers.

Jeers,

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork
I missed the answer there, sir. Did you say "yes" or "no"?

Well, I admit it WAS your thread, but face it, hi-jack is complete.

The Question is "To Be, or not To Be" at the moment. A firm yes to "to be". How about you?

TTFN, catch ya on the flip side.... :)

[Franko]

BullyHoyt,

Two of them now who can't rub two premises together and start a conclusion. "Form over substance?" Absolutely incredible!

This is basic logic, you fools. This is basic induction. Not form over substance, but how to get at the substance through appropriate use of the form. The rules of inference.

It is little wonder you have made so many howlers, in post after post.

… and speaking of “Howlers” what exactly is your evidence for “free willy” again?

What really p***es me off, though, is that people here take the time to direct your attention to educational material and you have hubris to refuse to look or to acknowledge the reality of their assertions. Then you spit in their faces, and squeal all the louder that nobody has proved you wrong and nobody can answer you.

BullyHoyt – Obviously you’re a-Theism is FALSE. And it really pisses the Christians off that you refuse to simply read the Bible and get your act together. You spit in the Christians faces, and squeal all the louder that nobody has proved you’re a-Theism wrong and nobody can answer you. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary you still insist THERE IS NO GOD. There is an “invisible” flaw that I cannot articulate in that Syllogism. Even though there is NO evidence for my “free willy God” I will persist in believing in it ANYWAY.

This isn't about trying to learn or to try to debate. This is about screeching and hollering how that infidel is trying to get you to look through the ocular. No, no, I will not look. I will not. Get thee behind me!

If you and Whitehead are claiming that there is a “flaw”, then please specify what that flaw is in your own words.

I am not going off on a book-reading expedition because you can’t explain your point adequately. For all I know you have NO point.

Look, beat yourself over the heads with whatever book you feel has all the answers. You certainly have neither the intellectual capacity nor the desire to honestly examine a subject.

What is YOUR Evidence for “free will”???

You can't even understand or won't even admit that you have a classically invalid syllogism here, and you wish to cast this as some horrid, scientistic / atheistic conspiracy.

What is your evidence for “free will”??? Why should I believe it exist?

Ya buy em books and ya buy em books and all they do is chew on the covers.

Spare me hypocrite. You are nothing more than a Religious fanatic with an axe to grind. Your self-serving groundless assertions are paper thin. Provide the evidence for your ridiculous claim, or withdraw the claim.

… But I never expect intellectual honesty from an A-Theist.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Sauce,

Yeah … I realize you A-Theists like to pretend that everything is very complicated. It’s harder for you to control peoples’ minds if you can’t make them believe they need YOU to interpret reality for them (because it is too difficult to do themselves).



So, this is what you think of me atheist?, this is the reason you find behind my words?. I was not expecting this but...

Thank you anyway.

[Franko]

Q-Source,

Your original quote …

For me, the Universe is so complicated and complex that is not possible to think that "as it is here it is up". To hold that it is conscious you need to know the nature of it and at this moment, you can't, you won't.

2 + 2 = 4

… is that simple or complex?

Does something have to be too complicated for you to understand for it to be True? That sounds like what you are saying …

Do you know what consciousness is Q-Source? You’ve seen a few in your days – haven’t you? So what is so complicated or unknown? Some consciousnesses are less evolved than yours, some are perhaps more. How do you suppose an animal perceives you? Do you think perhaps that an animal might see you as a magical or supernatural entity? An entity with powers and abilities beyond its comprehension or ability to understand? Does that mean you really are a magical and supernatural entity?

Imagine that there are entities more evolved than human beings. How do you suppose you would perceive them? Perhaps you wouldn’t even perceive them as entities? Perhaps your mind would be unable to comprehend them like that? Perhaps such entities would be beyond your comprehension?

… or perhaps not? … I guess it would depend (at least partially) upon if you believed you were capable of understanding. If you give up before you start, then I’d say the odds of you ever understanding were zero.

The fact is the source of TLOP is conscious, because consciousness is ALL THERE IS. There is no “Matter”, at least not in the sense you believe. Even Einstein said so, but the Atheists (my bad again – I’m not including you in their dumbness for the moment) seem to conveniently forget about that when it goes against their religious dogma.

According to Einstein everything is made of Energy. That includes your “physical” brain.

So when it comes right down to it. Your brain is not really made of atoms, its made of organized Energy. Your consciousness is (according to Einstein) a disembodied soul floating amidst a sea of Energy. Do you ever wonder how things would look, if you could see reality as it really is? Instead of red, green, and blue … you would perceive the actual photons.

What would consciousness look like? Would TLOP really look any different? It would just be a bigger, more organized consciousness.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Source,

Your original quote …

2 + 2 = 4

… is that simple or complex?

Does something have to be too complicated for you to understand for it to be True? That sounds like what you are saying …



No, that is not what I meant.

Let me read this at home. Tomorrow my answers and questions....:D :D :D

Q-S

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Wraith (in his profile):


Well, I certainly agree there: Transparant, nothing inside.

But, I have just a little bit patience left still.



I'm sure you do, but you miss my point. Actually, I'm beginning to doubt you are reading my posts at all before you answer, but maybe my English is too complicated or you? I'll try again:

(TLOUSA= The Laws of the USA)

I dont obey TLOUSA
TLOUSA apply to Americans
I am not an American

(TLOPa= physical laws that apply to atoms)

Atoms obey TLOPa
I am not an atom
TLOPa dont apply to me

Want me to break a TLOPa? I breathe. Ever heard of an atom breathing?

(No Wraith, I'm not gonna prove to you that I breathe, you gotta take my word for it)

Understand? Comprendo? Capisco? Verstanden?

No?? -- Why am I not surprised?

Hans

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA
out of all the posts on this thread, this one contains the most crap per sentence

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
Wraith – my Man … you are a juggernaut! ;)

… you always were … it’s no wonder our enemies Fear you, my Friend …



Eternal live the Amicitia!!

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


Wraith:

**** OFF AND DIE

Sincerely

TP

WOAH
talk about mercury rising
lol
:rolleyes:


I take to heart the praise of my friends, and also the cries of my enemies...

muhaha

[MRC_Hans]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA
out of all the posts on this thread, this one contains the most crap per sentence Sooo, you've even given up on the evations now. You got cornered, and you can only yell. And you're not even very good at that.

Wraith, I think I have discovered why your glass is empty: Its upside down.

Juggernaut:
"a massive inexorable force, campaign, movement, or object that crushes whatever is in its path "

Yeah, I guess it fits. Pity it was common sense and logig that was in your path.

Hans

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by wraith


WOAH
talk about mercury rising
lol
:rolleyes:


I take to heart the praise of my friends, and also the cries of my enemies...

muhaha

TLOP told me to tell you to **** off and die.

But since you don't know TLOP, what do you care?

TP

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sooo, you've even given up on the evations now. You got cornered, and you can only yell. And you're not even very good at that.


haha, well if want to continue the punch out after the KO, then so be it

you said:


(TLOPa= physical laws that apply to atoms)

Atoms obey TLOPa
I am not an atom
TLOPa dont apply to me

Want me to break a TLOPa? I breathe. Ever heard of an atom breathing?




HAHAA
OH MY!!!!!!!!!

do you even understand logic?!

According to Hans, another example by breaking "TLOPa"
I wear shoes, ever heard of an atom wearing shoes?
I eat, ever heard of an atom eating?
I chuck a piss, ever heard of an atom chucking a piss?

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey folks, I can break the "TLOPa" because the atoms, that I am made from, cant do any of these things!!!!!!

Love the way how you form the argument by associating atoms with certain properties, then claim to BREAK these "LAWS" because the atoms dont do them...

I am wet, ever heard of an atom being wet?

classic!

Just what are you taking at the moment?

;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


TLOP told me to tell you to **** off and die.

But since you don't know TLOP, what do you care?

TP


Come again?!

What are you taking? On the red cordial again?

lol

[The Fool]

Keep dancing little Franko, I have not run out of coins yet.

[NoDeity]

I'm no expert in these things but I think you guys need to quit defending the indefensible: free will.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by NoDeity
I'm no expert in these things but I think you guys need to quit defending the indefensible: free will.

Was that a joke?..... If free will is indefensible how can I decide if I defend it or not??

I have Free will, It comes as a package deal with conciousness....

[NoDeity]

I have Free will, It comes as a package deal with conciousness....

How do you know?

I see no evidence for free will. I see evidence for cause and effect. That which you choose is that which you were always going to choose. If circumstances had been a little different -- if you had read this book instead of that, if you'd had a better or worse sleep thing night before, if you'd had something more or less easily digestible for lunch -- your decision would have been different.

It seems to me that the incomprehensible number and complexity of causes that go into producing the effect that you experience as "choice" are what give the necessary illusion of that choice being a free one.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by NoDeity


How do you know?

I see no evidence for free will. I see evidence for cause and effect. That which you choose is that which you were always going to choose. If circumstances had been a little different -- if you had read this book instead of that, if you'd had a better or worse sleep thing night before, if you'd had something more or less easily digestible for lunch -- your decision would have been different.

It seems to me that the incomprehensible number and complexity of causes that go into producing the effect that you experience as "choice" are what give the necessary illusion of that choice being a free one.

If something controls my destiny, please tell me what it is. I decide what I do and I decide what factors I take into account in making that decision. You say I am going to choose "that which you were always going to choose" so somewhere there must exists the information describing "that which I was always going to choose"? where would that be stored then?

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool
I have Free will, It comes as a package deal with conciousness....

Should try reading the whole thread Fool


:cool:

[MRC_Hans]

I am wet, ever heard of an atom being wet? No, but maybe you can get your mummy to change you.

So you did understand it. Great! So you agree we cannot infer the behaviour of humans directly from the behaviour of atoms?

Now we're getting somewhere!

Or maybe not ---

Tell you what; If you ever want to discuss something in a logic and civil manner, I'm game, otherwise, bye!

-- And if you wanna convince yourself you had a victory, heheh, be my guest.


Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by NoDeity
It seems to me that the incomprehensible number and complexity of causes that go into producing the effect that you experience as "choice" are what give the necessary illusion of that choice being a free one.

The possibility that you can break down free will into it's many componants does not make it illusory. You might as well say, "that is not a 'thought', it is just a bunch of neural impulses complexly assembled."

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

So you did understand it. Great! So you agree we cannot infer the behaviour of humans directly from the behaviour of atoms?

Now we're getting somewhere!

Or maybe not ---



We're there if you will just explain at what point, 2 atoms, 3, a dozen, (I like 137; why isn't it 136.9 or 137.1) is the resultant behavior NOT explained by atomic behavior?

Why would be even nicer, but defining where would at least be a start. ;)

[Franko]

Tricky-A-Theist (…rather redundant in my opinion … but what the Hell …)

The possibility that you can break down free will into it's many componants does not make it illusory. You might as well say, "that is not a 'thought', it is just a bunch of neural impulses complexly assembled."

The possibility that you can break down the color RED into it's many components (oscillating photons) does not make it illusory. You might as well say, "that is not a 'thought', it is just a bunch of neural impulses complexly assembled.

So are you claiming that photons aren’t real either Trixy? What is more real in reality “red or “photons”?

Be careful … your doubts about Pseudo-materialism are starting to show …

[Franko]

Wraith,

Keep dancing little Franko, I have not run out of coins yet.

… remind Me … we have to play the Fate-game with this one as our pawn …

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
The possibility that you can break down the color RED into it's many components (oscillating photons) does not make it illusory. You might as well say, "that is not a 'thought', it is just a bunch of neural impulses complexly assembled.
Very good, Franko. You're beginning to catch on. Both the color RED and the oscillating photons are real. Both neural impulses and thoughts are real. See how easy it is?

Originally posted by Franko
So are you claiming that photons aren’t real either Trixy? What is more real in reality “red or “photons”?
No, I would not make a silly claim like that. They are both real. Neither is "more real" than the other. Breaking "red" up into "what causes red" does not mean "red" is illusory.

[Franko]

Tricky,

Very good, Franko. You're beginning to catch on. Both the color RED and the oscillating photons are real. Both neural impulses and thoughts are real. See how easy it is?

If it is Sooo easy, then can you explain exactly what “red” looks like to you?

No, I would not make a silly claim like that. They are both real. Neither is "more real" than the other. Breaking "red" up into "what causes red" does not mean "red" is illusory.

I can describe what “red photons” are to you with mathematical precision. Can you describe the “color red” as You see it with equal precision? If you can’t describe both equally, then how can you claim that they are equal?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
If it is Sooo easy, then can you explain exactly what “red” looks like to you?
[/B]

Cut an artery and look at what spurts out: That color.

Try it.

[Franko]

Evildoughboy:

Predictability: 13
Free Willy: 0

[subgenius]

Free will, it seems, is like any other ability: if you think you have it or you think you don't have it, you're correct.
And baby, "I got it." And it feels real good.

[Franko]

A-Theist Religious Fanatic:
Free will, it seems, is like any other ability: if you think you have it or you think you don't have it, you're correct.
And baby, "I got it." And it feels real good.

Christian Religious Fanatic:
Faith in God, it seems, is like any other ability: if you think you have it or you think you don't have it, you're correct.
And baby, "I got it." And it feels real good.


... any questions?

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by Tricky


The possibility that you can break down free will into it's many componants does not make it illusory. You might as well say, "that is not a 'thought', it is just a bunch of neural impulses complexly assembled."

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that your "free will" is something other than the consequence of a certain arrangement of matter and energy reacting the way it was always going to react to its environment?

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by The Fool


If something controls my destiny, please tell me what it is.

The same thing that controls the destiny of a mote of dust in a landslide. The same thing that controls the shape of a flame.

I decide what I do and I decide what factors I take into account in making that decision.

What is this "I"? Is it something other than the consequence of a particular arrangement of ordinary matter and energy interacting with its environment in the same way dust and fire do?

Does this "I" somehow transcend the laws of physics? Forgive me for sounding a little Francoesque but I don't see how you can have a truly free will without invoking "spirits" that exist apart from the material universe.

You say I am going to choose "that which you were always going to choose" so somewhere there must exists the information describing "that which I was always going to choose"? where would that be stored then?

It is "stored" in every past circumstance that shaped who and what you are. It is "stored" in every event that affects you in any way.

Brad

[Tricky]

Originally posted by NoDeity


I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that your "free will" is something other than the consequence of a certain arrangement of matter and energy reacting the way it was always going to react to its environment?
Yes and no. While free will, consciousness and thought are all aspects of the mental configuration of matter and energy, you cannot define how it is "always going to react to its environment" any more than you can predict when quantum fluctuations are going to occur. I know it seems like there ought to be "perfect laws" that can define and predict everything, but in reality, they don't exist. In my opinion, it is this natural randomness that makes true free will possible. In a system with no free will such as you describe, randomness cannot occur.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
I can describe what “red photons” are to you with mathematical precision. Can you describe the “color red” as You see it with equal precision? If you can’t describe both equally, then how can you claim that they are equal?
How does one describe photons of a certain color? By comparing their vibrational energy to the vibrational energy of other photons. How does one describe "color"? By comparing that color to things with similar color. Red is similar to the color of blood, or a sunset, or a stop sign. They are merely different ways of describing the same thing, both of which involve some sort of comparison. Can you describe the vibrational energy of a proton without measuring/comparing it to human-created units?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Evildoughboy:

Predictability: 13
Free Willy: 0

Relevence: 0

[Franko]

Tricky,

you cannot define how it is "always going to react to its environment" any more than you can predict when quantum fluctuations are going to occur. I know it seems like there ought to be "perfect laws" that can define and predict everything, but in reality, they don't exist.

Translation: It’s Magic.

What you are claiming is that there is NO underlying logical mechanism at work. If there was an objective, logical mechanism, then ultimately it would be predictable. Since you are claiming that it is ultimately unpredictable what you are claiming is that “matter” is fundamentally supernatural and magical.

… you want to stick with the claim that you are NOT the practitioner of a Supernatural Mystical Religion, A-Theist?

In my opinion, it is this natural randomness that makes true free will possible.

A-Theism of the Gaps – Magic gives you “free willy powers”.

How does one describe photons of a certain color? By comparing their vibrational energy to the vibrational energy of other photons.

That’s not true at all. I can describe a red photon without making ANY reference to other photons.

A “red photon” is a virtually massless particle traveling at the speed of light, and oscillating with a wavelength of 6500+ angstrom (in the visible portion of the spectrum).

How does one describe "color"? By comparing that color to things with similar color. Red is similar to the color of blood, or a sunset, or a stop sign. They are merely different ways of describing the same thing, both of which involve some sort of comparison. Can you describe the vibrational energy of a proton without measuring/comparing it to human-created units?

Why mention “humans”? I thought Matter makes consciousness? Humans are irrelevant to the equation according to you?

[Franko]

Evildoughboy:

Predictability: 15
Free Willy: 0 (Relevance: 0)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
A “red photon” is a virtually massless particle traveling at the speed of light, and oscillating with a wavelength of 6500+ angstrom (in the visible portion of the spectrum).
Angstroms? By measuring a wavelength with angstroms you are comparing it to the size of other things using human-derived units. This is no different from describing "red" as "the color of a stop sign".

So, angstroms are divine, according to you.

[Franko]

Tricky,

Angstroms? By measuring a wavelength with angstroms you are comparing it to the size of other things using human-derived units. This is no different from describing "red" as "the color of a stop sign".

So, angstroms are divine, according to you.

They are an objective empirical measurement, but I wouldn’t really expect you to understand those terms.

Are you claiming that all stop signs are uniformly the same everywhere they exist?

Are you claiming that “red” is an OBJECTIVE description? It means the same thing to all people?

Tell me … to a person who is red-green color blind, is red still photons-speed of light-oscillating-6500+ angstrom?

Are you telling me that this color blind individual sees a “red” stop sign the same as you?

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes and no. While free will, consciousness and thought are all aspects of the mental configuration of matter and energy, you cannot define how it is "always going to react to its environment" any more than you can predict when quantum fluctuations are going to occur. I know it seems like there ought to be "perfect laws" that can define and predict everything, but in reality, they don't exist. In my opinion, it is this natural randomness that makes true free will possible. In a system with no free will such as you describe, randomness cannot occur.

I don't think we know enough about quantum fluctuations to confidently say that they are truly random. I don't think we know enough about them to use them as the basis for any argument.

Our inability to predict the exact behavior of complex things reacting to a complex environment certainly gives those reactions the appearance of randomness. For practical purposes, that which appears to be random is random. For practical purposes, our will is free. However, I think that our will appears to be free and these things appear to be random only because of the stunning complexity of the interactions of an almost-unimaginable number of factors. I don't think we can confidently say that anything is truly random.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by NoDeity


I don't think we know enough about quantum fluctuations to confidently say that they are truly random. I don't think we know enough about them to use them as the basis for any argument.

Our inability to predict the exact behavior of complex things reacting to a complex environment certainly gives those reactions the appearance of randomness. For practical purposes, that which appears to be random is random. For practical purposes, our will is free. However, I think that our will appears to be free and these things appear to be random only because of the stunning complexity of the interactions of an almost-unimaginable number of factors. I don't think we can confidently say that anything is truly random.

Well, we can say human attempts to design experiments to measure "what-is" introduce probabalistic randomness in the results measured.

As Alfred worried, does The Creator actually play dice? ( Or is it just when human consciousnesses try to examine her more subtle aspects?) ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

So you did understand it. Great! So you agree we cannot infer the behaviour of humans directly from the behaviour of atoms?

No, because what youre saying doesnt make any sense.
"I break the TLOP. I am wet, atoms dont get wet."
LOL

I have hair, ever heard of an atom having hair?

:rolleyes:

Sit down junior and let the big boys handle this

;)




-- And if you wanna convince yourself you had a victory, heheh, be my guest.

catch ya

:cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
Wraith,



… remind Me … we have to play the Fate-game with this one as our pawn …

haha
hes on the list!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by NoDeity


I don't think we know enough about quantum fluctuations to confidently say that they are truly random. I don't think we know enough about them to use them as the basis for any argument.

Our inability to predict the exact behavior of complex things reacting to a complex environment certainly gives those reactions the appearance of randomness. For practical purposes, that which appears to be random is random. For practical purposes, our will is free. However, I think that our will appears to be free and these things appear to be random only because of the stunning complexity of the interactions of an almost-unimaginable number of factors. I don't think we can confidently say that anything is truly random.
I can accept this. I certainly don't know enough about quantum mechanics to make any definitive statements about it, so I am trusting the word of some of the people on this board who actually have training in that field.

But it appears that we agree that given current level of knowledge, it is impossible to distinguish true free will from the illusion of free will. Where we diverge is that you belive that it is possible to eventually know everything about the "complex environment that gives those reactions", whereas I am skeptical on this point. As an ideal, it seems like it ought to be true, but in practice I am not sure this is ever completely knowable. This means that it is likely we will never be able to distinguish true free will from its illusion. The only sensible path, it would seem to me, is to continue to behave as if free will exists sense we can probably never prove otherwise.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Evildoughboy:

Predictability: 15
Free Willy: 0 (Relevance: 0)

I wonder who he's talking about?

It's like he keeps talking to imaginary people.

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by Tricky

I can accept this. I certainly don't know enough about quantum mechanics to make any definitive statements about it, so I am trusting the word of some of the people on this board who actually have training in that field.

But it appears that we agree that given current level of knowledge, it is impossible to distinguish true free will from the illusion of free will.

Agreed. Our will is as free as the shape of a flame is random. For practical purposes, our will is free and fire is randomly-shaped.

Where we diverge is that you belive that it is possible to eventually know everything about the "complex environment that gives those reactions", whereas I am skeptical on this point. [/b]

Actually, I don't hold that belief. My response to the question of whether humans will ever attain that knowledge is "I don't know".

The only sensible path, it would seem to me, is to continue to behave as if free will exists sense we can probably never prove otherwise.

Agreed. That's why, in one of my messages in this thread, I refer to free will as a necessary illusion. We can't prove that it's real (I think we have good reason to doubt it) but we don't know how to live without it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by wraith


haha
hes on the list!

Franko, Get help...don't be too proud to ask. But until then....keep Dancing, I'm not bored with you yet.

[Q-Source]

Q-Sauce: I have a pink dragon in my garage, it is omnipotent
and omniscience but it is also invisible.

F: Oh, no!, Darling. I don’t believe you, your pinky dragon doesn’t
exist. Show me, show me!

Q-Sauce: What?!?!?!?? :eek: :mad: :eek: :mad:
Are you saying that the earth planet is not round??
Are you saying that the man didn’t land on the moon??
Are you saying that George Bush is not a smart Republican??
YOU prove that there is NOT a pink dragon in my garage!!!,
YOU prove that it is NOT omnipotent and omniscience!!!!
How are you going to probe that there is no a pink dragon,
when you can’t even define what a pink dragon is!!!!!
You retarded little AA-theist!!!.:mad: :mad:

F: What?, why?, when?, how? :confused:


P.S. Cielo, you know I am just teasing you, don't you?

[Franko]

Q-Source ([shrugs] … I don’t know? … you seem a little Saucy?) ;)

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

Q-Sauce: I have a pink dragon in my garage, it is omnipotent
and omniscience but it is also invisible.

F: Oh, really … Darling. Why should I believe you? Show me, show me!

Q-Sauce: You can’t see him she’s invisible.

F: Then how do you know she is there? And how do you know she is omnipotent and omniscient? Eyewitness testimony is irrelevant. For all I know, you could be lying, delusional, or simply insane. But if you can explain it to me Logically, then I would believe. You see, Logic means, The same in your head as in mine.

It is kind of like 2 + 2 = 4. So long as you and I agree on the precise meaning of the terms 2, 4, + , and = … 2 + 2 is always going to equal 4 in the exact same way … in BOTH of our heads. Someone could hand us both the same math equation, and it would be like we were reading each others minds …

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

As to your Dragon … Knowing nothing about you as an individual. If you made this claim to me, I would start off at #3 – Unknown.

Hell! … for all I know … maybe you do have a Dragon in your garage. Surely stranger things have happened … ;)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Source,

Your original quote …

2 + 2 = 4

… is that simple or complex?

Does something have to be too complicated for you to understand for it to be True? That sounds like what you are saying …

O.K. Franko

When I say that it sounds very simple it is because you had not elaborated about it. However, I see a change in you after posting in deism.org.
I am a materialistic, so my worldview is radically different to yours. While I ask for empirical evidence, you just follow the Aquina's principles (e.g. first cause, first move, first consciousness) to explain the nature of the Universe and arrive to conclusions.


Originally posted by Franko

Imagine that there are entities more evolved than human beings. How do you suppose you would perceive them? Perhaps you wouldn’t even perceive them as entities? Perhaps your mind would be unable to comprehend them like that? Perhaps such entities would be beyond your comprehension?

… or perhaps not? … I guess it would depend (at least partially) upon if you believed you were capable of understanding. If you give up before you start, then I’d say the odds of you ever understanding were zero.

This is what I consider to be the most interesting part of your LD.
How can we perceive an entity that is invisible?
Assuming that the Universe is an entity, a consciousness that is ALL THERE IS -it sounds very similar to what Spinoza called an infinitive substance- how is it possible to attribute this thing human-like characteristics?. It is another personal God?.

You have mentioned before how this entity -your Goddess- was born, so my question is: how did you get to know the origin of this entity?, it is not a contradiction with Deism?, how does a God interact with humans?. What do you mean by "capable of understanding"?

What if in this moment I say, O.K. I will accept all LD's dogmas, Could you assure that I would interact with your Goddess?. I think that it is just faith what you ask. You are the prophet.

Originally posted by Franko

According to Einstein everything is made of Energy. That includes your “physical” brain.

So when it comes right down to it. Your brain is not really made of atoms, its made of organized Energy. Your consciousness is (according to Einstein) a disembodied soul floating amidst a sea of Energy.


Are you sure that Einstein said this?. I cannot argue against it because I haven't read in detail his work. But, it wouldn't be a surprise since Einstein was a believer. :(

Q-S

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko

It is kind of like 2 + 2 = 4. So long as you and I agree on the precise meaning of the terms 2, 4, + , and = … 2 + 2 is always going to equal 4 in the exact same way … in BOTH of our heads.



Q-Sauce: You are a very wise man!
You know that the problem between me and the whole world
is just a matter of definitions. If at least, we could agree on the
meaning of the terms we are talking about, then we could
start to understand each other.

[Franko]

Q-Source, (...and don't be offended if I ever say you are "saucy" ... its no insult)

You see Darling … this is why I like You. You are a True skeptic at heart.

You know that the problem between me and the whole world
is just a matter of definitions. If at least, we could agree on the
meaning of the terms we are talking about, then we could
start to understand each other.

Logical consistency starts with your terms – your vocabulary. To me an appeal to the “Dictionary definition” as a logical proof is no less ridiculous than an appeal to any other inerrant Holy Book!

Words have to make logical sense. First rule – the term CANNOT logically contradict itself. If the very thing you are trying to describe cannot be defined consistently, then immediately you know that this thing CANNOT exist in reality. NOTHING exist in reality which is logically inconsistent.

Do You Doubt this? … seen any 4-sided triangles lately?

That’s one of the problems I have with Atheism. How can you claim that “God” does NOT exist, when you can’t define, or won’t define precisely what you mean by “God”? I am well aware that there are MANY Atheists who can cite logical inconsistencies in the Bible chapter and verse, but does that REALLY disprove the existence of “God”?

[MRC_Hans]

Do You Doubt this? … seen any 4-sided triangles lately?

That’s one of the problems I have with Atheism. How can you claim that “God” does NOT exist, when you can’t define, or won’t define precisely what you mean by “God”?

Can you define a 4-sided triangle? (Yes, this is a loaded question).

I cant imagine a 4-sided triangle (well, actually I can, but thats beside the point). Thus I conclude that no 4-sided triangles exist.

I cant imagine a God (well, actually I can, but thats beside the point too). Thus I conclude that no gods exist.

Whats wrong with this logic?

Hans :p

[Franko]

MRC,

Can you define a 4-sided triangle? (Yes, this is a loaded question).

I cant imagine a 4-sided triangle (well, actually I can, but thats beside the point).

How can you? (imagine one?) It is impossible by the very definition of a “triangle”, a 3-sided figure made of lines; 3-Sides CANNOT be 4. That is a logical contradiction.

Thus I conclude that no 4-sided triangles exist.

Exactly. … Although if you actually CAN imagine a 4-sided triangle I have NO idea how you arrive at this conclusion?

I cant imagine a God (well, actually I can, but thats beside the point too). Thus I conclude that no gods exist.

You must NOT have a very good imagination. Even a little baby Theist can imagine God.

What is your malfunction Algorithm? ;)

What’s wrong with this logic?

If disproving the existence of God was as simple as demonstrating some logical inconsistencies in the Bible or the Koran, then you could claim NO GOD, and have Logic on your side, but if you cannot conceive of ALL Possible variations of God, then it is foolish to claim that it is impossible any variation of God exists.

[NoDeity]

Have those in this thread who believe in free will come up with a definition of free will?

[evildave]

More importantly, wasn't there a "FREE WILL" topic to discuss free will in? Nah! They are all franko-babble.

BTW,
If disproving an assertions about every possible imaginary thing were required, it would be impossible to get anywhere in life.

"I am going to go outside."

"But what about the BOGEYMAN THAT WILL EAT YOU?"

"There's no such thing."

"Prove it!"

At some point, you just walk out the door and ignore the delusional ******* who has asserted a "BOGEYMAN" will eat you. Otherwise, you'll starve to death worrying about it. Next week it will be a Purple People Eater (purple and eats people; not eats purple people), and the week after it will be something else.

Now then, which role is Franko playing when he says "Believe in my godess or you stupid people will be SORRY!"?

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by evildave Now then, which role is Franko playing when he says "Believe in my godess or you stupid people will be SORRY!"?

As I said in that refutation of Pascal's wager thread -- which, of course, is now thoroughly side-tracked -- if I have no reason to believe something, why should I believe it?

[Franko]

Have those in this thread who believe in free will come up with a definition of free will?

No they haven't defined it -- not consistently anyway.

... But evildoughboy has done a good job of demonstrating his fanatical devotion to the cult of A-Theism by posting nothing but fluff.

[MRC_Hans]

Exactly. … Although if you actually CAN imagine a 4-sided triangle I have NO idea how you arrive at this conclusion? I was joking. But any joke has some sincerity in it. How do I imagine a 4 sided triangle? Well imagine a quadrangle. Number its sides. Make on angle 180 degrees. Now it looks like a triangle, anybody seing it would define it as a triangle. But it has four sides. --- As I said I was joking.

Now we come to imagining God, and the loaded question. You said:
Do You Doubt this? … seen any 4-sided triangles lately?

That’s one of the problems I have with Atheism. How can you claim that “God” does NOT exist, when you can’t define, or won’t define precisely what you mean by “God”?
Why should an atheist be required to define God. If I cannot imagine God, then I have lack-o-belief in God, period.

Of course we can all imagine SOME god. But if you cant imagine a God you find reason to believe in, why believe?

The demand that atheists define a god they dont believe in is absurd. Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns? No?, but hey, you havent defined invisible pink unicorns!

Do try to be sensible!

Hans

[Franko]

MRC,

The demand that atheists define a god they dont believe in is absurd.

How do you know that something does NOT exist which you cannot even define?

Does “Specintogan” exist? Don’t worry about the definition – your magic powers don’t need definitions to determine Nonexistence (apparently).

Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns?

Well that would depend on exactly what you mean by “invisible pink unicorn”, wouldn’t it now?

In fact, without hearing your precise definition, I’d have to be rather retarded or deceitful to claim unequivocally that “invisible pink unicorns” don’t exist not knowing precisely what I was being asked.

No?, but hey, you havent defined invisible pink unicorns!

Exactly!

Can you tell me if X = Y? I’d say NO, and the reason the answer is NO, is because you have no idea what values are assigned to X and Y!

Do try to be sensible!

… yeah, how about a little reciprocation?

Originally posted by NoDeity


As I said in that refutation of Pascal's wager thread -- which, of course, is now thoroughly side-tracked -- if I have no reason to believe something, why should I believe it?

NoDeity,

There are several of us calling for the moderators to clamp down on frankenfruit. He is hi-jacking too many threads and disrupting converstaions. If you agree, please join us in calling for a very different moderators' role and a possible ban on you know who.

Cheers,

[Franko]

There are several of us calling for the moderators to clamp down …

i.e. BullyHoyt, and his alter-ego Doubt are whining to the moderator because I said his religion is foolish and it hurt his little feelings.

He can’t make his argument logically, so he is reduced to whining and crying just like a little girl.


Gee BullyHoyt ... I wonder how many Non-A-Theist will complain?

Why are you and your cult trying to take over this Skeptic's forum?

Why don't you run along Troll-boy?

www.infidels.org

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


NoDeity,

There are several of us calling for the moderators to clamp down on frankenfruit. He is hi-jacking too many threads and disrupting converstaions. If you agree, please join us in calling for a very different moderators' role and a possible ban on you know who.

Cheers,

Personally, I oppose the banning of trolls. If someone is reliably identified as a troll, I think the best way to deal with them is to ignore them, which is what I am very close to doing with Franko.

[Franko]

NoDeity,

Personally, I oppose the banning of trolls. If someone is reliably identified as a troll, I think the best way to deal with them is to ignore them, which is what I am very close to doing with Franko.

So let me get this straight? Since you and your other Religious fanatic friends can’t defend the idea that NO EVIDENCE = FALSE (instead of UNKNOWN) that makes me a “Troll”?

That’s cute … Real “intellectual honesty” from the Cult of A-Theism. You guys are the worse bunch of fanatics the world has ever seen.

It’s a ridiculous position to hold. I don’t see how any intelligent person could claim such a thing.

In other words … to an A-Theist … NOT KNOWING is the same as KNOWING. NOT KNOWING actually doesn’t mean you don’t know … it means FALSE!

That’s “logic”? … only to a religious fanatic.

For consistencies sake, don't concede the point. Don't admit you were wrong!!! ... just continue wallowing in your error ...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko
NoDeity,



So let me get this straight? Since you and your other Religious fanatic friends can’t defend the idea that NO EVIDENCE = FALSE (instead of UNKNOWN) that makes me a “Troll”?



No Frank, Its your behaviour that makes you a Troll. The above is one prime example of that, your inability to hold rational discussions. The above is an example of your use of strawman arguments. You never reply to the point made, you always reply to your own strawman. The give away is when you start with "let me get this straight" or "so what your saying is" closely followed by a huge strawman effort.

Your constant antagonism is sort of funny to watch but it is a little bit sad too. Its probably a learned behaviour, your father was never wrong either?

Your use of Dogma and slogans is also a hoot considering you said one of the main reason you created your imaginary friend was to replace the "Dogma and slogans" of the Catholic Church......


Franko, The reason people regard you as a troll is because you behave like a troll...... You are responsible for your behaviour, nobody else is...... If you believe your imaginary friend is forcing you to behave like this then get help.


Now, Back to dancing, I'm not bored with you yet...

[Franko]

No Frank, Its your behaviour that makes you a Troll.

Where Troll = One who is not a devout and loyal minion of the Cult of A-Theism.

The above is one prime example of that, your inability to hold rational discussions.

So when there is NO Evidence that makes something FALSE?

What happen to NO EVIDENCE = NO EVIDENCE (TRUE or FALSE)?

The above is an example of your use of strawman arguments. You never reply to the point made, you always reply to your own strawman.

Look who’s talking?

What is your evidence for “free willy” Religious fanatic?

Why do you feel that your religion doesn’t have to justify its unjustifiable claims? Why do you feel that your religion is superior to all the rest? Why all the double standards and contradictions?

The give away is when you start with "let me get this straight" or "so what your saying is" closely followed by a huge strawman effort.

You never actually seem to cite an example of one of these “invisible” strawmen you are always making accusations about? Perhaps they are simply delusions on your part? You certainly have provided NO EVIDENCE.

Your constant antagonism is sort of funny to watch but it is a little bit sad too. Its probably a learned behaviour, your father was never wrong either?

However you imagine … I’m probably not even real …

Your use of Dogma and slogans is also a hoot considering you said one of the main reason you created your imaginary friend was to replace the "Dogma and slogans" of the Catholic Church......

Your mind-reading powers are truly astounding Fool! When are you getting your own T.V. show on the Sci-Fi channel?

Franko, The reason people regard you as a troll is because you behave like a troll......

Actually it is only you and the other A-Theist Nitwits who call me “Troll”. With the possible exception of other A-Theist nitwits I don’t think anyone is actually dumb enough to fall for it.

But if you are really looking for a forum in which everyone holds the same ridiculous religious beliefs as yourself; without any “Trolls” like Me, I suggest you try here …

www.infidels.org

You are responsible for your behaviour, nobody else is...... If you believe your imaginary friend is forcing you to behave like this then get help.

Actually it is You imagining Me imagining Her … but in reality you are the only one that exist. Everything else is just a figment of your imagination. I would suggest that you get yourself some help, but unfortunately … none of the rest of us are real …

[The Fool]

You're an idiot frank......But don't stop dancing, I'm not finished with you yet. I'll be sad when you're gone. But, If The Christians are right and your imaginary friend isn't......we'll meet again in Hell eh. Or do Heretics go to a lower level of hell than atheists?

[Franko]

Fool,

… A-Theism’s “best defense” continues …

You're an idiot frank.....

Coming from a Fool, like yourself this is quite a compliment. Thank you.

But don't stop dancing, I'm not finished with you yet.

I fear your dementia is getting worse.

I'll be sad when you're gone.

Are you making a prophecy about the future?

Please share with the group A-Theist. I love it when you religious fanatics attempt to demonstrate your “magical powers” …

But, If The Christians are right and your imaginary friend isn't....

Say what? The Christians Love me – more and more. If I do get banned here, I will be spending a LOT of Time with the Christians. I’ll send a bunch over some time, they will be able to give you an update maybe?

..we'll meet again in Hell eh.

Perhaps? ;)

Or do Heretics go to a lower level of hell than atheists?

I’m only a Heretic, from the POV of an A-Theist.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko



I’m only a Heretic, from the POV of an A-Theist.

well, If I were a christian I'd be a bit annoyed at little Franko. You steal their Theology and call it your own origional thought.


So your Christian "friends" don't think you are a heretic? Hahahaha!!! I don't know too many Christians who have a personal "Goddess" So Its the Fires of hell for you Frank. Its a shame really, all that potty mouthing of atheists, just to end up in hell with them....It makes me laugh!!!

So how much of your Belief system did you bring with you when you were chucked out of the catholic church? (being chucked out is becoming a habit for you eh?)It seems to have a strong Catholic undercurrent.....of course you changed the names to avoid plagiarism accusations, but you stole their concept of Heaven and hell along with great chunks of morality teachings. What else did you steal? Goddess=Christ perhaps? Great Solypsist=GOD perhaps. Where is the rest of the trinity? Have you worked the holy spirit in there somewhere or did you not steal that bit? Actually you've also stolen a lot from the Authors of the D&D role playing game...... You must have played that a damn lot to want to build a religion out of bits of it....

Now please make sure that when you reply you use the "so what you are saying is" thingy....Then just substitute whatever straw man you want to quote your dogmatic slogan replies to.

Oh yea I nearly forgot..... You're an idiot frank.

[Franko]

well, If I were a christian I'd be a bit annoyed at little Franko. You steal their Theology and call it your own origional thought.

1) Consciousness makes matter
2) Matter makes consciousness

What are you mumbling about now deceitful Fool?

So your Christian "friends" don't think you are a heretic? Hahahaha!!! I don't know too many Christians who have a personal "Goddess" So Its the Fires of hell for you Frank. Its a shame really, all that potty mouthing of atheists, just to end up in hell with them....It makes me laugh!!!

Keep laughing Fool. Fool’s always laugh at cruel Fate, that’s what makes them Fools.

Yeah … but LD use to really bother Christians. I'd get that meme all up in their heads, and they would just start to flip-out. Use to confuse the hell out of me …

… but I figured out my error.

Regardless, what Me and The Christians think of each other is irrelevant to You. That’s between Me and the Christians … its not your concern.

So how much of your Belief system did you bring with you when you were chucked out of the catholic church? (being chucked out is becoming a habit for you eh?)It seems to have a strong Catholic undercurrent.....of course you changed the names to avoid plagiarism accusations, but you stole their concept of Heaven and hell along with great chunks of morality teachings. What else did you steal? Goddess=Christ perhaps? Great Solypsist=GOD perhaps. Where is the rest of the trinity? Have you worked the holy spirit in there somewhere or did you not steal that bit? Actually you've also stolen a lot from the Authors of the D&D role playing game...... You must have played that a damn lot to want to build a religion out of bits of it....

Hehehe … its so cute how you have tried to pay attention and follow along. Still, it completely eludes that feeble little, Fool brain of yours …

It’s whatever you imagine Fool. Unless you have evidence for “free will”, then Solipsism is TRUE, and me and everyone else you perceive are merely figments of your imagination. Simply the results of an equation running in your subconscious mind.

Now please make sure that when you reply you use the "so what you are saying is" thingy....Then just substitute whatever straw man you want to quote your dogmatic slogan replies to.

So what you are saying … is that A-Theism is NOT a Religion, and there is no evidence for God, but there is evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are, and there IS evidence for “free willy”, and Your Non-Religion is far superior to all the other Regular-Religions, and people who believe in rewards and punishments are less likely to act that way then people who do NOT believe in rewards and punishments, and No evidence means that its FALSE, and the Moon has “free will”, and A-Theist can read-minds, and Parsimony is NOT a Logical rule, and …

Oh yea I nearly forgot..... You're an idiot frank.

Hmmm … coming from a Fool like yourself I wonder what this really means?

I guess you have completely abandoned honesty as far as this forum goes?

[The Fool]

c'mon Frank, that was a feeble effort. You can do better, try using both hands when you type. Remember how the teaching brothers used to punish you for doing that sort of thing? so BOTH HANDS ON THE KEYBOARD from now on ..It might make your posts easier to follow.

[Franko]

The Fool's Fluffy Defense of A-Theism continues!

What are you Diet-Doughboy Now?

More proof of "free willy"?

You're stealing EDB's act!

[The Fool]

You're running out of steam Franko.... as soon as you can't cut and paste tired old dogma you are lost. You're an Idiot, relax, its your destiny. Any Halfway decent Goddess needs an idiot. You are her Baldrick..... What is your next cunning plan to spread her word?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool
... What is your next cunning plan to spread her word?

Unlike your case, where you offer nothing but distractions. ;)

[Franko]

You're running out of steam Franko....

You have no idea how funny this is coming from You -- Anti-Graviton…

… as soon as you can't cut and paste tired old dogma you are lost.

Aristotle?

You're an Idiot, relax, its your destiny.

More mind-reading, Fool?

Any Halfway decent Goddess needs an idiot. You are her Baldrick.....

Not entirely inaccurate …

What is your next cunning plan to spread her word?

Ohhh, wouldn’t you like to know? ;)


So … does Davey-boy get a royalty from each of your posts now?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Unlike your case, where you offer nothing but distractions. ;)

Dammit Franko can you send hammy some more origional thoughts? he's getting boring.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko
More mind-reading, Fool?





In your case its not required. I post, you dance....Its cause and effect...You just can't see the stings can you....Its not your goddess on the end of those string, Its the people who poke you with sticks on this board. You are our comedy act. Get a life. Now back to dancing, I'm getting bored.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


Dammit Franko can you send hammy some more origional thoughts? he's getting boring.
You are nattering about originality? FOAD; please. You can't even get to One Trick ******* classification ... :eek:

Why not challenge yourself to a duel in Flame Wars? I'm sure you'd find your inanities of great interest to yourself once you actually looked at one.

On topic, *you* are apparently a fallacy of composition. Or are you just too dumb to follow along?

[whitefork]

Just for the Marquis de Carabas. A housewarming present.

"Puss in Boots". An old favorite. Bringing back the memories.

[whitefork]

"just like puss in boots" - The New York Dolls.

Originally posted by whitefork
"just like puss in boots" - The New York Dolls.

Cheshire cat is more like it. Just the grin, is all. What makes you think Bozo will get it this time?

Cheers,

[whitefork]

I'm just going to quietly drop this bit into this thread and see if it gets noticed:

From another thread, spoken by Franko:

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

This is not what is being claimed. The conclusion may in fact be true. The premises may be true. What is not true is that the conclusion follows from the premises.

It is not a valid argument. A valid argument contains more than true premises and a true conclusion.

Were this not the case, the following would be a valid syllogism:

Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

All the propositions are true but the syllogism is not valid.

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
I want to keep these two threads alive because there's actually a lot of useful information here. The hours I spent on the other one putting the rules for syllogism and the venn diagrams.... I don't want to do it again.

Yes... yes... these beacons of truth must live... LIVE I TELL YOU!!!

:eek:

Sorry... got a bit carried away. Seriously - it would be good if people could learn to recognize valid logical reasoning. Bump on, friend.

[MRC_Hans]

Bump

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
I'm just going to quietly drop this bit into this thread and see if it gets noticed:

From another thread, spoken by Franko:



This is not what is being claimed. The conclusion may in fact be true. The premises may be true. What is not true is that the conclusion follows from the premises.

It is not a valid argument. A valid argument contains more than true premises and a true conclusion.

Were this not the case, the following would be a valid syllogism:

Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

All the propositions are true but the syllogism is not valid.


ahhh
that is TOTALLY different to the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism...

so some atoms obey TLOP?
are parts of you not made of atoms?
even the structure of the syllogism itself is not constructed in the same way...

try again ;)

[CWL]

You can repeat your Atoms Syllogism how many times you like, sock puppet. It still won't be valid.

Whether or not the conclusion happens to be true doesn't enter into it. You might aswell try "proving" that we "obey the laws of physics" with this syllogism (which is equally valid):

Supergroovalisticprosifunkstication makes you shake your booty
Your booty is a shakin'
You obey TLOP

Why the heck are you so obsessed with proving that we "obey TLOP" through a syllogism related to atoms? Is anyone seriously disputing that everything is subject to the laws of physics?

The views seem to differ as to what the nature of the laws of physics are. In this debate your syllogism is of absolutely no value.

If you want to contribute on this board (which I sincerely doubt at this point in time) start debating instead of cutting and pasting an invalid syllogism. Just some friendly advice from a hypocritical A-Theist Lawyer.

[whitefork]

What we have here are two completely inconsistent definitions of validity. Argument is impossible under these conditions.

Wraith - what is logical validity in your system? When you've figured out what you mean by the term, tell us whether the Saudis/Muslims/Terrorists syllogism (and it is a true syllogism) is valid or invalid, and why.

If you cannot provide an answer to that, we can't engage you in any kind of argument.

I've told you why, under my definitions, the Paralogism of Logical Deism is not a valid argument. Now it's your turn.

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
You can repeat your Atoms Syllogism how many times you like, sock puppet. It still won't be valid.

Whether or not the conclusion happens to be true doesn't enter into it. You might aswell try "proving" that we "obey the laws of physics" with this syllogism (which is equally valid):

Supergroovalisticprosifunkstication makes you shake your booty
Your booty is a shakin'
You obey TLOP

I have no idea what youre on about here ;)

Why the heck are you so obsessed with proving that we "obey TLOP" through a syllogism related to atoms? Is anyone seriously disputing that everything is subject to the laws of physics?

Atoms obey TLOP
TLOP has to be involved in the syllogism :rolleyes:

The views seem to differ as to what the nature of the laws of physics are. In this debate your syllogism is of absolutely no value.

......coming from a person that cant identify the "flaw"

yeah right!

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
Wraith - what is logical validity in your system? When you've figured out what you mean by the term, tell us whether the Saudis/Muslims/Terrorists syllogism (and it is a true syllogism) is valid or invalid, and why.

your syllogism is invalid :eek:

the "atoms obey TLOP" is not
where is the "flaw"?

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL


Look Mr. Logic, this is no rocket science.

The point is that an invalid syllogsim is an invalid syllogism. As an argument for the statement "You obey TLOP", the syllogism suggested by me is just as valid as the syllogism suggested by you - i.e. not at all.

but it's not invalid ;)

The point is that you don't need the syllogsim as no one is disputing the fact that "the laws of physics" apply to everything. Like I said, I don't understand why you feel the syllogism is so important. You should explain (and present evidence for) your specific interpretation of nature the "laws of physics" instead.

it rules out free-will for starters....

I just did. Further, as you well know, the first premise is not correct according to yourself. You claim that we are not solely made of "Atoms" - there is a "Graviton" in there as well, remember...

yes, thats right about the Graviton, but lets say that the Graviton is "dreaming"....and in this "dreamworld" there is only "dreamworld matter"....

so I am correct when I say "we are made of atoms"

May I ask - why do you, in your reasonable opinion, feel it is pertinent to look upon the "laws of physics" as the will of a conscious entity, rather than as mere properties of energy and matter?

energy and matter?
I thought that matter was energy? :eek:
I am not denying this at all....

anyway, maybe you can crack how I can be more conscious than TLOP and more conscious than a rock without using a double standard? Maybe double standards are logical to you?

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith
I have no idea what youre on about here ;)

Look Mr. Logic, this is no rocket science.

The point is merely that an invalid syllogsim is an invalid syllogism. As an argument for the statement "You obey TLOP", the syllogism suggested by me is just as valid as the syllogism suggested by you - i.e. not at all.

Atoms obey TLOP
TLOP has to be involved in the syllogism :rolleyes:

That is not enough, sonny. The syllogism has to be a valid argument. As it is subject to the Fallacy of Composition it is not.

The point is also that you don't need the syllogsim as no one is disputing the fact that "the laws of physics" apply to everything. Like I said, I don't understand why you feel the syllogism is so important. You should instead explain (and present evidence for) your specific interpretation of the nature of the "laws of physics".

......coming from a person that cant identify the "flaw"

yeah right!

I just did. Further, as you well know, the first premise is not correct according to yourself. You claim that we are not solely made of "Atoms" - there is a "Graviton" in there as well, remember... But this particular steed has passed away a long time ago. Let's lash it no more!

Instead, perhaps you would care to indulge in some interesting and intelligent conversation? May I ask - why do you, in your reasonable opinion, feel it is pertinent to look upon the "laws of physics" as the will of a conscious entity, rather than as mere properties of energy and matter?

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith

but it's not invalid ;)

It is.

it rules out free-will for starters....

No it does not. It says absolutely nothing about "free will". It only states (but doesn't prove) that the laws of physics apply to everything. It doesn't say how. It doesn't explain the nature of the laws of phsyics.

yes, thats right about the Graviton, but lets say that the Graviton is "dreaming"....and in this "dreamworld" there is only "dreamworld matter"....

Whatever.

so I am correct when I say "we are made of atoms"

What is your point. I am not disputing the conclusion of the syllogsim (which happens to be true), merely the interpretation thereof.

energy and matter?
I thought that matter was energy? :eek:
I am not denying this at all....

anyway, maybe you can crack how I can be more conscious than TLOP and more conscious than a rock without using a double standard? Maybe double standards are logical to you? [/B]

What reason do you have for assuming that TLOP is nothing more than the properties of energy/matter?

Why do you assume that "the properties of energy/matter" may be conscious? "The properties of energy/matter" sure sounds pretty inanimate to me...

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
wraith says: the syllogism rules out free-will for starters....

CWL: No it does not. It says absolutely nothing about "free will". It only states (but doesn't prove) that the laws of physics apply to everything. It doesn't say how. It doesn't explain the nature of the laws of phsyics.

The conclusion:-
"We obey TLOP" still leaves the possibility of free-will?

How exactly?

Whatever.

running already? ;)



What is your point. I am not disputing the conclusion of the syllogsim (which happens to be true), merely the interpretation thereof.

Didnt you question premise 2? ie We are made of atoms?

What reason do you have for assuming that TLOP is nothing more than the properties of energy/matter?

Why do you assume that "the properties of energy/matter" may be conscious? "The properties of energy/matter" sure sounds pretty inanimate to me...

Are you made out of energy and matter?

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith
The conclusion:-
"We obey TLOP" still leaves the possibility of free-will?

How exactly?

It all depends on how the statement is interpreted. If it means "We are restricted by the laws of physics" it is not contradictory to say that we may act freely within the restrictions. What is "allowed by the laws of physics" (for instance making conscious choices between perceived and available options) cannot be classed as "disobeying the laws of physics".

running already? ;)

Does it look that way to you? Look. Even in your "dream scenario" you are still saying that the "Gravition" is an integral part of each individual. The scenario does not solve your little dilemma.

Didnt you question premise 2? ie We are made of atoms?

Right you are. My mistake.

Are you made out of energy and matter? [/B]

Actually, this is not entirely untrue. The electrical impulses carried through my neurons must be said to be part of what constitutes "me", so why not?

Anyway, again - why are we going on about what we are made of? The interesting question is what the nature of the laws of physics is (as we all seem to agree that we are subject to them). May I therefore, without any intention of being contentious, again ask you what precisely leads you to assume that the laws of physics are the will of a conscious entity (again, rather than merely and simply being the properties of the universe)?

[whitefork]

Wraith - First of all, why is the Saudi/Muslim/Terrorist syllogism invalid?

Second - what rule of inference allows the Atoms/You/TLOP argument to be valid?

A logical argument is valid only when it is an instance of a (valid) rule of inference.

You appear to claim that this is a valid argument form:

Something of type A has quality Q.
B is made of of things of type A.
Therefore B has quality Q.

There are many cases where this does not hold. Here's a classic.

Each of the components of my bicycle are light.
My bicycle is made of those components.
therefore my bicycle is light.

Another.

The integer one has a cardinality of one.
Every integer greater than one can be formed by adding ones together
Therefore every integer greater than one has a cardinality of one.

So the schema of the argument is not valid for all instances of substitution. The premises are true and the conclusion false.
You cannot claim special exemption for your argument without showing why it is exempt. That means you have to provide explicit definitions for all the terms and show some intermediate steps that get you from the premises to the conclusion.

Logic is a formal system. It does not care about the meaning of the terms.

As it is stated, the argument is invalid. In order for you to demonstrate its validity you must provide a large number of intermediate steps, and that will, I fear, involve stating the nature of the laws of physics, atoms, and "you".

Your move.

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by wraith
Are you made out of energy and matter? [/B]

Matter = Energy

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Relativity/916594209.htm

[wraith]

Originally posted by CWL
wraith says: The conclusion:-
"We obey TLOP" still leaves the possibility of free-will?
How exactly?

CWL: It all depends on how the statement is interpreted. If it means "We are restricted by the laws of physics" it is not contradictory to say that we may act freely within the restrictions. What is "allowed by the laws of physics" (for instance making conscious choices between perceived and available options) cannot be classed as "disobeying the laws of physics".

How can you be restricted by TLOP and at the same time "act freely" with in those restrictions? Does the moon "act freely" within those restrictions?

Even in your "dream scenario" you are still saying that the "Gravition" is an integral part of each individual. The scenario does not solve your little dilemma.

There is no dilemma ;)

Actually, this is not entirely untrue. The electrical impulses carried through my neurons must be said to be part of what constitutes "me", so why not?

?
So why not what??

Anyway, again - why are we going on about what we are made of?

I thought that you were challenging this?

The interesting question is what the nature of the laws of physics is (as we all seem to agree that we are subject to them). May I therefore, without any intention of being contentious, again ask you what precisely leads you to assume that the laws of physics are the will of a conscious entity (again, rather than merely and simply being the properties of the universe)?

car OBEYS you OBEYS tlop

how can you be more conscious than TLOP and your CAR without using a double standard?

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
Wraith - First of all, why is the Saudi/Muslim/Terrorist syllogism invalid?

Because the conclusion isnt necessarily true

Second - what rule of inference allows the Atoms/You/TLOP argument to be valid?

A logical argument is valid only when it is an instance of a (valid) rule of inference.

You appear to claim that this is a valid argument form:

Something of type A has quality Q.
B is made of of things of type A.
Therefore B has quality Q.

There are many cases where this does not hold. Here's a classic.

Each of the components of my bicycle are light.
My bicycle is made of those components.
therefore my bicycle is light.

Another.

The integer one has a cardinality of one.
Every integer greater than one can be formed by adding ones together
Therefore every integer greater than one has a cardinality of one.

So the schema of the argument is not valid for all instances of substitution. The premises are true and the conclusion false.
You cannot claim special exemption for your argument without showing why it is exempt. That means you have to provide explicit definitions for all the terms and show some intermediate steps that get you from the premises to the conclusion.

so it should be pretty simple for you to point out the error in the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism

is there an error in premise 1 or 2 or the conclusion?

Logic is a formal system. It does not care about the meaning of the terms.

oh it doesnt?
does iodfosijfd exist?

As it is stated, the argument is invalid. In order for you to demonstrate its validity you must provide a large number of intermediate steps, and that will, I fear, involve stating the nature of the laws of physics, atoms, and "you".

It's invalid?
Wheres the flaw?
NO ONE has pointed out ANY flaw...

[wraith]

Originally posted by NoDeity


Matter = Energy

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Relativity/916594209.htm

Matter is made of energy.....
Energy is made of matter?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by wraith


Because the conclusion isnt necessarily true

so it should be pretty simple for you to point out the error in the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism

is there an error in premise 1 or 2 or the conclusion?

does iodfosijfd exist?

It's invalid?
Wheres the flaw?
NO ONE has pointed out ANY flaw...
The Muslims/Saudis/terrorists is a syllogism but not a valid one because the conclusion does not follow by necessity from the premises.

The problem with the Atoms/TLOP/Obey argument is that it does not even have a valid argument form. In order to demonstrate that the conclusion follows, you have to supply a number of intermediate steps.

Iodfosijfd exists in a logical sense if it is the value of a bound variable. Use it in a proposition, and voila, it exists. Like programming - Does Transom_open_switch exist? It does if it's used in a program. Otherwise it's just an undefined string of characters.

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork

The Muslims/Saudis/terrorists is a syllogism but not a valid one because the conclusion does not follow by necessity from the premises.

thats right ;)

The problem with the Atoms/TLOP/Obey argument is that it does not even have a valid argument form. In order to demonstrate that the conclusion follows, you have to supply a number of intermediate steps.

done....

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

where is the flaw?


Iodfosijfd exists in a logical sense if it is the value of a bound variable. Use it in a proposition, and voila, it exists.

huh?
I didnt get any of that....care to use an analogy?

Like programming - Does Transom_open_switch exist? It does if it's used in a program. Otherwise it's just an undefined string of characters.

ahhh I dont program so I wouldnt know ;)

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by wraith


Matter is made of energy.....
Energy is made of matter?

Matter is energy; energy is matter.

Did you follow the link? It's a clear and simple answer to a nine-year-old's question so you shouldn't have a lot of difficulty with it.

Here, I'll post it again so you don't even have to scroll up: http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Relativity/916594209.htm

You're welcome.

[whitefork]

[quote]Iodfosijfd exists in a logical sense if it is the value of a bound variable. Use it in a proposition, and voila, it exists.[/i]
It's just a variable name - you can call it A, you can call it Ray, you can call it lodfosijfd. As soon as you use it in an argument it exists.

[wraith]

Originally posted by NoDeity


Matter is energy; energy is matter.

Did you follow the link? It's a clear and simple answer to a nine-year-old's question so you shouldn't have a lot of difficulty with it.

Here, I'll post it again so you don't even have to scroll up: http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Relativity/916594209.htm

You're welcome.

thats fine.... ;)
so what are you made up off?

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
[quote]Iodfosijfd exists in a logical sense if it is the value of a bound variable. Use it in a proposition, and voila, it exists.[/i]
It's just a variable name - you can call it A, you can call it Ray, you can call it lodfosijfd. As soon as you use it in an argument it exists.

It exists?
I dont even know what it means. So whats the point of the argument?
:rolleyes:

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by wraith
so what are you made up off?
Sagan said it best: "We are made of starstuff."

[whitefork]

Wraith, I'm sorry, I can't explain this any better. Stick around long enough and someone will come up with a better way than I can.

later.

[wraith]

Originally posted by NoDeity

Sagan said it best: "We are made of starstuff."

Are we made up of atoms or not? :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
Wraith, I'm sorry, I can't explain this any better. Stick around long enough and someone will come up with a better way than I can.

later.

...dearly noted ;)

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by wraith

Are we made up of atoms or not?
:rolleyes:

What next? Are you going to ask whether I'm an oxygen breather?

[wraith]

Originally posted by NoDeity

:rolleyes:

What next? Are you going to ask whether I'm an oxygen breather?

That doesnt answer my question ;)

[CWL]

Originally posted by wraith

car OBEYS you OBEYS tlop

how can you be more conscious than TLOP and your CAR without using a double standard?

This is where I always lose you. What exactly do you mean by "double standard" in this case?

The fact that I control my car (and indeed that I am "controlled" by TLOP) is observable. The fact that my car is not conscious is also observable. The alleged fact that TLOP is conscious is however not.

As I understand it, your claim that TLOP is conscious is solely based on the assumption that a conscious being cannot be "controlled" by something that is non-conscious (or "less conscious", whatever that means). What is your basis for this assumption?

[NoDeity]

Originally posted by wraith


That doesnt answer my question ;)

Yes, it does. It is meant tell you that the answer to the question you asked is as obvious as the as the answer to the question I referred to. It is also meant to tell you that you are asking a silly question.