Logical Creationism

[Loki]

A question for Franko, but applicable to any theist with a few subtle changes here and there.

It seems that Logical Deism (and most if not all theistic religions) assume that the human race is central to the 'nature/reason for being' for the universe.

Franko offers a theory of an 'omniverse' consisting of at least 3 'planes'. The Abyss is the bottom, our Universe is next, and the Metaverse(?) sits above. The Logical Goddess (LG) is using her consciousness to create at least the middle layer (our Universe) as a sort of sorting machine. Gravitons are plucked from the Abyss and inserted into the Universe, where they perform the actions that their nature dictates. As a result of this display of their nature, the Graviton is either raised ot the next level, or sent to the Abyss. In short, without humans (gravitons) this Universe has no task to perform.

Now, add three "apparent facts" :

1. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old;
2. The fossil record indicates that dinosaurs walked the Earth for 160 million years.
3. Homo Sapiens are approximately 100,000 years old.

So why did the LG create a planet that is so old? Why did she hand the planet over to the dinosaurs for such an extended period? There seems to be 4 possible answers :

1. The planet is not that old, and dinosaurs didn't exist - it's an error or illusion;
2. The planet is that old, dinosaurs existed, but Homo Sapiens are 4.5 billion years old. We've just forgotten about it somehow. (But the presence of dinosaur fossils without human fossils counts against this);
3. The planet is that old, dinosaurs existed, and Homo Sapiens are 100,000 years old - the LG "works in mysterious ways" in creating a universal graviton sorting machine, and not turning it on for 4.4999 billion years;
4. The planet is that old, dinosaurs existed, and Homo Sapiens are 100,000 years old - the LG doesn't exist, (and matter makes consciousness!);

I assume that Frank prefers 3? So we are to believe that the LG has sat down to watch a 5 hour TV show called "The Universe and Gravitons", and the first 4 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9 seconds are just 'static white noise', and at the very end there's 0.1 seconds of "activity". Interesting plan ...

[evildave]

Think how long the rest of the universe "ran" before this solar system even formed.

And why do we need a big, HUGE universe?

Just a little ball with people on it and an energy source would do. If all you needed to do was sort people by their behavior.

Heck, even make something like Pratchett's 'Discworld', if you like.

And who's to say a godess isn't sorting jellybeans by flavor?

Cherry, Cherry, Licorice, Grape, Coffee... Yuck! Lime, Cherry....

What does being its favorite flavor imply in this scenario?

A godess has to eat *something*.

Feasts of yummy, clean believers. Chewy on the outside, crunchy on the inside. They 'squeak' when you bite down on 'em!

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Loki
So we are to believe that the LG has sat down to watch a 5 hour TV show called "The Universe and Gravitons", and the first 4 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9 seconds are just 'static white noise', and at the very end there's 0.1 seconds of "activity". Interesting plan ...
I don't know from gravitons (for crying out loud), but two points:

1. No need to conclude that it's only a 5-hour show. Maybe it's just starting, and the first part was like the number countdown that used to appear at the beginning of films in school.
2. Couldn't a deity have settled on natural selection as the mechanism s/he wanted to set in motion to create human beings, and that particular recipe simply calls for the raw ingredients to simmer for a few billion years? It's not as though the extra time would really matter to the deity, who might not even experience it as such.

[PotatoStew]

1. No need to conclude that it's only a 5-hour show. Maybe it's just starting, and the first part was like the number countdown that used to appear at the beginning of films in school.

You beat me to it, ceo-esq! :) Loki, you say we're the 0.1 seconds "at the very end" but suppose we're going to be around for 100 billion years. Would that change things a bit for you?

To use a similar analogy to yours, what you are saying would be as if someone builds a cotton gin, turns it on for the first time, and a couple of seconds into the process the cotton says "Hey, this machine has been around for a day or two before we got here, and the parts the machine is made of have existed for a week or two -- not to mention the raw materials the parts are made of. It's silly to think that this machine was created to process cotton!"

[BillyTK]

goddess creates universe, goes off for a cup of tea and a nap, before you know it, 4.5 billion years are up and she hasn't even switched on the graviton machine!

which of course is an amazingly sexist mythos--why is it always the goddess who's got to switch the graviton machine on, eh?

[Franko]

I don't suppose any of you guys have ever read Fred Hoyle?

Loki, I'll get back to you on this. It would take some time to explain ...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki

It seems that Logical Deism (and most if not all theistic religions) assume that the human race is central to the 'nature/reason for being' for the universe.

Huh? I don't. Can't speak for LD, but from what I've seen posted, I doubt that is true for LD either. You forgot 5. None of the above.

SecHums must think homo sap is the "reason" I guess?

[Crossbow]

To: Loki

Thanks for the excellent post!

You have done a very good job at listing the points raised.

As for me, I conclude that Fanko is just another of those Guru Wannabees that frequent the JREF Forum.

I think the lure of JREF Prize is too strong for them which is why they come around here.

Oh well, I suppose it is better than having them set up a 900 number.

Thanks again!

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Loki
It seems that Logical Deism (and most if not all theistic religions) assume that the human race is central to the 'nature/reason for being' for the universe. Is that, in fact, a correct representation? By the way, while dinosaurs are rather impressive, to quote Stephen Jay Gould: This is the age of bacteria. Bacteria have always been dominant. The bacterial mode, the mode being the most common form of life, is never altered in 3 1/2 billion years.If there is anything "central to the 'nature/reason for being' for the universe", it's blue-green algae. :eek:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
... to quote Stephen Jay Gould: If there is anything "central to the 'nature/reason for being' for the universe", it's blue-green algae. :eek:

Hmmm, I didn't know Gould ever said anything that intelligent. Thanks.

[Franko]

Crossbow,

I think the lure of JREF Prize is too strong for them which is why they come around here.

Wait a minute there Bub!

If anyone is interested in the Randi-Prize, then clearly it is you Atheists. After all you are the ones claiming to posses the magical power/ability of “free willy” – NOT ME.

Unlike your fanatically Religious self -- I believe in the Laws of Physics!

... but thanks for sharing your delusions!

[evildave]

Well, if there isn't free will, then Franko, there is no such thing as 'responsibility', because it was all destined to happen.

Therefore, I do believe in consequences for my actions; you believe nothing matters because it was all "supposed to happen like this".

Even when you, Franko, finish killing a hundred babies with your bare hands, you can walk out with your head held high, knowing for certain you were SUPPOSED to do that. You were ALWAYS destined to do that. "Hurray" for you, fulfilling your destiny and all that.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, if there isn't free will, then Franko, there is no such thing as 'responsibility', because it was all destined to happen.
...
Even when you, Franko, finish killing a hundred babies with your bare hands, you can walk out with your head held high, knowing for certain you were SUPPOSED to do that. You were ALWAYS destined to do that. "Hurray" for you, fulfilling your destiny and all that.

e.d., given such a scenario, whose "will" is being followed do you suppose? Suggestability, will, morality -- what a conundrum.... ;)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hmmm, I didn't know Gould ever said anything that intelligent. Thanks. :rolleyes:

[Franko]

Well, if there isn't free will, then Franko, there is no such thing as 'responsibility', because it was all destined to happen.

Well …

… this is exactly why you A-Theists are so dangerous and must ultimately be destroyed …

... evildave

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Franko

Well …

… this is exactly why you A-Theists are so dangerous and must ultimately be destroyed …

... evildave I suggest that such threats are both inappropriate and unacceptable.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I suggest that such threats are both inappropriate and unacceptable.
Mmmmkaayyy, and now what?

Perhaps if you hold your breath 'til your face turns blue?

[Franko]

I suggest that such threats are both inappropriate and unacceptable.

Don't twist words into things that they obviously don't mean A-Theist.

Are you denying that one day you will cease to exist, A-Theist?

That is because God doesn't want you around.

But a different Fate awaits those (unlike the A-Theists) who are compatible with other entities. They will not be destroyed. They will not cease to exist.

[evildave]

You know, what can I say about 'predestiny', other than someone who wants me to worry about some big dork (or dorkette) in a toga, who made everything and predestined everything to run a certain way from beginning to end, also wants me to believe in it so badly that he insists that I already do.

Dream on dork-kisser.

I don't see any strings. I can go somewhere else and do something else at a whim. Perhaps I'll take a little walk for lunch.

If it's an "illusion" it's an illusion as complete as the one where the sun shines. Perhaps I only "imagine" the star is there? Bull. Pull your head out of your ass and live in the real world for a change.

I'll worry about "ultimate destiny" if it ever comes to that. In the meantime, I will worry about the mundane and simple choices in my own life that make it operate. Like "magically" choosing to make the payments on my various debts, and "mystically" predicting that I'll need to get the neices and nephews some toys, and it's probably time to call and inquire what sort of things they want this year. Maybe even "psychically" predict there will be trick-or-treaters tomorrow night, and do something proactive about a Jack-O-Lantern.

So amazing and supernatural are these "abilities" of precognition that nearly everyone has them, and they're considered mundane.

[Franko]

Yeah .. Evildave ... we are all well aware that you are an A-Theist.

... but thank you for sharing again.

[evildave]

And we are all aware of what you are, Franko.

You're welcome.

[Franko]

What's the matter Davey-Boy?

... is the thought of ceasing to exist worrying you? Does it scare you Davey? Is that why you follow me around? Maybe ... deep down ... you are less convinced of your beliefs then you want to pretend ...?

[Crossbow]

Franko:

Having Free Will is not a paranormal power, therefore I doubt that it could be considered a legitimate contender for the JREF Prize.

If it were, then the prize would have been obtained long ago.

And by the way, if you have a question about my beliefs, then please ask me. Simply reading one of my posts and calling me one of the "Atheists" does no credit to you since it does not accurately describe my religion.

I hope this helps!

[Franko]

Crossbow,

My apologies if I have mischaracterized, or misunderstood your beliefs. There are a lot of A-Theists in this forum, and they have a wolf pack mentality. When I see another animal in the pack, I assume he is a wolf until I am shown otherwise.

But that really the reason I avoid talking to the Newbies. I like to know who I am talking to a little before I actually “talk” to them.

[Crossbow]

Franko:

I still do not follow your logic.

First, you say that you do not respond to "newbies" yet I have been with the Forum for over a year with almost 550 posts. Hardly a newbie.

Second, you claim that you like to know who you are talking to before you talk to them, but then you start by mischaracterizing me. I would say that you violated your own guidlines again.

Any clarification would be appreciated!

[Franko]

Crossbow,

First, you say that you do not respond to "newbies" yet I have been with the Forum for over a year with almost 550 posts. Hardly a newbie.

Newbie relative to me. I don’t know you crossbow. I’ve seen you once or twice in here, but I have no idea what your beliefs are, and I have never seen you in debate, or debated with you myself that I can recall.

Second, you claim that you like to know who you are talking to before you talk to them, but then you start by mischaracterizing me. I would say that you violated your own guidlines again.

Generally I ignore anyone who I don’t know (who I haven’t read some of their post). Once in a while, one of these people makes an interesting point, or raises some issue that I feel compelled to address.

If I was smarter, I would ALWAYS ignore them, but … the next thing I know I have Doubt, or Jkorosi, or Evildave, or a Fool, or Whodini, or an Impywinky following me around like my little shadow.

But yeah … you're right – I violated my own guidelines. I wonder if I will come to regret it?

[Loki]

Potato/ceo-esq,

Yes, if the human race has a 100 billion year life span then it does change the picture somewhat. However, that's pure speculation - all we have to work with *right here and now* are the 'apparent facts', and they (appear) to show that the "moral sorting machine" has been idle for 19,999,990,000 years, and active for 10,000. (Yes, I've switched to using the 'age of the universe' rather than the "age of the earth" - because if humanity lives 100 billion years, it won't be on this planet only!).

Couldn't a deity have settled on natural selection as the mechanism s/he wanted to set in motion to create human beings, and that particular recipe simply calls for the raw ingredients to simmer for a few billion years?
Yep, that could be exactly what's happening. I'd argue though that this scenario is far closer to 'deism' than 'theism', and deism is both essentially unprovable, and ultimately irrelevant (from a human perspective).

I guess the point I was trying to make is that various theologies declare that we humans are "aware of god's plan". Franko's worldview is quite detailed - he "knows" the how and the why of the universe. Yet, simple facts appear to reveal that the nature and behaviour of any god is essentially unknown in many areas, because there are large "unexplained" gaps in the theologies - gaps which were hidden from human view before science exposed them. The mere presence of these gaps, and the inability for theists to fill them with anything more than "perhaps..." speaks volumes (to me) of the underlying nature of the god/theologies.

Oh, and on the specific issue of Logical Deism, I am interested in hearing Franko's "creation story". Just how old is the universe in LG terms?

... and a couple of seconds into the process the cotton says ...
Potato, you're now reduced to using 'talking cotton' to make a point!!! :D (Just kidding, I get the analogy!)

[Franko]

Loki,

Imagine that there are only 3 entities to exist in all the Omniverse (Omniverse = Sum of all reality = all universes).

You, Me, and the Goddess – that’s it. No matter … just 3 separate distinct, disembodied consciousnesses (or you can think of each one as a particle if you prefer).

Okay … now here is the thing. You and I are unable to communicate with each other. We can send out signals, but our signals are to weak to reach one another. But the Goddess, she doesn’t have this problem. Her signal is strong enough to reach both of us.

… and this kind of solves the problem for You and Me. because, now, even though we cannot communicate directly … She can relay messages back and fourth between us. In other words, if you want to send a message to me, you tell Her, and then She tells Me “Loki said, X-Y-Z”.

So the relationship is kind of like a computer network. Where the LG is like the server (the central hub), and You and I are just nodes on that server. The nodes don’t communicate directly. They have to relay information through the server.

The server … that kind of becomes the universe to you and I over time. You and I are evolving, and the server is evolving right along with us.

She started off as a particle (just like you and I). When the universe first formed, God was an Omnipotent particle – She was the “smartest” particle around, and when the “smartest” thing around was a Dinosaur … She was “smarter” than a Dinosaur. So now we have humans as the most evolved entity … and She is more evolved than humans.

You have a system where a particle travels at a relative constant speed. They all start a race at different times. The particle that is moving the fastest, and started the race the longest time ago, is the farthest along on the race course. It’s that simple.

[Loki]

Franko,

Thanks for the reply. It makes sense in that peculiar Franko-way.

[Ipecac]

Franko,

You spent quite a bit of time recently conversing politely with me and I appreciate it. But in all of these discussions (which I've continued to follow) I still don't get one thing.

How do you KNOW any of this? Ancient texts? Divine inspiration? Thousands of years of tradition? You have developed quite a detailed idea here but I have no idea where it comes from other than your own head.

Thanks in advance for the answer.

[Franko]

Ipecac,

How do you KNOW any of this? Ancient texts? Divine inspiration? Thousands of years of tradition? You have developed quite a detailed idea here but I have no idea where it comes from other than your own head.

I could give you all kinds of answers Ipecac, but when it comes right down to it ... only one type of answer is worth spit -- a logical answer.

In other words, it doesn't really matter how I know it only matters if what I say makes sense in your head.

Or more specifically if it makes more sense then any other explanation you have ever heard.

One day ... someone might say to you -- "But how do you know this?" I doubt your evidence would be "Internet Franko told me!". In fact, if you understoof Logical Deism, you probably wouldn't ever even need to mention my name, or JREF, or what twist of Fate lead you here ...

[hammegk]

Or, as some deep thinker of long ago explained, "The Path that can be spoken is not the true Path". ;)


Franko:

Maybe if you request a substantial tithe?? LOL.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
Or, as some deep thinker of long ago explained, "The Path that can be spoken is not the true Path". ;)


that would be lao tzu in the tao te ching; so logical deism is not the true path (it can be spoken), or franko's sole purpose is to shock us out of the complacency of our perceptions, and otherwise logical deism is meaningless?

[PotatoStew]

Loki:

However, that's pure speculation - all we have to work with *right here and now* are the 'apparent facts', and they (appear) to show that the "moral sorting machine" has been idle for 19,999,990,000 years, and active for 10,000.

But the point is that using the apparent facts right here and now we can't draw any conclusions one way or the other. Since we don't know if 100,000 years is going to be the extent of our tenure here (making the 20 billion years a rather significant sum) or if we're going to be around another 100 billion years (making 20 billion years but a fraction of our stay) you can't draw any sound conclusions from the amount of time we've been here compared with the age of the universe. You don't have enough data yet to do so. Any conclusions based on this incomplete data are premature and also pure speculation.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
But the point is that using the apparent facts right here and now we can't draw any conclusions one way or the other. Since we don't know if 100,000 years is going to be the extent of our tenure here (making the 20 billion years a rather significant sum) or if we're going to be around another 100 billion years (making 20 billion years but a fraction of our stay) you can't draw any sound conclusions from the amount of time we've been here compared with the age of the universe. You don't have enough data yet to do so. Any conclusions based on this incomplete data are premature and also pure speculation.
I've been trying not to think of this all week, but I did recently see a Learning Zone program hosted by Stephen Hawking where some scientists basically concluded that the physical universe had a useful (to us) lifespan of less than 100 billion years because before then it will have deteriorated into an unimaginably thin broth of elementary particles.

Depressing. Anyhow, good reason to kick that moral sorting machine into high gear.

[Quasi]

Franko,

The second part of your "trinity" of reality is evident, we exist in what you call "the universe." What evidence do you have for the other two planes or whatever? What evidence do you have for this "goddess" deity?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I've been trying not to think of this all week, but I did recently see a Learning Zone program hosted by Stephen Hawking where some scientists basically concluded that the physical universe had a useful (to us) lifespan of less than 100 billion years because before then it will have deteriorated into an unimaginably thin broth of elementary particles.

Depressing. Anyhow, good reason to kick that moral sorting machine into high gear.

Yes, "heat death." It's as inevitable as the sun's eventual depletion of hydrogen fuel for nuclear fusion. I don't find it depressing at all. It's just a natural consequence of the mysterious energy source causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and entropy. Besides, we as individuals, and as a species, will be long gone before then.

AS

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

I could give you all kinds of answers Ipecac, but when it comes right down to it ... only one type of answer is worth spit -- a logical answer.

In other words, it doesn't really matter how I know it only matters if what I say makes sense in your head.

Or more specifically if it makes more sense then any other explanation you have ever heard.

One day ... someone might say to you -- "But how do you know this?" I doubt your evidence would be "Internet Franko told me!". In fact, if you understoof Logical Deism, you probably wouldn't ever even need to mention my name, or JREF, or what twist of Fate lead you here ...

Actually, *any* answer would be worth spit.

See, there's a credibility issue. People easily fool themselves. Just because it might make sense "in my head" doesn't mean it's true. So, I'm looking to you, the LD "guru" to give me some idea where it came from. If you just made it up, then we're back to the "fooling oneself" problem again. If you tell me that it's been practiced for thousands of years, or it comes from ancient texts, that raises the credibility somewhat. Perhaps not enough to make a difference, but certainly more than one person making something up.

[Franko]

Quasi,

The second part of your "trinity" of reality is evident, we exist in what you call "the universe." What evidence do you have for the other two planes or whatever?

That is a rather complicated question.

And when I say “complicated” I mean that in the Logical Deism sense of the word, which means it is actually simple (like 2 + 2 = 4), but Time consuming to explain.

I am not sure how much you know about programming, but to an LD, Reality is like a computer program. No individual line of code (a premise) is that complex. Practically anyone could understand it (although as you get deeper into the code, the lines assume an understanding of the previous sections), but in order to understand what the program is doing – in order for you to be convinced we would have to sit down and go through the code … line by line.

… The simple answer to your question? Imagine an Atom … Nucleus in the center … Electrons “orbiting” around in their respective shells. An Electron can move up a shell (gaining energy), or it can go down a shell (losing energy) … Except in the reality of the Omniverse (if you could perceive the “MetaTrue” reality) you would perceive that there is really only one kind of particle -- Gravitons (equivalent to the Electrons in the Atom example). The various “shells” are Godelian Layers of the Omniverse. Each layer is a Universe. The lower energy shells are previous lower energy state (simpler) universes in the past. The Higher energy state shells are more elaborate Universes in the future.

… And not all Gravitons strictly move Forward in Time …

What evidence do you have for this "goddess" deity?

Do you mean other than the fact that I don’t believe my Car or Pebbles are more conscious than I am? I don’t know if you are an Atheists or not, but I always wonder why Atheists feel that they don’t need to present their evidence for NOT GOD … ?

[Franko]

Ipecac,

See, there's a credibility issue. People easily fool themselves. Just because it might make sense "in my head" doesn't mean it's true.

How likely is it that 2 + 2 is NOT equal to 4?

Assuming that you are sane?

So, I'm looking to you, the LD "guru" to give me some idea where it came from. If you just made it up, then we're back to the "fooling oneself" problem again.

How so? Do you mean like Galileo was fooling himself when he came up with the idea that Jupiter had moons that revolved around it?

If you tell me that it's been practiced for thousands of years, or it comes from ancient texts, that raises the credibility somewhat.

Why would Dogma increase its credibility in your mind?

But LD has been around for a very long Time …

Perhaps not enough to make a difference, but certainly more than one person making something up.

I didn’t realize that more than one person had to believe something for it to be True?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
What's the matter Davey-Boy?

... is the thought of ceasing to exist worrying you? Does it scare you Davey? Is that why you follow me around? Maybe ... deep down ... you are less convinced of your beliefs then you want to pretend ...?

No, Franko.

But I can see you're backpedalling into another personal abuse and baiting trip. As if you ever really came back.

But that's OK, I *expect* that from you.

I should probably explain to you now why you will never convert me to your little "logical deism" fantasy, or any other little cult you would like to invent or use.

It's because you live up to my basest expectations for what a 'religious nut' will behave like. You tap into that basic prejudice against religion and "live up to it".

You know what, even if your make-believe godess showed up in all her gravitron spewing "glory", it could kiss my hairy butt, and I would fart in its face.

Representitives like you, and the bigoted/greedy televangelists, and Islamic terrorists, and the abortion clinic bombers, all help to give religions that perfect tarnish which make me just about as atheistic as I can be.

It doesn't matter how "logical" you believe you are. Or how "right". I don't care in the slightest.

All you do is round out the collection of negative religious examples with another flavor of fringe lunatic.

The more you WANT me to believe, and the slimier and more confrontational the tactics you use, the more I certainly will NOT believe anything you have to say. It's a simple matter of your fulfilling the role I see for your behavior all too abundantly.

You don't behave like a religious person. You behave like every negative stereotype of one. The HILARIOUS thing is, some religious people *actually* side with you and cheer you on. Hurray for them. Collect that taint in abundance! Make sure their gods and demigods have a big, fat "Approved By Franko" label on their foreheads.

It's not that I assume everything you say is a lie. It's just that I come to assume everything you say has no value. No meaning. No substance.

Your every little 'outburst' makes your opinion mean that much less to me. Like so much chattering of insects.

But hey, keep it up! You can always hope for an overflow error. I could wrap to 'maximum belief'. ;)

I don't mind keeping a few peeping little crickets around. In some places, they're 'good luck'. In others, they're pet food. Either way, there is a value there. All I need to do is find some use for this resource, and I will have a quite endless supply of entertainment.

So please, live up to our basest expectations. We know you can't help it. You're practically powerless not to.

[Franko]

Evildavey,

I should probably explain to you now why you will never convert me to your little "logical deism" fantasy, or any other little cult you would like to invent or use.

Ohh yeah Evildoghy, we are all aware of your position on open-mindedness.

It's because you live up to my basest expectations for what a 'religious nut' will behave like. You tap into that basic prejudice against religion and "live up to it".

I was thinking the exact same thing about you – You fanatically Religious Pessimistic Evil-spewing A-Theist!!!

You know what, even if your make-believe godess showed up in all her gravitron spewing "glory", it could kiss my hairy butt, and I would fart in its face.

Hehehe … yeah, whatever Davey … we’ll see …

Representitives like you, and the bigoted/greedy televangelists, and Islamic terrorists, and the abortion clinic bombers, all help to give religions that perfect tarnish which make me just about as atheistic as I can be.

What were you saying about bigots and racists, vehementTheist-Hater?

It doesn't matter how "logical" you believe you are. Or how "right". I don't care in the slightest.

Yes … you have also made you position on Fanaticism over Logic quite clear as well.

All you do is round out the collection of negative religious examples with another flavor of fringe lunatic.

Coming from you I take that as quite the compliment. Thanks!

The more you WANT me to believe, and the slimier and more confrontational the tactics you use, the more I certainly will NOT believe anything you have to say. It's a simple matter of your fulfilling the role I see for your behavior all too abundantly.

Whatever that means?

EvilDavey, I’ve told you before … I don’t want you! I wouldn’t take you if you begged me to on your hands and chubby knees. The only worth I see in you, is in you utterly humiliate the doctrine of Atheism. You expose it for exactly what it is, and what it stands for. I couldn’t do the damage to your whacky cult in 100 posts, that you manage to do in only 1.

I could never save your overly abundant ass, nor would I ever want to, but I can use you to save some others who are worth saving …

You don't behave like a religious person. You behave like every negative stereotype of one. The HILARIOUS thing is, some religious people *actually* side with you and cheer you on. Hurray for them. Collect that taint in abundance! Make sure their gods and demigods have a big, fat "Approved By Franko" label on their foreheads.

Yes … it is True. Many of the Theists are starting to realize the Uncle Toms you effete, arrogant, religious fanatic mofo’s have been making of them. I realize that it pisses you off in a big way. Good! They outnumber your kind by a considerable margin too.

It's not that I assume everything you say is a lie. It's just that I come to assume everything you say has no value. No meaning. No substance.

Say what you want, but this doesn’t change the fact that you follow me around, and hang on my every word, like a pathetic little chubby puppy dog.

Your every little 'outburst' makes your opinion mean that much less to me. Like so much chattering of insects.

Yet you still devote so much time and Energy to me? Why EvilDave?!? WHY??? Shouldn’t you be out eating your 3rd lunch of the day? Enjoying yourself, for the incredibly brief moment your existence will last (on the cosmic scale of things)? For the Lucifer’s sake Man! Your existence is meaningless, and inevitably you will cease to exist! Eat while you can!!!

But hey, keep it up! You can always hope for an overflow error. I could wrap to 'maximum belief'.

I don't mind keeping a few peeping little crickets around. In some places, they're 'good luck'. In others, they're pet food. Either way, there is a value there. All I need to do is find some use for this resource, and I will have a quite endless supply of entertainment.

KFC is having a lunch special – all this week!!!

So please, live up to our basest expectations. We know you can't help it. You're practically powerless not to.

Powerless? Evildavey, try and make it a little challenging for me – hey? When you project your own emotions to me so readily … it really takes all the sport out of it …

Who’s powerless to disobey the Laws of Physics, Davey?

Maybe I’m just a figment of your imagination anyway?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Evildavey,



Ohh yeah Evildoghy, we are all aware of your position on open-mindedness.



I was thinking the exact same thing about you – You fanatically Religious Pessimistic Evil-spewing A-Theist!!!



Hehehe … yeah, whatever Davey … we’ll see …



What were you saying about bigots and racists, vehementTheist-Hater?



Yes … you have also made you position on Fanaticism over Logic quite clear as well.



Coming from you I take that as quite the compliment. Thanks!



Whatever that means?

EvilDavey, I’ve told you before … I don’t want you! I wouldn’t take you if you begged me to on your hands and chubby knees. The only worth I see in you, is in you utterly humiliate the doctrine of Atheism. You expose it for exactly what it is, and what it stands for. I couldn’t do the damage to your whacky cult in 100 posts, that you manage to do in only 1.

I could never save your overly abundant ass, nor would I ever want to, but I can use you to save some others who are worth saving …



Yes … it is True. Many of the Theists are starting to realize the Uncle Toms you effete, arrogant, religious fanatic mofo’s have been making of them. I realize that it pisses you off in a big way. Good! They outnumber your kind by a considerable margin too.



Say what you want, but this doesn’t change the fact that you follow me around, and hang on my every word, like a pathetic little chubby puppy dog.



Yet you still devote so much time and Energy to me? Why EvilDave?!? WHY??? Shouldn’t you be out eating your 3rd lunch of the day? Enjoying yourself, for the incredibly brief moment your existence will last (on the cosmic scale of things)? For the Lucifer’s sake Man! Your existence is meaningless, and inevitably you will cease to exist! Eat while you can!!!



KFC is having a lunch special – all this week!!!



Powerless? Evildavey, try and make it a little challenging for me – hey? When you project your own emotions to me so readily … it really takes all the sport out of it …

Who’s powerless to disobey the Laws of Physics, Davey?

Maybe I’m just a figment of your imagination anyway?

You make my point so well for me, Franko.

Thank you.

See the religious straw-man, everyone?

It's designed to invoke your basest stereotypes for what "fundy" nuts are.

Then he gets "buddy-buddy" with the theists here, and drags them along into his murk.

It's so ingenius.

[Loki]

Franko,

Forgot to ask (clearly), so I'll repeat my implied question here. In your personal opinion, is the age of the Earth :

(A) 4.5 billion years
(B) No more than the age of conscious humans (Homo sapiens -50,000 years or so)
(C) Other (a figure would be nice!)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

How likely is it that 2 + 2 is NOT equal to 4?

Assuming that you are sane?

How so? Do you mean like Galileo was fooling himself when he came up with the idea that Jupiter had moons that revolved around it?

Why would Dogma increase its credibility in your mind?

But LD has been around for a very long Time …

I didn’t realize that more than one person had to believe something for it to be True?

More questions? How about a straight answer?

Did you just make all of this up?

If LD has been around a very long time, then give me some names of its historical practicioners. Why would anyone want to convert to LD if the whole thing was just made up by some guy on the Internet? This is not to say that one guy cannot be right and the rest of the world wrong, but since we're talking about an unproveable philosophy, there's no compelling reason to adopt LD.

No, dogma wouldn't increase its credibility one bit in my mind. I just wanted to set a comparison to other beliefs. I rejected Christianity after believing in it for 30 years and it has an awful lot more history and substance than LD.

Galileo had actual evidence when he came up with the idea that Jupiter had moons, didn't he? He didn't just make it up. What actual evidence do you have that LD is true?

Franko, the problem is, even if LD is true, it has no practical application to my every day life. Does it provide moral guidance? Even if I accept that free will is an illusion, how does that affect my life one iota? I still have to decide where to go to lunch today. How does having free will or not change that one bit? I asked this in another thread and never got an answer.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Franko, the problem is, even if LD is true, it has no practical application to my every day life. Does it provide moral guidance? Even if I accept that free will is an illusion, how does that affect my life one iota? I still have to decide where to go to lunch today. How does having free will or not change that one bit? I asked this in another thread and never got an answer.

Those are great questions, the same ones I've been looking for answers to wrt materialism=atheism. I thought a forum of people who purport to be skeptical materialists would step right up.

Funny, I haven't gotten any answers either. Lots of subterfuge & mis-direction but that's it.

[Franko]

Evildaveyboy,

You make my point so well for me, Evildave.

Thank you.

See the A-Theists Religious straw-man, everyone?

It's designed to invoke your basest stereotypes for what "fundy" nuts are.

Then he gets "buddy-buddy" with the theists here, and drags them along into his Abyss.

It's so Pessimistic, It’s so Evil …

[Franko]

Loki,

Forgot to ask (clearly), so I'll repeat my implied question here. In your personal opinion, is the age of the Earth :

(A) 4.5 billion years

As far as I know? I wasn’t here way back then.

(B) No more than the age of conscious humans (Homo sapiens -50,000 years or so)

It took a good while before the LG could capture Gravitons capable of being Homo Sapiens. She had to evolve a talent (ability) for it.

(C) Other (a figure would be nice!)

A figure on what? Go read Hoyle. He says that it is impossible that Matter makes consciousness. Claims he has the evidence to prove it. … and Hoyles no Nitwit (unlike that idiot Dawkins).

[evildave]

Wow, and here Franko is so speechless he copies my post. Very "creative". Livin' up to expectations.

[Franko]

Ipecac,

More questions? How about a straight answer?

I always have to laugh at the irony of an A-Theists telling me this … hehehe .. HEHEHE …

Did you just make all of this up?

No … actually YOU made it all up!

I’m just a figment of your subconscious imagination, and you are really God.

If LD has been around a very long time, then give me some names of its historical practicioners.

Jefferson? Godel? Bayes?

Why would anyone want to convert to LD if the whole thing was just made up by some guy on the Internet?

Why would someone want to be a member of the cult of utter pessimism (The One True Faith of A-Theism)? There is no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. There is no evidence for your “free willy” God. There is no evidence for any of the dire nonsense you believe.

This is not to say that one guy cannot be right and the rest of the world wrong, but since we're talking about an unproveable philosophy, there's no compelling reason to adopt LD.

Who’s asking YOU to?

No, dogma wouldn't increase its credibility one bit in my mind. I just wanted to set a comparison to other beliefs. I rejected Christianity after believing in it for 30 years and it has an awful lot more history and substance than LD.

So become a Christian then. Christianity is a much Superior Philosophy to A-Theism.

Galileo had actual evidence when he came up with the idea that Jupiter had moons, didn't he? He didn't just make it up. What actual evidence do you have that LD is true?

Well for starters, I can clearly see that you have no evidence for your “free willy” God. I can see that you have no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. I can see that people who do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions are far less moral than people who do …

… the problem is, even if LD is true, it has no practical application to my every day life.

Perhaps that is because you are an Evil A-Theist? Only the Good find LD beneficial. Anti-Gravitons are terrified by it. They perceive it as harmful. They’re right … if you are Evil, LD will ultimately be very harmful to you.

Does it provide moral guidance?

Of course!

Even if I accept that free will is an illusion, how does that affect my life one iota?

I love it how you A-Theists are convinced that when you do not understand something, that you actually understand it anyway.

I still have to decide where to go to lunch today. How does having free will or not change that one bit? I asked this in another thread and never got an answer.

Actually … you won’t decide. TLOP will decide for you, but if you find it a more comforting thought to pretend that you are actually the one deciding, go right ahead. As any other smart A-Theist will tell you, ultimately no one is really responsible for their actions or their beliefs. Ultimately if you are wrong you will not have to pay the price for being wrong – you will simply cease to exist. So since you are going to cease to exist regardless of what you do. You might as well do whatever the hell you feel like doing. It doesn’t really matter – does it?

[Franko]

Evil dave -- still under my influence. I have cast a spell on him which requires that he post 1 to 3 lines of fluff after each and every one of my posts as a sign of his homage and submission to me.

Watch for yourself. He is powerless to resist.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

I always have to laugh at the irony of an A-Theists telling me this … hehehe .. HEHEHE …

No … actually YOU made it all up!

I’m just a figment of your subconscious imagination, and you are really God.

Jefferson? Godel? Bayes?

Why would someone want to be a member of the cult of utter pessimism (The One True Faith of A-Theism)? There is no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. There is no evidence for your “free willy” God. There is no evidence for any of the dire nonsense you believe.

Who’s asking YOU to?

So become a Christian then. Christianity is a much Superior Philosophy to A-Theism.

Well for starters, I can clearly see that you have no evidence for your “free willy” God. I can see that you have no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. I can see that people who do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions are far less moral than people who do …

Perhaps that is because you are an Evil A-Theist? Only the Good find LD beneficial. Anti-Gravitons are terrified by it. They perceive it as harmful. They’re right … if you are Evil, LD will ultimately be very harmful to you.

Of course!

I love it how you A-Theists are convinced that when you do not understand something, that you actually understand it anyway.

Actually … you won’t decide. TLOP will decide for you, but if you find it a more comforting thought to pretend that you are actually the one deciding, go right ahead. As any other smart A-Theist will tell you, ultimately no one is really responsible for their actions or their beliefs. Ultimately if you are wrong you will not have to pay the price for being wrong – you will simply cease to exist. So since you are going to cease to exist regardless of what you do. You might as well do whatever the hell you feel like doing. It doesn’t really matter – does it?

Franko, do you honestly believe this was responsive? I have been trying to understand your beliefs and asked some serious questions and your replies above are almost totally non-responsive. I'm not joking here, I don't see how you answered my questions.

The only real answer you gave was in asking you to name some logical deists. So here's a follow up question: Do you believe that Jefferson, Godel and Bayes espoused all your "logical goddess" and "graviton" ideas? If so, I'd love to see some cites so I can read for myself.

Since you have been posting here for some time and occasionally trying to explain your beliefs, I assume you would like to "convert", as it were, some of us to LD. If not, why are you wasting your time here?

As far as your reply to my "Are you making this up question," Ill take your reply as a "Yes".

Oh, wait, you did give another answer. You said that LD does provide moral guidance. Please explain how. Holy book? Traditions? Divine revelations? I really want to know. Say I accept LD. How do I get this moral guidance?

As for the rest of your reply, you're all over the place. Insults, assumptions, and questions that don't give me the answers I sought.

Please. Focus here. I'm trying to understand.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk


Those are great questions, the same ones I've been looking for answers to wrt materialism=atheism. I thought a forum of people who purport to be skeptical materialists would step right up.

Funny, I haven't gotten any answers either. Lots of subterfuge & mis-direction but that's it.
You want people to give you a straight answer to a question that has no straight answer? If you're looking for skeptical materialists to answer hypothetical and philosophical questions, you really are grasping at straws. The best we can say to the question Ipecac poses is that we don't know, and it may be impossible to know. So all we can do is go on behaving as if there were free will.

It sounds, Ham, as if you have been trying to catch skeptical materialists in a contradiction and have been unsuccessful in doing so.

[Franko]

Ipecac,

The only real answer you gave was in asking you to name some logical deists. So here's a follow up question: Do you believe that Jefferson, Godel and Bayes espoused all your "logical goddess" and "graviton" ideas? If so, I'd love to see some cites so I can read for myself.

Go read what they wrote then.

For me personally though, the Truth of Reality is NOT decided by a majority vote. If you honesty believe that, then A-Theism is definitely FALSE (by an overwhelming majority).

Since you have been posting here for some time and occasionally trying to explain your beliefs, I assume you would like to "convert", as it were, some of us to LD. If not, why are you wasting your time here?

I am not trying to convert anyone to believe what I believe.

But that doesn’t mean I am going to sit back and watch the Evil cult of A-Theism to take over a Skeptic’s forum unchallenged.

As far as your reply to my "Are you making this up question," Ill take your reply as a "Yes".

You are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say. I already explained all of this to you. If you are NOT interested in Logical answers, then I have no other answers to offer.

Oh, wait, you did give another answer. You said that LD does provide moral guidance. Please explain how. Holy book? Traditions? Divine revelations? I really want to know. Say I accept LD. How do I get this moral guidance?

What moral guidance do you have now A-Theist? That Life is meaningless? That Ultimately you will cease to exist, so there are NO consequences for one’s actions beyond “death”?

Hey … if you believe that is a superior moral code to anything – I say GO FOR IT!

Ultimately if you are wrong … you are the one that will suffer for it.

As for the rest of your reply, you're all over the place. Insults, assumptions, and questions that don't give me the answers I sought.

Please. Focus here. I'm trying to understand.

Ask a very specific question, and perhaps I can give you a specific answer. But you ask a general or ambiguously worded question and … ???

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

Go read what they wrote then.

For me personally though, the Truth of Reality is NOT decided by a majority vote. If you honesty believe that, then A-Theism is definitely FALSE (by an overwhelming majority).

I am not trying to convert anyone to believe what I believe.

But that doesn’t mean I am going to sit back and watch the Evil cult of A-Theism to take over a Skeptic’s forum unchallenged.

You are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say. I already explained all of this to you. If you are NOT interested in Logical answers, then I have no other answers to offer.

What moral guidance do you have now A-Theist? That Life is meaningless? That Ultimately you will cease to exist, so there are NO consequences for one’s actions beyond “death”?

Hey … if you believe that is a superior moral code to anything – I say GO FOR IT!

Ultimately if you are wrong … you are the one that will suffer for it.

Ask a very specific question, and perhaps I can give you a specific answer. But you ask a general or ambiguously worded question and … ???

Sigh.

I asked you to name some historical logical deists. You answered by giving me three names. I asked if you could show me some proof that indeed they believed in it. You told me to find it myself.

Do you understand that since you are making the claim (these three men believed in LD) that *you* have to support it? I will happily do the reading if you can provide a single cite to support your answer. If you can't, that suggests you're not telling the truth.

Second, I did not claim that the truth of reality is decided by popular vote. As a skeptic, of course I don't believe this. But I do believe that it's extremely unlikely that one person, who's making very specific claims as to the workings of the universe but is unwilling to share the origin of his belief, is right in this instance. You can compare yourself to Galileo all you want but if you've got no evidence (or willingness to even explain how you know all this), the comparison falls flat.

Regarding moral guidance. Here let me help you. Atheism does not provide moral guidance. None. Zip. Nada. It is nothing more than a disbelief in a supreme being. That's the extent of it. So of course it cannot provide moral guidance. Atheism teaches you nothing about how to behave towards other human beings.

However, you are classifying LD as a religion. Religions are supposed to give moral guidance. So, how could I go about discovering its precepts? (Or haven't you thought them out yet?)

Start providing some logical answers and I will consider them.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Evil dave -- still under my influence. I have cast a spell on him which requires that he post 1 to 3 lines of fluff after each and every one of my posts as a sign of his homage and submission to me.

Watch for yourself. He is powerless to resist.

CAST A SPELL, you say?

Hey everybody, Franko wants that Randi prize for supernatural abilities!

Sweet! Buy me new car and I'll promise to play along.

[Franko]

Edb,

Sweet! Buy me new car and I'll promise to play along.

Like you have a “choice” of whether to play along or not …

Hehehe ….

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Yes, "heat death." It's as inevitable as the sun's eventual depletion of hydrogen fuel for nuclear fusion. I don't find it depressing at all. It's just a natural consequence of the mysterious energy source causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and entropy. Besides, we as individuals, and as a species, will be long gone before then.

AS

I thought it was far from determined whether or not the universe will continue to expand or if it will at some point contract. If it does contract, "heat death" will be the opposite of inevitable.

I too believe we'll be long gone before then!

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Edb,



Like you have a “choice” of whether to play along or not …

Hehehe ….

Oh,

Darn

I

Posted

More

Than

Three

Lines.

:p

[Franko]

Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist.

... I wonder why?

[Loki]

Franko,

As far as I know? I wasn’t here way back then.
Of course you weren't here - we were hanging in the Abyss, waiting for a callup! But I'm asking for *your personal opinion*, not necessarily "the proveable truth". Judging by your answers, my multiple choice approach seemed too complex, so how about a simple question - "How old is the Earth (in years)?".

A single numeric value is all I need as an answer. I'm not asking you to prove it, just asking for your 'best guess' opinion.

[Franko]

Loki,

Of course you weren't here - we were hanging in the Abyss, waiting for a callup! But I'm asking for *your personal opinion*, not necessarily "the proveable truth". Judging by your answers, my multiple choice approach seemed too complex, so how about a simple question - "How old is the Earth (in years)?".

My actual answer is UNKNOWN, but if the Goddess demanded that I answer this question I would say that all of the available evidence tells me that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist.

... I wonder why?

In case this isn't a rhetorical question, it's a bit of fascination for the moment. Seeing how silly you'll behave.

So far you're only living up to my expectations for you. I want to see if you will *exceed* them.

So far, there's not much hope of that. You ALMOST started posting rational questions, then you sort of choked and stopped.

I'll eventually become bored of this game... but not for now.

(That car, make it red.)

[Franko]

Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist.

[Loki]

Franko,

Thanks for the answer. I'm glad to see that Logical Deism doesn't *immediately* demand I reject apparent scientific knowledge.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist.

I'm sorry, but your transparent ploy to attempt to get me to back off isn't going to work.

You ARE repeating yourself a lot, though.

Quick search... We may have a "hit" for your symptoms!


What are the symptoms of dementia?

Generally, there are three stages which mark the onset and progression of the disease.

Early stage : mild dementia
The individual appears forgetful or occasionally repeats himself. Sometimes they behave oddly and become withdrawn, lethargic or agitated. Planning of day-to-day activities becomes difficult.


Sounds familiar... but it goes on!


Middle stage: moderate dementia
In this stage, the changes become more noticeable. The memory lapses are more obvious. Behaviour becomes problematic and may interfere with normal day-to-day activities. Some examples of behaviour which may be symptomatic of moderate dementia are :
* wandering and getting lost
* repeating words
* neglecting personal hygiene
* losing track of time and events
* forgetting the names of common objects and familiar people
* irritability and agitation


So, we have definite hits for:
* wandering and getting lost
(Disappears for weeks at a time.)

* repeating words
(Repeats whole posts!)

* losing track of time and events
(he's up all hours, losing track of sleep)

* forgetting the names of common objects and familiar people
(forgets the names of people, even when they're right there on the screen, he can't type them correctly)

* irritability and agitation
('nuff said!)

All we have left for a symptom is "neglecting personal hygiene", and I can't speak for this, other than his odd fixation on other people's appearance, while being evasive about his own.

Definitely seek treatment. There may be medication that can halt the spread! Especially if it's 'multi-infarct dementia', due to high blood pressure and many small strokes.

Please Franko, SEE A DOCTOR, before it's too late! You could become PERMANENTLY DISABLED!

[Franko]

Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist. I control his Fate ...

[evildave]

Ignore my warning at your own peril. You seem to have dangerous symptoms that you should have looked at. It's your health, after all.

Then again, certain other sources claim it's difficult to tell between dementia and retardation. I'm not a doctor, and I don't even play one on TV, after all.

Oh well, either way you'll be far, far away from me and mine when you finally flip out and try to kill everyone in a McDonald's because "The Godess Told You To".

[Franko]

Loki,

Thanks for the answer. I'm glad to see that Logical Deism doesn't *immediately* demand I reject apparent scientific knowledge.

NOT AT ALL.

I certainly hope I never gave that impression.

Ultimately Logical Deism is all about Logical consistency.

[Franko]

Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist. I control his Fate ... He is just my sock-puppet obeying my commands ...

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist. I control his Fate ... He is just my sock-puppet obeying my commands ...

That's right. Red. Something sporty. Maybe a Dodge Viper. You can keep the rest of the million dollars.

[Franko]

Watch for yourself. He (EvilDave) is powerless to resist. I control his Fate ... He is just my sock-puppet obeying my commands ...

[evildave]

Better throw in some 'Spikes Spider' chains.

I predict Franko will repeat himself some more.

I predict Franko will spew some more "Prove A Negative!" crap somewhere soon.

Oh, and the sun will be shining tomorrow, too.

Not that he "can't help it". It's just he likes to behave like that. It gets his rocks off. Probably nothing else does, but how should I know.

Oh wait: I'll use the Franko method of PROOF! I'm right unless FRANKO proves he can get his rocks off some other way. But I doubt it. He doesn't even have sexual organs unless he PROVES he does. The burden of proof is the whole world's and not mine, using the amazing Franko method of "logic".

[Franko]

Evildavey ... hehehe ....

you are literally the poster-boy for predictablity!

... now what were you saying about your "free willy" magic powers?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
Evildavey ... hehehe ....

you are literally the poster-boy for predictablity!

... now what were you saying about your "free willy" magic powers?

Big talk from someone who believes he can walk through walls ('matter doesn't exist').

[Franko]

Evil Dave's scorecard:

Predictability: 11
Free Willy: 0

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Franko
Evil Dave's scorecard:

Predictability: 11
Free Willy: 0

Nah, just an odd free-will choice .... :D

ROTFL!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by evildave
Quick search... We may have a "hit" for your symptoms!
evildave,

That was interesting. What was your source, if I might ask?

Upchurch

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by evildave
Oh wait: I'll use the Franko method of PROOF! I'm right unless FRANKO proves he can get his rocks off some other way. But I doubt it. He doesn't even have sexual organs unless he PROVES he does. The burden of proof is the whole world's and not mine, using the amazing Franko method of "logic".
(How can I say this and make it not sound like bait, which isn't what I intend?)

Dave,

Turning Franko's logic back on him doesn't make any difference. Hell, nothing makes any difference for a man who chooses not to hear.

Let it go, man. Let it go.

Upchurch

[evildave]

Originally posted by Upchurch

evildave,

That was interesting. What was your source, if I might ask?

Upchurch

Darn! I forgot the link!

The article I grabbed that text from was
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/askklee/ada/understanding_dementia.htm

The thread of the search took me through several alzheimer's sites, but this one had the wording I wanted.

The initial symptom I searched for was "repeating yourself", associated with "mental illness", and it came around to 'dementia', which is one of the symptoms of ... anyway, it was some interesting reading.

Let it go, man. Let it go.

You're probably right about 'letting it go' of this twisted little weenie. Considering what I found digging up Franko's 'score' in Enough! I refuse to debate the mentally disturbed (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9503), I probably should just "drop it".

There's only so much you can teach someone who has all the capacities and charm of a parrot with tourette's syndrome.

Or to put it more "famously"...

Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
— Gregory Singleton, Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Corporate America

(I don't know whether he invented the line or not - but it's the closest thing to an attribution available.)

[Franko]

So Evildave what is the vidence for your "free willy God"?

Why don't A-Theists have to provide EVIDENCE for their God, but the A-Theists feel that all of the other Religions have to provide evidence for theirs?

Why the double standard Dave?

BTW ... UPCHUCK -- that is the problem with Double Standards ...

[Kullervo]

Originally posted by Franko
Loki,



NOT AT ALL.

I certainly hope I never gave that impression.

Ultimately Logical Deism is all about Logical consistency.

What does this actually mean? What is Logic in Logical Deism?

[Franko]

Whitefork,

Franko:
Ultimately Logical Deism is all about Logical consistency.

whitefork:
What does this actually mean? What is Logic in Logical Deism?

Logic literally means same in your head as in mine. All communication is Logical in some way. The Logical part of the communication is the part you understand inside your head (you comprehend), and the illogical part is the part that is gibberish, or doesn’t quite make sense, or is ambiguous, or just sounds plain wrong.

2 + 2 = 4

So long as you and I both have logically equivalent definitions of the terms 2, 4, +, and = then 2 + 2 is always going to equal 4 in Your head, Exactly the same way it will in mine. Generally we only think this is true with numbers, but as any computer programmer will tell you, you can do the exact same thing with words, you just need to define them concisely. It’s called a programming language – i.e. a formal system.

[Kullervo]

Ok, then what is the definition of validity within Logical Deism? We seem to be in disagreement about the meaning of that term. I use the definition from Irving Copi's Symbolic Logic:

A deductive argument is valid when its premisses and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also. (page 4)

This says nothing about the truth of the premisses and conclusion. Equivalent to this is the statement that a valid argument is one that cannot have true premisses and a false conclusion (from Kahane, Logic and Philosophy).

A valid argument may have one or more false premisses and a false conclusion, false premisses and a true conclusion, true premisses and a true conclusion, but not true premisses and a false conclusion.

You appeared to argue that validity requires true premisses and a true conclusion, and that those conditions were, in fact sufficient for validity (provided the terms used in the conclusion were in fact used in the premisses).

Please correct me if I've misstated your position here, but this is not the standard definition of validity.

I also believe that you regard this:

(P and not-P) implies Q

as an invalid argument, probably because it has a contradiction for a premise. Or do you consider it to be an argument at all?

We pretty much OK so far?

[Franko]

Whitefork,

First of all … I put more stake in what makes sense in my own head, then what someone claims makes sense in an inerrant book …

A deductive argument is valid when its premisses and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also. (page 4)

That sounds backwards to me … ? How can the premises not be True first?

This says nothing about the truth of the premisses and conclusion. Equivalent to this is the statement that a valid argument is one that cannot have true premisses and a false conclusion (from Kahane, Logic and Philosophy).

It’s a hierarchy. Your premises are options. Base premises have to be of the form:

X or NOT(X)

As in: Matter makes consciousness
Or NOT(Matter makes consciousness, i.e. Consciousness makes matter)

Then your conclusion which you draw from those premises MUST be built only with terms derived from those premises. In other words, you can’t add new terms into the conclusion that weren’t defined in the premises.

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

okay … what’s so little tricky here? The 2nd premise could just as easily be You OBEY Atoms, or the first premise could read Atoms MADE OF TLOP.

You appeared to argue that validity requires true premisses and a true conclusion, and that those conditions were, in fact sufficient for validity (provided the terms used in the conclusion were in fact used in the premisses).

If the TWO premises are TRUE, and the conclusion is derived solely from terms in the premises, then the Syllogism will be Valid.

I also believe that you regard this:

(P and not-P) implies Q

as an invalid argument, probably because it has a contradiction for a premise. Or do you consider it to be an argument at all?

I’m not sure what you are asking exactly?

Premise 1: P
Premise 2: Not(P)
Conclusion: Q

This isn’t a valid Syllogism, because you only have 1 premise. A premise is always an option in the form of P or NOT(P).

NOT(P) or P is the exact same statement (premise). … and you need 2 premises for a Syllogism.

[Kullervo]

You are correct, "(P and not-P) implies Q" is not a syllogism. It is an argument in what's known as Sentential Logic. (that WFF n Proof stuff).

We can rephrase it as:

P
not-P
Therefore Q

Same with:

If A then B
A
therefore B

is not a syllogism either, but something known as the Rule of
Detachment or Modus Ponens.

Syllogism deals with categorical propositions, which assert a relationship between classes.

Your statement: If the TWO premises are TRUE, and the conclusion is derived solely from terms in the premises, then the Syllogism will be Valid.

Here's a syllogism I gave before which appears to meet your criteria:

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

Is this a valid inference, and if not, why not?

Does Logical Deism recognize other argument forms than the syllogistic ones?

[Franko]

Whitefork,

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

Is this a valid inference, and if not, why not?

S sometimes M
M sometimes T
S sometimes, sometimes T

M subset of S
T subset of M
T subset of M subset of S

Are you accounting for Recursion?

Does Logical Deism recognize other argument forms than the syllogistic ones?

Sure … why not?

[Kullervo]

Why bring in recursion? But analyze it in both ways, recursion=yes, and recursion=no, and let me know.

Now, take

P
not-P
therefore Q

This would be invalid on your terms, because Q is not present within the premisses, but it is a valid argument according to the truth value of the components.

If P is true, then not-P is false, so the conjuntion of (P and not-P) is false (T&F) = F,
The truth function of implication (if - then) is defined such that

(If P then Q) is
True if P is true and Q is true
False if P is true and Q is false
True if P is false and Q is true
True if P is false and Q is false

Since the conjunction (P and not-P) is always false, the truth-value of Q is not relevant, and the argument has a value equal to True under all conditions, making it formally valid by my (Copi's) definition of validity.

Do you buy any of the above?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
So Evildave what is the vidence for your "free willy God"?

Why don't A-Theists have to provide EVIDENCE for their God, but the A-Theists feel that all of the other Religions have to provide evidence for theirs?

Why the double standard Dave?

BTW ... UPCHUCK -- that is the problem with Double Standards ...

'Free Willy' is a movie.

Want evidence? Go rent it at your local video store.

You're the only retard here who seems to think people who don't believe in gods believe in a god.

[Franko]

Whitefork,

Why bring in recursion? But analyze it in both ways, recursion=yes, and recursion=no, and let me know.

What do you mean – Why bring in recursion – Programmer? Ask Mandelbrot. Ask Godel.

Now, take

P
not-P
therefore Q

This would be invalid on your terms, because Q is not present within the premisses, but it is a valid argument according to the truth value of the components.

I already answered this! P and Not(P) are ONE premise, NOT two premises. You need 2 premises to form a syllogism, and a syllogism is the basis of a hierarchy.

If P is true, then not-P is false, so the conjuntion of (P and not-P) is false (T&F) = F,
The truth function of implication (if - then) is defined such that

(If P then Q) is
True if P is true and Q is true
False if P is true and Q is false
True if P is false and Q is true
True if P is false and Q is false

Since the conjunction (P and not-P) is always false, the truth-value of Q is not relevant, and the argument has a value equal to True under all conditions, making it formally valid by my (Copi's) definition of validity.

Do you buy any of the above?

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about or why I should care, but since you seem to have taken Loki’s Crown as A-Theist Prince of Diversion, I can take a pretty good guess at what your point is …

Here’s mine – What is your Evidence for your a-Theist “free willy God”? Why should I believe that you possess these magical “free will powers”?

If you do NOT possess “free will” wouldn’t that fact imply that there was a higher power (i.e. TLOP) ultimately controlling all of your actions cradle to grave? Wouldn’t a rational person have to conclude that this was Evidence of a “higher power” or “God”?

How do you justify your stance as an A-Theist, based on the utter lack of Evidence for “free will”? Can you even define that phrase in logically consistent terms?

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

E-D-B,

Other than trying to steal the thunder from Fool's nickname ... do you actually have any objective in posting here?

[Kullervo]

Back to the syllogism.

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

Is this a valid inference with recursion, and if not, why not?
Is this a valid inference without recursion, and if not, why not?

It has true premisses and a true conclusion. It must be valid under both, does it not?

So, valid, then...?

[Franko]

whitefork,

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about or why I should care, but since you seem to have taken Loki’s Crown as A-Theist Prince of Diversion, I can take a pretty good guess at what your point is …

Here’s mine – What is your Evidence for your a-Theist “free willy God”? Why should I believe that you possess these magical “free will powers”?

If you do NOT possess “free will” wouldn’t that fact imply that there was a higher power (i.e. TLOP) ultimately controlling all of your actions cradle to grave? Wouldn’t a rational person have to conclude that this was Evidence of a “higher power” or “God”?

How do you justify your stance as an A-Theist, based on the utter lack of Evidence for “free will”? Can you even define that phrase in logically consistent terms?

... or we can go back to you finding the hidden invisible flaw in 2 + 2 = 4?

[Kullervo]

I come to you as the Logical Deist, asking a logic question, and you won't answer.

I'll take that to mean that my syllogism is valid.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork
I come to you as the Logical Deist, asking a logic question, and you won't answer.

I'll take that to mean that my syllogism is valid.


Umm, and what will you do now you've made that assumption? Same shelf where you assume matter only exists, and makes consciousness?

Well argued! ;)

[Franko]

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

I am still waiting for you to prove that this syllogism is TRUE.

I am claiming that the exact same invisible flaw exists in this syllogism as the other.

Now the burden of proof falls upon YOU to prove that 2 + 2 really equals 4.



A-Theists! … a bunch of friggin …

:rolleyes:

[Kullervo]

Well, it's pretty clear the there is no logic in Logical Deism, since it can't determine whether a well-formed syllogism is valid or not.

So, Franko, your logic is reduced to three arguments that you've given.

2+2 = 4

You are made of atoms, etc.

TLOP controls you, etc.

Rules of inference - addition, composition, and control of.

Validity - true premises and a true conclusion.

There are 256 well-formed syllogisms. I can construct true premisses and conclusions for all of them. By your definitions all are valid.

This:

All US Presidents are native-born Americans.
Some native-born americans are Roman Catholic.
Therefore, some Roman Catholic was President.

True, true, and true. Therefore valid.

You have defined validity in terms of contingent truth. That means that you cannot know that an argument is valid unless you already know that the conclusion is true.

What's the point in arguing anything, then? All you are doing is making assertions.

Your definition of validity seems to eliminate the soundness of the reductio ad absurdem method, because in order to use it you must assume something to be false, and you are not permitted to do that under your defintion of validity.

So, anyone who's listening out there, can you show if either of the syllogisms I've given are valid of not? Franko cannot or will not do so.

In purely formal terms, without regard to the meaning of the terms, can validity be determined?

If not, and this is Franko's definition, then I will ask you to consider the validity of propositions in algebra, for example, that use unknown terms. Under the rules of Logical Deism, the validity of a proposition cannot be established on purely symbolic grounds. Statements such as

(x+y) squared = x squared + 2xy + y squared

must have an undetermined truth value because x and y are undefined.

If the expansion above is valid, then it is valid for all numbers.
If either of the above syllogisms is valid, then it is valid for all instances of the same form.

So, given that, what logic does logical deism use? I will hazard a guess that it's A-logic, since my logic is being defined as A-theistic.

But I predict that Franko will merely ask me to demonstrate that 2+2=4.

Anyone else want to play?

Mr. Hand? You haven't given me your opinion on validity yet. Costs nothing to enter. Operators are standing by. Out of state, call collect.

[Franko]

Well, it's pretty clear the there is no logic in Logical Deism, since it can't determine whether a well-formed syllogism is valid or not.

Congradulations whitefork, I always thought GOD = FALSE was axiomatic. I am surprised you even wasted any time thinking about Logical Deism before declaring it False.

Good luck on that whole meaningless existence thing.

let me know if you ever want to prove that you have "free will" or why you believe your Car is more conscious then You?

[Kullervo]

Ah Franko, you really aren't going to discuss logic, are you? A pity too, because the topic of this thread speaks of logic.

What is logic, Franko? What is logical truth? What is truth?

Can you bestir yourself for the brief moment it would take you to type "yes" or "no" to my questions about the validity of my syllogisms?

I have time, and more examples to trot out if needed.

Please choose and discuss one example of a formal logical fallacy. Anyone you like.

Show how, under logical Deism, an argument can be formally invalid. I do not believe you can.

Friends, Let me see a sea of hands out there for Brother Franko.
Please come forward and support him in his quest for the truth. Anyone can play.

[Franko]

Ah Franko, you really aren't going to discuss logic, are you? A pity too, because the topic of this thread speaks of logic.

What is logic, Franko? What is logical truth? What is truth?

You tell me “free willy” boy? Doesn’t your religion claim to have a lock on the Truth?

Why is your CAR more conscious then YOU? Is that “Logical” according to A-Theist?

Why do you believe in "free willy" with no evidence? Why don't you have to prove the existence of YOUR God? Is that "Logical"?

[Kullervo]

I don't believe in free will. I don't have a car. My religion requires me to question everything according to the standards of clear reasoning.

You are not helping things. You are not reasoning clearly, because if you were, you would be able to tell me if my two syllogisms are valid or not.

So, now, I answered a couple of your questions. Please answer one of mine.

Pick one of the syllogisms. Is it valid or invalid, and why?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork

Mr. Hand? You haven't given me your opinion on validity yet. Costs nothing to enter. Operators are standing by. Out of state, call collect.
LOL. If you would actually like to start a thread discussing syllogisms, I suggest Science.

Here, we are discussing premises as I see it. When premises are undefined, all the truth tables in the world won't provide an answer. :rolleyes:

[Franko]

I don't believe in free will. I don't have a car. My religion requires me to question everything according to the standards of clear reasoning.

1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

Whos' more conscious in #1?

How about #2?

Explain your answers according to the "A-Theist" standard of "clear reasoning"?

(I hope A-Theist "clear reasoning" is clearer than A-Theist "Logic")

Hey whitefork ... is NO EVIDENCE the same as FALSE, or does NO EVIDENCE mean UNKNOWN?

Is that why you call "logic" Sillygism-Boy?

[Franko]

whiteyfork …

… I realize that you A-Theists don’t like answering any questions about the magical mysteries of your whacky little mystical “One True Faith” – what with all the “magical invisible” flaws everywhere that only A-theists with “magical powers” can perceive – and all that …

… But why do you call yourself A-theist, if you believe your CAR is God?

Does the Superior consciousness of your CAR-GOD not count as a “God”?

All these contradictions and double standards in your crazy NON-Religion, are making it seem more and more … ?

… just like any other Religion!! – full of crazy dogma, logical contradictions, logically fallacious reasoning, and loads of double standards.

[The Fool]

Dance little Franko..... Don't stop yet.

[Franko]

Dance little Franko..... Don't stop yet.

More Evidence for the allusive "free willy"???

YOU be the Judge! ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko


More Evidence for the allusive "free willy"???

YOU be the Judge! ;)

Sorry Franko, If I have no free will, your goddess must be forcing me to call you an idiot. Its my destiny.... Perverse little wench isn't she.....

[Franko]

Fool,

Sorry Franko, If I have no free will, your goddess must be forcing me to call you an idiot.

She is using your own intrinsic nature making you reveal yourself at an accelerated rate in Time.

Its my destiny....

Exactly.

But that won’t negate Karma for you … insect …

Perverse little wench isn't she.....

(hehehe!!! … if only you knew! …hehe …) Your blasphemy has been noted! …

[The Fool]

Atoms are not good at inventing gods
Franko is made of atoms
Franko is not good at inventing gods

QED

[Kullervo]

Hey Franko, I told you I wasn't an A-theist and I don't believe in free will.

You calling me a LIAR?

Mr. Hand, if a discussion of syllogisms is not appropriate for a Philosophy board, you have a strange idea of Philosophy. Almost as strange as Mr. Franko-Marsyas asking for a mathematical demonstration of 2+2=4 on a R&P forum.

Oh, by the way:

Given three primitive terms, 0, successor of, and number.
Five postulates:

0 is a number
The successor of any number is a number
No two numbers have the same successor
0 is not the successor of any number
Any property which belongs to 0, and also to the successor of every number that has the property, belongs to all numbers.

Define: 1 is the successor of 0
2 is the successor of 1
3 is the successor of 2
4 is the successor of 3

For any number m, m + 0 = m. M + 1 is the successor of m.

Therefore, 3 + 1 = 4 - applying substitution of equals a few times
2 + 1 = 3
(2 + 1) + 1 = 4
((1+1) + 1) + 1 = 4
((1 + 1) + (1 + 1)) = 4
2 + 2 = 4

OK?

Now, Franko-Marsyas, about my syllogisms?

So simple. But not for the A-logical Deist. (or is that Logical A-Deist, I forget)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork


Mr. Hand, if a discussion of syllogisms is not appropriate for a Philosophy board, you have a strange idea of Philosophy. Almost as strange as Mr. Franko-Marsyas asking for a mathematical demonstration of 2+2=4 on a R&P forum.

Oh, by the way:

Given three primitive terms, 0, successor of, and number.
Five postulates:

0 is a number
The successor of any number is a number
No two numbers have the same successor
0 is not the successor of any number
Any property which belongs to 0, and also to the successor of every number that has the property, belongs to all numbers.

Define: 1 is the successor of 0
2 is the successor of 1
3 is the successor of 2
4 is the successor of 3

For any number m, m + 0 = m. M + 1 is the successor of m.

Therefore, 3 + 1 = 4 - applying substitution of equals a few times
2 + 1 = 3
(2 + 1) + 1 = 4
((1+1) + 1) + 1 = 4
((1 + 1) + (1 + 1)) = 4
2 + 2 = 4

OK?


I bow to a mathematician. Now, would you care to try working with linguistics, say definitions?

What is the name & definition of the belief system you use that concludes you are not an atheist, but don't have freeeee willlll. :)

Wouldn't philosophy be a discussion of "meta-math"? Or, maybe math is your religion?

[LW]

[i]Originally posted by whitefork [/i
]So, anyone who's listening out there, can you show if either of the syllogisms I've given are valid of not? Franko cannot or will not do so.

I suppose you are speaking about the US president and Saudi terrorist ones. OK, here comes. Though, as I'm not particularly fond of syllogisms, I'm going to translate them into predicate calculus.


All US Presidents are native-born Americans.
Some native-born americans are Roman Catholic.
Therefore, some Roman Catholic was President.

Predicates:

- P(x) -- x is a president of United States
- N(x) -- x is a native-born american
- C(x) -- x is a Catholic

Premises:

P1. for all x (P(x) -> N(x)).
P2. exists x (N(x) & C(x)).

Consequence:

C1. exists x (R(x) & P(x)).

Now, the argument is valid if for all structures that satisfy both P1 and P2, C1 also holds.

Consider the structure where the universe U = { a, b } and the interpretation of the predicates are:

P = { b }
N = { a, b }
C = { a }

Informally, in this universe there are only two native born americans, A and B where A is a Catholic and B is the president.

Then, P1 holds since N(b) is true and P(a) is false, and P2 holds since N(a) and C(a) are both true. However, C1 is false as P(a) and C(b) are both false.

So, we have here a structure that is a counter example for the claim so the syllogism cannot be valid.

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

Predicates:

- S(x) -- x is a Saudi
- M(x) -- x is a Muslim
- T(x) -- x is a terrorist

Premises:

P1. exists x (S(x) & M(x))
P2. exists x (M(x) & T(x))

Conclusion:

C1. exists x (S(x) & T(X))

Counterexample:

Universe U = { a, b }

Predicate interpretations:

- S = { a }
- M = { a, b }
- T = { b }

Now, P1 is true since S(a) and M(a) are true, P2 is true since M(b) and T(b) is true, but C1 is not true as both T(a) and S(b) are false. So, this syllogism is also invalid.

[CWL]

Originally posted by hammegk

LOL. If you would actually like to start a thread discussing syllogisms, I suggest Science.

Here, we are discussing premises as I see it. When premises are undefined, all the truth tables in the world won't provide an answer. :rolleyes:

Thank you Hammegk, my point exactly (and all along).

This leads me to ask Franko again:

What exactly do you believe that your syllogism proves?

In which way does it provide the "Ultimate Truth"?

Above all - how does it lead you to the conclusion that the Universe is the work of one Graviton wielding Goddess?

[Kullervo]

Good LW, you have found the secret invisible flaw in my two syllogisms.

Now, I was actually asking the meta-question, if you will, as to the nature of validity.

Given this definition of validity from Franko,

If a syllogism has true premisses and true conclusion, and the terms in the conclusion appear in the premisses, it is valid.

then my syllogism must be valid under the terms of Logical Deism, but are not valid under you Logic. That's because you are using a logical formalism under which validity does not depend on semantic content. Franko cannot allow this formalism to infect his Logical Deism.

If one argument of form X is shown to be invalid, then all arguments of form X are invalid.

But if validity is a function of semantic content, then logical formalism has no place in logic, since content by definition beats form.

Thus I conclude that the Logic of Logical Deism is not the logic that we know from syllogism, predicate calculus, or propositional calculus.

Leaving us with the question, what are the valid rules for inference and well-formedness within Logic Deism.

An valid argument is not then something where the (hypothetical) truth of the premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion, but a sequence of true assertions.

In short, an valid argument under Logical Deism may not have false premisses.

So, one has effectively eliminated validity from logic.

What then remains, but to dispute the truth of assertions? Argument as we know it is impossible.

So, LW, do you still believe I've constucted a formal fallacy? Given that formal fallacies are in principle impossible?

(just kidding - I know you do)

[Kullervo]

Originally posted by hammegk
What is the name & definition of the belief system you use that concludes you are not an atheist, but don't have freeeee willlll. :) Wouldn't philosophy be a discussion of "meta-math"? Or, maybe math is your religion?

How about Calvinism? That will do nicely.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork


How about Calvinism? That will do nicely.

Sounds good to me; I've considered learning something about Calvinism.

Which postulates & logic can you provide so I can decide if I actually am a Calvinist?

[Kullervo]

You don't need to prove anything to me, sir. What you believe is sufficient unto itself.

The peace of god which passeth all understanding....

I'm sorry, I misread your post.

Do what's right.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by whitefork
You don't need to prove anything to me, sir. What you believe is sufficient unto itself.

The peace of god which passeth all understanding....

I'm sorry, I misread your post.

Do what's right.

Oh, wow. That was sure axioms & logic. :(

[Kullervo]

Don't let me grind you down.

There are these things called churches, and they can assist you in your quest.

[Franko]

There are these things called churches, and they can assist you in your quest.

Thank the Goddess Mr. Hand! I think this nitwit is trying to tell us we don’t have to talk to him anymore.

2 + 2 = 4 is safe for another day!!!

[Kullervo]

See above for demonstation that 2+2=4.

Now, about my syllogisms....

[Franko]

I could care less sbout your whacky views on syllogisms.

But I am curious as to why you believe that your CAR is God??

[Kullervo]

Let's see. I told you that I have no car.

You've told me that I believe my car is god.

You must be an A-theist.

Back to the abyss with you, Marsyas.

[Franko]

I told you that I have no car.

So that explains you’re A-Theism?

[CWL]

Originally posted by CWL

What exactly do you believe that your syllogism proves?

In which way does it provide the "Ultimate Truth"?

Above all - how does it lead you to the conclusion that the Universe is the work of one Graviton wielding Goddess?

Can these questions actually be answered (or are they to "wacky" for you Franko)?

[Franko]

CWL,

What exactly do you believe that your syllogism proves?

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You OBEY the Laws of Physics.

It proves that YOU obey TLOP.

… that is, unless you have Evidence which refutes it?

In which way does it provide the "Ultimate Truth"?

There is no “free will”.

TLOP control YOU.
YOU control a CAR.

You claim there is NO EVIDENCE for God. I say, what is Your standard of evidence? How can you claim that you are more conscious then your CAR, and at the same time also claim to be more conscious then TLOP? Explain the contradiction?

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

I lack-o-belief in your claim that there is NO evidence for GOD. Either you are deceiving yourself, or you are attempting to deceive Me.

Above all - how does it lead you to the conclusion that the Universe is the work of one Graviton wielding Goddess?

In reality there is only one type of particle in the system. Everything in the system is generated by those particles. Everything you see in the world around you is simply an elaboration of the simpler true reality by Gravitons.

[CWL]

Franko,

"I obey the laws of physics" is synonymous with "I am restricted to what is possible" or "there is a certain nature of things".

I do not refute this. This is obvious to me. A no issue.

If you believe that it contains any further information of value (i.e. the "Ultimate Truth"), again I ask:

In which way does the statement "I obey the laws of physics" provide the "Ultimate Truth"?

Above all - how does the statement lead you to the conclusion that the Universe is the work of one Graviton wielding Goddess?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL
Franko,

"I obey the laws of physics" is synonymous with "I am restricted to what is possible" or "there is a certain nature of things".


Who (or what) is this "I" being restricted? If it's just part & parcel of the "matter=energy" of materialism, why is it not just a puppet on strings?

Graviton is an interesting, simile, shall we say?

My understanding may not be correct, but I think it would be the only basic "force" that is always attractive. The other forces want to "come together", no, not you, "get away". Not much comradeship there is there?

[Kullervo]

And this one, with the demonstration promised elsewhere:

Given three primitive terms, 0, successor of, and number.
Five postulates:

0 is a number
The successor of any number is a number
No two numbers have the same successor
0 is not the successor of any number
Any property which belongs to 0, and also to the successor of every number that has the property, belongs to all numbers.

Define: 1 is the successor of 0
2 is the successor of 1
3 is the successor of 2
4 is the successor of 3

For any number m, m + 0 = m. M + 1 is the successor of m.

Therefore, 3 + 1 = 4 - applying substitution of equals a few times
2 + 1 = 3
(2 + 1) + 1 = 4
((1+1) + 1) + 1 = 4
((1 + 1) + (1 + 1)) = 4
2 + 2 = 4

OK?

[Edwin]

Originally posted by whitefork

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

OK?

You haven't defined '+', only '+1', which is rather more restrictive. Or is that arithmetic intended as a definition by example of bracketing and '+'?

[Kullervo]

I didn't say it was a good proof. There are a number of omissions. For a real expansion in exhaustive detail, refer to Russell and Whitehead (the real one), Principia Mathematica. On second thought, don't. :) Or do. Or go do something else entirely (your free will :))

good catches.

The point of this little exercise comes from the claim that if you reject the Paralogism of Logical Deism (you are made of atoms, etc), then you are denying that 2+2=4, because that sum is an instance of composition and not a fallacy of composition.

My point is that one can prove that 2+2=4 without resorting to any logical fallacies.

One of my favorite parts of this thread is the first post on this page.