Franko Memorial thread!

[MRC_Hans]

What are you trying to get at here?

If you are ever to find out what hammegk is getting at, it will be a sensational first

Sorry, this should be in the flame section.

Hans

 

[Upchurch]

Dualist? Nah: "If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical".

This line has me stimied. Are you asking if I'm a dualist or are you claiming that there is no partical/wave duality?

 

[CWL]

Hey! It's kind of hard to hold a memorial service, if the ' memorial-ee' wont stay away..

Well, in such case he should make up his mind.

 

[hammegk]

...
As it originally did to the Greeks, but the thing that eventually inhereted the name "atom" turned out not to be the "atom" the greeks conceptualized (i.e. that which could not be broken down any further). But, by the time we realized that atoms (i.e. combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons) could be broken down further, the name had passed on into common usage. It's a good example of the evolution of word usage, I'd say.

Actually that's why I wrote A-tom rather than atom.

sigh. Let me say it again. Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Two forms of the same thing. You can refer to matter in terms of energy and you can refer to energy in terms of mass.

Yup, but is one form supervenient to the other? I suggest energy is the root cause, with "matter" as we perceive it being illusory.

This line has me stimied. Are you asking if I'm a dualist or are you claiming that there is no partical/wave duality?

By the definition of "physical" I've mentioned, both wave and particle are "physical". Or are you suggesting mind/body duality is expressed by "waves" & "particles"?

But yes I'm stating duality (mind/body interaction) is not logical.

Incidently, what point are you trying to prove? In this quote,
You seem to be implying that finding the indivisible atom is impossible, but in this quote,
you imply that atoms must be indivisible.

What are you trying to get at here?

What I'm getting to is that "matter" per se is a nonsensical idea.

The more science examines it, the less of it there is -- all that ever remains is (indescribable) "energy".

 

[Upchurch]

Yup, but is one form supervenient to the other? I suggest energy is the root cause, with "matter" as we perceive it being illusory.

[snip]

What I'm getting to is that "matter" per se is a nonsensical idea.

The more science examines it, the less of it there is -- all that ever remains is (indescribable) "energy".

I suppose that might be one way to interpret it, but I see no reason to think that matter is nonsensical or that energy is indescribable. (Especially the latter since it's been described in numerous fashions already)

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.

By the definition of "physical" I've mentioned, both wave and particle are "physical". Or are you suggesting mind/body duality is expressed by "waves" & "particles"?

Well, I agree that waves and particles are both physical and that mind and body cannot be described as wave and particle duality. So.... I guess I agree with you

But yes I'm stating duality (mind/body interaction) is not logical.

I haven't really pursued that line of thought, but I'd be interested in hearing your rational for that statement.

 

[c4ts]

Wraith:

A Buddhist says Buddhism came from the teachings of the Buddha.
A Jew will tell you Juddaism comes from the authors of the Torah.
A Muslim will tell you Islam comes from Mohammed and the Koran.
A Christian will tell you Christianity comes from Jesus's teachings in the Bible.
A Scientologist will tell you Scientology comes from L. Ron Hubbard.

And so on.

The thing is, "Wraith," I don't believe Logical Deism is an organized religion at all. I think it's a bunch of crazy crap you made up, that it doesn't hold a candle to a real religion at all. The fact of the matter is, I've looked all over the web, and the only "Logical Deist" I found on the internet so far was you posting on Deism.org under the name "Serpent." And, by the way, even regular Deism acknowledges its source as Thomas Paine, and his book "Age of Reason." You say you are not the founder of Logical Deism, but a member, as if it were an organized religion. You say it has members. You say they are all over the web, that it is gaining popularity, and I intend to test that.
I will ask you again:
WHERE DID LOGICAL DEISM COME FROM?

Here is your chance to prove me wrong. It's a very simple task:
Post the url of 1 Logical Deist website.
I only need a specifically LD website, or a website about religions that contains information about Logical Deism specifically. The reason I am asking that it contain information is so I can check to see if it has anything to do with what you've been posting all over these boards.
But there's a catch. I have already run an internet search for Logical Deism and recorded the results. If you post a website, I will try the search again and expect to see the same results.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, why?

 

[Tricky]

Hey, C4ts! Wait your turn, dammit!

Okay, Wraith, I'll make it easy for you. Find me one legitimate science book that defines gravitons the way you do (including souls, memes, time etc.) I only require one. If you can, then I will concede that your "science" has some basis. Until then, you must admit that my version of "science" is superior to yours.

 

[c4ts]

Hey, C4ts! Wait your turn, dammit!

Sorry, I didn't see that. I just noticed that he didn't answer my question in the first place. Well, let's all hit Franko up for evidence that his religion is organized like he says it is at once until he answers one way or another. We could keep a calendar for how long it has been since we've asked our questions, like Randi did with Sylvia Browne.

 

[Tricky]

Sorry, I didn't see that. I just noticed that he didn't answer my question in the first place. Well, let's all hit Franko up for evidence that his religion is organized like he says it is at once until he answers one way or another. We could keep a calendar for how long it has been since we've asked our questions, like Randi did with Sylvia Browne.

Don't sweat it, Catmandieux. Anyone waiting for a straight, logical or reasoned answer from Wraith will have to wait a long time.

 

[c4ts]

Don't sweat it, Catmandieux. Anyone waiting for a straight, logical or reasoned answer from Wraith will have to wait a long time.

Fortunately, I'm not asking for any of that, as I've found him incapable since I first tried to reason with him. I'm just asking for a frikkin' URL! No logic necessary, just copy and paste. And he does seem to have a certain amount of skill in that.

 

[Tricky]

Fortunately, I'm not asking for any of that, as I've found him incapable since I first tried to reason with him. I'm just asking for a frikkin' URL! No logic necessary, just copy and paste. And he does seem to have a certain amount of skill in that.

Actually, I've rarely seen Fraith post any links, other than http://www.infidels.org. I think you may be overestimating his skills.

 

[c4ts]

Actually, I've rarely seen Fraith post any links, other than http://www.infidels.org. I think you may be overestimating his skills.

I've seen "YOU are made of ATOMS. ATOMS obey TLOP!" so often on this board that it seems unlikely he would type it out every single time. That and his rejection of quantum physics simultaneous with his acceptance of the graviton, as the graviton is a theoretical quantum particle, indicates he's not even reading what he's writing, just going back to find the next of his old posts to copy and paste.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
What I'm getting to is that "matter" per se is a nonsensical idea.

The more science examines it, the less of it there is -- all that ever remains is (indescribable) "energy".

Call it matter, call it a form of energy; it's the kind of stuff that if it hits you on the head, it hurts. What is the point of discussing whether we should call it one or the other, when the two forms evidently act very differently?

Hans

 

[CWL]

Hey, C4ts! Wait your turn, dammit!

Whoa there guys! Why can't it be my turn? I would simply like to know - from the poster currently known as "wraith" - where he personally first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess".

Help me out here people. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to answer this one.

 

[hammegk]

I suppose that might be one way to interpret it, but I see no reason to think that matter is nonsensical or that energy is indescribable. (Especially the latter since it's been described in numerous fashions already)

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.

Things that are indescribable as well as unfathomable do, that's so. What "description" of energy do you feel is useful in understanding what it is?

"Life"is also interesting to contemplate: it seems to me it is more akin to "energy" than "matter".

I haven't really pursued that line of thought, but I'd be interested in hearing your rational for that statement.

Just answer the question "How could the non-physical effect or affect the physical?".

 

[c4ts]

Whoa there guys! Why can't it be my turn? I would simply like to know - from the poster currently known as "wraith" - where he personally first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess".

Help me out here people. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to answer this one.

I've got an idea: let's all send private messages with our questions to his Wraith and Franko accounts, too!

 

[wraith]

So, you've read a some popularized science books and came up with an alternative theory of gravity and rejected quantum theory? Is that the gist of it?

All the current theories of gravity stem from a "matter creates consciousness" view point. Im interested in what the theory of gravity would look like if you view it from a "consciousness creates matter" point of view.

I believe there are more assumptions than this (e.g. the special nature of gravity, determinism, etc.), but it's a good start, I suppose, as long as you realize that they are assumptions and the truth-value of LD is based on the truth-value of those assumptions.

Assumptions?

Do you see the "operations" of consciousness (eg the "choices" that you make) as being random or deterministic or neither or both?

Do you or dont you obey TLOP?

Quantum pheomena, for one. Relativistic phenomena, for another.

Can you account for these?

Sorry
I still dont get you.

 

[c4ts]

Now that you're back

ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS!

POST THE URL OF 1 LOGICAL DEIST WEBSITE!

 

[wraith]

Then would you mind demonstrating the fallacious arguments, oh master of logic? I am truly curious to see how well you have learned this 'logic' stuff.

You know aswell as I do about your little question begging and double standards.

Feel free to restate any of your arguments that are pro materialism to show the contrary.

If you can point out where I took that position, then perhaps I'll address it, scarecrow.

But see if you can tell the difference in these two positions.
1) The universe appeared out of the void.
2) God made the universe appear out of the void.

(Hint: It starts with "G")

All that you have shown is that you dont like the idea of a God/s.

Okay, Wraith, I'll make it easy for you. Find me one legitimate science book that defines gravitons the way you do (including souls, memes, time etc.) I only require one. If you can, then I will concede that your "science" has some basis. Until then, you must admit that my version of "science" is superior to yours.

HAHAHA
SO what are you saying Trix?
Anything published is True by default?
When I see a book that comes from a "consciousness creates matter" view point, Ill let you know.

If your current understanding of science and consciousness makes you feel as if you have a solid grip on everything then so be it.

No, I do not say. I have shown you evidence for matter creating consciousness, but not the reverse. I'm still waiting on your evidence.

You have shown nothing.
Have the balls to prove me wrong?

 

[wraith]

Is this an unfamiliar pattern to you?

I don't know which is the more interesting question - why people whose education appears to be drawn entirely from books by Herbert S. Zim want to debate physics, or why people with actual knowledge in the subject like yourself waste your time on them.

The real world is so much clearer. When an amateur boxer steps in the ring with a heavyweight, the winner is obvious even to the loser. The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

Do you want to box?

I bet that Ill kick your ar5e