Logical? Deism.

[Checkmite]

The Progenitor Solipsist simply appeared. Nature abhors a vacuum. Autogenitor Solipsist would be a more accurate nomenclature but Progenitor it shall be.

Simply appeared? As if by magic?

 

[Franko]

Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

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

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

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

 

[Checkmite]

Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

I got one:

"What is your evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist?"

 

[Franko]

"What is your evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist?"

My evidence for the Progenitor Solipsist is that the person reading this isn't certain that Solipsism is necessarily False. You can't prove that it's False.

That's because Solipsism is True, and you're the Progenitor Solipsist.

 

[Checkmite]

So since you have no evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist, your origin theory is flawed, just like my origin theory of the non-interfering God, and just like the atheists' theory of a universe that popped out of nowhere. All of us are pretty sure we are right; none of us can prove it beyond a doubt.

Of course, the only difference between your theology and mine, Franko, is that you've got gravitons and the Goddess between your Creator and the Universe, whereas my Creator/Universe link is somewhat more direct.

 

[wraith]

No, its in your selective view: You agree the syllogism is faulty due to fallacy of composition when applied to water, but you claim the fault is invisible when the same syllogism is applied to humans. In both cases, the problem is: The composite has different properties than its components.

did you actually read the whole post on this issue?

The water "syllogism" doesnt flow.
Information is neglected.
Premise one doesnt "connect" onto premise 2.

No, the moon has no free will, we do.

Listen Hans, just because you say so, doesnt mean that you make it true.

-Or, to be precise, the moon is irrelevant to the discussion of free will for humans (rather obvious, it would seem )

In other words, you cant handle the truth

Well, somebody mentioned it. How does that vindicate your syllogism? I would say that it invalidated it. How do you explain that the matter-creating consciousness is bound by the laws of PHYSICS? Does coneciousness (the immaterial kind that you seem to believe in) obey tlop??

Atoms obey TLOP

Anyhow, do you have any evidence that consciousness creates matter?

TLOP is more conscious than me

 

[MRC_Hans]

did you actually read the whole post on this issue?

The water "syllogism" doesnt flow.
Information is neglected.
Premise one doesnt "connect" onto premise 2.

Just what the heck are you talking about?
Premise 1: A statement about properties of the components.
Premise 2: A statement about the composition of the whole.
Conclusion: A conclusion about properties of the whole.

You are RIGHT: This syllogism is FLAWED. It is flawed no matter where you use it. Which is what I point out.


Listen Hans, just because you say so, doesnt mean that you make it true.

Erh, no. Does YOUR saying the opposite make THAT true?

Atoms obey TLOP

Is consciousness made of atoms?

TLOP is more conscious than me

If you say so, then who am I to contradict you?

Hans

 

[Franko's Goddess]

Simply appeared? As if by magic?

"As if" is a good way to word things, but "as if" means "as if not" as well.

Logic.

After all, you can read in the Nothing thread that it's impossible for nothing to exist because then it would be something.

Since nothing cannot exist, there has to be something, and that is the Progenitor Solipsist.

It is really very simple and necessary.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Whoops! Almost replied to that one, hehehe
Thank Goddess for the search feature ....

 

[Checkmite]

Whoops! Almost replied to that one, hehehe
Thank Goddess for the search feature ....

Yes, She really is very cute isn't she...

Where's Franko? I'd like to hear his take on my question.

 

[wraith]

Just what the heck are you talking about?
Premise 1: A statement about properties of the components.
Premise 2: A statement about the composition of the whole.
Conclusion: A conclusion about properties of the whole.

You are RIGHT: This syllogism is FLAWED. It is flawed no matter where you use it. Which is what I point out.

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

where is this invisible flaw that you babble on about!?!!??!
Do you obey TLOP?
Are you not made of atoms?

Erh, no. Does YOUR saying the opposite make THAT true?

When you can back it up with some logic...yes, it does

Is consciousness made of atoms?

Im not a materialist

If you say so, then who am I to contradict you?

Dont take my word for it

 

[Tricky]

Yes, She really is very cute isn't she...

Where's Franko? I'd like to hear his take on my question.

I just hope he remembered to bring theGoddess her Lucky Strikes this time. Otherwise, he's gonna be in a really bad mood.

I want to hear his take on my question too:

Do GRAVITONS obey the laws of physics?

Not holding my breath, though.

 

[Franko]

Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

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

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

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

 

[Tricky]

Joshie, feel free to help the old Man ...

I think I can manage without Josh's help. I eat Logical Deists for breakfast.

 

[Franko]

Tricky A-Theist:

I think I can manage without Josh's help. I eat Logical Deists for breakfast.

Which explains why after dedicating over 30 years of your existence to the Religion of A-Theism you still can't provide a single scrap of evidence for any of the whacky things you believe.

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

Eat this.

 

[Franko]

Joshie K. (A-Theist toadie):
So since you have no evidence for the existence of the Progenitor Solipsist, your origin theory is flawed, just like my origin theory of the non-interfering God, and just like the atheists' theory of a universe that popped out of nowhere. All of us are pretty sure we are right; none of us can prove it beyond a doubt.

Figment of your imagination:
My evidence for the Progenitor Solipsist is that the person reading this isn't certain that Solipsism is necessarily False. You can't prove that it's False.

That's because Solipsism is True, and you're the Progenitor Solipsist.

You are the only entity to exist, don’t ask a figment of your imagination where you came from, how would "I" know?

 

[Franko]

Aarvart:

Please point to where I have said that no evidence for God means no God.

1) Theism/Deism – GOD EXIST.
2) A-Theism – NO GOD EXIST.
3) Agnosticism – GOD = UNKNOWN (Not Enough Information).

You call yourself an ATHEIST – don’t you Aardvart? If you want to be an Agnostic, all you have to do is start calling yourself one.

There. Now that shouldn't prove too difficult.

That remains to be seen.

But if you want to be an Agnostic, all you have to do is start calling yourself one.

By the way, a lack of belief in God is not the same as a belief that there is no God. Do you understand that?

1) Theism/Deism – GOD EXIST. (GOD = TRUE)
2) A-Theism – NO GOD EXIST. (GOD = FALSE)
3) Agnosticism – Not Enough Information (GOD = UNKNOWN)

The question is do you understand Aardvart?

And if you think that atheism means a belief that there is no God (and I admit that different dictionaries have different definitions), then I am not an atheist but an agnostic.

Every Dictionary I have ever read on the subject is very clear. An A-Theist is a person who believes that there is NO GOD. That is the same as claiming that GOD = FALSE.

When I ask someone what they think A-Theism means, they always tell me the same thing.

As for the straw man thingie: I did point out your straw man in your discussion with Dr. X, but you claimed that it wasn't a straw man. I could point it out to you again, but for some obscure reason I don't think it will make any difference.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bang my head against a wall.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

Every Dictionary I have ever read on the subject is very clear. An A-Theist is a person who believes that there is NO GOD. That is the same as claiming that GOD = FALSE.

Fair enough. I was under the impression that atheism (which is the way it is spelled, Franko) could also be defined as "a lack of belief in any gods". It seems I'm wrong - I certainly can't find any dictionary that defines it that way.

So, I'm an agnostic when it comes to god or gods (meaning I see no evidence for any god or gods existence, and therefore I don't believe in, or lack belief in, any god or gods), but I'm an atheist when it comes to the specific definition of the Christian God (because I believe the existence of that particular God can be disproven). How's that?

---

As for your straw man (well, one of many)... [Oh no, do we really have to? - Ed.] Yes, we do. Here goes:

Doctor X said (and I quote): "Briefly [Is that possible?--Ed.], I find it a rather a "cop out" also. The child suffers severely . . . severly . . . real bad. One cannot justify such with the hope that, somehow, it all works out. I would judge this, even if it all "works out," a very bad plan."

To which you, Franko (notice that I don't resort to name-calling [well, not this time anyway]), replied (and I quote): "So you are saying that any child who suffers with a handicap would have been better off having never been born?"

THAT is a straw man, Franko, because you're claiming (even if you're phrasing it as a question) that Doctor X said something that he quite obviously didn't.

Bring on the name-calling and personal attacks.

 

[Franko's Goddess]

I just hope he remembered to bring theGoddess her Lucky Strikes this time. Otherwise, he's gonna be in a really bad mood.

And what about my needs? No Luckies, no fluckies, no love poetry....? Boys, it's not easy being the Logical Goddess.

 

[MRC_Hans]

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Ardwark: Disbelieves or denies ..

So one dictionary definition does cover or overlap the agnostic view.

Franko:

But if you want to be an Agnostic, all you have to do is start calling yourself one.

How does that compute? That hasnt stopped YOU calling people atheists (A-Theists) in the past. Is this a new policy?

Or are you claiming that our belief system changes if we call it something else?

Hans (agnostic)