Logical? Deism.

[Checkmite]

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

So what you're saying is, that which cannot be proven necessarily False is then necessarily True?

 

[Tricky]

So what you're saying is, that which cannot be proven necessarily False is then necessarily True?

That is exactly what he is saying. He has said it a number of times, like in this post

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.

This line of reasoning is not atypical for the Progenitor Logical Deist.

 

[Checkmite]

That is exactly what he is saying. He has said it a number of times, like in this post

Think of how wonderful the world would be if everyone adopted such reasoning...

 

[Aardvark_DK]

Aardvark: Disbelieves or denies. So one dictionary definition does cover or overlap the agnostic view.

Ah! Disbelieves. Hey, that's me!

Oh dear, now Franko is going to say that I claim that there is no god.

 

[CWL]

Ah! Disbelieves. Hey, that's me!

Oh dear, now Franko is going to say that I claim that there is no god.

"Disbelieves" - that's me too.

I believe Franko will ask us something more along the lines of:

"What is your evidence for your outrageous claim of NO-GOD, A-Theists?"

.... and in the very next breath he will ask:

"What is your evidence for your Free-Willy God?"

Can anyone besides myself spot the non sequitur in those two questions combined? Not that contradictory beliefs has ever stopped the Sage from Baltimore...

I am beginning to believe that Franko is trying to prove his theories on determinism and foreseeability by acting like a completely predictable robot himself.

 

[whitefork]

The ultimate argument for the truth of a belief may well be whether that belief can be the basis for a way of life. If it can be lived, then it is on a very fundamental level, true.

If it ends up killing you, well, you were going to die anyway. We may ask how many others you took out with you when you went, and how much suffering happened along the way, but those are just minor details if you are in possession of the truth.

How much stock are we to place in the anonymous speech of someone on an internet forum, as against the visible and public actions of someone out in the real world? We can infer what someone believe by their actions. We cannot infer how someone will act based on what they claim to believe.

Talk is cheap. Sometimes it has no value at all. (he said).

 

[wraith]

"Disbelieves" - that's me too.

I believe Franko will ask us something more along the lines of:

"What is your evidence for your outrageous claim of NO-GOD, A-Theists?"

.... and in the very next breath he will ask:

"What is your evidence for your Free-Willy God?"

Can anyone besides myself spot the non sequitur in those two questions combined? Not that contradictory beliefs has ever stopped the Sage from Baltimore...

I am beginning to believe that Franko is trying to prove his theories on determinism and foreseeability by acting like a completely predictable robot himself.

well stop crying and show some logic behind free-willy and non-conscious TLOP

 

[Tricky]

Thank you for that definition, 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.

It is true that many dictionaries use a simpler definition of atheism, using "denies" rather than "disbelieves". However the simple fact that virtually every self-professed atheist in this forum has stated that their position is "there is no evidence for god". When this has been stated so clearly and so often, it is rather disingenious to assign them different beliefs. If The Lexicon wishes to define "soft atheism" as agnosticism, so be it. Let those who get their definitions from that source make the appropriate translation. It is foolish for one to assert that he knows better what I believe than I do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

well stop crying and show some logic behind free-willy and non-conscious TLOP

About a ton of logic behind free will has been presented. Proving that tlop is not conscious is demanding we prove a negative. Ball is yours.

Hans

 

[CWL]

About a ton of logic behind free will has been presented. Proving that tlop is not conscious is demanding we prove a negative. Ball is yours.

Hans

Hear, hear.

 

[Tricky]

About a ton of logic behind free will has been presented. Proving that tlop is not conscious is demanding we prove a negative. Ball is yours.

Hans

Very true. People have presented scads of evidence for free will, and the only defense you have is a badly constructed syllogism. Let us hear a sound defense of determinism, complete with examples, as we "free willies" have shown. You don't accept logic? You don't accept evidence? What in the world would it take to convince you?

 

[wraith]

WHAT EVIDENCE!?!?

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

where is the flaw!?


evidence for free-will.....what a con job that is

 

[Tricky]

WHAT EVIDENCE!?!?

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

where is the flaw!?


evidence for free-will.....what a con job that is

We are not made just of atoms. You have said so yourself. I call that a major flaw.

 

[MRC_Hans]

WHAT EVIDENCE!?!?

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

where is the flaw!?


evidence for free-will.....what a con job that is

REBOOT

Hans

 

[hammegk]

We are not made just of atoms. You have said so yourself. I call that a major flaw.

Questions for Tricky that should clear this up.

Where do quarks exist? How about a free quark?

How do you know where, or how, gravitons exist? Free? In atoms? Or ????.

And at least you understood once that TLOP is the territory, not the current scientific mapping thereof.

 

[Tricky]

Questions for Tricky that should clear this up.

Where do quarks exist? How about a free quark?

How do you know where, or how, gravitons exist? Free? In atoms? Or ????.

And at least you understood once that TLOP is the territory, not the current scientific mapping thereof.

Gosh, Hamm. I don't know. I am not a physicist and I have only a vague understanding of quarks. But then, I am not making claims like "one graviton = one soul" or "gravitons have charge and spin". I don't even know if gravitons exist. Last I heard, they were still unproven, which is why I find it so remarkable that LDeists can claim such great knowledge of them.

I do have a basic knowledge. I know that charged particles interact with electromagnetic fields. I belive that is the principal used in particle accelerators. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[wraith]

We are not made just of atoms. You have said so yourself. I call that a major flaw.

So my body and the universe are not made of anything?

 

[Tricky]

So my body and the universe are not made of anything?

Read carefully, wraith. I said that you have admitted that you are not made
just of atoms. You say there is a graviton involved. I say there are other things like bonds and ions.

Your responses are getting ever shorter, though you have never been a stickler for responding to specific points. I must assume you have conceded all the points to which you have not responded. Good for you!

 

[wraith]

Read carefully, wraith. I said that you have admitted that you are not made
just of atoms. You say there is a graviton involved. I say there are other things like bonds and ions.

Your responses are getting ever shorter, though you have never been a stickler for responding to specific points. I must assume you have conceded all the points to which you have not responded. Good for you!

If you picture a Graviton getting bombarded by waves of infmormation, you get this Universe.

In this Universe, I am made out of atoms.

get it?

 

[Tricky]

If you picture a Graviton getting bombarded by waves of infmormation, you get this Universe.

In this Universe, I am made out of atoms.

get it?

You're getting further and further out on that limb, Wraith. We exist in this universe. If a graviton is part of us, it must exist in this universe too. You are starting to sound like a bad science fiction story. You cannot keep making up stuff like this. Pretty soon, no one will even find it humerous, much less believable.