Logical? Deism.

[MRC_Hans]

Darat what is your reason for believing that there is NO logical path to find evidence for God?

What is your reason for believing there is? Can you provide one (without contradicting yourself)?

How about the contradictions in your cosmology that I pointed out earlier in this thread? They are not gonna go away by themselves, you know.

Hans

 

[Darat]

Darat what is your reason for believing that there is NO logical path to find evidence for God?

Are you seriously contending that you have evidence which indicates Aliens are more likely to exist then God?

Have you ever heard of Tippler? I am guessing you haven't. How about Pete Ward, or Don Brownlee?

Franko - you seem to have missed the first sentence in my reply i.e.

I agree there is no direct evidence and it is a total assumption made by the SETI people.

I thought this made it clear that I agreed there was no direct evidence to support the existence of ET? I can't see how I could have made it clearer! (However please see the final paragraph of this post for some more on this.)

I was merely pointing out that a totally logically consistent argument can be made that ET exist. A logical argument requires a premise - it does not require a "true" premise to be totally logically consistent.

That is why logic is a useful tool. However without the starting premise in a logical argument being proved by direct evidence a logical argument cannot tell us if something is "true" of "false".

I also don't know why you are now asking me about "God". My post concerned a point you made that seemed to indicate that you thought the SETI researches did not have a logically sound argument to search for ETs.

As for why should anyone "believe" the possibility of ETs? Well I have pointed out to posters (several times) who have assumed that ETs must exist that we have no evidence for this and no matter how “reasonable” or “common sense” something seems without direct evidence it is still just an assumption.

However considering that the direct evidence, to date, is that the Earth is not unique in any physical manner to the rest of the universe it is certainly not an unreasonable proposition to devise tests for the premise "The Earth is not unique, i life can arise here it can arise elsewhere.... "

 

[wraith]

What is your reason for believing there is? Can you provide one (without contradicting yourself)?

How about the contradictions in your cosmology that I pointed out earlier in this thread? They are not gonna go away by themselves, you know.

Hans

haha!
youve pointed out 5h!t all

 

[MRC_Hans]

haha!
youve pointed out 5h!t all

OK, I see. Do carry on.

Hans

 

[CWL]

Bumping, because I would still like a sign-off on these from the Logical Deists.

Input still welcome.

Tricky,

You might want to add the following puppies to the list:

• Fate governs all. Even the LG is bound by Fate.
• Every person travels down a "Worldtree" and as a person reaches a branch of the Worldtree there is a Decision Junction at which the person's algorithm is forced to generate an output according to its MPB. Again, this is not anything remotely like "free will".

 

[CWL]

Oh! And these:

• There is an LD equivalent of "Heaven" called the Metaverse.
• The LG is not responsible for evil (which comes to the Universe from the Omniverse)
• The speed of light is in reality not absolute.

 

[WonderfulWorld]

Chill, friend. I have my opinion and you have yours.

The problem is that your opinion is not rational. There is no evidence for the existence of elves. Must I be "agnostic" on the subject, since I don't have evidence for their nonexistence? Of course not. The notion is silly. There is no earthly reason to believe in elves. Or pixies. Or sprites. Or God. None whatsoever. So why should I grant the idea of God any more respect than the idea that there 6' pink bunnyrabbits running about?

"God" is an invention of man. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm listening. But you can't; people have been trying for millenia -- at great length too! -- and all have failed quite spectacularly. The kicker is that, logically, there's no need for a Creator. Even if we were to imagine this Prime Mover(s), we haven't answered the question which led us to invent him: How did it all start? So God (or gods) created the universe -- where did He (or they) come from? The notion of a God is both silly and pointless.

By the way, you might notice a discussion on the actual definition of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", in another thread. "Hard" atheism and the atheism generally found on this forum are not the same thing.


(Someone please explain: LD? LG? Do I really want to know?)

 

[MRC_Hans]

(Someone please explain: LD? LG? Do I really want to know?)

Logical Deism. Logical Goddess. From Franko's private cosmology. No, judging from the clear logic of your posts, you dont want to know.

Hans

 

[Guest]

The problem is that your opinion is not rational. There is no evidence for the existence of elves. Must I be "agnostic" on the subject, since I don't have evidence for their nonexistence? Of course not. The notion is silly. There is no earthly reason to believe in elves. Or pixies. Or sprites. Or God. None whatsoever. So why should I grant the idea of God any more respect than the idea that there 6' pink bunnyrabbits running about?

"God" is an invention of man. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm listening. But you can't; people have been trying for millenia -- at great length too! -- and all have failed quite spectacularly. The kicker is that, logically, there's no need for a Creator. Even if we were to imagine this Prime Mover(s), we haven't answered the question which led us to invent him: How did it all start? So God (or gods) created the universe -- where did He (or they) come from? The notion of a God is both silly and pointless.

By the way, you might notice a discussion on the actual definition of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", in another thread. "Hard" atheism and the atheism generally found on this forum are not the same thing.

Nice rant. I guess you saw me vociferously arguing for the existence of elves......

My stated position is agnostic, by the way.

If you'd like to have a proper debate, please feel free to join us in the 'consciousness explained' thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nice rant. I guess you saw me vociferously arguing for the existence of elves......

Elves and gods are in the same category.. fiction. You cannot evade yourself out of the well placed arguement produced by Mr. Wonderful.

 

[Guest]

Nice rant. I guess you saw me vociferously arguing for the existence of elves......

Elves and gods are in the same category.. fiction. You cannot evade yourself out of the well placed arguement produced by Mr. Wonderful.

This is great. Franko still insists I am an atheist. You and Luci (and Mr Wonderful) are convinced I am a theist.

In truth I have not moved from the position of agnosticism on the existence of 'God'!

Are you all psychics or can't you read?

NB : mysticism and theism are not the same thing.

 

[Tricky]

This is great. Franko still insists I am an atheist. You and Luci (and Mr Wonderful) are convinced I am a theist.

In truth I have not moved from the position of agnosticism on the existence of 'God'!

Are you all psychics or can't you read?

NB : mysticism and theism are not the same thing.

WonderfulWorld must be forgiven, as he hasn't been around here that long. Most people here are aware that you are not a theist, at least under the common definition of theist. TBK I believe was comparing your beliefs to other irrational beliefs. And I am not using irrational in an insulting sense. Idealism is irrational because it is unfalsifiable, not because of its conclusions.

But this question was raised before. How can one deign to classifiy the beliefs of another? Franko has stated that no "true Christian" believes in free will. In turn, it has been said that he is not a "true deist" because he believes in a personal god. Some here think that to be atheist, you must deny the possibility of God.

When this debate broke out earlier, I took the unusual position (for which I was excoriated) of saying that belief-wise, a person is whatever they call themselves. While their beliefs may not fit into the standard catagories, it is the right of every person to create their own definition of whatever belief system they call thelmselves. While this leads to some confusion when you first meet them, you can get past this quickly.

To do otherwise would be like telling a Christian that he is not Christian because he doesn't believe biblical ineerrancy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is great. Franko still insists I am an atheist. You and Luci (and Mr Wonderful) are convinced I am a theist.

No, I was simply pointing out that the possibility of god existing is the same as elves or pixies. They are all fictional things that are based on no evidence. For some reason, you imply that the existence of god is more possible than the other mythical beings.. and yet you have no intelligent reason for this opinion.


NB : mysticism and theism are not the same thing.

Yes, and mediums and psychics aren't the same thing either.

 

[whitefork]

Once that compilation of Logical Deism is complete, we ought to try and put in in order by logical dependence as well. Otherwise, it's just a list of arbitrary claims, and it might not be as compelling as it ought to be. It's been a while since I've read The Baltimore Catechism, but I think we're looking at The New Baltimore Catechism here, if you get my meaning.

It's a heavy responsibility.

 

[Upchurch]

Once that compilation of Logical Deism is complete, we ought to try and put in in order by logical dependence as well.

Hmm... I don't know, whitefork. I haven't really worked it through, but just glancing, my hunch is that we're still missing too many pieces of the system to organize it like you want. There are whole portions of new gravitational and quantum physics missing, which Mr. F has mentioned but never detailed. Without that, I'm not sure we can accurately map this out. I mean, for instance, without knowing the mechanism, how can we know whether the LG's graviton spin determines her gender or whether the LG's gender determines her graviton spin? It's hard to determine cause and effect without knowing the mechinism.

Man-o-man, I wish I could get my hands on a physics textbook or research paper written from the LD context. That might clear up a few problems. Any LD care to cite a source where I could start? A websearch came up empty.

Upchurch

 

[Guest]

Yes, and mediums and psychics aren't the same thing either.

No, Ken. Really mysticism and theism are NOT THE SAME THING. Your answer just reveals the depths of your ignorance. There are millions upon millions of Buddhists, Taoists and Hindus who are mystics and are quite definately NOT THEISTS - indeed they will go to great lengths to explain why the are NOT THEISTS. There are millions upon millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims who are quite definately NOT MYSTICS - indeed these religions have often deliberately suppressed mysticsm. Your attitude seems to be "all people who are not skeptical atheistic materialists can be lumped in the same barrel and labelled stupid."

Let me help you out.

Theist : Person who believes in a there is One God.

Mystic : Person who believes there is a transcendent reality accessable via individual consciousness.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let me help you out.

Theist : Person who believes in a there is One God.

Mystic : Person who believes there is a transcendent reality accessable via individual consciousness.

Thanks for the recalibration.

Your idea is still just as silly as theism and just as evident (it's not).

 

[Franko]

Darat,

Franko - you seem to have missed the first sentence in my reply i.e.

I agree there is no direct evidence and it is a total assumption made by the SETI people.

I thought this made it clear that I agreed there was no direct evidence to support the existence of ET? I can't see how I could have made it clearer! (However please see the final paragraph of this post for some more on this.)

So long as you call yourself an A-Theist it is inconsistent of you Darat.

I was merely pointing out that a totally logically consistent argument can be made that ET exist. A logical argument requires a premise - it does not require a "true" premise to be totally logically consistent.

That is why logic is a useful tool. However without the starting premise in a logical argument being proved by direct evidence a logical argument cannot tell us if something is "true" of "false".

That is exactly correct. Of course the SAME EXACT thing could be said about God … yet YOU are an A-Theist. Why the contradiction?

Why is ET more important to you then God?

Is that sound logic?

Explain the logic to me?

However considering that the direct evidence, to date, is that the Earth is not unique in any physical manner to the rest of the universe it is certainly not an unreasonable proposition to devise tests for the premise "The Earth is not unique, i life can arise here it can arise elsewhere.... "

Direct Evidence???

What “direct evidence” are you referring to? Until recently no one was even certain that other planets existed beyond this solar system (unless you count episodes of Star Trek as Direct Evidence).

Can you please cite your direct evidence of other Earth-like planets in our galaxy?

How did I know you hadn’t heard of Tippler, Ward, or Brownlee?

I guess you haven’t imagined them yet … ?

 

[Franko]

Elephant said:
Mystic : Person who believes there is a transcendent reality accessable via individual consciousness.

I thought that a Mystic was someone who believed that there were certain aspects of reality that could NOT be explained Logically?

... Or are you saying the same thing and just dressing it up?

 

[Guest]

I thought that a Mystic was someone who believed that there were certain aspects of reality that could NOT be explained Logically?

... Or are you saying the same thing and just dressing it up?

Mysticism is the belief in a transcendent reality which can be experienced by the individual. Most forms also hold as central tenets the primacy of consciousness and the Unity of consciousness, and all things.

Mysticism :

1a) Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality (or God).

1b) The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

2) A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.