Logical? Deism.

[MRC_Hans]

Franko:

Well MRC, if you had a Soul, then You are made of Atoms would no longer be strictly True, would it?

Of course since you are an A-Theist, there is no point in us talking about a Soul. "Souls" are something that only silly Theists believe in. An A-Theist (like whitefork) knows that all that exists is "matter". so ...

YOU ARE MADE OF ATOMS.

No, thats too silly an evasion even for you. Both statements were yours, and they were supposed to represent your beliefs. Does this mean you cannot explain the apparant contradiction? Are you really giving me this juicy tidbit for my collection?

Hans

 

[Darat]

No. It's the simplest bit of logic in the world. If you nothing at all - a state of absolute nothingness - then nothing can come from it. Even 'making' 1 and -1 from Zero implies that the zero isn't nothing. At the very least it was potentially something.

All you have done is restated what you said before.

You still have not said why your statement is not just as much an assumption as someone who says "something comes from nothing".

What evidence do you have that something can’t come from nothing?

This is what you said in regards of atheism:

The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. There is no direct evidence of God except for the existence of a Universe whose ultimate origin is itself inexplicable. Therefore agnosticism (or pantheism) is the only truly logical position to take.

Therefore for you to say that something can’t come from nothing I have to assume you have “direct evidence” that something can’t come from nothing.

Without this “direct evidence”, according to you, we should be ‘agnostic’ about “something can’t come from nothing”.

In these posts I am trying to understand your belief by understanding what your “leap of faith” is (or are). I am not (at the moment) attempting to argue or debate whether your belief is the “Truth” or not.

From your posts in this thread it appears that your belief that something can’t come from nothing is one of your “leap of faiths”.



(Thanks for the “leap…” phrase Sou)

 

[Guest]

Darat,

I don't know how to prove nothing can come from nothing. It seems obvious to me.

Try typing "nothing comes from nothing" into google and have a look around.

You can call it faith if you like.



Geoff.

 

[Franko]

So MRC,

I guess this means you are STILL unable to prove your whacky religious claims? If you can't explain or prove any of the things you believe, then why have you bothered to come to a Skeptics forum in the first place?

I think you are looking for www.Infidels.org.

Or perhaps you should slink back to the "secret" R&P forum for A-Theists only. hehehe ....

 

[Darat]

Darat,

I don't know how to prove nothing can come from nothing. It seems obvious to me.

Try typing "nothing comes from nothing" into google and have a look around.

You can call it faith if you like.



Geoff.

Thanks - that was all I wanted to know, whether this was a "leap of faith" or it was based on "direct evidence" – leaps of faith are allowed to be inconsistent

(By the way I'm not blind to the fact that my own "belief system" is based on "leaps of faith" as well.)

 

[The Fool]

Tricky...

Good Idea with the list. I would propose some additions.

1. There is secret information that you can only learn if you become a member.

2. there are decisions you must make without outside influences, even though you have no free will.

site:

quote from franko, replying to loki in the "frankoholic" thread. Italics are mine...

I am controlled by Fate just as you are my Friend. Ultimately there are some things that I am physically prevented from explaining. The reason I am prevented is because ultimately there are things that you must decide for yourself without outside (my) influence.

… although I am quite certain that makes very little sense to you.

Let me put it too you this way. If you traveled on an Omniworldline, then I could trust you completely, and I could say more.


"traveling on an Omniworlview line" is another way of saying "being a Logical Deist"....so you see, Only trusted members can be told the inner secrets...

I am unable to explain why franko continues to use statements like "decide for yourself" in his "no free will" universe. Franko will not explain it either, it is one of the "secrets".

 

[ShottleBop]

Originally posted by Franko

Why do you think we don’t have “free will” elephant? It is BECAUSE there are rewards and punishments. The concept of Rewards and Punishment goes hand in hand with Determinism – haven’t you ever read Skinner???

I give up. This does not make any sense to me.

Actually, this explanation of why we don't have free will is consistent with the view, expressed in Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God books, that God does not punish people, since to do so would deprive them of free will.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Re: Logical? Deism.

Neither is there any logic involved with active disbelief in a God.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

The only logical position is agnosticism (although it does depend on your definition of God).

This is all false conjecture. Can you provide evidence that abscense of evidence is not evidence of abscence? Tell me one scientific fact that has no evidence associated with it.

The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.. nor is there a rational reason to believe in a god. There is much evidence, however, that people made up god. Pantheons used to be the majority belief.. but people realized that most of those gods were myth.. yet they still want to hold on to that last one.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then you're making the same error that TBK is accusing Franko of. We live in a Universe that is arguably fine-tuned for the existence of life. We may have no direct objective evidence of the existence of God/Gods but neither do we have any objective explanation as to how this engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence. Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Do you think agnosticism is illogical?

No, we are not assuming that the universe just popped into existence. I will gladly say that I don't know how the universe started or if it was always around. Believers don't know either, so they say it must've been god. One position claims ignorance, the other position appeals to it. Your "god" assertion is just an appeal to ignorance.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Darat :
the question "how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

Not really, the answer is... I don't know. Also, do you have evidence that there was a time when there was nothing? We don't know if the universe came from nothing or if it has always been. You are still appealing to ignorance.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Logical? Deism.

----
The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.. nor is there a rational reason to believe in a god. There is much evidence, however, that people made up god.
----


With probability 100%, at least one of your ancestors believed in god(s).

I guess your ancestors weren't too rational or logical eh?

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Logical? Deism.

----
The logic behind not believing in "god" is that there is no evidence of god.. nor is there a rational reason to believe in a god. There is much evidence, however, that people made up god.
----


With probability 100%, at least one of your ancestors believed in god(s).

I guess your ancestors weren't too rational or logical eh?

yes very likely (but not 100%)to be true...that one of anyone's ancestors believed in god(s), how does this make the belief more or less rational?
I believe there is evidence for god(s) existence, and there is evidence to the contrary. There is probably some evidence that I shot JFK too. A couple of fuzzy photographs is still evidence of UFOs, but If it is enough evidence (or not )to establish a desire to believe or an opinion that it constitutes "proof" is still a personal decision.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Frank0:

I guess this means you are STILL unable to prove your whacky religious claims? If you can't explain or prove any of the things you believe, then why have you bothered to come to a Skeptics forum in the first place?

Hehehehe, Frank, no I cannot prove my beliefs (they wouldnt be beliefs if I could), but at least I can explain them without constantly contradicting myself. You, on the other hand, cannot. You have just shown that your cosmology contradicts one of your central dogma:

1) You support your dogma of Fatalism with the following logical argument:

Atoms obey tlop
You are made of atoms
Ergo: You obey tlop

But

2) Part of your cosmology (and a central part, it would appear), says:

"The LG is responsible for the shape and form of your bodies, but She didn’t create YOU. You are your Soul [your Graviton]. Your body is more analogous to the clothes you wear. "

Now, since this means that "you" are NOT SOLELY made of atoms in your cosmology, and since another central dogma of yours is "consciousness makes matter", this totally invalidates your logic against free will.

For your logic to function (disregarding the formal fallacies of your syllogism), you have to both be a Materialist and to discard Quantum Mechanics. You, however, are not a materialist, so you need to explain why the non-material Soul/Consciousness (which has the capability to "make matter") should not be able to influence tlop, at least to the level of excerting free will.

This possible ability to excert free will by the consciousness, would then be able to explain your dogma of a justifiable system of ultimate reward and punishment.

Mmmm Frank, it seems I understand your religious dogmas better than you

Before you make further statements about what others think or should do, you need to clear up this little matter in your own cosmology.

Might I remind you of ANOTHER statement of yours:
"Logical Deism is ultimately about Logical Consistency."

What is it you say in English? Tend you own garden first.

Hans

Edited to remove some of the effects of my non-deterministic keyboard

 

[SpaceLord]

I think I can work with that, Whitefork. Remember, I am trying to be faithful to what LDeists have said.

Tricky, is there more than one on this board?

 

[Soubrette]

Sou,

The two essential elements in Yahzis 'something from nothing' are :

1) polar extraction / equilibrium (particle/anti-particle)
2) The existence of Infinity (the black hole).

These are the two essential elements of any 'something from nothing' explanation. Why do you think I spent so long rambling on about 0 = 1 + -1 and the actual existence of Infinity?


Geoff.

Sorry Geoff

Spotted this yesterday - meant to respond, got interrupted and only just remembered it

I don't remember your "rambles" about infinity and zero. The closest I got to it was (and is) people joshing you about proving that infinity = zero

I think we've lost all posts before July this year - but if you can link to some old threads I'd be pleased to read them

Sou

 

[Guest]

Sorry Geoff

Spotted this yesterday - meant to respond, got interrupted and only just remembered it

I don't remember your "rambles" about infinity and zero. The closest I got to it was (and is) people joshing you about proving that infinity = zero

I think we've lost all posts before July this year - but if you can link to some old threads I'd be pleased to read them

Sou

They're gone - but it doesn't matter. The point is that the only way something comes from nothing is the same way 1 and -1 come from zero, but this suggests that zero isn't nothing (and if so then what is it? ). This has been my position from day 1 and yahzi, who has always bitterly complained about the ideas I talk about, seems to have provided a rather smaller-scale materialistic version of the same idea. But the crucial factors required to summon up something from nothing are the same : Polarity and Infinity.

 

[Guest]

Not really, the answer is... I don't know. Also, do you have evidence that there was a time when there was nothing? We don't know if the universe came from nothing or if it has always been. You are still appealing to ignorance.

As far as I am concerned there was never nothing. I am a mathematical platonist. I believe numbers and logic to be eternal.

 

[Upchurch]

Keep 'em coming, folks.

• A thing can only be controlled if it is done by another thing more conscious than it.
• Corollary (sp?): When something less conscious controls something that is more conscious, it is actually the LG doing the controlling.

Upchurch

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Logical? Deism.

----
With probability 100%, at least one of your ancestors believed in god(s).

I guess your ancestors weren't too rational or logical eh?

My parents are god believers. When it comes to god and religion, they are not rational or logical. Heck, when it comes to anything, my mom isn't very rational. What do my ancestors have to do with evidence of god?

 

[thaiboxerken]

As far as I am concerned there was never nothing. I am a mathematical platonist. I believe numbers and logic to be eternal.

So basically....... your belief in god is not logical.