• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Logical? Deism.

Franko said:


Replace the term "god" with "Intelligent extraterrestrials" and your comments are still just as TRUE.

So why are you here in this forum when you should be out calling for the Abolition of Carl Sagan’s SETI institute???

After all:

1. Most people can’t even agree on what little green men from outer space really look like.

2. There is no evidence for “little green men” from outer space.

3. They claim that “little green men” could be transmitting signals to us this very instant, and that perhaps they even visit us in “flying saucers”. There is no evidence for these claims.
Click to expand...


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

However by using deductive logic a syllogism can be formed, (for example with a premise of “conditions on the Earth are not unique”), for the existence of life beyond the Earth.

But like all purely logical arguments it proves nothing and there is no way to know, without evidence, whether it is true or false. So the SETI researchers are following a logical path when they attempt to find evidence.


(Edited to add - of course there is evidence of life in the universe ;) )
 
Franko said:


I thought that an A-Theist was a nitwit who insisted that “NO GOD EXIST”, so if a newborn baby doesn’t even know what “God” is, then how can a newborn baby believe that “NO GOD EXIST”?

You thought wrong, and atheist is a person that doesn't believe in god or lacks a belief in god. Newborn babies are atheist.


I’d say newborn babies were Agnostics (God = Unknown/Not enough information)

Wrong again, agnosticism is a person that thinks that the existence of god cannot be known, that god cannot be proven or disproven. Newborn babies hardly have that kind of philosophical ability.


Nor can you not believe in something you haven’t heard of.

One doesn't believe in something they've never heard of. You are confusing disbelief with lacking belief or nonbelief and it's not fooling me.


If this is untrue then please name one thing that you don’t believe in which you have NEVER heard of?

You are appealing to the unknown here, it's a fallacy of logic. If I've never heard of it, I can't believe in it and I can't mention it either.


hehehe … and when will you THINK before you post A-Theist???
Click to expand...

When will you stop building strawmen and actually start debating?
 
----
You thought wrong, and atheist is a person that doesn't believe in god or lacks a belief in god. Newborn babies are atheist
----


By your same reasoning, newborn babies are daoists.

I'd say that a baby can only breathe, piss, poop, and eat, and has little time for grown-up abstractions.
 
Whodini said:
----
You thought wrong, and atheist is a person that doesn't believe in god or lacks a belief in god. Newborn babies are atheist
----


By your same reasoning, newborn babies are daoists.

I'd say that a baby can only breathe, piss, poop, and eat, and has little time for grown-up abstractions.
Click to expand...

Not sure, i guess it depends on what the definition of daoist is.

But at any rate, my point is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.
 
thaiboxerken said:


Not sure, i guess it depends on what the definition of daoist is.

But at any rate, my point is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.
Click to expand...

Hmm, only if you like the "soft Atheism" definition. "Hard" Atheism implies a DISbelief that a god exists; it isn't neutral.

If you say all newborn babies are agnostic I could agree with that.
 
sundog said:
If you say all newborn babies are agnostic I could agree with that.
Click to expand...
I think it would be more appropriate to say that newborn babies don't have the mental facilities to make a stance on this issue. How can a child answer "I don't know" to "Is there a God?" if the child can't formulate the concept of "God"?

I'd say the default position is "not applicable"

Upchurch
 
sundog said:


Hmm, only if you like the "soft Atheism" definition. "Hard" Atheism implies a DISbelief that a god exists; it isn't neutral.

If you say all newborn babies are agnostic I could agree with that.
Click to expand...

I like the Atheism definition: One that lacks a belief in god.

A baby could not be agnostic, babies don't have that philosophical maturity. Agnosticism is a philosophical position.. atheism is the default position and theism is the religious position.
 
thaiboxerken said:


I like the Atheism definition: One that lacks a belief in god.

A baby could not be agnostic, babies don't have that philosophical maturity. Agnosticism is a philosophical position.. atheism is the default position and theism is the religious position.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that.

To me, agnostic means "no opinion about God's existence" which describes the situation correctly. Atheism, in the common usage at least, implies a definite stance on the issue.

What do others think?
 
sundog said:


Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that.

To me, agnostic means "no opinion about God's existence" which describes the situation correctly. Atheism, in the common usage at least, implies a definite stance on the issue.

What do others think?
Click to expand...

ag·nos·tic n.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


a·the·ist n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


These are the American Heritage definitions.. I agree with the one for agnostic, but the one for atheist is definitely biased (the definition implies that there is a god).

The defintion of atheist is really :

atheist n.

1. One who does not believe in a god or gods.
 
Greetings Franko

You write:
Pahansiri, My beliefs are intrinsic to who I am just as yours are intrinsic to you. No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.
Click to expand...

Yes I know your beliefs are intrinsic to who you are and I respect that as you know, I do not seek to belittle your or anyone’s beliefs and seek only as you with you respectful exchanges. That is how friends and all beings need treat each other. As you say you’re beliefs you hold dear and are intrinsic to who you are and I was happy to see you recognize that is the case for me but it is also the case for all here. My point many times is you are an intelligent being yet reduce yourself to personal attacks and attacks against peoples beliefs and what they may hold dear. That I believe is below who you really are. Your post become meaningless attacks and silliness rather then in the cases when you exchange ideas, that is the real you and meaningful

You say
“No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.
Click to expand...

That may be the case with you and I respect that, that is not the case for all in a totality. Causes and conditions in peoples lives shape many if not all things but all make choices, many times the choices are intrinsic to these causes and conditions in ones lives but choices are still made by them. I “always” believed
As I do to a point even as a small child as I grew I found out more clearly where my beliefs fell as to a belief system, for me Buddhism.

But back to your statement, you say
“No “free will” is required. I didn’t ask for these beliefs, they just evolved naturally of their own accord – just like me.
Click to expand...

Yet you believe your Goddess will punish someone for what they have no control over? That is illogical. You become very angry and personally attack people who do not happen to believe as you do, yet believe they have no choice that is illogical. As an adult do you stand and make fun of a small retarded child for being retarded? Or stand over a young girl that was just rapped and make fun of her?

I asked you something the other day you did not respond to, please do now, as friends let us talk and share without anger etc.

If you were at a party and a man at the party slipped into your drink that rendered you completely unconscious. This man then in the full view of all the party goers places a gun in your hand and then places the barrel in his mouth and forces your finger down on the trigger firing the gun and killing him.

Should you be charged with murder? As to your beliefs and or how you believe your goddess operates would you bother defending yourself? Do you feel that our justice system should be changed to reflect or operate how you believe your goddess does?


I don’t believe that the LG gets angry. At least not in the way you use the term.
Click to expand...

Let me pose a question or situation to you.

situation 1 You have a child, you place your hungry child in s seat at the table. You don’t want the child to eat the candy bar sitting right before the child but you do not make clear to your child if she may or may not eat the candy. You then allow an older child say to enter the room and force the younger child to eat the candy.

1-You knew the child was hungry.
2- you knew the older child was going to encourage and force the child to eat the candy.
3- You knew the child in the end would eat the candy


Do you return to the room and punish the younger child for eating the candy?


Again on this topic of your belief your goddess punishes beings for not believing in her.

Would you if as a father ( I know you are not right now) seeking to be the best father you could ever place your needs before that of your child? Would you predicate your love or help for the child on if the child worshiped you?

What is perfect could know no flaws, it could not know anger or ego it could never place its needs before that of another and never so something it made and sees as a child. There could be no need or desire to be worshiped what is perfect could be only that. I often hear my Christian friends speak of their gods unconditional love yet the belief is riddled with conditions. What is unconditional can know no conditions.


You write
Listen my friend if you break into my house in order to rob me and rape my wife, I am under no obligation to be kind to you. My only obligation is to stop you by any means necessary.

You don’t have “free will” to stop yourself from attempting to harm me, and I don’t have “free will” to prevent me from annihilating you in return.
Click to expand...

That is not at all true. The person who broke in did so for many reasons or causes and conditions, TLOP had little if any influence and none as to his thought process. The conditions in his life lead to this and as to you annihilating him (lol) you would have free will in the amount of force used to a great point. Remember I fought for many years, I controlled my moves, which were to a great point in a reaction to his etc but not always. Thought and yes reaction etc was always in play. You and I are not robots.




You write
Yes the LG controls you utterly, but She did not create you.
Click to expand...

Of course this is not true, you make this statement as a statement of fact so with respect please give the facts. Again do not please give the “ you are made of atoms etc” I have shown how that is not true to thought and how we use thought to work within TLOP.

But again this above statement fly’s in the face of is in a complete contradiction to your saying
Correction … anyone who is an A-Theist from the POV of the Goddess will be cut loose (when they die), and they will fall back to the Abyss all on their own accord.
Click to expand...

You say she controls me utterly, yet is mad about what I may believe but you believe she made me believe what I believe. That is illogical.

You write
I am rarely angry Pahansiri, and when I am … my anger brings peace.
Click to expand...

My friend you know this is not true, you become so angry at others that they do not believes as you do you launch personal attacks saying many rude and unkind things ( from behind the safety of a computer screen), there is great anger in you and there is no need. When name calling starts it is because logical is gone. I believe that is not the true you. Anger never brings peace it only brings suffering.

Too often people believe that all things are black and white. I.e.
1- there is fully free will
2- there is no free will

This just is not true like with most things the truth lies in the middle.



May you be well and happy.
 
The buddhist slam dunks a few fallacies on his own. Franko, you should actually try and let some of these words of wisdom sink in.
 
Hey Ken,
Interesting side discussion here. I'm not really trying to appeal to the unknown as much as trying to see if there's a way, in principle and in advance, of dividing claims into what is knowable but unknown, and what is unknowable per se.

Was there a way to know, in advance, if the four-color theorem was decidable (either true or false, but unsure which) before it was actually proven?

Can we demonstrate that proposition P, whose truth at this time is undetermined, is simply unknown, or in principle unknowable?

(I don't expect an answer, but I believe that the answer to that question is either "no" or "unknowable in principle".)
 
Was there a way to know, in advance, if the four-color theorem was decidable (either true or false, but unsure which) before it was actually proven?

I'm thinking that the math in your four-color theorem was evidence of it's possibility. The theorem was based on some kind of evidence.

There is no mathematical or theoretical evidence of god.

Can we demonstrate that proposition P, whose truth at this time is undetermined, is simply unknown, or in principle unknowable?

We can demonstrate that proposition P is false because there is NO evidence to validate the claim of the proposition.
 
Whitefork,

Was there a way to know, in advance, if the four-color theorem was decidable (either true or false, but unsure which) before it was actually proven?
Click to expand...

Yes. Only certain classes of mathematical problems can be undecidable. The four-color theorem is not such a problem. The reason is that, in principle, the four-color theorem, if false, could be proven false by finding a counter example. If it is possible, in principle, to find a counter-example, then the problem cannot be formally undecidable, since it could potentially be proven false. If it is not possible to find a counter-example, then by definition, the theorem is true.

If that was not clear, then consider this more general case.

Proposition: All integers x have property y.

Now imagine that property y is a property such that for any integer x, you can directly determine whether x has property y.

The Above proposition can therefore not be formally undecidable. If the proposition is false, then some counter-example exists (an integer x that does not have property y). If such a counter-example exists, then it is possible to find such a counter-example (if nothing else, through trial and error). This means that if the proposition is false, then it must be possible to prove it false.

Now, that is not to say that it can be proven true. Prior to the discovery of the proof of the four color theorem, it was not certain that such a proof could be found. But it was clear that the problem was not formally undecidable, because if it was false, then it could definitely be proven false.

Dr. Stupid
 
Well, it was more of a (bad) rhetorical question to open up further discussion on the nature of theistic arguments in general rather than specific ones. Probably would not lead anywhere fruitful, but I was trying to draw Ken out on the bigger question.

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

Input still welcome.

Tricky said:
The re-re-revised list of the tenets of Logical Deism.
  • This universe is part of an omniverse.
  • This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
  • The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
  • One soul = one graviton.
  • Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
  • The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
  • Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
  • The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
  • Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
  • Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
    [* ] The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
  • Atheist gravitons will go to the abyss for eternity.
  • There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatiblist free will. None.
  • There are consequences for the things you do.
  • The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
  • You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
  • The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
  • The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
  • TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
  • The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
  • The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
  • Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
  • True randomness does not exist.
  • Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
  • If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.")
  • If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them.
  • Followers of LD are on an Omni-Worldview Line (OWL).
  • Consciousness creates matter.
  • Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
  • The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
  • Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
Click to expand...
 
:eek: Yikes! The killer bunny strikes again :eek:

While were in the humor dept. I am thinkig of a story, a true story that happened some years back. It is relevant to the LD claim that TLOP must be more conscious than humans to control them.

There was this large wholesale store in the outskirts of Copenhagen, I dont remember exactly what they were dealing in, car accessories, I think. Two bright young men decided to break into the store one night to haul away some goodies, so, around midnight, they went out and climbed the fence surrounding the building and set course for a window, armed with a screwdriver. Unfortunately, for them, there was a guard dog: A large German Shepard, which was let loose behind the fence whenever the store was closed. This dog came at them and drove them into a corner, flat against a wall. Then it sat down and stared at them. Whenever one of them made the slightest move, it would get up and advance, growling. I understand they were mightily relieved when a security guard arrived at daybreak, called off the dog and turned them over to the police.

Now, I ask y'all: During those about five hours, who was controlling whom? And does this make a dog more conscious than a burglar?

Hans:) ;)
 
Darat:
But like all purely logical arguments it proves nothing and there is no way to know, without evidence, whether it is true or false. So the SETI researchers are following a logical path when they attempt to find evidence.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom