Logical? Deism.

[wraith]

In that case why do you keep insisting that WE are made of ATOMS? Don't make no sense to me.

If you truly believe that matter/atoms are made by consciousness You should rightly be saying:

ATOMS obey CONCSIOUSNESS
YOU are CONSCIOUSNESS
ATOMS obey YOU

ahh no
I dont believe in solipsism sorry

 

[CWL]

ahh no
I dont believe in solipsism sorry

But my dear friend, saying "consciousness creates matter" is solipsism.

You are saying that you create the world around you, not that the world around you has created you.

If consciousness creates matter (i.e. atoms) then matter is clearly an illuuuuuusion. Hence according to your own cosmology, you cannot possibly be "made of atoms".

If we accept that "consciousness creates matter" then the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

 

[wraith]

CWL

But my dear friend, saying "consciousness creates matter" is solipsism.

You are saying that you create the world around you, not that the world around you has created you.

If consciousness creates matter (i.e. atoms) then matter is clearly an illuuuuuusion. Hence in your version of the Universe you cannot possible be "made of atoms".

If we accept that "consciousness creates matter" then the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

no, I never said that I was generating this universe

 

[CWL]

CWL

no, I never said that I was generating this universe

No but you are saying that your consciousness is not generated by atoms, are you not? In your (clearly dualistic) cosmology "YOU" are a "soul" - a "graviton". "YOU" are not your "body". In other words, your body may be made of "atoms" but "YOU" are clearly not.

Again, if the above is correct then, according to your own cosmology, the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

 

[wraith]

No but you are saying that your consciousness is not generated by atoms, are you not? In your (clearly dualistic) cosmology "YOU" are a "soul" - a "graviton". "YOU" are not your "body". In other words, your body may be made of "atoms" but "YOU" are clearly not.

Again, if the above is correct then, according to your own cosmology, the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

the claim "you are made of atoms" does not imply "matter creating consciousness"

I am not made of atoms in the sense that matter creates consciousness.

I am made of atoms in the sense that consciousness creates matter.

:. "I am made of atoms" stands True

 

[CWL]

the claim "you are made of atoms" does not imply "matter creating consciousness"

I am not made of atoms in the sense that matter creates consciousness.

I am made of atoms in the sense that consciousness creates matter.

:. "I am made of atoms" stands True

Two words.

Non sequitur.

 

[Tricky]

Okay, using what CWL has said, let's look at the sylligism another way.

Premise one: Atoms obey the laws of physics
If "obey" means "are constrained by", then okay.

Premise two: You are made of atoms
Incorrect. You are made of atoms and other things. You are also made of consciousness. Consciousness does not obey the laws of physics. Consciousness made the laws of physics, according to LD.

Conclusion: You obey the laws of physics.
If you do have a consciousness, then this is clearly wrong. If your consciousness is a "charged graviton", then it is even more wrong.

 

[Tricky]

Thanks! I think I'm getting the hang of it. When do you suppose the sequel will be out? One really longs for new levels at this point in time...

Sorry. You'll have to talk to the software engineer on that one. Like Pete Townshend, I am just an end user.

 

[sorgoth]

Quote:OK...maybe shot down is the wrong term. The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is.


Yes, it is.

Is believing in the invisible, ethereal dragon in my garage as logical as not believing in it? Is believing in the fluffy bunnies of doom and invible-ethereal never do anythingness as logical as not believing in them?


Seriously.

 

[Franko]

CWL:

Again, if the above is correct then, according to your own cosmology, the premise "YOU are made of ATOMS" is clearly false.

Well that is great for the Wraith, CWL, but what about YOU?

According to YOUR cosmology YOU are definitely made of Atoms and nothing more. Your brain is simply a collection of chemicals.

Do chemicals have "free will"?

If not, then you don't have "free will" either pseudo-Materialist.

TLOP controls chemicals.
YOU are made of chemicals.
TLOP controls YOU.

 

[CWL]

Well that is great for the Wraith, CWL, but what about YOU?

According to YOUR cosmology YOU are definitely made of Atoms and nothing more. Your brain is simply a collection of chemicals.

Yes, but you are contending that my cosmology is false. Why do you insist on using a syllogism that is based on my cosmology if that is the case?

Simply put: If my cosmology is false, then so is your syllogism.

Do chemicals have "free will"?

If not, then you don't have "free will" either pseudo-Materialist.

This doesn't follow. Check out this link and you might figure out why:

Fallacy of composition

TLOP controls chemicals.
YOU are made of chemicals.
TLOP controls YOU.

Again, the second premise is clearly false according to your cosmology. Don't you believe that consciousness creates matter any more?

 

[Franko]

CWL,

Yes, but you are contending that my cosmology is false. Why do you insist on using a syllogism that is based on my cosmology if that is the case?

Because that syllogism illustrates a major problem with your cosmology.

Simply put: If my cosmology is false, then so is your syllogism.

Not necessarily, atoms obey TLOP regardless. There is a reason I call myself Fatalist.

This doesn't follow. Check out this link and you might figure out why:

Fallacy of composition

Are you retarded CWL? How many times are you going to bring up this ridiculous argument?

Here is what you are saying …

Syllogism: Premise-1 (2) and (+) premise-2 (3) ergo (=) conclusion (5)

Now even though premise-1 is valid (TRUE), and even though premise-2 is valid (TRUE), and even though the conclusion is valid (TRUE). This syllogism still has an invisible flaw. It’s the flaw of Fallacy of composition. I can’t explain what that means, I can’t tell you exactly why 2 + 3 is not equal to 5 (actually I concede that it is. But really it’s not), all I can tell you is that it has a magical invisible flaw.

Here’s a website you go off on a fishing expedition if you don’t want to take my word for it: Fallacy of composition

CWL you are an imbecile, and a proven liar. Why would I take your word for anything. If you can’t explain what the precise problem is with that syllogism in your own words, then clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

… but that is what I have been saying about you all along.

Again, the second premise is clearly false according to your cosmology. Don't you believe that consciousness creates matter any more?

Well unless YOU believe it, then how does that prove “free will” CWL? Or are you just trying to prove that I am a Deist now? I thought I already told you that ... ?

 

[CWL]

CWL,

Because that syllogism illustrates a major problem with your cosmology.

No it doesn't. Saying that I obey (am constrained by) the laws of physics is saying nothing more than "you cannot do what is not possible". Rather obvious, don't you think?

Not necessarily, atoms obey TLOP regardless. There is a reason I call myself Fatalist.

You may call yourself what you wish Franko. That doesn't make "you obey the laws of physics" any more revolutionary as a statement.

Are you retarded CWL? How many times are you going to bring up this ridiculous argument?

Here is what you are saying …

Syllogism: Premise-1 (2) and (+) premise-2 (3) ergo (=) conclusion (5)

Now even though premise-1 is valid (TRUE), and even though premise-2 is valid (TRUE), and even though the conclusion is valid (TRUE). This syllogism still has an invisible flaw. It’s the flaw of Fallacy of composition. I can’t explain what that means, I can’t tell you exactly why 2 + 3 is not equal to 5 (actually I concede that it is. But really it’s not), all I can tell you is that it has a magical invisible flaw.

Here’s a website you go off on a fishing expedition if you don’t want to take my word for it: Fallacy of composition

CWL you are an imbecile, and a proven liar. Why would I take your word for anything. If you can’t explain what the precise problem is with that syllogism in your own words, then clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

… but that is what I have been saying about you all along.

You don't need to take my word for it.

Saying...

X has the property Y
Z is made of X
Z has the property Y

...proves nothing. Z may have the property Y notwithstanding (but not necessarily). The point is that it is not proven by the above syllogism. Nor do you prove that I do not possess consciousness or "free will" by saying "you are made of chemicals".

Well unless YOU believe it, then how does that prove “free will” CWL? Or are you just trying to prove that I am a Deist now? I thought I already told you that ... ?

The fact that the second premise of your famous syllogism is false according to your cosmology doesn't prove anything about "free will" nor does it prove anything about your "deism". I never claimed it did.

It only proves that if you truly belive in your own cosmology, then it is impossible to understand why you feel that the "You obey TLOP" syllogism is so important. Again, from your perspective it clearly isn't correct.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Frank:
I missed the proof that CWL is a liar, could you enlighten me?

Because that syllogism illustrates a major problem with your cosmology.

Ohhh, THAT explaineds a lot. And here I was believeing it was supposed to prove YOUR cosmology. Well, fine, no problem then. From MY cosmolgy, there is no problem disproving it.

But---- what then was the proof of YOUR cosmology????

Fallacy of composition: The false assumption that the properties of a composite item (hence the name) equals the properties of its elements.

For example:

Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature
Water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
Water is a gas at room temperature

Not exactly invisible, unless you desparately dont want to see it.

Hans

 

[Franko]

No it doesn't. Saying that I obey (am constrained by) the laws of physics is saying nothing more than "you cannot do what is not possible". Rather obvious, don't you think?

You are utterly constrained CWL, in which way are you NOT constrained?

All you are doing is playing semantic word games! You don’t want to be controlled by the laws of physics – yet obviously you are. So now you will claim that you aren’t controlled, but merely [I[constrained[/I].

Big F*cking Deal! Unless you can explain the difference … there is no difference.

Saying...

X has the property Y
Z is made of X
Z has the property Y

...proves nothing. Z may have the property Y notwithstanding (but not necessarily). The point is that it is not proven by the above syllogism. Nor do you prove that I do not possess consciousness or "free will" by saying "you are made of chemicals".

Say what?

5 is made of 2 and 3 are you claiming that this is not so?

Atoms a function of TLOP
You a function of Atoms (a function of TLOP)

CWL make it simple (A-Theist never want to make it simple because then its easy to see how wrong they are!). Are you denying that Atoms obey TLOP? Are you denying that YOU are made of Atoms? What is your evidence for magic “free will” powers A-Theist!

How many times does your absurd double standard have to be pointed out to you?

You claim that No evidence for “god” means NO GOD, but then you turn around and claim that no evidence for “free will” means that “FREE WILL” DEFINITELY EXISTS!!!

Now for over a year You and the other A-Theist fanatics have repeatedly embarrassed yourself here on this Skeptics site over this point. It doesn’t matter to me, because I realize full well that A-Theism isn’t going to disappear overnight, but if you are stupid enough to think that you are winning your case …. Keep thinking it …

 

[Franko]

the proof that CWL is a liar, could you enlighten me?

Ohhh he’s a great guy from your POV MRC, I have to doubt. Perhaps if you ever get in any legal trouble CWL can represent you?

Ohhh, THAT explaineds a lot. And here I was believeing it was supposed to prove YOUR cosmology. Well, fine, no problem then. From MY cosmolgy, there is no problem disproving it.

If that is REALLY the case, then what is your empirical and irrefutable evidence for “free will”?

Why haven’t you posted it in the last year? I have only asked the a-Theist for their evidence about 5000 times.

 

[Upchurch]

Fallacy of composition

Thanks for the link and the site in general, CWL. It's an interesting read.

 

[Franko]

Major premise: 3 - * * *
Minor premise: 2 - * *

Conclusion : 5 - * * * * *

So who is going to explain the Fallacy of composition (i.e. A-Theist slight of hand) on this syllogism? Come on! Just like EVERY intelligent person knows that you actually have magic “free will” powers (but can’t explain it), every intelligent person knows that 2 + 3 does not really equal 5.

So what bright little A-Theist wants to step up to the plate and prove it?

 

[Upchurch]

So who is going to explain the Fallacy of composition on this syllogism?

Perhaps if you explained how it doesn't fit the definition of Fallacy of Composition, it might clear the whole matter up?

Orignally posted here.
The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

Interesting side note, they have an example of a fallacy of composition that sounds very familiar:

3. Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.

edited to add:
Ah, missed the part about explaining the fallacy in terms of your syllogism. Using the above definition:
X = you
Parts of the whole X = Atoms
Characteristics A, B, C = obey TLOP.

Apply to the above definition and presto!

 

[Franko]

Perhaps if you explained how it doesn't fit the definition of Fallacy of Composition, it might clear the whole matter up?

So once again an A-Theist is asking Me to prove the non-existence of his “god”.

Their hypocrisy is UN-F*cking-believable!

Upchimp, do you have any evidence for your “free willy god” -- YES or NO???

Because I have been asking YOU for over a year now, and every day it is the same nonsensical religious dogma from you. This is a Skeptics site! Evidence – where is YOUR EVIDENCE?!?!