Logical? Deism.

[Upchurch]

Direct question:

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

Direct answer: No.

edited to add:
Gosh, that was pretty simple. we should try that more often.

 

[Win]

Upchurch:

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bring this up, but I think you're being pretty disingenuous, so:

First, you've quoted the site http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html, without attribution or a link, a violation, I believe, of the forum rules. Second, you failed to quote the following from the same site, which supports Franko's position.

It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.

Naughty, naughty.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch:

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bring this up, but I think you're being pretty disingenuous, so:

Sarcastic? Maybe just a little. Disingenous? No.

First, you've quoted the site http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html, without attribution or a link, a violation, I believe, of the forum rules.

My appologies. I thought it was fairly obvious that, in context that we were just refering to the site, that it was the source of the quote. I'll modify the post appropriately.

Second, you failed to quote the following from the same site, which supports Franko's position.

Thus my asking for him to qualify why it does not fall under the fallacy, no?

Naughty, naughty.

Maybe, but about this? not so much.

 

[Win]

Upchurch:

Fair enough.

I wonder, though, why you didn't just explain yourself how Franko's syllogism might not be an example of the fallacy of composition, since you had gone to the site and knew?

Sorry if I was testy with you.

 

[CWL]

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

'Tis an interesting site, yes.

 

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

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.

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,

You are not reading my posts properly or you utterly fail to comprehend what I am saying.

I am saying the following:

• 
  1) The second premise of your "You obey TLOP" syllogism (hereinafter the "TLOP Syllogism") is clearly false according to your own cosmology. Therefore you cannot rely on the TLOP Syllogism as proof of that cosmology.
  
  2) The TLOP Syllogism is clearly subject to the Fallacy of Composition and it is therefore not valid. Notwithstanding, I happen to agree with the conclusion (that we "obey" the laws of physics) - again a Syllogism subject to this fallacy may notwithstanding be correct. The point is however that the conclusion is not proven by the TLOP Syllogsim alone. You need to explain why the fallacy doesn't apply.
  
  3) The conclusion of the TLOP Syllogism (although correct) is a rather mundane and uninteresting statement: "You obey the laws of physics" = "You cannot do what is not possible". Big deal.
  
  4) The syllogisms we have discussed regarding chemicals ("You do not have free will because you are made of chemicals" or "You are not conscious because you are made of chemicals") are yet more examples of the Fallacy of Composition. Here I do not agree with the conclusions. I obviously am conscious and I can obviously make choices between perceived and available options, despite the fact that I am made of chemicals.

Feel free to consider and discuss the above. I am however certain that you instead prefer debating with your own little Men of Straw as usual.

 

[Upchurch]

Second, you failed to quote the following from the same site, which supports Franko's position.

Just to be fair, I've come to believe that there is nothing wrong with the syllogism, per se. It's the definitions of the words "TLOP" and "obey" that Franko uses that is why I disagree with him.

Technically, it's just "TLOP" since his definition of "obey" is a consequence of how he defines "TLOP".

 

[Franko]

Upchimp:

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

Upchimp:
Direct answer: No.

Exactly what I have been saying for over a year.

Plus you got smacked on your own website. (tisk tisk)

Listen Religious Fanatic, why don't you run along back to the rest of your dogmatic cult members, and come back and visit us when you actually have some EVIDENCE for your insane religious beliefs.

The cult of pessimism awaits you ... www.infidels.org

Your trolling is only harming your case (although it is endless entertainment for me and the other LD).

 

[Upchurch]

I wonder, though, why you didn't just explain yourself how Franko's syllogism might not be an example of the fallacy of composition, since you had gone to the site and knew?

Franko has a way of avoiding an argument rather than actually addressing it directly. I thought I was helping, frankly, albeit in my own sarcastic little way.

Sorry if I was testy with you.

No prob. you were dead on about citing the source. I was being lazy.

Upchurch

 

[Upchurch]

Plus you got smacked on your own website. (tisk tisk)

Wellllll, actually, you never did justify why you think properties of the parts are the properties of the whole. Perhaps if you managed that, it would settle the matter?

 

[Franko]

very simple ... because 2 + 2 = 4, and just because you claim that there is an invisible error doesn't make it so.

Unless you are claiming that Solipsism is True, in which case you are 100% correct.

 

[CWL]

Franko,

"2 + 2 = 4" is not the same statement as "Z is made of X and therefore has the properties of X".

It isn't, it never has been and it never will be, nomatter how many times you post it.

 

[Franko]

CWL if chemicals don't have "free will", and you are NOTHING MORE THAN chemicals (by your own assertion of A-Theism/materialism), then how on Earth can you possible have "free will"?

Can you explain that to us?

Or is something physically preventing you from doing it?

 

[Franko]

CWLoser,

"Z is made of X and therefore has the properties of X" is not the same statement as Atoms obey TLOP, You are made of Atoms, YOU OBEY TLOP!

It isn't, it never has been and it never will be, no matter how many times you post it.
Ohh, and BTW, unless you can explain the “invisible flaw”, or provide evidence for “free will” it is obvious that this is just another journey into the wonderland of A-Theist obfuscation.

Because we all know that A-Theists are masters of talking without actually telling you anything …

 

[CWL]

CWL if chemicals don't have "free will", and you are NOTHING MORE THAN chemicals (by your own assertion of A-Theism/materialism), then how on Earth can you possible have "free will"?

Can you explain that to us?

Or is something physically preventing you from doing it?

Because the sum may be greater (or at least different) than the parts.

Why don't you ask how on Earth cats can have color if the atoms they are made of are colorless?

Why don't you ask how on Earth salt can be harmless to humans when the sodium and chloride it is composed of are both dangerous to humans?

 

[Upchurch]

very simple ... because 2 + 2 = 4,

[snipping off the double strawman]

Ah, yes. See, CWL? Very simple. Let's put it all together:

The properties of atoms are the properties of humans because (or due to the fact that) 2 + 2 = 4.

I think that rather clearly spells it out, don't you?

edited to add:
rats. a little slow out of the gate.

 

[CWL]

CWLoser,

"Z is made of X and therefore has the properties of X" is not the same statement as Atoms obey TLOP, You are made of Atoms, YOU OBEY TLOP!

*snip*

Yes it is.

Z = YOU
X = ATOMS

Anyway, I have already conceded that the syllogism happens to be correct although it is subject to the Fallacy of Composition. So why is this an issue for to you? Are we spoiling your precious holy mantra for you? No fun chanting a flawed syllogism?

 

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, yes. See, CWL? Very simple. Let's put it all together:

The properties of atoms are the properties of humans because (or due to the fact that) 2 + 2 = 4.

I think that rather clearly spells it out, don't you?

Crystal clear. Whatever was I thinking?

edited to add:
rats. a little slow out of the gate.

Speed is of the essence when playing BOBS

 

[Upchurch]

Orginally posted by CWL

Speed is of the essence when playing BOBS

Stupid having to work for a living. Makes me lose at games...

hm... How about this for a justification:

Properties of atoms are the same as properties of humans, given that humans, made of a very big number of atoms, physically have the same properties as very big numbers of atoms.

 

[Franko]

Because the sum may be greater (or at least different) than the parts.

“may” be? What the hell is that suppose to mean?

If you are asserting the existence of a “Soul” CWL, don’t beat around the bush for another year – just say it moron!

Why don't you ask how on Earth cats can have color if the atoms they are made of are colorless?

Because I understand that atoms emit photons, which are NOT “colorless”.

Why don't you ask how on Earth salt can be harmless to humans when the sodium and chloride it is composed of are both dangerous to humans?

Kind of like how a standing in front of a parked Car isn’t dangerous, and traveling at 50 miles per hour isn’t dangerous, but standing in front of a Car traveling at 50 miles an hour IS DANGEROUS?

You really are a braindead moron CWL. I would love to be a fly on the wall in your legal office. Hehehe! I really do pity ANYONE who has you as their attorney.

How exactly do chemicals obtain the property of "free will" CWL? If you are asserting it, then the burden of proof falls on you. What is the evidence for your claim Religious Fanatic from the cult of A-Theism???