Logical? Deism.

[Franko]

Upchimp:

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.

Hey look everyone -- the A-Theist is speaking in tongues ...

 

[CWL]

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.

That works for me.

I'm done playing BOBS for this evening. Going to see a movie with my wife!

Talk to you later, UpFunk.

See you around, your Holiness.

 

[Upchurch]

Hey look everyone -- the A-Theist is speaking in tongues ...

Hey, you're welcome to try to come up with a better justification.

 

[Franko]

Hey, you're welcome to try to come up with a better justification.

I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

 

[Upchurch]

I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Okie dokie, but until you come up with a good justification, don't be suprised when people call Fallacy of Composition on it.

 

[Tricky]

I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Reset.

 

[Franko]

Reduced to nothing but woo-woo post now Tricky?

Funny how it took you so long to transform into Titanpout.

Run along you fat old A-Theist Troll ... www.infidels.org

 

[Franko]

Upchimp:

Okie dokie, but until you come up with a good justification, don't be suprised when people call Fallacy of Composition on it.

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware that You Whitefork and all of the other fanatically religious A-Theists believe you have "magical free will powers" which you cannot explain or prove.

I realize that you believe this makes you a Non-Religion. yes, Upchimp, I know ALL about your sad pessimistic little cult of non-skepticism and double standards.

 

[Win]

Hi Frank:

I hope you don't mind my asking, but what's up with the infidels links.

I suppose that they, at least, are honest when it comes to holding religion in contempt, while here scepticism is supposed to be the order of the day, and of course, there's no connection between scepticism and atheism.

Just curious.

 

[Franko]

I hope you don't mind my asking, but what's up with the infidels links.

In case you hadn’t noticed WIN there are a lot of A-Theists Trolling on this forum. Apparently many of them are confused or misinformed. For some reason they believe that this SKEPTICS site is actually an adjunct of Infidels.org (Home of the Religion of A-Theism on the Internet).

These religious fanatics (A-Theists) believe that their dogmatic Cult is the one true faith and that all other religions need to be abolished (or at least harassed). I just keep trying to tell them that they are in the wrong place. This website has nothing to do with their whacky Religion. THIS IS A SKEPTICS WEBSITE! and ...

A-Theism <> Skepticism

 

[Tricky]

Reduced to nothing but woo-woo post now Tricky?

Funny how it took you so long to transform into Titanpout.

Run along you fat old A-Theist Troll ... www.infidels.org

No, little boy. Just playing some BOBS while waiting for you to answer a question.

If gravitons have charge, why are they unaffected by electromagnetic fields?

I expect I will have to wait for a while, so I play this simple game to amuse myself.

You've lost, Franko. It's over.

 

[CWL]

I'll just stick with the empirical evidence:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Franko,

• 
  1) The syllogism alone has little or nothing to do with "empirical evidence".
  
  2) The syllogism is invalid (at least until you have justified why the Fallacy of Composition does not apply - you might want to consider Upchurch's suggestion, it's not bad at all). Notwithstanding, the syllogism does happen to be true (at least according to a monistic, materialistic cosmology). There is a difference between truth and validity you know.
  
  3) Moreover, according to your dualistic, non-materialistic cosmology it just so happens that your syllogism is not only invalid, but also false as the second premise clearly is false according to said cosmology.

As indicated by my highlight, point no. 3 is your biggest problem. Your cannot reasonably argue that your syllogism is proof of a cosmology according to which said syllogism is in fact false. If we you are made of more (or other things) than atoms (such as "souls" or "gravitons") then the premise "You are made of atoms" simply isn't correct.

Or have you now decided that we are made from nothing but matter? That consciousness is simply a function of atoms? That matter makes consciousness? It is the only way that your syllogism can be true.

I must concur with Tricky.

 

[wraith]

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

omg!!!!

How is the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism a fallacy of composition?

Just demonstrate free-will!
You either obey TLOP or you dont....you cant have both. ( unless youre PixyMisa )

TLOP controls you or you control TLOP.

SO materialists.....you have the brain which is made up of atoms, which obeys TLOP, which gives rise to consciousness. TLOP controls you.

OR

Once you have this property "consciousness" you have the ability to take control of TLOP? Solipsism is looking pretty good hey?

MAN!

 

[wraith]

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

ahhh, that "syllogism" doesnt flow.

In premise one, you describe O and H by themselves at room temp. ie they are gases

In premise 2, you assume that O and H behave in the same way when they are connected...

You can see that water is not a gas at room temperature.

Premise 1 does not flow onto premise 2
Hence the error in reasoning...
Hence the fallacy of composition...



Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

Here, premise 1 links onto premise 2.
You are made of atoms and atoms obey TLOP.

When was the last time that you disobeyed TLOP?

I can show you water at room temp...
How about showing everyone on this board that you can disobey TLOP...

 

[CWL]

omg!!!!

How is the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism a fallacy of composition?

Just demonstrate free-will!
You either obey TLOP or you dont....you cant have both. ( unless youre PixyMisa )

TLOP controls you or you control TLOP.

SO materialists.....you have the brain which is made up of atoms, which obeys TLOP, which gives rise to consciousness. TLOP controls you.

OR

Once you have this property "consciousness" you have the ability to take control of TLOP? Solipsism is looking pretty good hey?

MAN!

Forget about the Fallacy of Composition. It has already been conceded that the syllogism is true from a materialistic perspective.

From a Logical Deist perspective however it is not. "You are made of atoms" is not a correct statement according to the LD cosmology.

You would need to say something along the lines of

Atoms AND gravitons obey TLOP
You are made of atoms AND gravitons
You obey TLOP

or (if atoms are but an illusion to Logical Deists - you were never clear on this):

Gravitons obey TLOP
You are a graviton
You obey TLOP

Of course, in order for this to be true you must demonstrate

• (i) the existence of gravitons; and
  (ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics.

Can you do that?

 

[MRC_Hans]

In premise 2, you assume that O and H behave in the same way when they are connected...

Bravo! You found the error! Good progress! See? It wasnt invisible like you have claimed for so long.

And, as you correctly note, we are actually able to OBSERVE that the conclusion is false (hint: That was why I choose just this example, makes things easier when they are observable).

Now, tell me: If you take all the chemicals that comprise a human, pour them in a vat and stir them, will they behave like a human being? Well, the experiement has actually been done, and waddaya know: They did NOT behave like a human being.

Now, what does this tell us? .... RIGHT! Humans do NOT behave like any or all of the chemicals that they are built of.

SO while your sillogism has the right conclusion in the way that we do not seem to be able to break the laws of physics, we can NOT infer that the laws of physics apply in the same way to us as to an atom.

Furthermore, as it has been pointed out again and again (but which you for some reason have chosen to ignore), according to YOUR belief, we are not made of atoms ONLY, so your, in your own cosmology, your second premise is false.

Hans

 

[muscleman]

This might be out of subject..But men, no offense, but that guy upchurch is ugly...He needs to remove his pic there...

and Hans, I read all your post above...I agree with it completely without a doubt....

 

[wraith]

Forget about the Fallacy of Composition. It has already been conceded that the syllogism is true from a materialistic perspective.

From a Logical Deist perspective however it is not. "You are made of atoms" is not a correct statement according to the LD cosmology.

Youre view of matter has to change to understand the view of the LD.

Youre trying to observe the universe through the "matter creates consciousness" belief.

You would need to say something along the lines of

Atoms AND gravitons obey TLOP
You are made of atoms AND gravitons
You obey TLOP

or (if atoms are but an illusion to Logical Deists - you were never clear on this):

Gravitons obey TLOP
You are a graviton
You obey TLOP

Of course, in order for this to be true you must demonstrate

• (i) the existence of gravitons; and
  (ii) that gravitons obey the laws of physics.

Can you do that?

You didnt even recognise the Soul. Your Soul is the Graviton. Your Consciousness.

Again, whatever I say would be meaningless to you if you work under the "matter creating consciousness" framework.

lets just say that the Gravity of others is testing your Sanity muhaha

 

[wraith]

Bravo! You found the error! Good progress! See? It wasnt invisible like you have claimed for so long.

The invisible error relates to the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism

Now, tell me: If you take all the chemicals that comprise a human, pour them in a vat and stir them, will they behave like a human being? Well, the experiement has actually been done, and waddaya know: They did NOT behave like a human being.

come on...are you serious?
Are you saying that the state of you now is equal to the state when you are stirred up in the vat? I dont control TLOP by the way

Now, what does this tell us? .... RIGHT! Humans do NOT behave like any or all of the chemicals that they are built of.

NO
Youre states are different. You have the "normal CWL" state and the "gooey liquefied CWL" state. Are you consciousness at this point?

SO while your sillogism has the right conclusion in the way that we do not seem to be able to break the laws of physics, we can NOT infer that the laws of physics apply in the same way to us as to an atom.

Youre above arguments dont illustrate this point at all

The moon is made up of more than one atom. Does it obey TLOP?

Furthermore, as it has been pointed out again and again (but which you for some reason have chosen to ignore), according to YOUR belief, we are not made of atoms ONLY, so your, in your own cosmology, your second premise is false.

OK CWL, in this Universe, besides atoms, what else am I made of?

 

[wraith]

This might be out of subject..But men, no offense, but that guy upchurch is ugly...He needs to remove his pic there...

lol!
Why do you care?
Better looking than you is he?

and Hans, I read all your post above...I agree with it completely without a doubt....

I am sorry to here that