Regarding Franko...

[Guest]

Franchesca :

Ohhh, now was that so hard to admit?

No. I've always said it.

You mean both exist beyond the confines of Time? Hehehe …

You’ll have to explain what that means Elephant? How exactly does one determine what exists beyond the realm of Time – praytell?

Numbers don't need time. Time is a mode of human perception.

Can a Universe exist without Time?

Not any sort of Universe I can imagine.

Can Logic exist without consciousness?

Potentially exist.

Again it is 'discovered' by consciousness rather than invented by it.

What do you mean by the Moon doesn’t “mean” anything?

I mean 'the Moon' is a meaningless concept in isolation from the rest of the physical world.

Do numbers mean anything is there is no consciousness around to perceive the Numbers?

Do numbers “mean” anything without the rest of the universe?

No. But the relationship between the 'twoness' and 'threeness' remains the same regardless of whether there is a consciousness which is 'aware' of the relationship.

Maybe the Universe does not mean anything unless it is relative to the Moon?

Maybe.

Do you still hold these beliefs, or have you altered your position?

Do I hold that there is a 'metamind'?

This is probably implied by the rest of my metaphysics.

Is the metamind independently conscious?

Perhaps I feel it is disrespectful to discuss this here in this way.

Also I have asked you what you mean specifically by the term “Infinity”.

I mean Absolute Infinity. Any other description would render it less than Infinity!

Do you believe that reality is cyclical? DO you still believe that Zero and Infinity are the same value as you once claimed?

I believe there is a very profound relationship between Zero and Infinity.

Buddhism is very close to A-Theism Elephant. The reason so many A-Theists like Buddhism is because Buddhism doesn’t preach that there are consequences for one’s actions either (just like A-Theism).

Total nonsense Franko. Buddhists believe in Karma and reincarnation.

Do you believe that there are consequences for our actions after we die?

Agnostic.

Do you really believe in Karma? If you sin here and now, will you be punished for those sins later?

I believe in a principle of action and reaction. This manifests not so differently to Karma.

If our Ego does not survive death as you claim, isn’t that exactly the same as saying there are no consequences for our actions?

It may be the same as saying there are no consequences after physical death. It is certainly not saying there are no metaphysical consequences before physical death.

What is the difference between that belief, and regular A-Theism? How is anyone going to punish me for my sins, if I have already been annihilated?

Most of the people I know who live for the benefit of others and think about other people instead of themselves are happy.

Most of the people I know who are self-obsessed and try to take more than they give are miserable.

Threatening people with eternal torment is not productive. Neither is promising them 70 virgins. It just drives people crazy.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Juggler, Jedi Knight, Undercover Elephant.

Which two of the three aren't you? Oh, they are all you? Goodness, that sounds like a sock puppet to me.

-Chris [/B]

I scarcely think that the pontifications of Jedi Knight could be confused with the intelligent ideas that Geof expresses.

 

[The Fool]

You, Luciforge, and Fool, all parrot the same nonsense, and none of you can (or will) explain any of it. Plus all three of you have harped on some rather strange non-issues with me. Some odd lines of thought that NO ONE else ever mentions. Yet you 3 all seem fixated. I guess it is just a coincidence though … ???

LOL.....your blatant contradictions are now just "odd lines of thought" are they? Pathetic....have some courage Frank. The contradictions will not go away unless you explain them, wishing them away will not work.

I KNOW you wish you had not said this but unless you can explain why it will forever look like you are cntradicting your often yelled position.....

You get one true shot at Free Will. It’s no small thing. It is a very big thing. After that you get no more Free Will, but if you have chosen wisely you will be granted control, and control is infinitely better than “free will”.
http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5645&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Now shut up about free will until you have a consistant position on it....does it exist? once only? or never? which is it? why do you state both cases?

 

[Mossy]

I scarcely think that the pontifications of Jedi Knight could be confused with the intelligent ideas that Geof expresses.

DING DING DING!!!!

I finally agree with Ian about something!!! This has to be the first time that I've read one of his posts and thought, "Yup, I agree" [writing in journal].

(sorry Ian, just feeling giddy)

-Ed

 

[scribble]

I scarcely think that the pontifications of Jedi Knight could be confused with the intelligent ideas that Geof expresses.

]

I'll admit that JK's style is different enough from UcE that they may not be the same person. I thought that it had been admitted by them they were the same person. Perhaps I remember wrong. My point still stands. UcE and Juggler is enough to make the point I was making.

-Chris

 

[The Fool]

Hey Fool,

Didn’t you get BANNED from Infidels.org for preaching your whacky version of A-Theism there?

That why you keep bringing up Deism.org -- isn't it?

Are you embarassed that the booted YOU out of the A-Theist forum? So now you have come here to pitch your new-age hokum?

10 points for the red herring Franko....never posted at Infidels.org in my life...got anything to back that one up?...

going to adress the "once only" free will question?...or are you still hiding.

 

[Franko]

Hey Fool,

Didn’t you get BANNED from Infidels.org for preaching your whacky version of A-Theism there?

That why you keep bringing up Deism.org -- isn't it?

Are you embarassed that the booted YOU out of the A-Theist forum? So now you have come here to pitch your new-age hokum?

 

[wraith]

There is no contradiction Franko.

hi Missy Pixy, since I cant get a clear cut description of free-willy from you in the other thread, Ill try here

explain fully how free-willy exists...
I hear:

-TLOP is not deterministc
-I choose from a range of options

Do you use both definitions?
How do you link them together?

 

[The Fool]

Do you use both definitions?
How do you link them together?

You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will

How about it sockpuppet...which of these two statements is correct and which one did your master say? or did he say both? How do you link them together?...

stay away from free will son, it has proved to be the downfall of your cult.

 

[PixyMisa]

hi Missy Pixy, since I cant get a clear cut description of free-willy from you in the other thread, Ill try here

explain fully how free-willy exists...
I hear:

-TLOP is not deterministc
-I choose from a range of options

Do you use both definitions?

No. The second is the definition of free will. The first is merely a fact.

How do you link them together?

I don't. There is no need to.

 

[The Fool]

Fool, I am a "free will" A-Theist. I lack-o-belief in what YOU believe.

I don't suppose you have ANY evidence for your "free will" GOD do you Theist?

I didn't think so. Run along Troll ... www.Infidels.org

LOL..game over Frankie....your complete lack of honesty and integrty makes your continued participation on this forum pointless. Go away, you are a pest.

 

[Franko]

Fool, I am a "free will" A-Theist. I lack-o-belief in what YOU believe.

I don't suppose you have ANY evidence for your "free will" GOD do you Theist?

I didn't think so. Run along Troll ... www.Infidels.org

 

[hammegk]

No. The second is the definition of free will. The first is merely a fact.

I don't. There is no need to.

For a moment it appeared you might have something new to offer.

Apparently not, although I would be interested to discover why you as a materialist think "what-is" is not absolutely deterministic. Would you care to give it some thought before you babble something about QM nuttiness and free will?

We do agree what-is is not random anyway, but I'm not a materialist.

Fool
Do you make meaningful posts in any forum here? Or is ragging on Franko & a couple others (yup, me sometimes) your only reason for living?

For example, do you have an answer to the question above?

 

[PixyMisa]

Apparently not, although I would be interested to discover why you as a materialist think "what-is" is not absolutely deterministic. Would you care to give it some thought before you babble something about QM nuttiness and free will?

"QM nuttiness"?

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most sucessful theory in physics ever.

Perhaps you have a theory of QM that explains all the experimental data and is both deterministic and fully causal?

Nobel comittee awaits eagerly.

 

[The Fool]

Hammy, it's you! I thought I could smell a racist. Did Franko order you in here to rescue his sorry ass? As you an see he's in a bit of a sticky situation.....He's a bit short on honesty and integrity so I'm not too sure why he would call for you? He would be better off getting Jedi to give him a hand on how to backslide away from stupid things you have said in the past and now want to deny.

Specifically, he needs someone to help with the Free will thingy..Its a bit difficult for him to continue to abuse people for proposing free will when he does the same thing himself....Can you help? Even just a diversion would be ok...maybe you could tell us (again) why slavery was good for blacks...or maybe how colonialism is the best solution for Africa.

Anyway, thats all the pointless ranting I have available for you today Mr Ham.....now be a good boy and go away ....

 

[hammegk]

"QM nuttiness"?

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most sucessful theory in physics ever.

Perhaps you have a theory of QM that explains all the experimental data and is both deterministic and fully causal?

Nobel comittee awaits eagerly.

Was that a red herring? Smelt, at least.

Are you proposing that human free will depends on QM non-determinacy? That is, since the current human mathematics by which we attempt to describe The (real as they are) Laws of Physics do not provide a deterministic representation of reality, deterministic reality CANNOT exist?

If so, I may go back to the question concerning your "random" behavior (which I really don't think exists).


responding to latest Fool-o-fart

Have you heard this one? Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, catch a ....... by the toe .....

Go back to Dream Time and take some friends (if any Abos still acknowledge you even exist).

 

[The Fool]

responding to latest Fool-o-fart

Have you heard this one? Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, catch a ....... by the toe .....

Go back to Dream Time and take some friends (if any Abos still acknowledge you even exist). [/B]

you are a piece of human garbage. I have told you already that In my country "Abo" is the equivalent of ◊◊◊◊◊◊. You really don't care do you. A racist coward posting on an anonymous forum..how brave.

 

[PixyMisa]

Was that a red herring? Smelt, at least.

No. Just a reply to your comment regarding "QM nuttiness".

Are you proposing that human free will depends on QM non-determinacy?

No. It may do so. I don't know.

I find the question: "Does consciousness depend on indeterminacy?" more interesting. Again, I don't know.

The reason QM came up at all was because certain individuals were claiming that the Universe was purely deterministic.

That is, since the current human mathematics by which we attempt to describe The (real as they are) Laws of Physics do not provide a deterministic representation of reality, deterministic reality CANNOT exist?

A good question. Our best current theories are non-deterministic. No-one has yet shown a theory that is deterministic and fully causal and agrees with the evidence, and there are theoretical reasons to believe that such a theory cannot exist (though not proof of this, though certain classes of such theories have indeed been ruled out).

Our non-deterministic theory is supported by all available evidence. It has been tested with extreme thoroughness and held up.

If so, I may go back to the question concerning your "random" behavior (which I really don't think exists).

Again I ask: Do you actually have a reason to believe that the Universe is deterministic? Do you have a deterministic and causal alternative to QM? Or does it merely clash with your curtains?
Edited to move a " mark from here to there.

 

[hammegk]

you are a piece of human garbage. I have told you already that In my country "Abo" is the equivalent of ◊◊◊◊◊◊. You really don't care do you. A racist coward posting on an anonymous forum..how brave.

Fool, I hope you are not actually the dim-witted f*cking assh*le you are beginning to appear to be.

This is still a bulletin board, remember? You seem to think you know me. Are you psychic? No, I don't think so.

I ask again, do you make intelligent posts in any forum here?

 

[hal bidlack]

Let's remember to play nice everyone