Logical? Deism.

[Q-Source]

Mysticism is the belief in a transcendent reality which can be experienced by the individual.

And what is transcendent reality?

This can only be experienced by the individual ?, I mean, how do you distinguish an hallucination from "reality"?

 

[Franko]

Franko:
I thought that a Mystic was someone who believed that there were certain aspects of reality that could NOT be explained Logically?

... Or are you saying the same thing and just dressing it up?

Elephant:
Mysticism is the belief in a transcendent reality which can be experienced by the individual. Most forms also hold as central tenets the primacy of consciousness and the Unity of consciousness, and all things.

It is a YES or NO question, Elephant. Still stuck in your old A-Theist ways of making things more complex then they are?

a Mystic is someone who believes that there are certain aspects of reality that CANNOT be explained to another individual Logically? YES or NO, TRUE or FALSE. (according to YOU)???

 

[Tricky]

Ah, Franko. I see you're back on this thread. I was hoping you'd have a chance to sign off on these. I'm getting requests to add to the list, but I want to make sure I've got these right before I add. Also, any you want to add would be welcome.

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.

 

[Guest]

It is a YES or NO question, Elephant. Still stuck in your old A-Theist ways of making things more complex then they are?

a Mystic is someone who believes that there are certain aspects of reality that CANNOT be explained to another individual Logically? YES or NO, TRUE or FALSE. (according to YOU)???

Definition of mystic? No. There is no clash between mysticism and logic.

 

[Guest]

And what is transcendent reality?

Something more than the physical Universe.

This can only be experienced by the individual ?, I mean, how do you distinguish an hallucination from "reality"?

Very good question.

How can you?

 

[Tricky]

Definition of mystic? No. There is no clash between mysticism and logic.

That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical. For example:

All tall people are smarter than any short people.
Bill is taller than Dan.
:. Bill is smarter than Dan.

That syllogism makes no errors of logic. However, its major premise is badly flawed. How do you determine if tall people are smarter than short people? Not by logic, but by experimentation.

Logic is quite useful in a system where the assumptions are accepted, in determining the meaning of evidence. For example:
-----------
Syllogism 1.
All reality has a material basis.
John saw a ghost.
:. John's experience has a material basis.

Syllogism 2.
John saw the ghost walk through the wall.
Objects in the material world cannot walk through walls.
:. John's observation is a logical impossibility.

Syllogism 3.
John's ghost may have been the result of chemical and neurlogical phenomena in his brain.
Chemical and neurological phenomena in a brain are possible in a material word.
:.This observation is logically possible.
-----------
Thus, you see that the logic helps decide which explanation fits the best, providing you accept the first assumption that all reality has a material basis.

You could have an equally logical sequence which starts out with the assumption that the mind exists outside of the material world.

So how do you choose between them? You must give evidence for your assumptions. This is not a logical process, but an experimental one. It is a relatively simple exercise to show that things exist in the material world. It is even possible to formulate rules that have predictive power. The same is not true of the metaphysical world. There is nothing predictable, there are no discernable rules, and there is no evidence at all except anecdotal evidence. Certainly there is a feeling that "there must be something else", but all attempts to isolate what it is have been fruitless.

So if I'm going to choose a belief system among equally logical ones, I choose the one that is experimentally verifiable. Idealism and metaphysics have never even come close, even if they exhibit perfect internal logic.

Do physical/material things influence brain states? Yes. Demonstrably so. Hundreds of thousands of experiments verify it.

Do metaphysical/idealistic things influence brain states? We have no idea. The best you can say is "maybe".

 

[Q-Source]

Very good question.

How can you?

I got a question as an answer??

Subjective reality seems to me equal to any kind of mental creation without an objective basis. To me, there is no difference between an hallucination andsubjective reality when someone comes and talk to me about paranormal events.

 

[Pahansiri]

That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical. For example:

All tall people are smarter than any short people.
Bill is taller than Dan.
:. Bill is smarter than Dan.

Greetings Tricky
While I understand what point you seek to make the above example seeks to paint logic as this one thing and so from this example you can say logic is flawed.

The truth is the example you gave is simple logic, a self-serving form of purely self serving and incomplete logic.

We seek to make everything a black and white. In the example you uses you also used a simple logic or undeveloped self serving logic. As in as I read it

That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical.

The example is not in anyway completely logical, it is a silly simple self serving form of logic, not a developed logical conclusion using all available possible information and thought. The example is as if talking to Christian friends when they seek to “prove” their god they will say things like “ look at the trees there has to be a god” or “look at a baby” or “everything has to be created”

These are not logic in what would be it’s truest form.

I believe a truly developed logic which looks at all possible information etc can and is a tool for determining what is or may possibly be the truth.

If I pick up a hammer and hit myself in the head, from all possible data it is very logical to believe if I hit you in the head with the same hammer it will hurt.

In many threads we seek to say either:
1- there is no form of free will
2- there is total free will

or
1- there is total controlling fate
2- there is no form of fate

etc, what is truth is the truth is found in the middle.

Just what I believe

 

[Franko]

Franko:

a Mystic is someone who believes that there are certain aspects of reality that CANNOT be explained to another individual Logically? YES or NO, TRUE or FALSE. (according to YOU)???

Elephant:
Definition of mystic? No. There is no clash between mysticism and logic.

So there is NO aspect of your beliefs that you cannot explain Logically and Objectively to another person?

 

[Franko]

Tricky:

That's because logic is not a tool for determining truth. Something can be totally and obviously wrong, and yet completely logical.

If something is wrong, then it isn't completely logical.

Unless you are a dogmatic religious fanatic (ex: an A-Theist).

 

[Guest]

I got a question as an answer??

Subjective reality seems to me equal to any kind of mental creation without an objective basis. To me, there is no difference between an hallucination and subjective reality when someone comes and talk to me about paranormal events.

The only way you tell the difference between your experience of 'reality' and your experience of 'an hallucination' is because during the hallucination something happened which you don't expect to happen in 'reality'. But Hume examined this and argued that it doesn't matter how many times you experience reality behaving in a certain way, you could never be sure that next time it would not behave differently. Which may or may not help.



Frank :

So there is NO aspect of your beliefs that you cannot explain Logically and Objectively to another person?

There are certain things I might choose not to explain at all. There are certain things that people can only find out for themselves. If, prior to it happening to me, I would not have believed somebodies claim about an experience, then I would probably not bother relating that experience to anyone likely to have similar difficulty believing it. So whether or not I can explain something logically and objectively to another person depends as much on the person as it does on my beliefs.

Does that answer the question?

 

[Tricky]

If something is wrong, then it isn't completely logical.

Unless you are a dogmatic religious fanatic (ex: an A-Theist).

I disagree. Your own religion sets out assumptions, or tenets. (And I'm still waiting for your sign-off on the latest list). Some of those tenets are defensible. Others are not. However, If you accept all those tenets as true, then you may perhaps have a logical system within those tenets. For many of us, there are some serious problems with those assumptions.

By your own statement above, if anything is wrong with your assumptions, then Logical Deism isn't logical.

 

[Franko]

Franko:
If something is wrong, then it isn't completely logical.

Tricky:
I disagree.

So, 2 + 2 = 7 is logical???

Your own religion sets out assumptions, or tenets. (And I'm still waiting for your sign-off on the latest list). Some of those tenets are defensible. Others are not.

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

By your own statement above, if anything is wrong with your assumptions, then Logical Deism isn't logical.

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.

So far … no serious takers.

However, If you accept all those tenets as true, then you may perhaps have a logical system within those tenets. For many of us, there are some serious problems with those assumptions.

Well apparently for 90+% of the over-all population there are some even more serious problems with the tenets of A-Theism.

The Tenets of Atheism
· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God).
· Universes magically appear.
· Quantum mechanics is magical.
· Life magically appears.
· Human action (“free will”) is magical.
· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions.
· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True.

What were you saying about me being the one with unexplained contradictions?

 

[Upchurch]

Tenets of Logical Deism.

Tricky,

I've got a new one for you, but I don't know if it belongs in the Tenets or in The Lexicon obtained from the bottom of page 27 and the top of page 28 of "Regarding Franko...":

• Gravitons have an intrinsic nature that allow them to take actions outside the will of the Logical Goddess, but does not defy TLOP. In some circles, this "intrinsic nature" might also be known as "free will", but that is generally discouraged.

Feel free to word smith as necessary.

Upchurch

edited to add:

Franko/wraith,

From now on, whenever someone uses the term "free will" you are probably safe in assuming that they mean "intrinsic nature"

Upchurch

 

[MRC_Hans]

Frank:

So, 2 + 2 = 7 is logical???

Quite logical. And false, even for large values of 2.

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

+

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.

So far … no serious takers.

Only because you chose to ignore other people's arguments. But what the heck:

Atoms obey tlop : Assuming "obey" is not an act of will, OK.

You are made of atoms : Wrong. We are made of much more than atoms. Some (like you) believe we are also made of soul, but at least most of us can agree we also consist of information.

You obey thop : As the premises are not both true, this does not follow. It also falls for the fallacy of composition (a complex entitiy can have quite different properties than any of its elements). Thus, while we cannot break tlop, we are not limited (controlled) by them in the same way as atoms.

tlop controls you controls car : This is a non sequiteur. You base it on the claim that for entity A to control entity B, A must have a consciousness superior to that of B. This claim can be disproved:

Guard dog vs burglar
Prison cell vs human
Armed goon vs professor
etc.

If you have any serious counter arguments, I'll like to hear them.

Now for the check-off of tenets of A-theism. This is simpler, as I simply state the A-theist position (or at least my version of it):

· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God). Correct

· Universes magically appear. Incorrect; we do not know for sure how universes appear, but it is not believed to be magical.

· Quantum mechanics is magical. Incorrect. QM is observable physics (tlop).

· Life magically appears. Incorrect. We do not know exactly how life appeared, but it is not believed to be magical.

· Human action (“free will”) is magical. Incorrect. Free will is within tlop.

· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions. Incorrect. We just believe that consequences exist while we live, not in some speculative afterlife.

· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True. No, this is a(nother) Franko straw-man.

Cheers,
Hans

 

[Tricky]

So, 2 + 2 = 7 is logical???

Why no it's not. It is not even a statement of logic. It is a mathmatical equation, and an incorrect one at that.

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.

It has been done several times. You choose (using your free will) to ignore it. However, this is unrelated to my current point which is that something can be logical and still wrong.

So far … no serious takers.

Well, not if we use the Lexicon definition of serious.

Well apparently for 90+% of the over-all population there are some even more serious problems with the tenets of A-Theism.

Since I asked you to tell me whether or not I agreed with the tenets of Logical Deism, I can only assume that you are asking me to sign off on these "tenets of atheism". However, the observer may note that I tried very hard to capture what you actually said and not put words into your mouth, even to the point of making the corrections you suggested. Let us see if you will do the same.

· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God).

No evidence for things magical or supernatural (including God). Not impossible.

· Universes magically appear.

Not a tenet of atheism. The only universe we know to have appeared has an uncertain origin, but there is no evidence it was magical or supernatural or that it had a "creator".

· Quantum mechanics is magical.

Not a tenet of atheism. Quantum mechanics is a theory which describes and is predicitive about the way the universe is observed to operate. The theory will certainly change as other evidence is gathered.

· Life magically appears.

Not a tenet of atheism. Most atheists believe that life occurs through a natural process which is unrealated to magic, the supernatural or a god.

· Human action (“free will”) is magical.

Not a tenet of atheism. In fact, many atheists don't believe in free will. Those who do (like myself) do not claim that it is magical, but rather a natural process which is unrelated to magic, the supernatural or god.

· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions.

Not a tenet of atheism. Most atheists believe there are definately consequences for their actions, just not magical, supernatural, or god-administered ones. Many atheists have argued that theism is more likely to produce immorality, due to some theist concepts of a forgiving god. However, there is no general agreement among atheists on this point.

· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True.

Not a tenet of atheism. No evidence of something means that there is no evidence, and therefore, not worthy of serious consideration, yet not impossible.

What were you saying about me being the one with unexplained contradictions?

Out of seven "tenets of atheism", you got one halfway correct. I believe what you are describing here is "A-Theism", a set of beliefs which you have invented and tried to ascribe to others. Actually, most of the things on your list are about materialism, not atheism. There is only one single tenet for atheism and that is,

• There is no evidence for a god

While it is true that most atheists are also materialists, it is not universal, and definately a separate issue.

I trust you will correct your list as I have the Logical Deism list. By the way, do you have any further corrections for the "tenets of Logical Deism" list? If not, can I assume that you accept them as written?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Tenets of Atheism
· Nothing is magical or supernatural (there is no God).
· Universes magically appear.
· Quantum mechanics is magical.
· Life magically appears.
· Human action (“free will”) is magical.
· People who believe that there are no consequences for their actions will behave just as morally (if not more morally) then those who DO believe there will be consequences for their actions.
· No evidence that a thing is True makes it False (God), unless you really want it to be True, in which case no evidence that something is False (“free will”) makes it True.

What were you saying about me being the one with unexplained contradictions?

These tenets are hardly tenets of atheism. Atheism has not belief system or tenets. One can believe in all kinds of nonsense and still not believe in god. There are some atheists that believe in psychics and ghosts, they just don't believe in a god. Your strawman is just that.. a strawman.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Actually

As a materialist I must say only one of those tenets even applied(the first one excluding supernaturalism). Many of them are incompatible with materialism, one of them is compatible but not necessary(in the same sense that a xian can believe in astrology though astrology is not necessarily part of xianity).

BTW Franko, I agree theism is possibly true. But parsimonous? Not at all, when given other more compelling POV's i.e. naturalism. Even if the natural explanation is plausible as the theist one, atheistic naturalism wins as more parsimonous.

 

[whitefork]

Hey Tricky, I think you need to add this to the catechism:

Logical Deism is the simplest possible explanation. Anything more complex is unnecessarily so, and is therefore A-theism.

This one is just too good though.

Tricky: Something can be logical but incorrect.
Franko: So 2+2=7 is therefore logical.

I call this the Ernest Argument (from the comic):

If I had a nickel, I'd be rich!
No, if you had a nickel, you'd be poor....
Hey, I am rich!

 

[Upchurch]

I just wanted to interject, or maybe clarify, that something can be logically consistant and still be incorrect.

From The Logic Book (2nd Ed.) by Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson, pg 2.

A group of beliefs or claims is consistant if and only if it is possible for all the members of the group to be true at the same time. A group of beliefs or claims is inconsistent if and only if it is not possible for all the memebers of the group to be true at the same time. When a group of claims is inconsistent, we say that one cannot consistently assert (claim, believe) all the members of the group.

That aside,

Originally posted by Franko

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes controls CAR

+

If something is wrong, then it isn’t completely logical. But I’m still waiting for an Atheist to show me (clearly and specifically) where ANY of the above is wrong.

The only thing that is really wrong here is your definition of the term TLOP as a conscious entity and the unmentioned assertion that "things can only be controlled by more conscious things than itself."

Let me go in reverse order:

Things can only be controlled by more conscious things than itself: This can be shown to be false through example. A burgler breaks into a home and is cought by the family dog. The dog then backs the burgler into a corner, threatening physical violence until help arrives. Is the dog more conscious than the burgler? No. Here we have a specific example of something less conscious (the dog) controlling something more conscious than itself (the burgler). Therefore, this principle is shown to be false.

TLOP is conscious: This is based on LD's consciousness hierarchy (TLOP controls Man controls Object) coupled with "Things can only be controlled by more conscious things than itself." If both the premises were true, then one could logically conclude that TLOP are, indeed, conscious. However, through the above example, we have shown the second premise to be false. Therefore, while this does not prove that TLOP is not conscious, we cannot conclude that TLOP is conscious. If LD wishes to further assert that it is, they should provide another argument. edited to add: or modify the current argument so that it does not rely on a false premise.

Upchurch