Exhistental Nihilism

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='24 October 2009 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1256429101' post='1990858']
No, if your going to quote me actually quote me. I stated "My position is that intelligence can not come from non intelligence, there can't be more in the effect than there was in the cause. Since there is intelligence in the effect, man, there must be intelligence in the cause. "

A non-intelligence has none, a intelligent being has something the non-intelligence does not have, thus it has something more. A intelligence has something the non-intelligence lacks, namely intelligence. What part of that do you not understand?
[/quote]

Your argument.

You declair, without any reference or support, that one cannot get "more" out of an effect than is in the cause. You then meander about with this principle. You claim that an intelligent being has "something" that a non intelligent being does not have, mainly intelligence. Intelligence is a predicate. Which mean that you are in effect claiming that predicates must either remain fixed or decrease from a cause to an effect. Where you are getting this from I don't know. That's not a principle of modern science, unless you've confused the second law of thermodynamics, which can be roughly translated into your claim, but applies to enthropy, not predicates.

[KnightofChrist]

Here's one source of [i]where I'm getting it... [/i]

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm"]Argument from Design[/url]

The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer. The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe. The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.

Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe. I wonder who can?" Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store. The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?" "No one," joked the believer; "it just happened by chance."

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God.

There is one especially strong version of the argument from design that hits close to home because it's about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in the known universe. In many ways it is like a computer. Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance. For instance, suppose you were in a plane and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards. How much confidence would you have in that plane? But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that program it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?



You can't get more in the effect than you had
in the cause.


Another specially strong aspect of the design argument is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is something like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

How much does this argument prove? Not all that the Christian means by God, of course—no argument can do that. But it proves a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind. If that's not God, what is it? Steven Spielberg?

[KnightofChrist]

Hassan if you disagree with the premise that intelligence can not come from non intelligence. Then perhaps you should show us empirical evidence of how intelligence can come from non intelligence. Because I can provide empirical evidence that intelligence comes from intelligence. The two examples off the top of my head are Artificial Intelligence, and a man and wife reproducing a offspring.

Edited October 25, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 October 2009 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1256349218' post='1990445']
I know that there can be subjective and relative opinions on a purpose for life, without God. But in the end there just opinions not facts, not really real. Just make believe to make a person feel 'good.'
[/quote]Exactly. Hence the creation of Religions to codify the make believe to keep people in line.

[jkaands]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='24 October 2009 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1256429208' post='1990861']
If you wish to start a topic about that I'm sure someone would be willing to give you a answer. But I am done with playing 20 questions.
[/quote]

Masturbation is one of the most popular topics on Phatmass--for some reason!

Just put [i]that word [/i]in the search engine and see what comes up. Including one [i]huge[/i] thread which was finally closed!

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='25 October 2009 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1256479495' post='1991056']
Exactly. Hence the creation of Religions to codify the make believe to keep people in line.
[/quote]

So you agree objective morals do not exist in the Atheistic world view. In that world a purpose to existence, right and wrong are in the end just make believe. Amazing how most atheist here seemed to object to that at first, but now admit it.

Edited October 25, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='25 October 2009 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1256513349' post='1991224']
So you agree objective morals do not exist in the Atheistic world view. In that world a purpose to existence, right and wrong are in the end just make believe. Amazing how most atheist here seemed to object to that at first, but now admit it.
[/quote]
No I don't agree. Your whole assumption is the aethists are amoral by nature. Although it's been explained that that is not so, you refuse to accept that fact. You need to read a few more Christian writers. "Exhistental Nihilism" (sic) is a choice to not follow any purpose. In reality, it is not a choice for [b]all[/b] aethiests or non-religious. Just because you believe something, it doesn't make it fact.

[Varg]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='26 October 2009 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1256561369' post='1991452']
"Exhistental Nihilism" (sic)
[/quote]Excuse the typo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='26 October 2009 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1256561369' post='1991452']
No I don't agree. Your whole assumption is the aethists are amoral by nature. Although it's been explained that that is not so, you refuse to accept that fact. You need to read a few more Christian writers. "Exhistental Nihilism" (sic) is a choice to not follow any purpose. In reality, it is not a choice for [b]all[/b] aethiests or non-religious. Just because you believe something, it doesn't make it fact.
[/quote]

I've argued since I joined this thread that without God, morals and a purpose to existence are make believe things, that make you feel good. I have not argued that athiest are amoral per say but that without God's existence, aka atheism, nature itself is [i]amoral[/i].

And you agreed. My actual quote was

"I know that there can be [b]subjective and relative opinions[/b] on a purpose for life, without God. But in the end there [b]just opinions not facts, not really real[/b]. Just[b] make believe[/b] to make a person feel 'good.'"

To which you responded...

"[b]Exactly[/b]. Hence the creation of Religions to codify the make believe to keep people in line."

Atheist violate Atheism when they believe in "make believe."

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='26 October 2009 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1256582265' post='1991619']
I've argued since I joined this thread that without God, morals and a purpose to existence are make believe things, that make you feel good. I have not argued that athiest are amoral per say but that without God's existence, aka atheism, nature itself is [i]amoral[/i].

And you agreed. My actual quote was

"I know that there can be [b]subjective and relative opinions[/b] on a purpose for life, without God. But in the end there [b]just opinions not facts, not really real[/b]. Just[b] make believe[/b] to make a person feel 'good.'"

To which you responded...

"[b]Exactly[/b]. Hence the creation of Religions to codify the make believe to keep people in line."

Atheist violate Atheism when they believe in "make believe."
[/quote]No, I don't agree with your premise. I was agreeing with what you thought was a silly conclusion. In the end, it really is opinion, not fact. I'm not sure exactly what you mean 'really real', but that is what is is... There are no basic fundamental laws that are etched into the side of the mountain eliminating all debate or questions. Even a Christian has to admit their belief in God is based on Faith, not pure logic. Sure, I will admit there are logical and reasonable arguements for that Faith. But if you admit that, you then have to concur that an atheist can use reason and logic to develop fundamental tenents of morality, despite their disbelief in a God.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='26 October 2009 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1256596737' post='1991724']
No, I don't agree with your premise. I was agreeing with what you thought was a silly conclusion. In the end, it really is opinion, not fact. I'm not sure exactly what you mean 'really real', but that is what is is... There are no basic fundamental laws that are etched into the side of the mountain eliminating all debate or questions. Even a Christian has to admit their belief in God is based on Faith, not pure logic. Sure, I will admit there are logical and reasonable arguements for that Faith. But if you admit that, you then have to concur that an atheist can use reason and logic to develop fundamental tenents of morality, despite their disbelief in a God.
[/quote]

I'm not sure you fully grasp the reality of what atheism would be if it were true. Morals without God, are imaginary, they would be made up to make us feel good. Something you have indeed agreed too. If an atheist rejects God because he believes Him to be imaginary, he should also reject morality because it would be just as imaginary. That is if he is going to avoid being completely contradictory. A atheist can not say he rejects God because he believes Him to be imaginary, then turn round and believe in a morality that would just as imaginary. It's a oxymoron, a contradiction, and hypocritical. True morality is based on faith, which why atheist should reject it. Again many atheist reject God because there are no facts to prove His existence, as you've already agreed. But it's ok to develop fundamental tenents of morality, despite the fact, there are no facts to prove morality exist. That is not logical.

Edited October 27, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='24 October 2009 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1256436631' post='1990912']
Hassan if you disagree with the premise that intelligence can not come from non intelligence. Then perhaps you should show us empirical evidence of how intelligence can come from non intelligence.[/QUOTE]

I have no burden to do that. You are making the claim that it is logically impossible for intelligence to emerge from non intelligence, you support it.

[QUOTE]Because I can provide empirical evidence that intelligence comes from intelligence. The two examples off the top of my head are Artificial Intelligence, and a man and wife reproducing a offspring.
[/quote]

There is no genuinely intelligent AI at the moment. Actually the baby works against you. We see unintelligent matter, a sperm and an egg, developing into an intelligent person.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1256863320' post='1993620']
I have no burden to do that. You are making the claim that it is logically impossible for intelligence to emerge from non intelligence, you support it.



There is no genuinely intelligent AI at the moment. Actually the baby works against you. We see unintelligent matter, a sperm and an egg, developing into an intelligent person.
[/quote]
Logically I think he's got you there.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1256863320' post='1993620']
I have no burden to do that.[/quote]

Correction, you can't do that, because there is no evidence that intelligence comes from non-intelligence. And because of that you failed to provide empirical evidence.

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1256863320' post='1993620']There is no genuinely intelligent AI at the moment.[/quote]

However you like to view the current state of AI, it does not program itself. Nor does it's programing come from non-intelligence. And while it does not even compare to the intelligence of man, there is some small artificial independent reasoning.


[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1256863320' post='1993620']Actually the baby works against you. We see unintelligent matter, a sperm and an egg, developing into an intelligent person.
[/quote]

Actually no it doesn't, but nice try. Perhaps you should have thought out your response a little more. The sperm and egg come from two Intelligent beings, the parents. The sperm and egg have as it's cause two Intelligent beings, who are also therefor the cause of the child.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='29 October 2009 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1256867689' post='1993660']
Correction, you can't do that, because there is no evidence that intelligence comes from non-intelligence. And because of that you failed to provide empirical evidence.



However you like to view the current state of AI, it does not program itself. Nor does it's programing come from non-intelligence. And while it does not even compare to the intelligence of man, there is some small artificial independent reasoning.




Actually no it doesn't, but nice try. Perhaps you should have thought out your response a little more. The sperm and egg come from two Intelligent beings, the parents. The sperm and egg have as it's cause two Intelligent beings, who are also therefor the cause of the child.
[/quote]
The plot thickens! I retract my earlier comment.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='29 October 2009 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1256867689' post='1993660']
Correction, you can't do that, because there is no evidence that intelligence comes from non-intelligence. And because of that you failed to provide empirical evidence.[/QUOTE]


Actually there is a massive amount of empirical evidence, perhaps you've heard of evolutionary biology.

That there is such a mass of evidence against your claim does not matter, even if there were none you're claim would not hold water as you have supplied no evidence for it.

You are claiming that it is logically impossible for intelligence to emerge from non intelligence. The only scant attempt you have even tried to provide to support this was your confused assertion about causality. The responsibility is on you to provide some support for your claim. It is not my job to go searching for evidence to refute every asinine claim you make.



[QUOTE]However you like to view the current state of AI, it does not program itself.[/QUOTE]

That is very true. It also not not help you.

[QUOTE]Nor does it's programing come from non-intelligence. And while it does not even compare to the intelligence of man, there is some small artificial independent reasoning.[/QUOTE]

If you want to classify those programs as genuine "reasoning".


[QUOTE]Actually no it doesn't, but nice try. Perhaps you should have thought out your response a little more.[/QUOTE]

I have given far, far too much thought to your argument already. Far more than it merits.

[/QUOTE]The sperm and egg come from two Intelligent beings, the parents. The sperm and egg have as it's cause two Intelligent beings, who are also therefor the cause of the child.
[/quote]

Depends on where you want to locate the "cause"

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1256870387' post='1993682']
Actually there is a massive amount of empirical evidence, perhaps you've heard of evolutionary biology.[/quote]

Please expand upon what parts of the wide filed of evolutionary biology shows empirical evidence that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, without the ultimate cause having some degree of intelligence.

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1256870387' post='1993682']That there is such a mass of evidence against your claim does not matter, even if there were none you're claim would not hold water as you have supplied no evidence for it.[/quote]

Again, please show this empirical evidence and not just claim it exist. You say this empirical evidence exist, show it,[b] show where scientist have empirically observed intelligence come from non-intelligence.
[/b]

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1256870387' post='1993682']You are claiming that it is logically impossible for intelligence to emerge from non intelligence. The only scant attempt you have even tried to provide to support this was your confused assertion about causality. The responsibility is on you to provide some support for your claim. It is not my job to go searching for evidence to refute every asinine claim you make.[/quote]

I'm asking you to prove me wrong, if you can. You disagree with my claim, and you claim you can prove it wrong. So do it.


[quote name='Hassan' date='29 October 2009 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1256870387' post='1993682']Depends on where you want to locate the "cause"
[/quote]

The cause of the fertilized egg is the sperm and egg which ultimately are caused, come from the two intelligent beings.

Edited October 30, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='29 October 2009 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1256871528' post='1993699']
Please expand upon what parts of the wide filed of evolutionary biology shows empirical evidence that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, without the ultimate cause having some degree of intelligence.[/QUOTE]

Originally all the beings on the planet were single celled organisms, which lack intelligence. We now have intelligence.

Glad I could help.

[QUOTE]Again, please show this empirical evidence and not just claim it exist. You say this empirical evidence exist, show it,[b] show where scientist have empirically observed intelligence come from non-intelligence.
[/b][/QUOTE]

Observation is a subset of emperical evidence. You're narrowing your criteria.



[QUOTE]I'm asking you to prove me wrong, if you can. You disagree with my claim, and you claim you can prove it wrong. So do it.[/QUOTE]

No, you're floundering because you cannot support your argument and now you're trying to save face.

You are making the claim. If it would remove your attempts to avoid the issue of the vacuity of your argument I will say that I have absolutely no evidence to oppose your claim. Ceding that I now ask you to support your claim that intelligence logically cannot come from non-intelligence




[QUOTE]The cause of the fertilized egg is the sperm and egg which ultimately are caused, come from the two intelligent beings.
[/quote]

The parents would not be the ultimate cause

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='30 October 2009 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1256875729' post='1993742']
Originally all the beings on the planet were single celled organisms, which lack intelligence. We now have intelligence.[/quote]

But where has this be observed in a in a scientific experiment? When, and where has science been able to actually observe intelligence come from non intelligence that did not itself come from an intelligence?


[quote name='Hassan' date='30 October 2009 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1256875729' post='1993742']Observation is a subset of emperical evidence. You're narrowing your criteria. [/quote]

Again, can you even provide where science been able to actually empirically observe intelligence come from non intelligence in an experiment that did not ultimately come from an intelligence?

[quote name='Hassan' date='30 October 2009 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1256875729' post='1993742']You are making the claim. If it would remove your attempts to avoid the issue of the vacuity of your argument I will say that I have absolutely no evidence to oppose your claim. Ceding that I now ask you to support your claim that intelligence logically cannot come from non-intelligence[/quote]

You said there was overwhelming empirical evidence. Once you stated that you took on the responsibility of proving it. So prove it.

[quote name='Hassan' date='30 October 2009 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1256875729' post='1993742']The parents would not be the ultimate cause
[/quote]

Parent means source or cause. In relation to the topic the parents are the cause, the child is the effect.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='30 October 2009 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1256921664' post='1993927']
But where has this be observed in a in a scientific experiment? When, and where has science been able to actually observe intelligence come from non intelligence that did not itself come from an intelligence?




Again, can you even provide where science been able to actually empirically observe intelligence come from non intelligence in an experiment that did not ultimately come from an intelligence?



You said there was overwhelming empirical evidence. Once you stated that you took on the responsibility of proving it. So prove it.[/QUOTE]

What a worm.

I'll say I have not the slightest shred of empirical evidence to refute your claim. Not one bit.

Now, please back up your assertion. You've not had the decency to either admit you can's support your asinine argument or to simply stop trying to wiggle your way out of the hole you've dug yourself and move on, which is taxing the very last of my patience. I'm not adressing another single point until you provide some positive argument for your claim.

Of course seeing as you very, even painfully, obviously have no such argument I don't expect for us to be continuing this.