Exhistental Nihilism

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1256985587' post='1994347']
What a worm.[/quote]

You're cup of sunshine!


[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1256985587' post='1994347']I'll say I have not the slightest shred of empirical evidence to refute your claim. Not one bit. [/quote]

But you have already stated that you have, you did so most profusely. Now you claim that evidence does not exist! Which is it?

The non-existence of empirical evidence that intelligence can come from non-intelligence is my evidence that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. I charge that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence because there is not t[i]he slightest shred of empirical evidence[/i] to proof that intelligence can come from non-intelligence.

Edited October 31, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='26 October 2009 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1256604474' post='1991783']
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.
[/quote]And you are confused. Provide your definition of Objective, then provide Ojective evidence that morality and God exists. Once you respond to that, I'll patiently explain the other confusions in your post above.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='31 October 2009 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1257013559' post='1994439']
And you are confused. Provide your definition of Objective, then provide Ojective evidence that morality and God exists. Once you respond to that, I'll patiently explain the other confusions in your post above.
[/quote]

I'm not answering any questions until you have actually answered what was asked of you. Are you going to actually answer or continue dogging the question?

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1257006536' post='1994406']
You're cup of sunshine!




But you have already stated that you have, you did so most profusely. Now you claim that evidence does not exist! Which is it? [/QUOTE]

I'm going to claim there isn't so we can successfully demonstrate how full of it you are with your earlier claims claim.

[QUOTE]The non-existence of empirical evidence that intelligence can come from non-intelligence is my evidence that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. I charge that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence because there is not t[i]he slightest shred of empirical evidence[/i] to proof that intelligence can come from non-intelligence.
[/quote]

Claiming that there is no empirical evidence that intelligence can emerge from non intelligence is one claim. Claiming that the causal laws of the universe prohibit it, or that the idea is logically refutable is quite another. If this is your way of admitting that you have no argument that intelligence necessarily cannot emerge from non intelligence then we can move on. However I suspect that unless we nail this down you will slip back to your earlier, stronger claim.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='31 October 2009 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1257013559' post='1994439']
And you are confused. Provide your definition of Objective, then provide Ojective evidence that morality and God exists. Once you respond to that, I'll patiently explain the other confusions in your post above.
[/quote]

His post is 100% correct. Nietzsche is correct. If God doesn't exist morality doesn't either. Might makes right! The weak will be hedonists (and will still pretend some form of morality exists) and the strong will be in charge.

[Hassan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1257022610' post='1994528']
His post is 100% correct. Nietzsche is correct. If God doesn't exist morality doesn't either. Might makes right! The weak will be hedonists (and will still pretend some form of morality exists) and the strong will be in charge.
[/quote]


Nietzsche is correct that a moral and metaphysical order predicated on Christianity will probably not long last the death of God. But to claim that universal morals generally are inherently logically contingent on Theism is not a sustainable position.

This is KoC's confusion. It has been for some time.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1257022764' post='1994530']
Nietzsche is correct that a moral and metaphysical order predicated on Christianity will probably not long last the death of God. But to claim that universal morals generally are inherently logically contingent on Theism is not a sustainable position.

This is KoC's confusion. It has been for some time.
[/quote]

It's not a confusion. The only reason for any morality without God is for order; but even that order comes into question. Why do you want order? What is good and evil? There's no such thing.

[Hassan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1257023006' post='1994533']
It's not a confusion. The only reason for any morality without God is for order; but even that order comes into question. Why do you want order? What is good and evil? There's no such thing.
[/quote]

That is one possible source of an atheistic source of morality. A atheist could also argue for objective morality. Some sort of non theistic Platonism could provide such a worldview. I think such an argument would have no basis in evidence or reason, but there is nothing logically contained in the concept of absolute morality which makes it necessarily contingent on theism. Or at least so far no one has presented any such logical proof.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1257022537' post='1994525']
I'm going to claim there isn't so we can successfully demonstrate how full of it you are with your earlier claims claim. [/quote]

Is that just sweet! I wuvy dove you too.


[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1257022537' post='1994525']Claiming that there is no empirical evidence that intelligence can emerge from non intelligence is one claim. Claiming that the causal laws of the universe prohibit it, or that the idea is logically refutable is quite another. If this is your way of admitting that you have no argument that intelligence necessarily cannot emerge from non intelligence then we can move on. However I suspect that unless we nail this down you will slip back to your earlier, stronger claim.
[/quote]

I made the premise that intelligence can not come from non intelligence. Using the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. Backed with empirical evidence that intelligence can only come from intelligence, using AI and parents having a child as examples. Examples you failed to defeat. I also used the non-existence of empirical evidence that intelligence can come from non-intelligence as my evidence that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. And that you have agreed, after failing to provide the overwhelming evidence you said exist to proof otherwise.

We are at the end of the road unless you now provide the evidence you said existed. What has really happened here is that you made that bold claim and now can not prove it, and you would like us all to forget about it, trying to spin it round on me. Well thats not going to happen, and your failure to offer your proof is your crushing defeat.

Edited November 1, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1257023515' post='1994540']
That is one possible source of an atheistic source of morality. [/quote]

But it would be just subjective and relative morality. It would not actually exist.


[quote name='Hassan' date='31 October 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1257023515' post='1994540']A atheist could also argue for objective morality. Some sort of non theistic Platonism could provide such a worldview. I think such an argument would have no basis in evidence or reason, but there is nothing logically contained in the concept of absolute morality which makes it necessarily contingent on theism. Or at least so far no one has presented any such logical proof.
[/quote]

Something that has [i]no basis in reason[/i] is irrational. To hold a view that would be irrational would be illogical. So with your own words you have offered the logical proof you seek. Because it is only logical to hold rational views.

Edited November 1, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1257020207' post='1994486']
I'm not answering any questions until you have actually answered what was asked of you. Are you going to actually answer or continue dogging the question?
[/quote]I answered your question.

Moral principles are not based on entirely Objective principles. Neitzsche can no more prove that God doesn't exist, then Aquainis can prove He does. Those of you that are arguing there is truely Objective morality based on the Objective evidence God exists and cannot explain are on the road to want to become Bible Literalists. There remains that final Leap of Faith, that gets you to the other side.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1257044919' post='1994659']
Is that just sweet! I wuvy dove you too.




I made the premise that intelligence can not come from non intelligence.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

[QUOTE]Using the principle of causality[/QUOTE]

Which principle? Are you claiming this is a principle of modern physics?

[QUOTE]which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. Backed with empirical evidence that intelligence can only come from intelligence, using AI and parents having a child as examples.[/QUOTE]

That's not empirical evidence for your claim. Even if your examples were sound that would only be empirical evidence that intelligence can come from intelligence.


[QUOTE]Examples you failed to defeat. I also used the non-existence of empirical evidence that intelligence can come from non-intelligence as my evidence that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence.[/QUOTE]

We've been over this.

[QUOTE]And that you have agreed, after failing to provide the overwhelming evidence you said exist to proof otherwise.

We are at the end of the road unless you now provide the evidence you said existed. What has really happened here is that you made that bold claim and now can not prove it, and you would like us all to forget about it, trying to spin it round on me. Well thats not going to happen, and your failure to offer your proof is your crushing defeat.
[/quote]

Good turn around.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1256245316' post='1989797']
That's true, but most of the people I speak to about it say that it's less depressing than believing that life is a test designed to see if we're good enough to get rewarded and if we're not good enough then we are punished forever. I kind of agree with them...
[/quote]

First off, unfortunately, as much as you may think so, this is not Christianity. Whoever told you this was wrong, and whoever told them was wrong. It's a gross misrepresentation of everything Christ taught. Christianity is not a stupid test. Christianity is about people, God, and love.

In this whole discussion I'm curious to know how those who do not believe in a God can think something is objectively good.

In christianity, there is no such thing as good AND evil - like separate and distinct substances. There is only one thing - Good. Insomuch that a thing exists it is good: A bird is good because it is a bird. It met those initial goals to exist as a bird. A chair is good, in however it looks, if it fulfills the purpose of being chair. Granite is good insomuch as it remains granite. Being Granite is it's foundational purpose. Evil, on the otherhand, is a destruction of good. Every time we use the word evil it is when something good is broken/destroyed/ruined. It is NOT good that a bird has a broken wing, it ruins the purpose of the wing, and the overall purpose of the bird to fly around and do bird things. It is not good that a man is born blind, or gets leprosy or AIDS. Evil is not a thing unto itself. Evil cannot be a thing, because the purpose of evil is the destruction of good. If pure evil was it's own thing it's main purpose would be to destroy the first good of itself - existence.

Fast Forward. Add free will to the equation. The powers that infinitely separate humans from other animals are consciousness and freewill. We realize there's a reality and we have the ability to enact our will on that reality. Whether we like it or not, enacting our will is a choice between good and evil - between hindering another's purpose, or helping/encouraging them in the purpose. We can break the birds wing or we can let it go. We can help an old man through the door or trip him. We all have the chance to murder. This is inescapable. but we all have the chance to love instead. And this is how true Christians define love - to [i]WILL[/i] the ultimate good of the other, [i]at the expense of the self[/i]. It is NOT about feelings. And it flies directly in the face of self-preservation.


Furthermore, Christ teaches that to love in this way is our actual purpose. [i]It's why we have freewill in the first place[/i].

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together,
35 and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking,
36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.
39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

If you havent. You should read Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. It's not only about morality and just how much we should love, but also about God. And how he is on our side, believe it or not.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm (it's Chapter's 5, 6, and 7.)

Jesus aint playing. For humans it comes down to a choice not directly "good" or "evil" but selfishness vs selflessness. "me" or "everyone else". Anything that tries to argue Jesus's teachings can only do so by arguing in favor of selfishness because Christianity is 100% selflessness. To God, and to fellowman. Not because we are forced to (love can not be forced) but because we choose to. For the love we love with is not our own, it is Jesus's love for us, overflowing into the rest of the world. That sounds fluffy and stupid, but it's the truth. Did you read the Sermon on the Mount? That Shiz is HARD, good luck trying not to be angry in a world without God. The only way we can do it is by first giving ourselves up to God. Grace is the fuel that lets us choose others instead of ourselves even when it hurts.