Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[fr0d0]

lol it's still physically impossible to create something more than you physically compose. Variations leading to perfection have to be less or equal to the creator.

A greater degree of perfection does not require greater physical composition - rearrangement of existing material is more than enough. As a matter of fact, I'd say that to create something better, you must use less than what you have. Which is why my laptop is better than the 1950's computer.

Thanks for the support.

Everything in it, and anything it has the potential to create. The singularity contained the potential for the entire possible content of the universe. It was potentiality.

Potentiality is not information. I have the potential to solve the mysteries of quantum physic, that doesn't mean I already have the information required to do so.

You're confusing the application of words. Again. The singularity contained all possible information of everything that will ever exist in this universe. It contained the blueprint of all substance. If you didn't have the potential to absorb information and use it, then you wouldn't absorb or use it.

With both we're talking potential. You're moving away from philosophy to practical application, which doesn't help crystalise the idea for you, but confuses it.

Its the opposite, actually. Ivory-tower philosophy with no practical application is meaningless. The practical application of an idea is what crystalizes it.

Well make you're mind up. When it suits you, you call me names for not changing to the realms of pure philosophy. Now you want to switch back. Any one persons success or failure to achieve an objective state of mind has little bearing on the idea. For example, I might agree that charging my phone every day is a good idea. When I don't charge my phone, and my battery dies, is the idea then bad? No, it's my own personal failure that's to blame.

Q: is a life superior that adopts the philosophy? A: If it's applied, yes. If it isn't, no. As far as a person manages to maintain a focus on a just reality, their resulting quality of life will logically have to be better.

My perspective is different > my moral understanding is different > my quality of life is different.

If humans had it, how would they know? If they can't know that they have it, then they can't know that their judgments are correct.

Don't evade the question. Your ignorance of how humans can have sufficient knowledge and how they can know if they do is not evidence that they can't have sufficient knowledge. Once again, argument from ignorance doesn't justify shifting the burden of proof.

I'll ignore this as trolling. If you can make a point, go for it. At the moment your lack of input is noted.

Suffering mentally and physically are a direct result of living in conflict with nature. Don't take your meds: expect the illness to continue.

Humans have been living in conflict with nature for centuries now, without suffering mentally or physically.

That's too funny. Well, good luck with your defiance of nature. Are you an ex JW by any chance?

For the rest, like I've said, in a faithless reality life is unfair.

An we bring fairness to it - thus making a fuller life than one with faith.

Yet logic proves otherwise. Unless you have some reply.

Sans faith. Sure.

Your faith doesn't change reality - merely your perception of it. Reality would be just or unjust regardless of your belief in it. Now, if you have some actual evidence to show a just reality, put it forward.

And at this point you demonstrate that you haven't started to engage in this subject at all. Congratulations. Yes, 'reality' is the same for all of us. But then how we perceive reality is shaped by our understanding. Our beliefs. Our perception and it's impact upon our lives is the only subject here.