Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

No, I don't disagree with mainstream Christians on omnibenevolence. The mainstream Christian view is that God is not omnibenevolent
Faith vs works. Yes, he's wrong about his faith. His faith is consisteent with my own. Everyone makes mistakes.
I saw nothing contradictory about morality, no.

These examples don't qualify as contradictory. I've been mistaken myself plenty times. I think I have been this week where Lek has corrected me. Never have I claimed perfect knowledge, and neither has any other Christian here as far as I'm aware. And why would they? If a Christian was to claim perfection, then that would contradict the basic tenet that humans are flawed now wouldn't it?

No, mainstream Christianity does consider your god omnibenevolent.And according to the latest pope, its works not faith. The fact that you don't see these contradictions doesn't mean there are no contradictions.

Finally, you did claim flawless knowledge, which is synonymous with perfect knowledge.

Feel free to correct me. What can I do? I've been looking for many years now. Where is your evidence?

Hundreds of threads in this very forum are filled with evidence - what you can do is actually look through them. Its not that hard - just type "errors in bible" in the search and you get 95 pages worth of posts.

Purpose/ outlook. Purpose built upon a just outlook, as I've expanded upon several times now.

Can you point a post where you prove that its preferable?

My point being... a moral outlook based upon an unfair world is inferior to a moral outlook based upon a fair world.

That is what you are required to prove - still waiting.

So who knows everything? Do you?

Why does anyone have to know everything?

[fr0d0]

No, I don't disagree with mainstream Christians on omnibenevolence. The mainstream Christian view is that God is not omnibenevolent
Faith vs works. Yes, he's wrong about his faith. His faith is consisteent with my own. Everyone makes mistakes.
I saw nothing contradictory about morality, no.

These examples don't qualify as contradictory. I've been mistaken myself plenty times. I think I have been this week where Lek has corrected me. Never have I claimed perfect knowledge, and neither has any other Christian here as far as I'm aware. And why would they? If a Christian was to claim perfection, then that would contradict the basic tenet that humans are flawed now wouldn't it?

No, mainstream Christianity does consider your god omnibenevolent.And according to the latest pope, its works not faith. The fact that you don't see these contradictions doesn't mean there are no contradictions.

Finally, you did claim flawless knowledge, which is synonymous with perfect knowledge.

Mainstream Christianity does not consider god to be omnibenevolent. Period lol.
You misunderstand the pope then.

I don't claim flawless knowledge at all. I claim currently inerrant information. And that stands until proven otherwise.

Feel free to correct me. What can I do? I've been looking for many years now. Where is your evidence?

Hundreds of threads in this very forum are filled with evidence - what you can do is actually look through them. Its not that hard - just type "errors in bible" in the search and you get 95 pages worth of posts.

I've been here 5 years and seen most of them. All are complete BS. Nothing has come close. Seriously. I'm not talking biased perspective here. I'm looking for fault.

Purpose/ outlook. Purpose built upon a just outlook, as I've expanded upon several times now.

Can you point a post where you prove that its preferable?

I explained it again for you. At some point you're going to need to address it. Saying "I don't get it" won't do. To me it's as plain as the nose on your face.

My point being... a moral outlook based upon an unfair world is inferior to a moral outlook based upon a fair world.

That is what you are required to prove - still waiting.

It's self explanatory. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

So who knows everything? Do you?

Why does anyone have to know everything?

I have no idea, you said it!

The nature of knowledge has no wants. And its your presupposition that full knowledge is logically unknowable.

[genkaus]

Mainstream Christianity does not consider god to be omnibenevolent. Period lol.
You misunderstand the pope then.

I don't claim flawless knowledge at all. I claim currently inerrant information. And that stands until proven otherwise.

Yes, it does.
No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.
And you've yet to substantiate your claim of inerrant information.

I've been here 5 years and seen most of them. All are complete BS. Nothing has come close. Seriously. I'm not talking biased perspective here. I'm looking for fault.

Like I said: That happens when you stay blind to the facts.

I explained it again for you. At some point you're going to need to address it. Saying "I don't get it" won't do. To me it's as plain as the nose on your face.

You haven't explained anything - you simply keep repeating that "morality based on assumption of just god is better than morality sans god" - but you haven't proven it yet.

It's self explanatory. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

It not self-explanatory. In fact, I regard morality based on absence of any justice in real world to be far superior to your god-based morality.

I have no idea, you said it!

The nature of knowledge has no wants. And its your presupposition that full knowledge is logically unknowable.

Do you understand the difference between the logical possibility of full knowledge and the actuality of someone having full knowledge?

[fr0d0]

Mainstream Christianity does not consider god to be omnibenevolent. Period lol.
You misunderstand the pope then.

I don't claim flawless knowledge at all. I claim currently inerrant information. And that stands until proven otherwise.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

I like their justification which shows no justification whatsoever.
Fact is there's no biblical support for it. That's what I understand. Feel free to prove me wrong. Once more, I have no axe to grind here. Happy to be proven wrong.

No, I didn't.

Faith should produce works: Fruit. Works alone are irrelevant. Secondly, the pope isn't infallible. I don't know why anyone would think so. If he made a mistake, that's all good. I know the pentecostal church doesn't accept Catholicism as Christian at all. I have some sympathies, but believe that Catholics can be Christian. I concede this point if it is indeed made correctly on that mess of a web page.

Yes, you did.
And you've yet to substantiate your claim of inerrant information.

Seems like I'm saying the same as I'm saying here. You're ignoring what I mean when I'm being quite precise about it. Our knowledge of God as written in the bible is so far flawless. Yes. There are no improvements on it known to man. I say that repeatedly. I'm sorry you're confused about that.

I've been here 5 years and seen most of them. All are complete BS. Nothing has come close. Seriously. I'm not talking biased perspective here. I'm looking for fault.

Like I said: That happens when you stay blind to the facts.

Bias is bias. Show me irrefutable evidence and I shall gladly concede. Show me none and I shall assume it is only your bias talking. How about the skeptics annotated bible? Don't you actually think that amassed wisdom should contain at least one successful challenge? Perhaps we should put a million on it. But then I'm not saying that words written by men should be inerrant. (some Christians do, I don't. No biggie), just that up until now, it remains undefeated.

I explained it again for you. At some point you're going to need to address it. Saying "I don't get it" won't do. To me it's as plain as the nose on your face.

You haven't explained anything - you simply keep repeating that "morality based on assumption of just god is better than morality sans god" - but you haven't proven it yet.

It's self explanatory. You're asking me to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. The proof is already stated. What you have to do is challenge it. No challenge. No need to reply.

It's self explanatory. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

It not self-explanatory. In fact, I regard morality based on absence of any justice in real world to be far superior to your god-based morality.

Great. a blind assertion. Why do you think that? Gimme something.

The nature of knowledge has no wants. And its your presupposition that full knowledge is logically unknowable.

So who knows everything? Do you?

Why does anyone have to know everything?

I have no idea, you said it!

Do you understand the difference between the logical possibility of full knowledge and the actuality of someone having full knowledge?

So you agree with me then?

[genkaus]

No it doesn't.

I like their justification which shows no justification whatsoever.
Fact is there's no biblical support for it. That's what I understand. Feel free to prove me wrong. Once more, I have no axe to grind here. Happy to be proven wrong.

In this matter, I don't care about proving you wrong. According to the link, mainstream Christianity believes in omnibenevolence, you don't. That's a contradiction and I'm fine leaving it at that.

Faith should produce works: Fruit. Works alone are irrelevant. Secondly, the pope isn't infallible. I don't know why anyone would think so. If he made a mistake, that's all good. I know the pentecostal church doesn't accept Catholicism as Christian at all. I have some sympathies, but believe that Catholics can be Christian. I concede this point if it is indeed made correctly on that mess of a web page.

Again, I don't care about resolving this contradiction - simply showing its existence.

Seems like I'm saying the same as I'm saying here. You're ignoring what I mean when I'm being quite precise about it. Our knowledge of God as written in the bible is so far flawless. Yes. There are no improvements on it known to man. I say that repeatedly. I'm sorry you're confused about that.

Identifying the presence or the absence of any flaw would require a correct standard to measure it against. Without the availability of such a standard, you cannot claim your knowledge to be flawless.

So, to be even more precise, you are saying one of three things:

1. Either - your knowledge of god comes from the bible and it matches the bible's conception of god. I could care less about this position. You understood and interpreted the bible correctly? Good for you. You still have to establish that your standard, i.e. the bible upon which you are claiming flawlessness, is accurate. And that I know it not to be.

2. Or - your knowledge of god comes from the bible and it matches how god actually is. And you can't make this claim without actually proving the existence of god.

Which one is it?

Bias is bias. Show me irrefutable evidence and I shall gladly concede. Show me none and I shall assume it is only your bias talking. How about the skeptics annotated bible? Don't you actually think that amassed wisdom should contain at least one successful challenge? Perhaps we should put a million on it. But then I'm not saying that words written by men should be inerrant. (some Christians do, I don't. No biggie), just that up until now, it remains undefeated.

You have been shown evidence. And no, covering your eyes and going "la,la,la" does not count as a refutation.

It's self explanatory. You're asking me to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. The proof is already stated. What you have to do is challenge it. No challenge. No need to reply.

I'm asking you to prove that "morality based of assumption of just reality is preferable to the alternative". It is neither self-explanatory nor is it already stated. I don't have to challenge shit until you prove it.

And for the record, if 1+1=2 was your claim, I'd require proof for that as well - I won't accept "self-explanatory" as answer.

Great. a blind assertion. Why do you think that? Gimme something.

You first.

Do you understand the difference between the logical possibility of full knowledge and the actuality of someone having full knowledge?

So you agree with me then?
[/quote]

No.

[Chas]

I don't claim flawless knowledge at all. I claim currently inerrant information. And that stands until proven otherwise.

You haven't learned squat in your time here.

No claim stands without evidence.

Your unsupported claim of 'inerrant information' is dismissed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't claim flawless knowledge at all. I claim currently inerrant information. And that stands until proven otherwise.

That's a laughably ignorant claim.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Perhaps both the logical extension of both theism and atheism is nihilism.

So, the logical extension of two opposing positions is the same? That's illogical... "Only theism can lead to non-nihilism" is a corollary for "Atheism leads to nihilism". If you prove one, it means you've proven the other. And it is your obligation to prove your claims.

I still don't buy it. First, the OP does not include the term 'only'. Secondly, there is no reason why two different roads cannot lead to the same destination.

---

It comes from the combined functionality of those loops and swirls. Your inability to get it is not an argument against emergence.

Functions are also assigned meanings. Unless you are claiming that functions are somehow inherent to physical systems your assertion is empty.

[genkaus]

I still don't buy it. First, the OP does not include the term 'only'. Secondly, there is no reason why two different roads cannot lead to the same destination.

First, do you understand what a corollary is?
Secondly, those two roads are going in opposite directions.

Functions are also assigned meanings. Unless you are claiming that functions are somehow inherent to physical systems your assertion is empty.

And function of consciousness can assign meaning to itself. Which is why they don't have to be inherent - just emergent.

[Jenny A]

The singularity is perfectly 'good'. It is functional in that it brings about a universe. God, having produced said singularity, has to be superior to it (see Aquinas). So Good is morally superior to the universe, and needs to be perfectly good.

Again you are conflating two distinct meanings of the word good: functional and moral. If god exists and created the universe he's one hell of a good builder, but not necessarily a good god from a moral standpoint.

Now since you are defining god, you can certainly define him as perfectly moral as well. But if you are going to stick to the one delineated in the Bible, it's going to be a hard sell as I've yet to see any evidence that Yahweh is a particularly moral character. Unless of course you simply define whatever he does as moral in which case I hope you don't act on that belief because killing babies for the sins of their parents is one of Yahweh's pastimes and he does involve humans in that activity.

The notion that that which creates a thing is always superior to the thing created is not a presumption I'll buy whether Thomas A. said it or not. By what standard would you measure such superiority? Many men have built things stronger, faster, and with greater longevity than themselves.