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.

[Chas]

Where, exactly, was this pre-existing information?

That's the theory of the big bang. It just appeared.

No, it's not. At the point of the Big Bang, there was maximum entropy - that is, no information at all.

[genkaus]

Thanks for the support.

Confusing dissent with support, huh? - Well, that is to be expected given the bizarro nature of your beliefs.

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.

The bolded part is the claim that you are required to prove. Your potentiality argument is not sufficient to prove that. Once again, "potential to absorb information" or even "potential to create information" is not the same as "containing all possible information".

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.

Proper practical application requires consistency with the idea - so when talking about the value of the idea in practice, it is assumed that it is being practiced consistently.

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.

Once again, simply asserting that it'll "logically have to be better" is not sufficient - you still have to prove it.

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

Different? Sure. Better? Prove it.

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

The point is simple: Your argument goes like this -
1. Morality of revenge requires sufficient knowledge to condemn.
2. Humans don't have sufficient knowledge to condemn.
Therefore, revenge is always immoral for humans.

You failed to establish what constitutes sufficiency of knowledge - making your premise 1 vague.
You failed to establish premise 2 are true.
Therefore your conclusion is invalid.

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

Thanks and nope.

Yet logic proves otherwise. Unless you have some reply.

My reply would be logic doesn't prove otherwise - and your failure to do so shows that.

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.

At this point you demonstrate your desire to have your cake and eat it too. If you accept that reality is same for all, then stop making statements like "reality sans faith is unjust" or "reality with faith is just".

[fr0d0]

That's the theory of the big bang. It just appeared.

No, it's not. At the point of the Big Bang, there was maximum entropy - that is, no information at all.

Isn't that the same thing?

---

Thanks for the support.

Confusing dissent with support, huh? - Well, that is to be expected given the bizarro nature of your beliefs.

When someone repeats what you say, to me that's assent.

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.

The bolded part is the claim that you are required to prove. Your potentiality argument is not sufficient to prove that. Once again, "potential to absorb information" or even "potential to create information" is not the same as "containing all possible information".

I would start to try if I thought you were on the same page.

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

Different? Sure. Better? Prove it.

That's the proof. If the logic follows for 'different', which you've just acknowledged, then it also follows for 'better'. Wider moral latitude = more information = more informed decision.

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

The point is simple: Your argument goes like this -
1. Morality of revenge requires sufficient knowledge to condemn.
2. Humans don't have sufficient knowledge to condemn.
Therefore, revenge is always immoral for humans.

You failed to establish what constitutes sufficiency of knowledge - making your premise 1 vague.
You failed to establish premise 2 are true.
Therefore your conclusion is invalid.

If you don't successfully challenge 1 or 2, then the conclusion stands.
1. If you can't ever know sufficiently of someone's guilt, then you can't make a moral judgement. We're talking about ultimate justice here. The ability to know thoroughly a persons motivations for their every thought and deed.
2. No human can know that they have sufficient knowledge of another persons guilt.
These are indisputable fact.

[genkaus]

When someone repeats what you say, to me that's assent.

Then you must have misread the argument because I didn't repeat what you said.

I would start to try if I thought you were on the same page.

I'm a few pages ahead of you and I already know how this chapter ends - but I'm simply playing along here. So go ahead, pretend that I'm on the same page and give it a try.

That's the proof. If the logic follows for 'different', which you've just acknowledged, then it also follows for 'better'. Wider moral latitude = more information = more informed decision.

This point was already proven incorrect in a previous argument:
Wider moral latitude =/= more information.
More specifically, if your wider moral latitude results in inclusion of fantasies, lies, misconceptions and misinformation then the result is less information.
The same way inclusion of pseudoscience =/= more science.

If you don't successfully challenge 1 or 2, then the conclusion stands.

I don't have to disprove anything that hasn't been proven in the first place. Since you have simply asserted it, asking you to prove it is challenge enough.

1. If you can't ever know sufficiently of someone's guilt, then you can't make a moral judgement. We're talking about ultimate justice here. The ability to know thoroughly a persons motivations for their every thought and deed.

Are you saying that only "complete knowledge of a person's motivations" can be sufficient knowledge? If so, prove it.
And we are talking about justice here. I have no idea what the phrase "ultimate justice" is supposed to mean.

2. No human can know that they have sufficient knowledge of another persons guilt.

Why not?

These are indisputable fact.

Yet here I am, disputing them.


For the record, my position is that complete knowledge of all motivations is unnecessary - just the knowledge of primary motivations relevant to the crime itself constitute sufficient knowledge. And that is knowledge that humans can and do have.

[Chas]

No, it's not. At the point of the Big Bang, there was maximum entropy - that is, no information at all.

Isn't that the same thing?

Oh, for fuck sake, Fr0d0, do try to at least be consistent.

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.

It contained all the information or no information. Which?

[fr0d0]

Are you saying that the big bang and the singularity (the single point from which the universe emerged) are two different things Chas? Please explain.

---

When someone repeats what you say, to me that's assent.

Then you must have misread the argument because I didn't repeat what you said.

it's still physically impossible to create something more than you physically compose.

A greater degree of perfection does not require greater physical composition

Looks the same to me. Perfection doesn't require greater physical composition. Exactly. All the composition that the universe needed to function should have been there from point zero. That supports the continual evolution of everything. There is no evidence of any new substance not intrinsic to this universe.

These are indisputable fact.

Yet here I am, disputing them.

You're disputing it without stating your case. Get back to me when you think of something. "Oh no it isn't" might be ok at a pantomime.

[genkaus]

Looks the same to me. Perfection doesn't require greater physical composition. Exactly. All the composition that the universe needed to function should have been there from point zero. That supports the continual evolution of everything. There is no evidence of any new substance not intrinsic to this universe.

See? I told you you missed the point. I'm saying that form and structure of the physical composition is relevant in making something better. And that was not present from point zero. Thus, your argument that "effect cannot be greater than cause" falls flat.

You're disputing it without stating your case. Get back to me when you think of something. "Oh no it isn't" might be ok at a pantomime.

Until you give some factual or logical support for your assertions, they are no better than a pantomime, which is why saying "Oh no it isn't" is sufficient to dispute them.

[Chas]

Are you saying that the big bang and the singularity (the single point from which the universe emerged) are two different things Chas? Please explain.

What? No. How did you get that? I was quoting your apparently contradictory statements.

(And there wasn't necessarily a singularity; Hawking no longer believes there was, for instance.)

The state of the universe at the start was at maximum entropy and that means there was no information.
And that means that all information that exists emerged from chaos.

[TreeSapNest]

No purpose, but for the roof that keeps me dry, furnace that keeps me warm, and lover that wakens my heart. Value in a valueless world, no matter how fleeting.