Exhistental Nihilism

[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.

[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