₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: The fool shouts and hollers at the wise man...........

I am certain you cannot produce a single fan of yours who would describe you as a wise man. But, vain glorious in the narcissism of the adulation of your own drastic imbecilic dimwitted-ness, you dance about - comic that you are - to proclaim so yourself.

There is no evidence for God.....take it or leave it.

Not a shred! ! !

plaetton: Do not forget sir, that the most important reasons we are told to come closer to and embrace god is that he is said to be just, kind, loving, and forgiving.

Well if that is what you have been taught, you have been taught secondary things.

The primary reason to draw unto God is simply that God is your source. The origin of you, period.

These are human attributes used by people of faith to cement their faith, and also in reaching out to unbelievers.

So are injustice, greed, hatred, and such others, which are also hugely satisfying to human beings.

So, when god is sold to us a complete package that contains the highest elements of human morality, then we have to begin to question that morality in the context of biblical narratives.

I do not deal in biblical narratives, and neither should you, in these matters.

It is curious, however, that you so slander same narratives and yet locate the idea of extra-terrestrial Elohim therein, which you believe to be true.

Since we do not believe in the existence of god, we only point out to those that believe, the alarming moral contradictions of their belief.

There are worse contradictions in your beliefs, kind sire, and no - since God transcends people, those contradictions you point out cannot be validated as contradictions.

Logicboy03: I am not discussing the existence of God......just morality.


The simple argument against the existence of God is that there is no single shred of evidence for God.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

The funniest line which you just love to repeat to show what a superb fit you are for a psychiatric hospital!

A man looks at the wealth of everything in the indeterminate cosmos about him, and continuously shrieks - "not a shred! not a shred! ! - no evidence at all!"

You are mad, son.

Everything we know so far is a result of the scientific method.

Which of course, observes "not a shred" and nothings, right?

If your God cant be tested by science or at least the 5 senses.......there is no reason to believe in his exist existence

The five senses? ? ? ?

Now you are raving mad!

The same senses you joined rigmaroler plaetton to argue cannot disclose objective reality? ? ? ? ? ?

You sick or sumthin, mate?

O, and in digesting my post above, remember the title of the OP.

Logicboy03: Well argued point but you forget the consequences of your argument

1) God then has no say in our morality, just as we cant preach vegetarianism to a lion so it wouldn't kill. The lion is wired to kill, and we are subject to our reasoning ability. If God operates on a different moral level, he is then useless to us when it comes to morality......

2) You are claiming that there is a higher morality (God's morality) which we can not understand. That is an argument from ignorance because you dont know and cant know if it exists because it would be far beyond your senses.The same way a lion wouldn't understand the nuance of human rights

Logicboy, at last, well done!

Finally, I have lived to see the day you have made a proper and intelligent response. I am pleased. You have valid points here.

However, I would direct you towards that which I really did seek to say, by my argument -

Deep Sight: What makes anyone think that God, if it exists, is, or should be either moral or immoral, in the human sense?

If God exists, it cannot be expected to be human. It therefore would super-exceed human morality. It would be in the position super-sight - a position where consequences and karma render justice unbeknownst to the receivers of said justice. In the position of a government that sees, for example, the treachery of espionage, as a lesser evil than the success of terrorism - and is therefore disposed to employ that same treachery to eliminate that same terrorism. It would be in a position to see the bigger picture - and understand moral dilemmas which would be opaque to us.

I kill one man - a righteous man even, to save many. This happens. And may not be immoral.

Now let me come to your points more specifically - >

God then has no say in our morality, just as we cant preach vegetarianism to a lion so it wouldnt kill. The lion is wired to kill, and we are subject to our reasoning ability. If God operates on a different moral level, he is then useless to us when it comes to morality......

Completely agree that God would then have no say in our morality - - - >

- - -> Just as surely as our morality would have no bearing on the existence or non existence (and nature of) God!

This is a cardinal point to show that arguments on God's morality or lack thereof, do not, and cannot, serve as arguments against the existence of God.

Just as surely my dear, as arguments against your morality, or lack thereof, cannot serve as arguments against your existence.

- - -> And just as surely as our morality would have no bearing on the philosophical question of the existence of a first cause. Evil first cause, or good first cause, no matter - - -> technically, our morality cannot, alone, by itself, ever be sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of a logical first cause - even if he (or "she" or "it" ) be Count Dracula.

You are claiming that there is a higher morality (God's morality) which we can not understand. That is an argument from ignorance because you dont know and cant know if it exists because it would be far beyond your senses.The same way a lion wouldnt understand the nuance of human rights

Another excellent point - as far as morality is concerned - but which is not the question here.

And which, however, does nothing to argue against a first cause.

However note that I am simply asking you how and why you could use human morality to judge an entity that is not human. As is the case with the Lion, does this make sense to you?

And as you accept the Lion to be a lower creature than you, and as you accept God (if it exists) to be a higher being or entity than you, does it not also make sense to agree that while the Lion's morality is incomprehensible to you, as it is lower, God's (if it exists) morality would be higher, and therefore incomprehensible to you - thereby removing it from the realm of your judgment or capacity to judge, yea or nay?

Does it not make sense to agree that while the Lion's morality may be lower than yours, God's (if it exists) would be higher?

You are, here, arguing against the morality of God and not the existence of God.

My primary argument with you (and with all atheists) is the philosophical question of the existence of God, and NOT the morality of God.

For all you care, the first cause (God) could be evil. Or amoral. This does nothing to taint the existence or non existence of God.

And if God (if it exists) is evil, then (if it exists) you best tailor yourself along its evil principles.

Like the Lion.

What makes anyone think that God, if it exists, is, or should be either moral or immoral, in the human sense?

Is God, if it exists, expected to be a human being?

If you say that God does not exist, fine. But if you agree that God, if it exists, would not be a human being, then why ascribe human moral standards to it, or judge it by human morailty?

When a lion kills lion cubs in taking over a pride, do you accuse him of murder and then sentence him to the electric chair? You do not. Why? Because he is not human and has a different moral paradigm, if any at all.

You consider the lion lower than you. You agree that God, if it exists, would be higher than you. If you cannot judge that which is lower based on your human standards of morailty, how can you judge that which is higher based on your human standards of morality.

Think again.

Kay 17: "Truth is what is objectively verifiable" is an epistemological consideration, you chain the truth to our sensory bias.

Is there anything that can be objectively verified by something other than our five senses?

The same senses, which you, and rigmaroler plaetton, question and doubt.

Therefore how can anything whatsoever be ever known objectively?

Arcsniper: everything! Forcing myself to believe things

I am sure bigfrancis and rossikke will not ask you to force yourself to believe anything. Never do that. Just take things easy, one step at a time with your life, aspire towards your goals and dreams, love God and fellow man, and all will be well. As you go along, you will come to recognitions that will clear the air for you: each will come at its own time, just when you are ripe for it. There is nothing to worry yourself about.

That you ask so many questions and are restless in your spirit already shows you thirst for truth, and it is a good thing. But do not go mad with your thirst, just feed it gently with your everyday experiences of life as that is that which you are here for.

Stay blessed.

bigfrancis21: You're welcome. Feel free to ask your questions.

Well I wonder if it is useful to induce past life memories. Perhaps for the purpose of finding direction and purpose in one's current life. And understanding its why's and wherefores?

I ask this because when I was very young I had many memories that I could not place within this lifetime. I also had a few strong dreams that I knew were happenings of another time. As I grew older, most, if not all, of these memories have faded away. I have just a fleeting sense of them, but cannot capture them anymore.

I call them my memories of eternity.

I wrote a poem about it - - ->



Memories of Eternity I

I have memories of Eternity
Things my mind just cannot place
Sights of ethereal rarity
Vibes of things of ancient face

Now and then the Picture floats
Of loves and lives past far and gone
Now and then the mind devotes
To ills recurred and loves forgone

Be my be, would you be
On and on this song I sing
It hoards my soul and rules my me
This ever, ever, ever thing…


So what do you think?

ROSSIKE: Thanks Deepsight. A major reason why this information is not more widespread is that it would completely destroy the basis on which our modern world is built. A world in which we are encouraged to believe that "this is all there is". Once you believe that death is the end, you focus all your efforts on material success, money, work, etc etc., ie on feeding the system. You would also fear to rebel against the system for fear of being killed etc etc.

Very True.

The profoundness of the words of bigfrancis honestly show a gifted being for one of his age.

Kudos and thank you.

You have helped me through many difficult and nagging questions about life.

@ Rossikk, stay blessed. Great thanks to you too.

Kay 17: If we condemn Reason and Faith, with their lofty standards and fantasy, how well can we trust our senses? What connection exists between reality and our senses, there isn't any means of verifying the authenticity of our sensual perception.

Although we are reliable on them for our everyday experiences, and so familiar with them that we take their validity for granted.

NOW of what substance or character would the validation of sensory perception have? Will it be a physical phenomenon?

You are heading down the path of meaninglessness started here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

Nothing can be known.

Happy?

Live with it.

Mr Troll: no. the unnecessary pot shots.

the truth?

Lol, that is not always to be taken seriously. Jibes, really.

nwuyag: Are you a christian?
I will like to know your sect

Why?

Anyhow, if by Christian you mean one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ on love of God and fellow man, and as enunciated within the beatitudes, then I am more than proud to call myself a christian.

But if by Christian you mean one who believes that Jesus is God, the only begotten Son of God, Divine, was born of a virgin, died a ritual sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind, was resurrected, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, is coming again to Judge the world, then no, sir, I am not a Christian.

Why do you ask for a "sect". . . sounds scarily cultish to me . . .

PhenomenonVFX: Dont agree with me because I never said there is consciousness in inanimate objects. Stop putting words in my mouth dude. U obviously didnt get the gist of my arguments at all.

What I said is this; listen carefully so u wont start replying another thing and say u are replying what I said.
I said there are no conscious machines now. But in the future, it MIGHT be possible. Might. Get it?
I also said that the day we see computers operating beyond the limits of their programming is the day we get one step closer to conscious computers.
With advancement in quantum computing, the possibilities become almost limitless. There are scientists actively studying how to transfer human consciousness to computers, and if it is possible at all, as we speak. What are u going to call them, metaphysicists?
Dude I have told u that science is not ur bible that doesnt change. Science and advancement go hand in hand. Dont expect the science of now to be the science of the future.
This is the gist: I dont know if we will ever have conscious computers ever. But it hasnt been proved impossible yet so it will remain an active area of research until then.
Now unless u have serious scientific arguements for the impossibility of conscious computers, dont expect me to dump sound science for ur inconsequential opinion.

PS: Dude make sure u read this three times before replying. I am beginning to wonder if u are reading what I wrote from a braille or something.

Alright you.

I asked you a question, perhaps I missed your answer. The "What am I" question. What did you say on that one.

Now, can I kick-start my discussion with you with 2 additional questions -

1. What is Consciousness

2. What is self-consciousness - and how does it differ - if at all - from consciousness

Thanks.

plaetton: Deepsight reminds me of blackberry stock. Once a a valuable high flyer, but now fallen in value because the company has simply exhausted it's imaginative and innovative potentials.

My advice?
Sell and avoid until intrinsic value is restored.

Odd fella. You must really think I earn my livelihood based on how highly I am thought of on Nairaland.

You should know very well I do not give a hoot about how smart or d.aft you or any one else may think I am.

I don't trade such pitiful stock, sorry.

wiegraf: ^^^
Strippers don't pay themselves. Get to it

Come to think of it, do those in these country claim they're using it to pay for uni as well? Ask them abeg

Lol, abeg na joke o.

Joshthefirst:
Goodnight sir.

Goodmorning sir.

God exists, the earth is a school, but your religion is quite something else

On that merry note. . Hurrah.!

Joshthefirst: for petes sake?

1. If your unconscious god(nature) does not have a conscious intent, how does it create machines as you claim, that have an intent to perform an action and cannot but fulfil programming?

Machine:
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

2. You just acknowledged that machines do not have freewill.
This shows that man is not a machine as he has freewill. You're contrsdicting yourself.
You cannot state that man does not have freewill, or else he would not be responsible for his actions. Or else the law(even human law) would bear no weight. And there would be lawlessness. Men truly becoming animals. This is what you get by teaching children that they're animals or machines that don't have freewill. They start to act like animals and create a scenario in which they aren't morally responsible for anything, since they are programmed as it were.

Lawd knows *hic*

wiegraf: Who says I'm agnostic? Don't use that dirty word to describe me. I've already told you who "built" humans.

Olodo. Night. Gat strippers to attend to. Conscious ones.

O glory.

wiegraf: Nature does not have a conscious intent. Blindly doing its thing through time.

The bolded is correct. Who said anything about god??

So according to your bible man uses energy to attain a goal. Exactly what is a machine again?

O sharrap, you daftling, who cannot even explain the simplest thing in nature, and yet make bold, intoxicared on the wine of a liitle learning, to speak the place of nature. . .

PhenomenonVFX: DeepSight go home u are drunk.
U are just throwing tantrums around like a child and yet to say anything meaningful.

When u sober up, explain how pain is a sign of consciousness. And tell me what happens if a conscious animal loses its ability to feel pain. Does it lose his consciousness thus?

And yes transfering consciousness to robots is not pseudo scientific ramble. It has bases in sound science and has been supported by higher humans than u. You are yet to refute any claims made here soundly. Please do so.

Note: when u reply me, talk. Dont just ramble with childish petulance.

Such s.illiness. of course the sensation of pain is a sure component of consciousness even when the loss of the sensation surely does not connote loss of consciousness.

This is so elementary, it is the reason new born bsbies are pinched to cry.

Drunk, I am, no doubt. We shall see on the morrow, and do present yourself for the duel. Do not shrink, for I shall be there.... waiting. ... conscious.... and even self conscious. ...

Joshthefirst:
Take it easy sir.

Maybe its too much stout and pepper soup.

It just might be. Else there is no other explanation for the piffle on offer here. Someone says he cannot see how the experiencee of pain shows consciousness. Another person says that drugs induce emotions in people and as such emotions may be induced in a robot.

Ah. I accept. They didn't actually say these blasphemous and scandalously d.aft things.

It is rather the case, that I am drunk, and imagining these statements only.

Kay 17: An odd comment from a theist, considering your belief that God preconceived man as a vision prior to creating him for a purpose. Man is likened to a machine in that regard.

Which is why an atheist therefore calling man a machine amounts to conceding purpose and intent, snd therefore conceding the existence of God, however described.

Whats going on here, are y'all rats, fraggles or something? I must be crazy, having an imaginary conversation with intoxicated rodents. . .

Joshthefirst: You sure say wiegraf never run commot?

To be fair to him, he has never pretended to be interested in being taken seriously, the reverse of Plaetton, who advertises perverse ignorance and stupidity with endearing confidence.

Joshthefirst:

Take it easy sir.
That's what I asked him first.
I'm still waiting for him to reply.

I wouldn't wait up, considering the deep and intense obtuseness on offer here.

Those conscious robots would probably consider some of the reta.rded posters here, robots.

And poorly engineered ones at that, good grief.

Joshthefirst: okay,
I assume you speak indirectly. A machine has no choice but to fulfill the intents of its maker? Or rather, the intent of a machine is the intent of its maker?
What gives machines intent if not the machine makers?
Do machines have freewill?
Remember:
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

How can humans be machines and still have freewill, having their own intents and taking their own actions?

Machines have makers do they not?
And you cannot tell me that evolution is our maker, evolution itself does not have intent. Or does it?

The s.illy marijuana addict could not even see how the statement that humans are machines counters his atheism.

PhenomenonVFX: I fail to see how feeling pain equates consciousness..

HONESTLY SOMEONE TELL ME WHY ANYONE SHOULD TAKE THIS CLOWNISH STATEMENT SERIOUSLY? ? ?

PhenomenonVFX: I fail to see how feeling pain equates consciousness. Thinking, yes. Pain? No.

Also nobody has told u computers think. What we have said is that in the future with advances in neuroscience and quantum computational power, it could be possible that computers become thoughtful. Could be. Probability.
Somehow u seem to be conveniently omitting that in ur subsequent arguments.
Now unless u want to define consciousness in ur own terms or u can prove that it is impossible to create computers capable of thought.......these argument boils down to DeepSight's personal beliefs vs. Science. I will take science anyday.
Cheers.

Nonsense.

I have yet to make any argument by the way. When I argue, you will know.

That aside, by what ridiculous presumption do you equate the idea of possible conscious robots with science ?? ?? ?? ??

As is obvious, you know nothing of the science of the matter, and have made a most ridiculous leap in aligning science with the psuedo futuristic psuedo intellectual nonsensical notion of self conscious robots.