LordReed:


If you are not there to see the crankshaft does it still have purpose?

Humans are the ultimate beneficiary of crankshafts.

You don't need to see the crankshaft as long as it does it's purpose of converting linear motion of the piston to rotary motion! Even then, that is the purpose it was engineered for by its designer, usually humans don't care as long as the final engine fulfill its purpose!

LordReed:


They are purposes even though they are limited in scope. Once you have eaten and are satisfied you have fulfilled that purpose until you need to eat again.

Asked and answered.

Is the purpose of an engine to consume fuel and lubricants?

shadeyinka:

Humans are the ultimate beneficiary of crankshafts.

You don't need to see the crankshaft as long as it does it's purpose of converting linear motion of the piston to rotary motion! Even then, that is the purpose it was engineered for by its designer, usually humans don't care as long as the final engine fulfill its purpose!

Even if there is no human there to see or benefit from the crankshaft it will do what it does.

HellVictorinho:

Atheism is different from nihilism.
Atheism shouldn't gravitate towards anything.

I didn't say Atheism is Nihilism!

I said:

shadeyinka:

But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

If all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die. Is there really a purpose for human existence.

If we are just star dust, could there be a purpose to us?

If we are star dusts and we shall ultimately return to being star dusts.
What is then our purpose?

You tell me?

shadeyinka:

Is the purpose of an engine to consume fuel and lubricants?

No but it has components which have that purpose.

shadeyinka:

Oh, thanks my dear Buda. Well refreshed. I believe you slept well too.

No, I have not slept. I was up all night reading and watching The Last Kingdom, and might sleep soon, but I am refreshed, for now.

shadeyinka:

I meant, if we agree that any system must have a purpose and several systems exist in the universe. Then a necessary conclusion should be that the universe has a purpose. If the universe has a purpose (even if we cannot comprehend it), there must be a beneficiary to such system.

The universe is far too big for me to make claims about, especially regarding whether it has a purpose or not, because even if it has one it has not fulfilled it yet and likely will not fulfil it in my lifetime, hence todays worries being sufficient for today.

shadeyinka:
It would be fallacy to conclude that we don't know if a beneficiary of the system exist. Hence I conclude that:

It would not only be a fallacy for me to not conclude that I do not know if a beneficiary of the universe exists, but intelligent people should inform me that I am very very stupid if I dared not!

Have you seen a beneficiary of the universe?

shadeyinka:

That is: can we admit that the Creator exist BUT we can't measure HIM (the Creator) on our laboratory scale

As in, I should admit what I can not perceive exists? Why? To deceive, perhaps? To make people think I have knowledge I know I do not have? To lie to myself like I accuse you of doing? To lie to you? Why don't I just admit I have a billion pounds in my wallet instead though I can not perceive a billion pounds in my wallet? I'm sure that would be far more useful to me.

Sorry, but that is not buda's way! And to be honest, if you continue to insist that buda becomes this way, I shall be taking a break from conversing with you. Be warned!

shadeyinka:
Aren't you contradicting yourself?

The statement was:

If a system must necessarily have a purpose, such purpose must be to the advantage, good or necessity of/for another entity or system.

No! A system may produce an outcome without intending to. A clock is a simple example. It has no purpose in its own right despite being a system of cogs that move. The clock does not say, I will tick so Shadeyinka may know what time it is. The sun is another. It rises and the plants grow. Not, the sun rises with the intent of growing plants.

shadeyinka:
Such benefits doesn't necessarily have to accrue to man.

Benefits implies "for". The cogs of the watch move not because it wants to tell you what time it is but because it has been designed so you can use it to tell what time it is. The plants may benefit from the rising of the sun but the sun does not rise for the benefit of the plants. The sun does not give a fuq about the plants that rely on it to grow and neither is the clock responsible for your timekeeping.

shadeyinka:
Electrons for example have the purpose of keeping an atom neutrally charged and useful for chemical reactions of the atom.

No, I would not put it that way. I would not say the electron has a purpose. But I must confess that my chemistry is like 30 years old. I can say the sun does not have the purpose of growing plants even though plants likely would not grow without the sun.

shadeyinka:

Thus we can say the nucleus of the atom "benefit" from the presence of electrons round it. [s]But this doesn't have a direct benefit to humans[/s].

Yes, benefit. But not necessarily purpose, as stated above regarding the sun and plants and clocks.

shadeyinka:

All we need is just one physical example of an infinite regression of cause and effect.

A lack of evidence is not proof. That said, there is mathematical proof, and as far as logic goes, that is sufficient evidence.

Go investigate Black Swans. It has theory on the subject.

shadeyinka:
If there exist no iota of example, then taking a position that an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible is a RECKLESS Belief!

First, there is lots of iota of example, and the fact you might be ignorant of its existence does not mean it does not exist. Maths is one. It is far more reckless to take a position that because one has not seen an iota of an example therefore none exists, unless you want to claim you surveyed everything and know it all and found no evidence.

This is the silly thing people do when they fill in the gap of their ignorance with gods! I called it wuruwuru to the answer in our previous discuss. A thing you do.

shadeyinka:

If we can't find a single example were an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible, then is it not reasonable to conclude (in the realm of the physical ) that there must exist a first cause!

Now you are really being absurd when you consider you can't find a single possibility of infinite regressions! Are you seriously trying to make me believe that your level of competence extends to the point that you can have surveyed possibilities to be able to say an infinite regression can not be found? You will forgive me, but you really have not shown that you are that knowledgeable for me to take your word for it. Your comments here alone are sufficient enough for me to know you do not know what you are talking about. I apologise for my rudeness.

shadeyinka:

The Universe is still changing and scientifically in future, it will attain equilibrium where no change is possible again!

It will? Got any evidence for this or are you asking buda to believe you have gone so far into the future so you know?

shadeyinka:
If the universe has an end, it must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, it must be caused for change to take place. This is possible is there exist a Primordial Cause!

Have you not noticed that buda does not do "if"?

Please, stick to the worries of today and stop with this crap you make up!

shadeyinka:
The UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE is very much like INFINITY. There is no specific number called infinity because you can always add 1 to such number. But Intellectually, we use infinity in our mathematical computations because even though it is no fixed number, it is useful in solving maths problem.

The fact you use it does not mean it exists. You may create Gods and a billion pounds inside your head but that does not make them exist outside your head.

shadeyinka:
It would be a fallacy for a mathematician to dismiss infinity from mathematics just because it is not a fixed number!

And mathematicians do not dismiss infinity, they just do not claim it is this or that or a first cause.

shadeyinka:

It is impossible for a Tree to know it's purpose because it doesn't benefit directly from its own existence. But without the Tree, carbon cycle, oxygen cycle, food chain ceases to exist. On the earth, the trees purpose is to convert the solar radiation to food and oxygen for life to exist.

The first part is what I've been pointing out to you with the clock and the sun. But why the bit in bold? Can I not say the tree grew to provide shade for the ant, or to piss off the inhabitants of dogedona, or to produce a seed and grow offsprings?

shadeyinka:
A crankshaft has a purpose within a crankcase of an engine. It's purpose is to translate the linear motion of the piston into rotational motion.

Purpose is thus a fallacy without at least one beneficiary of the system!

Since a crankshaft does not make itself, I guess it can have a beneficiary who purposefully made it, but the same can not necessarily be said of a tree that could have grown just because a bird ate its seed and shat it into the soil the tree grew in.

shadeyinka:

It doesn't make a difference!

We have dumb robots and we have robbots with artificial intelligence like Lucy!

A human being is like the most advanced robot with artificial intelligence

It makes a difference because there is a difference between the living and the non-living.

IamPlato:
if you are an evolutionist then you believe that something creates man... There is a starting point, in your own belief where is the starting point for man

First, I am not believer! One does not believe in evolution like it is some God, just as one does not believe in mathematics. One knows it as concept and one understands it. Think of it like gravity. You would not say one believes in gravity, or woud you?

Second. It is a known fact that the universe at a time had no life on it until life appeared somehow and it over time evolved into humans. After all, it is accepted knowledge that humans have not existed forever, no?

As for the "starting point" for humans, there isn't one in particular since evolution of humans happened over hundreds of thousands of years in different places on earth.

And note the following:

LordReed:

That is not the position of evolution. Evolution says nothing about creation.

LordReed:


No but it has components which have that purpose.

If the purpose of an engine is not to consume fuel, how then can the purpose of man be to eat?

Actually , it's the reverse! The purpose of food is to fuel the body of man! The purpose of our teeth is to masticate hard food for easy digestion.

What then really do you think is the purpose of man if he is just star dust and will return into becoming star dust?

shadeyinka:

But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

Why? Can an atheist not love their child, or themself, or their neighbour or their car?

shadeyinka:
If all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die. Is there really a purpose for human existence.

Who lives by "all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die"? Do they not need food, or does the food just fall into their open mouth so they do not need to purposefully get it?

shadeyinka:
If we are just star dust, could there be a purpose to us?

You and your pointless "if"!

Are you just stardust, shadeyinka?

HellVictorinho:


You are just another group of indivisible ageless objects that form the pattern called budaatum for no reason.

Are you suggesting that the budaatum that consciously puts the effort in to discuss with you has no reason?

Please let buda know so buda can stop wasting buda's purposeful time please.

shadeyinka:

I didn't say Atheism is Nihilism!

I said:



If we are star dusts and we shall ultimately return to being star dusts.
What is then our purpose?

You tell me?

If something exists,then it means it performs an activity.
If it is a living thing,then the activity can be planned or pre-meditated or voluntary.
It can also be unplanned or involuntary.
But there is no reason why the living thing appears in the first place.
In other words,it just appears as a structure that manifests consciousness for as long as possible.

budaatum:

Are you suggesting that the budaatum that consciously puts the effort in to discuss with you has no reason?

Please let buda know so buda can stop wasting buda's purposeful time please.

budaatum has a reason for posting XYZ.
But there is no reason why that reason exists in the head of budaatum.

HellVictorinho:


budaatum has a reason for posting XYZ.
But there is no reason why that reason exists in the head of budaatum.

So, what buda posts comes out of buda's head with no conscious effort or thought from buda?

I'm getting worried, Hell. Is that how your posts appear before me with no conscious thought or effort from Hell?

shadeyinka:

If the purpose of an engine is not to consume fuel, how then can the purpose of man be to eat?

Actually , it's the reverse! The purpose of food is to fuel the body of man! The purpose of our teeth is to masticate hard food for easy digestion.

What then really do you think is the purpose of man if he is just star dust and will return into becoming star dust?

You are only focused on some grand purpose. Purpose does not have to be grand, you can have several limited purposes. I have a purpose this morning of attending a meeting, once that meeting is over that purpose ends. Same with eating, it ends once hunger is satisfied.

budaatum:

So, what buda posts comes out of buda's head with no conscious effort or thought from buda?

I'm getting worried, Hell. Is that how your posts appear before me with no conscious thought or effort from Hell?

The thoughts are effects of an exposure to this or that environment in which various objects move randomly.
There is no reason why there is an environment where exposure takes place.

LordReed:


You are only focused on some grand purpose. Purpose does not have to be grand, you can have several limited purposes. I have a purpose this morning of attending a meeting, once that meeting is over that purpose ends. Same with eating, it ends once hunger is satisfied.

I had a purpose to sleep at some point and have since become the beneficiary of that purpose.

budaatum:

I had a purpose to sleep at some point and have since become the beneficiary of that purpose.

They are so focused on miracles they miss the ones right in front of them.

LordReed:


They are so focused on miracles they miss the ones right in front of them.

My Lord, they are worse than that. They refuse to see what is in front of their eyes and instead "see" what they believe! And then they think by repeating it they can brainwash one to be blind and believe as they do, or don't, to be more accurate. But what is most annoyingly puzzling is that they will claim the great optician Jesus Christ has done work on their eyes, which makes me just want to ask Him for my money back!

https://www.nairaland.com/6404876/waging-bet-against-impossible-statistical/6#99161824

Sorry, I've been quite busy today.

budaatum:

No, I have not slept. I was up all night reading and watching The Last Kingdom, and might sleep soon, but I am refreshed, for now.

The universe is far too big for me to make claims about, especially regarding whether it has a purpose or not, because even if it has one it has not fulfilled it yet and likely will not fulfil it in my lifetime, hence todays worries being sufficient for today.

It would not only be a fallacy for me to not conclude that I do not know if a beneficiary of the
universe exists, but intelligent people should inform me that I am very very stupid if I dared not!

Have you see a beneficiary of the universe?

Let's go over this again!

What is a System?
A system a group of items that together perform one or more vital functions

A system must have a purpose!

What is a purpose?
Purpose is an objective or end to be attained. It could also mean an intention of a system

For every objective, there must be a driver/setter of such objective
For every intent, there must be a driver/conceiver of such intention.

The universe consists of billions of isolated and also interdependent system some as small as atoms and others as big as the solar system.

Who then is the ultimate beneficiary of a system?
He is the one who set the objective or intention of a system.

budaatum:

As in, I should admit what I can not perceive exists? Why? To deceive, perhaps? To make people think I have knowledge I know I do not have? To lie to myself like I accuse you of doing? To lie to you? Why don't I just admit I have a billion pounds in my wallet instead though I can not perceive a billion pounds in my wallet? I'm sure that would be far more useful to me.

Sorry, but that is not buda's way! And to be honest, if you continue to insist that buda becomes this way, I shall be taking a break from conversing with you. Be warned!

I think you are being too extreme here.

Many times in the sciences, an object is predicted sometimes years before they are detected.

Examples:
The elements scandium, gallium and germanium were predicted and described by Dmitri Mendeleev years before their actual discovery.

Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves on the basis of his general theory of relativity in 1916. Gravitational waves were actually detected in September 2015 by the collaboration between LIGO and Virgo.

In other words, even scientifically, it is not impossible to describe that which has not been observed.

budaatum:

No! A system may produce an outcome without intending to. A clock is a simple example. It has no purpose in its own right despite being a system of cogs that move. The clock does not say I will tick so Shadeyinka may know what time it is. The sun is another. It rises and the plants grow. Not, the sun rises with the intent of growing plants.

The bolded then contradicts the definition of a system.

The purpose of a clock cannot the determined by the clock. The purpose of the clock can only be determined by man.

The fact that the clock cannot by any means understand it's purpose does not mean that it has no purpose.

budaatum:

Benefits implies "for". The cogs of the watch move not because it wants to tell yiu what time it is but because ut has been designed so yiu can use it to tell what time it is. The plants may benefit from the rising of the sun but the sun does not rise for the benefit of the plants. The sun does not give a fuq about the plants that rely on it to grow and neither is the clock responsible for your timekerping.

No, I would not put it that way. I would not say the electron has a purpose. But I must confess that my chemistry is like 30 years old. I can say the sun does not have the purpose of growing plants even though plants likely would not grow without the sun.


Yes, benefit. But not necessarily purpose, as stated above regarding the sun and plants and clocks.

I agree, benefit imply "FOR who"?
But the question is WHY?

Two isolated interacting gears in a clock have seemingly no apparent beneficiary, but have a purpose even if it is to confer a mechanical advantage or velocity ratio to the working of the overall coalition of gears and clogs I'm the clock. In other words even for such isolated system, the beneficiary is the engineer. However the beneficiary of the complete clock is not the engineer but the USER.

Thus, the question of "FOR", "WHY" and the "BENEFICIARY" even for the mundane clock is established!

budaatum:

A lack of evidence is not proof. That said, there is mathematical proof, and as far as logic goes, that is sufficient evidence.

Go investigate Black Swans. It has theory on tbe subject.

I haven't said that lack of evidence is a proof.

Is it possible that a man by flapping his hands can fly to the moon?

The fact that we know hat the answer is NO!

But can we conclude that:
"the fact that there exist no evidence that anyone has succeeded in such feat does not prove that it is impossible!"?

Of course, just as A lack of evidence is not proof, A lack of evidence shows that the feat is most likely not possible.

budaatum:

First, there is lots of iota of example, and the fact you might be ignorant of its existence does not mean it does not exist. Maths is one. It is far more reckless to take a position that because one has not seen an iota of an example therefore none exists, unless you want to claim you surveyed everything and know it all and found no evidence.

This is the silly thing people do when they fill in the gap of their ignorance with gods! I called it wuruwuru to the answer in our previous discuss. A thing you do.

Follow the logic, you'll arrive at the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE as an infinite regression of Cause and Effect is logically impossible

budaatum:

Now you are really being absurd when you consider you can't find a single possibility of infinite regressions! Are you seriously trying to make me believe that your level of competence extends to the point that you can have surveyed possibilities to be able to say an infinite regression can not be found? You will forgive me, but you really have not shown that you are that knowledgeable for me to take your word for it. Your comments here alone are sufficient enough for me to know you do not know what you are talking about. I apologise for my rudeness.


It will? Got any evidence for this or are you asking buda to believe you have gone so far into the future so you know?


Have you not noticed that buda does not do "if"?

Please, stick to the worries of today and stop with this crap you make up!


The fact you use it does not mean it exists. You may create Gods and a billion pounds inside your head but that does not make them exist outside your head.


And mathematicians do not dismiss infinity, they just do not claim it is this or that or a first cause.

There are a million and one systems In the world. It's just a matter of giving just one example and we will agree that an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible.

Until then, the evidence/lack of evidence show that infinite regression of cause and effect is NOT possible.

Can an astronaut land on the sun?

The answer is obvious: until one can find a material that can survive 6000oC (which doesn't exist), the answer is No! It is unreasonable to argue that the fact that such refractory materials doesn't exist is not.a proof that such is impossible!

LordReed:


You are only focused on some grand purpose. Purpose does not have to be grand, you can have several limited purposes. I have a purpose this morning of attending a meeting, once that meeting is over that purpose ends. Same with eating, it ends once hunger is satisfied.

Oh I see why you mix things up.
There is a difference between
1. You having a purpose on earth as a living system and
2. You making a purpose

You have spoken of you creating a purpose BUT I ask you for your own purpose as a living system.

Is your purpose to generate CO2 for plants?
Is your purpose to reproduce?

My question is, if you then have to die and become star dusts once again, what have you gained?

HellVictorinho:


If something exists,then it means it performs an activity.
If it is a living thing,then the activity can be planned or pre-meditated or voluntary.
It can also be unplanned or involuntary.
But there is no reason why the living thing appears in the first place.
In other words,it just appears as a structure that manifests consciousness for as long as possible.

My question is still very simple:
My question is, if you then have to die and become star dusts once again, what have you gained?

shadeyinka:

My question is still very simple:
My question is, if you then have to die and become star dusts once again, what have you gained?

Nothing.

shadeyinka:

Oh I see why you mix things up.
There is a difference between
1. You having a purpose on earth as a living system and
2. You making a purpose

You have spoken of you creating a purpose BUT I ask you for your own purpose as a living system.

Is your purpose to generate CO2 for plants?
Is your purpose to reproduce?

My question is, if you then have to die and become star dusts once again, what have you gained?

As far as I am concerned there is no grand purpose for me as an individual. My purpose as I create it for myself is made up of lots of limited purposes.

I don't gain anything.

budaatum:

Why? Can an atheist not love their child, or themself, or their neighbour or their car?

Ask any Atheists if they'll agree that the purpose of man is to love?

budaatum:

Who lives by "all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die"? Do they not need food, or does the food just fall into their open mouth so they do not need to purposefully get it?

Everyone who sees himself as an accidental assembly of chemicals and star dusts should live by such slogan!

All I am asking is for an individual Atheist to answer the question of his purpose of existence here on earth. Dont they arrive at a form of nihilism?

budaatum:

You and your pointless "if"!

Are you just stardust, shadeyinka?

I am much more than star dust!
I am also a soul and a spirit.

These are two things Atheists reject. Aren't they just chemicals interacting with star dusts?

shadeyinka:

I agree, benefit imply "FOR who"?
But the question is WHY?

Can you not see the false assumption you wish to disregard by working to the answer you want?

Why ask "why there is a beneficiary" when you have not found "who" benefits?

shadeyinka:
Is it possible that a man by flapping his hands can fly to the moon?

Is the flapping of hands the only means the person has of getting to the moon or is he just too stupid to try other ways of getting to the moon?

And yes, buda is very angry that you spent all day thinking and this rubbish is what you come up with!

If you did know your history, or shall I say, if you ate the fruit of the knowledge of human flight, you would know that getting to the moon started with man flapping his hands.

HellVictorinho:


It makes a difference because there is a difference between the living and the non-living.

Both the dumb robots and robbots with artificial intelligence like Lucy are both non living.

A human being is like the most advanced robot with artificial intelligence, hence, it makes no difference

LordReed:


As far as I am concerned there is no grand purpose for me as an individual. My purpose as I create it for myself is made up of lots of limited purposes.

I don't gain anything.

Even shadeyinka gains nothing after death.

shadeyinka:


Both the dumb robots and robbots with artificial intelligence like Lucy are both non living.

A human being is like the most advanced robot with artificial intelligence, hence, it makes no difference

A human being is living and that's the difference.
Artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence.

shadeyinka:

Ask any Atheists if they'll agree that the purpose of man is to love?

Ask anyone and most will not tell you the purpose of man is to love. It is not even the purpose of Christians.

The purpose of humans is to live!

For the rest, go find yourself an atheist to do this stupidity with. buda does not do 'my tits are bigger than your tits' when the purpose is to learn.

budaatum:

The first part is what I've been pointing out to you with the clock and the sun. But why the bit in bold? Can I not say the tree grew to provide shade for the ant, or to piss off the inhabitants of dogedona, or to produce a seed and grow offsprings?

A tree can be planted to provide shade for men.
A tree can be planted as wind break
A tree can be planted to provide beauty for humans

Those aren't their primary purpose but they are the purpose for which a man planted/groomed them.

budaatum:


Since a crankshaft does not make itself, I guess it can have a beneficiary who purposefully made it, but the same can not necessarily be said of a tree that could have grown just because a bird ate its seed and shat it into the soil the tree grew in.

Inherently every tree irrespective of where they are situated will contribute to the Carbon Cycle, Oxygen cycle and conversion of solar energy to food. When specially planted or groomed by humans, they can exist for more other purposes (as willed by men)!