What are the chances that God could pop into existence from nothing to make everything?

What are the chances that the first cause was uncaused?

This is the nihility of God.

Forget Jesus, forget Mohammed, forget God and let's get on with life.

Its been a long time, but am not back.

There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing' it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this something from which all things in the material world springs. This something is God. QED.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

ooman: What are the chances that God could pop into existence from nothing to make everything?

Nobody says this: this is not and has never been the position of any theistic school of thought. Theists say that something - God - has always existed, and not that it popped out of nothingness. It is in fact atheist scientists, who have argued (via virtual particles and radioactive decay) that something may pop out of nothing. An alarmingly iidiotic position, of course.

What are the chances that the first cause was uncaused?

It could only be.

This is the nihility of God.

This is the nihility of your brains and reasoning faculties: and worse, of your intuitive perception.

Deep Sight:

It is in fact atheist scientists, who have argued (via virtual particles and radioactive decay) that something may pop out of nothing. An alarmingly iidiotic position, of course.

As myopic as usual, I see. And it's some atheist scientists subscribe to that idea, and I can't see why theist/deist scientists can't as well. Isn't your god immaterial, timeless, skselaeefaesce-ness? So long as he can be 'immaterial', he can be 'nothing' for the vast majority of intents and purposes. Or are you admitting a material base is necessary?

Deep Sight:

Nobody says this: this is not and has never been the position of any theistic school of thought. Theists say that something - God - has always existed, and not that it popped out of nothingness. It is in fact atheist scientists, who have argued (via virtual particles and radioactive decay) that something may pop out of nothing. An alarmingly iidiotic position, of course.

You are disappointingly wrong. The theistic school of thought is that all things there is must be made. Stupidly removing God from "all" things there could be. If God is, then according to the theistic school of thought, he must be made. This therefore self-mutilates the whole of the theistic school of thought.

Whatever is out there(outside the universe) cannot be a conscious entity because consciousness is a very complex process. Consciousness does not just pop into existence in all forms of matter.

The theists and deists now, must therefore believe in myths and fairies and miracles so that their assumptions can add up to something they want to believe.

Deep Sight:
It could only be.

Funny, coming from someone who advocates that nothing comes from nothing.

Deep Sight:
This is the nihility of your brains and reasoning faculties: and worse, of your intuitive perception.

When a 5 years old reads this, he/she can tell whose intuition is worst.

Uyi Iredia: There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing' it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this something from which all things in the material world springs. This something is God. QED.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

We are under no compulsion to assume that what is behind causes in nature is a conscious mind. Natural observation itself disproves intelligent control in nature. This is why evolution is so successful.

If we assume a "Mind" to everything we know, then what is behind this mind?

wiegraf:

As myopic as usual, I see. And it's some atheist scientists subscribe to that idea, and I can't see why theist/deist scientists can't as well. Isn't your god immaterial, timeless, skselaeefaesce-ness? So long as he can be 'immaterial', he can be 'nothing' for the vast majority of intents and purposes. Or are you admitting a material base is necessary?

Yet nobody will deny the existence of 'nothing' or 'immaterial'. Now propose that it ('nothing') is conscious and intelligent and a certain lot, using their evolution-given consciousness and intelligence, will disagree. I'll advise mr faff-a-bout to also note that matter (in itself) lacks both consciousness and intelligence.

ooman:

We are under no compulsion to assume that what is behind causes in nature is a conscious mind. Natural observation itself disproves intelligent control in nature. This is why evolution is so successful.

If we assume a "Mind" to everything we know, then what is behind this mind?

Time to play the idealist

'compulsion', 'proof', 'observation', 'mind', 'success', and 'evolution' are all mental constructs. You can NEVER point them out because by DEFINITION they are all mental constructs, they can never be EMPIRICALLY PERCIEVED. As proof, I'll note that you can never point to a physical object as any of the mentioned mental constructs. You can only say that physical objects EXHIBIT these mental constructs eg a chair or falling apple is observed, an organism evolves, fossils or anatomical similarities prove evolution.

The Achilles' heel of ideas

All ideas are materially expressed. Without expression, their extancy can't be known. You don't know all the thoughts I had before replying this. You only KNOW from what I physically write. Because I note this fact, mr whargarbl is certain of its materialism. Furthermore, since all ideas (as conceived in the brain) necessarily exist and are upheld or condemned, the idea that matter on its own made what is called intelligence (materialism) stands. This is what was enough for mr whargarbl when I said materialism is tenable.


When spirit and body compromise

In a Superman cartoon, All Star Superman to be precise, a simple question which belies philosophical depth was asked. It goes thus: what happens when the irresistible force and the immovable object meet ? The correct answer is that they surrender. Let's take irresistible force to be idealism and immovable object to be materialism. I have thus resolved myself to the matter that 'immaterial spirit' and 'material universe' exist, they need each other but one (idea/spirit or what Spinoza calls thought) gives rise to the other (matter/body or what Spinoza calls extension). Ideas perceive matter and innovate on matter. Without matter ideas can NEVER be revealed. Taking this to the God idea, God perforce (telekinetically if you wish) made matter, and is revealed in the material world. To the extent theists believe in a personal God with certain jealousies, affinities and wishes, they understand Her, to the extent deists believe in a God quite devoid of religious embellishments, they understand Him, to the extent atheists believe in a non-existent God and the material world, they understand It.

Replying ooman's million dollar question

The answer is Nothing. You must ask a cause of 'Mind' because you are contingent on matter. You note that all minds are products of brains. You must ignore the cause of 'Energy' because you believe that science has PROVEN energy isn't created or destroyed. You must ignore the fact that it is not empirically verified, it is inferred from what has been verified. Cause and effect are not physically observed, they are mental concepts that are toyed with as one pleases.

Pre-cognizing the inanities of thehomer

You will insist that mind must have a cause whilst ignoring that energy doesn't have a cause. You will insist that energy need not have a cause because of scientific observations, as if one observes can never be created or destroyed, when such observers are created and destroyed. You will ignore the fact that ideas necessarily exist and demand their physical instances eg a pink unicorn able to birth baby pink unicorns to prove the idea that pink unicorns exist. You will like mr whargarbl insist that intelligence must be expressed through matter, you then state that the evolved brain and its activities constitute intelligence. You are BOUND by your position to continually ignore the chasm between neural activities involving electrons and the meaning (the consciousness and intelligence). Put in other words, you must continually forget that the activities in your brain don't answer the question of intelligence, they beg the question, for the simple fact that each component lacks intelligence and are constrained in their actions despite (not because of) physical forces (eg tornadoes, sunlight, ocean waves, thunder, methane, ammonia, hydrothermal vents, phospholipids etc involve physical forces have no compulsion to make a brain yet they perforce via MUTATION and SELECTION evolved one). You are bound to dismiss all I've written as meaningless if you disagree with it or to nit-pick on points such as ideas existing.


'Nuff said.

P.S: All capitalized letters are abstract words.

Uyi Iredia:

Yet nobody will deny the existence of 'nothing' or 'immaterial'. Now propose that it ('nothing') is conscious and intelligent and a certain lot, using their evolution-given consciousness and intelligence, will disagree. I'll advise mr faff-a-bout to also note that matter (in itself) lacks both consciousness and intelligence.

I've already addressed all this, or do you need diagrams to get a better handle on things? Why, oh why, the completely needless and BASELESS proposition? YOU yourself (and all life armed with brains, for starters) are matter with intelligence, therefore your very existence makes this asinine assertion FALSE...

You yourself have stated that animals are capable of reason. In fact, I was the one that had to point out that it's at best rudimentary for most species, you probably would have run off with it otherwise. So, what in the world is the problem? Are they, or are they not intelligent as well? If so, then is your god designing all those species as well? Doing this while planting vestigial organs, common ancestry, etc, along the way? To what foolish purpose? Mysteriousnesssess?

Creationist nonsense.. You intelligence needs a creator, but the ultimate intelligence does not... You'll excuse me if I ignore any future vacuous, desperate for god assertions such as this one.

And who says nobody denies the existence of nothing? Quite a few people do.


Btw, everything you do is half-a$$ed, yet you call one 'flaff-a-bout'?

You're xtian, you're not one. You're deist, you're not one. Intelligence needs a material base to manifest, intelligence does not need a material base to manifest. And now this;

Uyi Iredia:
For now, I will. You are on my blacklist.

Am I, or am I not in your feted blacklist? Your 'for now' lasted what, 72 hrs? Could you stick to one position please? This isn't a decision that will impact the fate of the universe (contrary to your opinion), I'm simply either in or out of the blacklist (preferably in pls).

^^^ Objection foreseen and dealt with in the post above yours. A piece from that post.

You will, like mr whargarbl, insist that intelligence must be
expressed through matter, you then state that the evolved brain and its activities constitute intelligence. You are BOUND by your position to continually ignore the chasm between neural activities involving electrons and the meaning (the consciousness and intelligence). Put in other words, you must continually forget that the activities in your brain don't answer the question of intelligence, they beg the question, for the simple fact that each component lacks intelligence and are constrained in their actions despite (not because of) physical forces (eg tornadoes, sunlight, ocean waves, thunder, methane, ammonia, hydrothermal vents,
phospholipids etc involve physical forces have no compulsion
to make a brain yet they perforce via MUTATION and
SELECTION evolved one).

I have dealt with your objections on the 'used to respect deists' thread. You can bring them up here instead of pretending they weren't replied.

wiegraf:

I've already addressed all this, or do you need diagrams to get a better handle on things? Why, oh why, the completely needless and BASELESS proposition? YOU yourself (and all life armed with brains, for starters) are matter with intelligence, therefore your very existence makes this asinine assertion FALSE...

Dead things and non-living things also exist and counter this ill-thought out notion you've stated. One wonders why you fail to see that the things that express intelligence eg nuerons, blood, cortexes etc. themselves lack intelligence.

wiegraf:
You yourself have stated that animals are capable of reason. In fact, I was the one that had to point out that it's at best rudimentary for most species, you probably would have run off with it otherwise. So, what in the world is the problem? Are they, or are they not intelligent as well?

Refer me to the thread where I said that. Except for a certain thread, I have consistently maintained that animals reason but to a lesser extent than man.

wiegraf:
If so, then is your god designing all those species as well? Doing this while planting vestigial organs, common ancestry, etc, along the way? To what foolish purpose? Mysteriousnesssess?

I'll take you seriously on vestigial organs when you remove all of 'em. Knock out your tonsils too since they were once called vesitigial. Remove your badly designed eye and prostate gland while you are at it. One wonders the foolish purpose Mr Evolution had, to create all living things from goo. mr whargarbl should know.

wiegraf:
Creationist nonsense.. You intelligence needs a creator, but the ultimate intelligence does not... You'll excuse me if I ignore any future vacuous, desperate for god assertions such as this one.

Like your patently delusional insistence that intelligence ultimately evolved from matter. Since you'll ignore, ignore the following:

Mr mutation always has novel traits to produce, we must forget that he is random since, somehow, he pulls off even more complex traits. Of course, Mr mutation hardly destroys his precious lifeforms. Of course, mr whargarbl will talk about dinosaurs and other extinct species but did random mutation destroy them. Mr mutation always knows what to do. From protobionts build cyano-bacteria, from that we get to a fish, then mammals (some of which Mr mutation decides to make fins for). Mr mutation is mere errors in the DNA yet he had the foresight to bless lifeforms with DNA error-correction mechanisms. We must not forget Mother Natural Selection. Ever so kind, ever so sure she preserves the fit enough and kicks out the less fit. Except of course when she decides to display her sexuality and kinship to all. Mother Selection knows for instance to preserve the burgeoning legs of a fish without necessary brain regions, nerves, muscles and bones because she knows Mr mutations will gradually and randomly bring them up. She strongly believes half a wing is of help and should be kept till Mr mutations (who is sometimes slow or fast) brings up new wings. Mama Selection and Mr Mutation hallowed by thy name ! Do accept the thanksgiving of mr whargarbl and his ilk ! And evolve more fortitude for them to defeat history-deniers who dare desecrate the sacred work of Evolution ! In Darwin's name they pray. Amen.

wiegraf:
And who says nobody denies the existence of nothing? Quite a few people do.

Thanks for telling me what I know. Now . . . ask why I said it.

Uyi Iredia:
You will, like mr whargarbl, insist that intelligence must be
expressed through matter, you then state that the evolved brain and its activities constitute intelligence. You are BOUND by your position to continually ignore the chasm between neural activities involving electrons and the meaning (the consciousness and intelligence). Put in other words, you must continually forget that the activities in your brain don't answer the question of intelligence, they beg the question, for the simple fact that each component lacks intelligence and are constrained in their actions despite (not because of) physical forces (eg tornadoes, sunlight, ocean waves, thunder, methane, ammonia, hydrothermal vents,
phospholipids etc involve physical forces have no compulsion
to make a brain yet they perforce via MUTATION and
SELECTION evolved one).

You might have a case here.

I concur that computers can make complex computations with just a single transistor. Indeed, you aren't creating a false dillema by asserting consciousness needs immaterial pixie dust before it can be attained, despite having no basis, NOT AT ALL, for making that statement. Computers require immaterial matter before they can compute. Elephants and chimps require souls before they can pass the mirror test, which indicates some level of self-awareness.

I also agree that as consciousness is not fully understood yet by the scientific community, you are not using that as an excuse to invoke god of the gaps or partaking in a great deal of [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance]arguing from ignorance[/url].

There's also no element of wishful thinking involved via ignoring obvious FACTS, such as the link between brain and consciousness, evolution, simple physical laws, etc.

And of course, no special pleading as well. GOD!! can be intelligent and immaterial, just like that. Complex and immaterial. Everything else requires GOD!! to manipulate it before it can become intelligent. GOD!!!? of course, is exempt.


So, for instance, conclusions based on the simplest application of common sense (when you consider what damage to the brain does to one's personality) or discoveries such as this

extremetech:
MIT researchers have shown, for the first time ever, that memories are stored in specific brain cells. By triggering a small cluster of neurons, the researchers were able to force the subject to recall a specific memory. By removing these neurons, the subject would lose that memory.

As you can imagine, the trick here is activating individual neurons, which are incredibly small and not really the kind of thing you can attach electrodes to. To do this, the researchers used optogenetics, a bleeding edge sphere of science that involves the genetic manipulation of cells so that they’re sensitive to light. These modified cells are then triggered using lasers; you drill a hole through the subject’s skull and point the laser at a small cluster of neurons.

Now, just to temper your excitement, we should note that MIT’s subjects in this case are mice — but it’s very, very likely that the human brain functions in the same way. To perform this experiment, though, MIT had to breed genetically engineered mice with optogenetic neurons — and we’re a long, long way off breeding humans with optogenetic brains.

In the experiment, MIT gave mice an electric shock to create a fear memory in the hippocampus region of the brain (pictured above) — and then later, using laser light, activated the neurons where the memory was stored. The mice “quickly entered a defensive, immobile crouch,” strongly suggesting the fear memory was being recalled.

The main significance here is that we finally have proof that memories (engrams, in neuropsychology speak) are physical rather than conceptual. We now know that, as in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, specific memories could be erased. It also gives us further insight into degenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders, which are mostly caused by the (faulty) interaction of neurons. “The more we know about the moving pieces that make up our brains,” says Steve Ramirez, co-author of the paper. “The better equipped we are to figure out what happens when brain pieces break down.”

Bear in mind, too, that this research follows on from MIT’s discovery last year of Npas4, the gene that controls the formation of memories; without Npas4, you cannot remember anything. MIT has successfully bred mice without the Npas4 gene.

The question now, though, is how memories are actually encoded — can we programmatically create new memories and thus learn entire subjects by inserting a laser into our brain? We know that a cluster of neurons firing can trigger the memory of your first kiss — but why? How can 100 (or 100,000) neurons, firing in a specific order, conjure up a beautifully detailed image of an elephant? We’ve already worked out how images are encoded by the optic nerve, so hopefully MIT isn’t too far away from finding out.

Read more at MIT or check out the research paper at Nature

are totally useless. They don't feature santa. Yes, you aren't making $hit up while screaming LALALALALA just to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy inside.

For the last bolded, they shouldn't waste their time trying to figure it out (and potentially drastically improving millions of lives afflicted with degenerative conditions) as you have all the answers. Consciousness is not based on the physical, it's based on GOD!!!! Something wrong with your mind? Use spirit-power. It's intelligent.


And 'perforce'? What do you mean, that you're the center of the universe? That nature was actively seeking to create you? That it had a purpose, yes?

Really....

Uyi Iredia:
I have dealt with your objections on the 'used to respect deists' thread. You can bring them up here instead of pretending they weren't replied.

You call this $hit a reply? What is wrong with you?

Uyi Iredia:

Dead things and non-living things also exist and counter this ill-thought out notion you've stated. One wonders why you fail to see that the things that express intelligence eg nuerons, blood, cortexes etc. themselves lack intelligence.

The bolded is a contender for the most foolish thing I've read yet in these forums. Perhaps you think cells should have souls as well.

Uyi Iredia:
Refer me to the thread where I said that. Except for a certain thread, I have consistently maintained that animals reason but to a lesser extent than man.

....
That IS my point... What sort of reading comprehension do you posses? And you know what threads I speak of. For instance, this

Uyi Iredia:
Animals, yes they do have intelligence but it appears there are limits to what they can grasp. I wonder if a chimpanzee would pick up interest, in say, classical music or calculus.

So you agree they reason, but you reason that their ability was acquired via supernatural means? Was god manipulating all these species, everything with a brain, everything that can compute? Or is it just ours that is magical? They cannot make the leap to sentience so long as the requirements are met, why? Because you say so?

Uyi Iredia:
I'll take you seriously on vestigial organs when you remove all of 'em. Knock out your tonsils too since they were once called vesitigial. Remove your badly designed eye and prostate gland while you are at it. One wonders the foolish purpose Mr Evolution had, to create all living things from goo. mr whargarbl should know.

This is also a contender for most asinine point encountered.

Vestigial organs don't exist (just like bosons!), in us or other species.

For instance, no trace of limbs in whales, snakes. Flightless birds do indeed have wings purposely built in just for show. There's no trace of a tailbone in us humans as well. Everything there has a purpose. Myriad highly trained scientists draw the same conclusions, myriad examples of useless organs, evolutionary baggage. Yet you somehow think all that wrong and assert all those organs are intelligently designed to achieve a purpose...

Let's even ignore issues like the faulty designs of the human reproductive system, which has led to the death of billions of women during child birth through history. Or even my eyes you speak of, perfectly designed to use prescription lenses as well. Or the presence of other oddities, like lungs in lungfish.

At the very least, your picture ought to be in dictionaries next to the word LALALALA

Uyi Iredia:
Like your patently delusional insistence that intelligence ultimately evolved from matter. Since you'll ignore, ignore the following:

Mr mutation always has novel traits to produce, we must forget that he is random since, somehow, he pulls off even more complex traits. Of course, Mr mutation hardly destroys his precious lifeforms. Of course, mr whargarbl will talk about dinosaurs and other extinct species but did random mutation destroy them. Mr mutation always knows what to do. From protobionts build cyano-bacteria, from that we get to a fish, then mammals (some of which Mr mutation decides to make fins for). Mr mutation is mere errors in the DNA yet he had the foresight to bless lifeforms with DNA error-correction mechanisms. We must not forget Mother Natural Selection. Ever so kind, ever so sure she preserves the fit enough and kicks out the less fit. Except of course when she decides to display her sexuality and kinship to all. Mother Selection knows for instance to preserve the burgeoning legs of a fish without necessary brain regions, nerves, muscles and bones because she knows Mr mutations will gradually and randomly bring them up. She strongly believes half a wing is of help and should be kept till Mr mutations (who is sometimes slow or fast) brings up new wings. Mama Selection and Mr Mutation hallowed by thy name ! Do accept the thanksgiving of mr whargarbl and his ilk ! And evolve more fortitude for them to defeat history-deniers who dare desecrate the sacred work of Evolution ! In Darwin's name they pray. Amen.

Yet you claim to understand how evolution works.....

Uyi Iredia:
Thanks for telling me what I know. Now . . . ask why I said it.

Please do tell why you think I'll indulge this foolish request? I'm genuinely curious....

edits

Uyi
Iredia:
There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing'
it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is
something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this
something from which all things in the material world springs. This
something is God. QED.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent
Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

Rightly said

wiegraf:

As myopic as usual, I see. And it's some atheist scientists subscribe to that idea, and I can't see why theist/deist scientists can't as well. Isn't your god immaterial, timeless, skselaeefaesce-ness?

There is no theist or Deist that subscribes to that idea. All theists everywhere hold God as eternal in the past. It is rather some atheist scientists that advance somethingness from nothingness - a most unscientific, not to speak of illogical piece of nonsense.

So long as he can be 'immaterial', he can be 'nothing' for the vast majority of intents and purposes.

So long as your thoughts can be immaterial, they can also be nothing, for the vast majority of intents and purposes.

Or are you admitting a material base is necessary?

No.

ooman:

You are disappointingly wrong. The theistic school of thought is that all things there is must be made. Stupidly removing God from "all" things there could be. If God is, then according to the theistic school of thought, he must be made. This therefore self-mutilates the whole of the theistic school of thought.

O no, that is not theistic thought. Theistic thought is that anything that is finite and has a beginning, requires a cause. Eternal things do not have a beginning and as such cannot be "made."

When a 5 years old reads this, he/she can tell whose intuition is worst.

A five year old will also know that between two people or two options, there may be the worse, but there is no such thing as "worst."

wiegraf:

You might have a case here.

Don't bother patronizing me. It is bound to fail.

wiegraf: I concur that computers can make complex computations with just a single transistor. Indeed, you aren't creating a false dillema by asserting consciousness needs immaterial pixie dust before it can be attained, despite having no basis, NOT AT ALL, for making that statement. Computers require immaterial matter before they can compute. Elephants and chimps require souls before they can pass the mirror test, which indicates some level of self-awareness.

And where in that post did I state there was a soul you dunce. I have, to your pleasure_a stupid pleasure at that, said that intelligence is contingent on the brain.

wiegraf: I also agree that as consciousness is not fully understood yet by the scientific community, you are not using that as an excuse to invoke god of the gaps or partaking in a great deal of [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance]arguing from ignorance[/url].

You mean the 'nueron-of-the-gaps', since neurons, as I've earlier said, beg the question, not answer them. I stated that nuerons in themselves lack intelligence. Dead people have neurons you know.

wiegraf: There's also no element of wishful thinking involved via ignoring obvious FACTS, such as the link between brain and consciousness, evolution, simple physical laws, etc.

• That consciousness is a by-product of cerebral activities, I and you know.
• That the brain in itself lacks intelligence, I know, you don't. That the cerebral activities involving components of the brain giving rise to the common experience of consciousness and intelligence can't be physically explained in this wise, that their behaviour defines non-empirical consciousness.
• That my posits will be TOTALLY LOST on mr whargarbl because like ancient natives who believe spirits are trees etc it believes consciousness and intelligence is the brain. It is bound to always point to the brain and its activities as the answer to intelligence and FORGET the brain begs the question where does its intellect come from ?
• That evolution is history's most fraudulent idea, one that hugely rests on teleology and intelligence whilst denying their importance, I know, mr whargarbl doesn't. For one must ask why random mutations perforce create new traits. One must ask why selection must preserve the good of the traits and kick ot the bad. Oh we know that mr whargarbl's ilk state that good traits enhance survival but one wonders why genetic drift did nothing to stem the tide. Not to mention the patent deception that not all new traits produced by mutation are accompanied by fecundicity, in fact, some are a huge load on it. Then mr whargarbl brings in tbe element of rationalisations or his delusuonal "Uyi doesn't understand evolution". Expect these memes ad infinitum (in various wordings) but not ad nauseum.
• That physical laws are merely mental constructs widely accepted and never questioned due to early indoctrination, I know, you don't.
• That what you actually mean by physical laws is the physical world AND NOT the physical laws which describe them I know, you don't.

wiegraf: And of course, no special pleading as well. GOD!! can be intelligent and immaterial, just like that. Complex and immaterial. Everything else requires GOD!! to manipulate it before it can become intelligent. GOD!!!? of course, is exempt.

Sure ! Just like 'energy does it' or 'bosons did it' or the father of all, 'evolution did it'. Everything else requires indestructible energy, never seen, never heared, never smelt, never tasted, never touched Father Energy t'was that was never created and can never be terminated. Boom ! It becomes matter as shown by Einstein's rapturous and infallible E=mc2. And, like God, it is exempt from causation. Now what makes mr whargarbl's nonsense speak look more plausible than mine. The mind-killer magic word called Science. I expect mr whargarbl to start saying "Uyi don't understand science" while missing the subtle point amongst others that science is, first and foremost, a concept that begs the question and that using a widely accepted scientific notion such as gravity keeps people from asking the question 'from whence does gravity come ?'

wiegraf: So, for instance, conclusions based on the simplest application of common sense (when you consider what damage to the brain does to one's personality) or discoveries such as this

As if I didn't know that $hit. My Dad has stroke you know. As a curious individual, I do ask him questions pertaining to his cognition and more importantly, read about it and watch on it in places like TED, so save that know-it-all speak for your a$$.
Your thoughts can be represented like this: Brain = consciousness + intelligence, damage to brain = damage to consciousness and intelligence. I'm saying brain = brain (in that brain in itself is not smart). I also ask how you make the jump from brain to intelligence. What does mr whargarbl do ? Start special pleading.

wiegraf: are totally useless. They don't feature santa. Yes, you aren't making $hit up while screaming LALALALALA just to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Thanks for accurately describing yourself. I couldn't have done it better.

wiegraf: For the last bolded, they shouldn't waste their time trying to figure it out (and potentially drastically improving millions of lives afflicted with degenerative conditions) as you have all the answers. Consciousness is not based on the physical, it's based on GOD!!!! Something wrong with your mind? Use spirit-power. It's intelligent.

No. It's based on the brain. The origin of the brain and hence consciousness goes to God, not evolution.

wiegraf: And 'perforce'? What do you mean, that you're the center of the universe? That nature was actively seeking to create you? That it had a purpose, yes?

Lol. You are that dumb. Persist in your inanity.

wiegraf: Really....



You call this $hit a reply? What is wrong with you?

*looks at mrwhargarbl as if it were a corpse*

Uyi Iredia: There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing' it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this something from which all things in the material world springs. This something is God. QED.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

A god that is based on assumption.

Deep Sight:

There is no theist or Deist that subscribes to that idea. All theists everywhere hold God as eternal in the past. It is rather some atheist scientists that advance somethingness from nothingness - a most unscientific, not to speak of illogical piece of nonsense.

Really? So a deist scientist, putting 2 and 2 together, would consider an immaterial first cause as SOMETHING he can add into his equations? Do you understand what I'm telling you here?

On another note, your eternal god, how did it achieve a 'first' anything? Via some scientific and logical means I suppose.

Deep Sight:
So long as your thoughts can be immaterial, they can also be nothing, for the vast majority of intents and purposes.

That IS my point. For some concerned with the physical and natural, and that includes many scientists, the abstract qualifies as NOTHING.

Deep Sight:
No.

Needless to say, suit yourself, as we aren't dealing with absolutes here. But it's a perfectly reasonable stance

Uyi Iredia:

And where in that post did I state there was a soul you dunce. I have, to your pleasure_a stupid pleasure at that, said that intelligence is contingent on the brain.

Stopped here. Bravo. If this is what you got from that, I can but marvel at your impressive stoopidity.

wiegraf:

The bolded is a contender for the most foolish thing I've read yet in these forums. Perhaps you think cells should have souls as well.

Oh no ! You are the one insinuating that neurons = intelligence. I'm aking where tbe brain gets this empirically unverified intelligence from. Next you'll attempt to kill my reasoning by saying electrons in buses and CPU's equals information.

wiegraf:
....
That IS my point... What sort of reading comprehension do you posses? And you know what threads I speak of. For instance, this

Okay. We are square on that.

wiegraf:
So you agree they reason, but you reason that their ability was acquired via supernatural means? Was god manipulating all these species, everything with a brain, everything that can compute? Or is it just ours that is magical? They cannot make the leap to sentience so long as the requirements are met, why? Because you say so?

I should ask the same of evolution. Bacteria needed sex and poof ! Mutations and selection provided it - gradually and sometimes quickly as in formanifera.

wiegraf:
This is also a contender for most asinine point encountered.

Says mr whargarbl.

wiegraf:
Vestigial organs don't exist (just like bosons!), in us or other species.

For instance, no trace of limbs in whales, snakes. Flightless birds do indeed have wings purposely built in just for show. There's no trace of a tailbone in us humans as well. Everything there has a purpose. Myriad highly trained scientists draw the same conclusions, myriad examples of useless organs, evolutionary baggage. Yet you somehow think all that wrong and assert all those organs are intelligently designed to achieve a purpose...

Have these scientists bothered to remove these organs to see the effect or study the formation of these organs ? Some 'vestigial organs' (eg the appendix) play a crucial role in the early stages of an organisms development. I do wish the accursed ambiotic sac that held you as a baby was called vestigial. I'm certain it has rottened of a long way back. Do also remove your navel while you are at it. It really sucks. In a future with evolved Kyle XY's you would really be the oddity.

wiegraf:
Let's even ignore issues like the faulty designs of the human reproductive system, which has led to the death of billions of women during child birth through history. Or even my eyes you speak of, perfectly designed to use prescription lenses as well. Or the presence of other oddities, like lungs in lungfish.

So if it's God it's bad but 'Evolution does it' is good enough. I hope you know evolution is equally silly for making those oddities. When you make a better lungfish, or reproductive system, or eye do tell. I'll take you a bit more serious.

wiegraf:
At the very least, your picture ought to be in dictionaries next to the word LALALALA

Fair enough. A favorite song of mine 'Nabaka' uses the word as a catchy melody.

wiegraf:
Yet you claim to understand how evolution works.....

Sure I do. Care to outline how my parody misunderstands the process.

wiegraf:
Please do tell why you think I'll indulge this foolish request? I'm genuinely curious....

edits

Thanks for playing the fool by indulging a foolish request, you know it takes a fool to know one, and an even bigger fool to indulge one. Instead of indulging, do undertake the fool's errand of answering why one expressing himself using to much words is called verbiose and why certain quotes are invoked in a discourse.

Uyi Iredia: There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing' it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this something from which all things in the material world springs. This something is God. QED.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

Can't help but love this guy...

wiegraf:

Stopped here. Bravo. If this is what you got from that, I can but marvel at your impressive stoopidity.

Of course you would mr whargarbl, I will expect nothing less. Now demonstrate how it is stüpid.

KraticKratus:

A god that is based on assumption.

Like the scientific method, like gravity and like energy. It's unfortunate the dude was honest. If the likes of Dawkins were to write that, the word 'assume' wouldn't be there. I DARE you to show me energy.

Uyi Iredia:

Of course you would mr whargarbl, I will expect nothing less. Now demonstrate how it is stüpid.

Yes boss. Please give me a minute, I'll get around to indulging you, I promise

Uyi Iredia:

Like the scientific method, like gravity and like energy. It's unfortunate the dude was honest. If the likes of Dawkins were to write that, the word 'assume' wouldn't be there. I DARE you to show me energy.

This is getting good...let me make some popcorn.

wiegraf:

Yes boss. Please give me a minute, I'll get around to indulging you, I promise

Oh no sir ! Don't patronize me. Patronize your spouse - if you have one.

Uyi Iredia:

Oh no sir ! Don't patronize me. Patronize your spouse - if you have one.

Yes sir, this bolded as well. Please just wait a bit, I'll stop doing that as well. Thank you

wiegraf:

That IS my point. For some concerned with the physical and natural, and that includes many scientists, the abstract qualifies as NOTHING.

As such, your thoughts being immaterial, qualify as nothing.

I see no point in arguing against thoughts that qualify as nothing.

Deep Sight:

As such, your thoughts being immaterial, qualify as nothing.

I see no point in arguing against thoughts that qualify as nothing.

What does this have to do with anything? If you were a scientist that believed in the 'immaterial', would you put 'immaterial' into your equations? By it's very definition, something that can NOT be measured. Can you explain to me how that is science?

You have problems with 'something from nothing' but think it logical to put 'immaterial' into equations?!

wiegraf:

What does this have to do with anything? If you were a scientist that believed in the 'immaterial', would you put 'immaterial' into your equations? By it's very definition, something that can NOT be measured. Can you explain to me how that is science?

You have problems with 'something from nothing' but think it logical to put 'immaterial' into equations?!

What is measurement ? Can it be empirically verified ? Can science or reason be measured or empirically verified ? Prediction: mr whargarbl says it (my questions) is meaningless. Or he special pleads for physical activities or objects that are DESCRIBED USING THE TERMS measurement, science or reason eg Harold making the Miller-Urey experiment is 'science' or using a ruler is 'measurement'. He is BOUND to forget that abstracts are concepts that describe lots of physical things and events, they ARE NOT the physical things or events.

wiegraf:

Yes sir, this bolded as well. Please just wait a bit, I'll stop doing that as well. Thank you

I'll take you seriously when you stop doing that. You're welcome.