BETATRON:


Isn't it more logical to posit the existence of intelligence and will behind the creation of the kidney??

menesheh:


It isn't.

What is Bermuda triangle?

Science not atheism: i don't know, let know whether we can look around and know whether we can phantom what is the cause of Bermuda triangle.

Musa: tupac umaru shakor created Bermuda triangle.

Between the two answers, which will you be more comfortable with.

You were able to believed that the kidney came by an unknowable meduim that formed it, but can't think critically, and carefully study the scientific output about natural selection pressure that had gone through some millions of years to produce such amazing engine.

The second answer gave no reasons and mechanisms bit by bit to how the kidney came to be but just asserted a presupposition.

We are in the age of enlightenment and critical examination of almost everything not only god, bible and other creation myths. But every observable physical things.

finofaya:
If we are to take your position further we have to say that an intelligence which is capable of making a kidney must be even more wonderful and complex than the kidney. Since we infer the existence of this intelligence because we find the kidney too wonderful to have been made by anything other than an intelligence, this our wonderful intelligence must rely on another more wonderful intelligence for its existence which in turn relies on an even more wonderful intelligence which in turn relies on another more wonderful intelligence, and so on.

The moral of the story is either that intelligence begets kidneys or it does not.

Lol!! If for every effect we assert an effect there will certainly be no creation cause there will be no cause and no effect..meaning there has to be an initial cause with no effect "in aristotle's word ""the prime mover"",,we term Him God others call It nature we believe he is all knowing all powerful and outside the bounds of time and space(eternal) others call it nature,energy, et al well these terms ain't conscious or knowing
How is consciousness the result of unconsciousness,,how is intelligence the by-product of unintelligence
In a chemical combination each atom only gives properties which it possess in it self,,,just like you can't expect a newly born to ride a car so also you can't expect unintelligence to be the result of intelligence

BETATRON:
didn't pause anywhere,only saying that there can be an infinite series of cause and effect there should and will be a prime mover and it is more logical that this prime mover possesses intelligence for unitelligence cannot be the cause of intelligence.don't you agree with my claim too?

BETATRON:
didn't pause anywhere,only saying that there can be an infinite series of cause and effect there should and will be a prime mover and it is more logical that this prime mover possesses intelligence for unitelligence cannot be the cause of intelligence.don't you agree with my claim too?

BETATRON:
and if you keep taking it back that way you should come the point where you can't move any further that is an intelligence which is self existent in philosophical term the prime mover

But if you keep going backwards that way sure there will be no creation "just like sailing in a boat made of clay"

There is no logic behind you claim "unintelligence begething intelligence" is like expecting a masterpiece artwork from a new born

finofaya:


You are mixing some ideas up, making some unnecessary assumptions. The prime mover is said to exist because we have not observed any effect without a cause but we don't expect that the world exists as a result of an endless chain of causes and effects. This Is more of an expectation, really.

johnydon22:


There is something known as Quantum fluctuation in science that postulates a slight temporal change in energy levels that can make energized particles emerge from nothing.

It is a mathematical postulation in the quantum field

finofaya:


But you say the slight temporal change in energy level causes the particles to emerge. I think the quantum vacuum is sometimes referred to to show that nothingness is physically possible and that the world could have been a quantum vacuum at one point. The problem is that a quantum vacuum is arguably not the same as nothingness.

johnydon22:
Exactly!!!

Quantum vacuum affirms that there is nothing like "Absolute nothingness" and so shows that the initial state of things before the universe is not "Nothing" but rather a state of a quantum vacuum.. "

Our knowledge of this universe will change as we know it soon enough if you ask me, with more study and understanding of the quantum field

finofaya:


I don't think it affirms that. How does it do that? A quantum vacuum is also part of the universe we have to explain anyway, so I doubt you can call it "before the universe".
.

johnydon22:
[b]

And who said intelligence which is a product of perception cannot develop from simple interactions of reacting atoms.

If going by your logic something intelligent cannot emerge without another intelligent cause then this cause must have been far more intelligent and therefore cannot emerge without another intelligent cause behind it which in turn must also need another intelligent cause.

If you argue that this intelligent cause doesn't need another intelligent cause then you have failed in your own argument because you have established that something intelligent can be without another intelligent thing causing it.

So there is nothing like something intelligent must come from another, something hot do not need another hot thing to cause it..

A star is caused by nebula densely packed that it gets hot to trigger nuclear fusion, so stars did not come from another extremely hot nuclear cause

So do not establish your emotions or wish on universal Cause and effect to be a standard because it is not... [/b]

BETATRON:
get the point clear..would you rather accept claim that intelligence is the result of unintelligence or otherwise?

When I said there should be a prime mover I meant one without a cause,,one who is self existent not one who is the result of unitelligence.

Saying for every1 cause there should be a more intelligent cause is correct the fact is you cannot keep moving backwards infinitely,,that why there should be a first cause who in turn has no cause and who directly or indirectly is the cause of all effects

johnydon22:


Let me put it in a more scientific term "Before the Big Bang"... Remember a Quantum Vacuum contains no physical value

johnydon22:
You see the point? You are only trying to equate your emotions of what you feel should be to what is..

It's not a matter of what you rather accept, it is about agreeing to what is ...

You are made of atoms found to be products of stars, these unintelligent atoms are here working together to be you..

Individually these atoms are unintelligent but working together as whole the product is here "You" a seeming intelligent entity.

Intelligence is a product of perception



Then it can be simply put that the universe is without any independent cause since this your prime mover is needed to be exempted from the principle of causality affirming something actually can be without being caused.

I wonder what you call unintelligence in relation to causality because there is nothing like some form of intelligence needed for hydrogen to get dense enough to trigger nuclear fusion, it is just a result of two reacting values.

[b]

I repeat there is no where it is established that something needs anything intelligent to cause it.

This claim of an intelligent nothingness that caused the Universe cannot just be an infinite intelligence uncaused and has existed literally infinitely backwards ..You yourself said that we cannot keep moving infinitely backwards How then do you hope to assert your mover to have been around infinitely backwards.

Intelligence is not established to be a product of another intelligence, Intelligence is a product of perceptibility and that is a product of countless neuroperceptive atoms interacting together.

There are up to 130million photoreceptors in an eye with up to 100trillion atoms and these atoms are products formed in star cores but yet are being utilized to capture photoreceptibility when interacting as different units of a whole..

I think you should stop banking on what you would rather accept and be open to where ever the study leads not assume up an infinite conscious intelligent nothing
[/b]

BETATRON:
what is and what [size=20]should[/size] be is that there should be an intelligent creator behind every creation,a planner behind every master piece

I initially stated that in chemical combinations each atoms gives to another that which it in itself possess (I.e how can a man with no money give money)..both are lifeless and give this attribute to each other,,the spark of life that is seen in man and other living creation is the result of a master planner who with his touch of brilliance and knowledge ignites this life into them

My question to you is who or what put all this millions of billions of trillions of photo-receptors together to make a living organism.were they the result of chance,or some unconscious nature or the result of brilliance and masterclass?

finofaya:


True. There was something before the big bang, except that science can't say what it is due to the singularity. I guess the physicists have to find a way to reconcile that singularity with this quantum vacuum which has so far not managed to pop out another universe (to our notice).

johnydon22:
This is just your own emotional need of what you want or feel should be.

Following your emotional yarn of an intelligent planner of every master piece then it appeals to logic that this master planner must be far more a master piece than his creation.

For something to be intelligent enough to create this master piece that thing must be far more complex than this, so going by your assertion such wonderful intelligent masterpiece cannot be unless there is another intelligent master planner to create it and same goes to the next creator and so....... Infinite regress of of master planners..

If you think this Super complex creator do not need a creator to exist then something far less complex like us can't be said to need one since supercomplex entities don't..



lmao you agree chemical combination each atom contributes and then try to remove the collective result of these atoms so as to impose it on your unfounded deity.


[b] Oh last i checked nobody did, biological cells have combination abilities, abilities to replicate, react and interact.

Secondly there is nothing like chance in nature: Once two reacting values interact there must be a result, it is not chance it is result.. Emergence of life is not Chance but a result of a reaction of natural values..

A spermatozoa fusing with an ovum to form a zygote is not chance but a result of the reaction of two interacting value (sperm and ovum)

Your assertion of some unfounded deity in itself is what can be classified CHANCE..(It just existed forever and then got bored and decided to create the universe, how come you don't term the existence of this deity Chance?)

Now let me teach you one thing about arguments: This question "WHO" is a fallacy of ambiguity called Begging the Question.. Because by asserting "who" you have established your answer must be a "who" even if it's not a who..

Rather "How" is the question . . . Because it is open to every field or possibility of the result [/b]

johnydon22:


We cannot even observe every part of our own universe, what we call Observable universe are just factions of this universe visible to us ..

So how can we notice these other universes if there are any when we still can't even see all of ours ..

If we could observe a wormhole in actuality then it could throw a light to the reality of an alternate or parallel universe or multiverse..

BETATRON:
lol..it isn't an emotional yarn or something close to that ( how can saying there should be a painter behind a painting be an emotional plea?)

Chemical reactions are the result of liveless element fusing together.saying they only give what the possess I mean the compound produced should also be liveless..countless chemical reactions have been performed by men of intelligence and scientific assent yet non has resulting in the emergence of life..so for life to have sprung out from some chemical reaction we need a more knowledgeable scientist so to speak

lol..I don't think it is the result of chance..first is He is not bounded by time and space and as such is infinite..in einstein's theory when to twins (one taken to space(moving at a great speed relative to the speed of light) and the other kept here on earth,on bringing both together after some time it is realized that the one taken to space is younger than that kept here on earth-time dilation) from this law what do you think will happen if a being exists outside the bound of time and space??

Chance is millions of trillions of cells coming together and using the law of probability created something(the universe) within which a lot of precision and calculation is seen....its like trying to pick number one from a box with countless numbers

Thanks for the last lesson.will make avoid such blunder next time

johnydon22:

Not when the paint is a self replicating value. . .Likening Biological development to inanimate things like a paint is not only shallow but absurd.. Wish you people proofread your arguments.

A leaf is green going by your logic it must have been painted by someone..lol.. But it was just a result of Chlorophyll and that is it..



Pheeeew i do not know you all liken Chemical and Biological elemental interactions to Lab Chemistry..

Biological metabolisms otherwise called LIFE in plain words is not a lab chemistry like you just naively represented above.

There are countless distinct values in a biological, chemical, electrical and even quantumized sense in this regard.





-First there is no way for you to ascertain anything lives outside space and time unless you assume it up.

- If there is also such that thing also would be bound by the tenets of such reality and so your assumptions it needs no beginning is a special pleading to shield your assumption from the principle of causality which you insist the universe must have

- Going by your assertion something cannot give what it doesn't have: This thing is not material how then can it give what it doesn't have.

- Now i wil let you to start ruminating over that your assertion of an intelligent conscious nothingness..


[b] Oh there is nothing like precision in universal effect.

Gravitational effect is responsible for complexity of the universe as we know it, The universe is nature and nature as we know it has no on way of manifestation.

A blackhole breaks almost all the laws of physics in our reality therefore affirming that natural manifestations in reaction to the interacting values have no one established or precise way of manifestation..

The universe as can observe is just a Chaotic dance of interactions and results, it is not a precise establishment that asteroids crash into planets ..

What you call precision is the effect of your own perception of these results, A sand dune i can also classify to be Precise therefore was drawn by an invisible artist or the Face of Mars
[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRC2j54DDK8V9APVyL2lAC08anXuwoQe_Ak7kfeZ9s78JHBlgEcCKqHwQ[/img] therefore something intelligent must have molded it..

Surely simple case of weathering and chaotic action of wind on dust as in the case of sand dune.. It's not precision but resulting value of an interaction..[/b]

Alright