PastorAIO:


You don't understand. You asked for the evidence that nature can create goats and I said 'goats'.

Look at a goat, any goat, and there before you is the evidence that Nature can create Goats.

Of course you'll object and say that the goat was created not by nature but by God bla bla.

When asked for evidence you cannot come up with anything better than



Or

But at the end of the day the only evidence you have is what is seen around us, namely the product.

Darwin's theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain HOW nature produced Goats.

I have yet to see you or your people lay out a mechanism as to HOW god created this world and all the goats in it.




You asked for evidence that Nature CAN produce Goats. Again I point to a goat. There! That is the evidence that Nature can produce Goats!!!

Perhaps you want to know HOW nature produced the Goat a demonstration of the mechanism.

SMH man. I wonder how Joshthefirst put up with your crap.

Can u imagine ? A goat is the evidence that nature made a goat. One hardly gets to see such asinine reasoning.

Joshthefirst:
Infinite also means impossible to measure or calculate. When I said God's thoughts are infinite, I meant that they are impossible to measure or calculate, because even in eternity, God in His omniscience knew and loved us and felt emotion. Why will you choose to misinterpret my post and try to paint me as thick when you're the one being thick?

Pi is impossible to calculate precisely. Pi is not Infinity. The square root of -1 is impossible to measure or calculate yet it is not Infinite.
Your definition of Infinite is dumb.

'impossible to measure or calculate' God's thoughts. Please, to contrast this with human thoughts, how would you measure and calculate human thoughts? If I make a shopping budget this evening could you give me an example of how you would measure the thought that goes into it.


Eternity, as you have told us, has nothing to do with Time. I agree. You even go on about understanding something that I can't get about eternity. Yet you are the one here that is constantly talking about eternity in temporal terms. You use past tense when you say 'in eternity God knew and loved..' etc… It sounds like this eternity of your was an epoch sometime before the world was created. Very temporal. Dude, the way you talk totally betrays the fact that inspire of your boasting it is YOU that has no understanding of what eternity is.

If i say 'I'm eating a crane', it will be thick to assume I'm eating the mechanical crane used to lift heavy objects instead of the bird.

This is a misinterpretation on your part, Mr. explaining dictionary.

Not necessarily. that would depend on the context.

First, are you sure about the bolded? because I seem to remember you saying this:

It doesn't make any difference. Animals exist in temporality, Humans use language to make reference to animals' emotion. ( I believe animals to have emotions but some scientists would like to dispute this).
Bottomline, it is a desperate move to try to find technicalities like that when it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of temporality and Eternity.

And your logic saying that humans evolved language, and emotion is a human term and should not be used to describe so called fantasical realms is unfortunate. First, you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Even then, there are many words, human words, used to describe many things. The words of the bible are human words, and they describe a creator, God, who lives in a real realm, and who is an emotional being.

I take it you disagree that humans evolved language when you say that it's unsubstantiated. Then I ask you, How did Languages come about? and how come a new word appears whenever there is a new object or experience that humans need to make mention of?

What words are used to describe the creator in the bible that are not used for anything else in temporal reality?

You can't just wake up one day and classify emotion as a concept that applies only to humans because of what you think and because of human language. lolol. I can't even construct a structured way to show how preposterous that is. What about people who feel Gods love for them?(millions of people btw?) what will you say to them? will you tell them that because humans evolved language and can communicate what they feel as the word 'emotion' then it can only be felt and the word used by humans? smh.

Personally, I only wake up one day and say anything like that after i've thought about it. Emotions refer to One's feelings towards another being or event. This can only occur if there is more than one being or event, it can only occur in Temporality.

I came to the conclusions that Human languages are a tool for humans who live in temporality to exchange information about their experiences with one another. For this precise reason I do not think that language can be used to express something that lies beyond human thought or temporality.

Full Definition of define
de·finedde·fin·ing
transitive verb
1
a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human>
b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)
c : to create on a computer <define a window> <define a procedure>
2
a : to fix or mark the limits of : demarcate <rigidly defined property lines>
b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>
3
: characterize, distinguish <you define yourself by the choices you make — Denison University Bulletin>

Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary.
As you can see from the above define has two meanings. So does the word 'date'. It can mean a date with someone, or the fruit.

If i say: 'She has been grinding and eating all her dates for years', a dimwit would interpret that statement as her grinding and eating all the people she has gone on dates with for years.

But I choose not to accept that you portraying yourself as a dimwit. I choose to believe you deliberately read the wrong meaning in an effort to show ingenuity on my part.

So it is possible for me to define, and by define I mean determine the essential quality of or state the nature of and infinite being.

Thank you. Please be sure to check if a word has more meaning than one next time, or at least go for the very apparent, logical meaning instead of the preposterous one.

So in all the possible meanings of the word Definitiion that you've outlined above which one were you employing when you Defined Infinite thoughts and emotions?

What is the essential quality of God that you've determined?

UyiIredia:


SMH man. I wonder how Joshthefirst put up with your crap.

No wahala. You don't have to put up with it.

UyiIredia:
Can u imagine ? A goat is the evidence that nature made a goat. One hardly gets to see such asinine reasoning.

A smoking gun is evidence that a gunman fired at another man.


Eba is the evidence that Water and Gari make eba.


A dead body is good solid evidence that a murder has taken place.

A goat is evidence that Nature made a goat.

If you don't get it. No worries. I understand that you are not used to seeing end products as evidence of a Process. That is the realm of Logic.

PastorAIO:


No wahala. You don't have to put up with it.

What is there to put up with ? You don't have any evidence for your position so you point to something you can lay your hands on. In this case, a goat. But then again how did the goat come about ?

PastorAIO:


A smoking gun is evidence that a gunman fired at another man.


Eba is the evidence that Water and Gari make eba.


A dead body is good solid evidence that a murder has taken place.

A goat is evidence that Nature made a goat.

If you don't get it. No worries. I understand that you are not used to seeing end products as evidence of a Process. That is the realm of Logic.

1) What if it fired at no one or some other object.

2) It isn't. One has to actually show water and garri making eba as evidence.

3) Is it always ? What of an ailment or manslaughter ? A dead body could be evidence for several scenarios.

Your examples go to show how poor your reasoning is on this issue.

UyiIredia:


What is there to put up with ? You don't have any evidence for your position so you point to something you can lay your hands on. In this case, a goat. But then again how did the goat come about ?

The bolded: That is the general idea with Evidence. Something you can see, something you can lay your hands on. Something perceptible.

How did the Goat come about? There are many theories. The most popular is Darwin's Theory. I don't subscribe to that though.

I wonder if you may have a superior theory for the mechanism of how the Goat came about.

PastorAIO:


The bolded: That is the general idea with Evidence. Something you can see, something you can lay your hands on. Something perceptible.

How did the Goat come about? There are many theories. The most popular is Darwin's Theory. I don't subscribe to that though.

I wonder if you may have a superior theory for the mechanism of how the Goat came about.

Intelligent design.

UyiIredia:


1) What if it fired at no one or some other object.

2) It isn't. One has to actually show water and garri making eba as evidence.

3) Is it always ? What of an ailment or manslaughter ? A dead body could be evidence for several scenarios.

Your examples go to show how poor your reasoning is on this issue.

1) What if it was fired at the sky? The scenario is that someone got shot at, and nearby you find a smoking gun. The question I ask you is, would you connect the two?

2) So if I mix hot water and gari, but fail to show you eba at the end of the process, perhaps I produce amala instead, you will still accept my word that water and gari make eba. On faith perhaps. after all that is the proof of things unseen.

3) A dead body could be evidence for several scenarios, but We're looking for a murderer who may or may not have murdered a young girl. She is missing. The discovery of her corpse will be evidence that our suspicions are valid.

Are all these evidences foolproof? No! and noone ever said so.

In science till tomorrow, there is no theory that cannot be overturned with fresh evidence. So nobody is saying that acceptable evidence is the foolproof be all and end all of knowledge.

UyiIredia:


Intelligent design.

I didn't ask for a name, I asked for a mechanism. How did it come about?

UyiIredia:

What is there to put up with ? You don't have any evidence for your position so you point to something you can lay your hands on. In this case, a goat. But then again how did the goat come about ?

UyiIredia:


SMH man. I wonder how Joshthefirst put up with your crap.

You're asking me what is there to put up with? Whatever it is you and Josh were putting up with that is what there is to put up with.

It sounds to me like you are just fuming and lashing out now, you brought the 'putting up' matter, you don't have to be so aggressive about it when I use the same phrase again. I smell fear.

UyiIredia:
Can u imagine ? A goat is the evidence that nature made a goat. One hardly gets to see such asinine reasoning.

Nature is the only proven creator. And destroyer.

PastorAIO:


I didn't ask for a name, I asked for a mechanism. How did it come about?

You asked for a superior theory. I gave you one.

Weah96:

Nature is the only proven creator. And destroyer.

I have never seen nature create but I see nature destroy created things a lot.

PastorAIO:


Pi is impossible to calculate precisely. Pi is not Infinity. The square root of -1 is impossible to measure or calculate yet it is not Infinite.
Your definition of Infinite is dumb.

'impossible to measure or calculate' God's thoughts. Please, to contrast this with human thoughts, how would you measure and calculate human thoughts? If I make a shopping budget this evening could you give me an example of how you would measure the thought that goes into it.


Eternity, as you have told us, has nothing to do with Time. I agree. You even go on about understanding something that I can't get about eternity. Yet you are the one here that is constantly talking about eternity in temporal terms. You use past tense when you say 'in eternity God knew and loved..' etc… It sounds like this eternity of your was an epoch sometime before the world was created. Very temporal. Dude, the way you talk totally betrays the fact that inspire of your boasting it is YOU that has no understanding of what eternity is.




Not necessarily. that would depend on the context.




It doesn't make any difference. Animals exist in temporality, Humans use language to make reference to animals' emotion. ( I believe animals to have emotions but some scientists would like to dispute this).
Bottomline, it is a desperate move to try to find technicalities like that when it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of temporality and Eternity.




I take it you disagree that humans evolved language when you say that it's unsubstantiated. Then I ask you, How did Languages come about? and how come a new word appears whenever there is a new object or experience that humans need to make mention of?

What words are used to describe the creator in the bible that are not used for anything else in temporal reality?






Personally, I only wake up one day and say anything like that after i've thought about it. Emotions refer to One's feelings towards another being or event. This can only occur if there is more than one being or event, it can only occur in Temporality.

I came to the conclusions that Human languages are a tool for humans who live in temporality to exchange information about their experiences with one another. For this precise reason I do not think that language can be used to express something that lies beyond human thought or temporality.




So in all the possible meanings of the word Definitiion that you've outlined above which one were you employing when you Defined Infinite thoughts and emotions?

What is the essential quality of God that you've determined?

Nawa for your rigmarole.

It wasn't my definition. It was google dictionary's definition. You calling it dumb is disingenuous.

Human thoughts are contained in human reality. God's thoughts are impossible to measure because he is above the events of time and sees all parts of our reality at once. That's what I mean.


I use past tense, because I refer to our perception of the matter. I refer to Gods love in relation to us.

UyiIredia:

You asked for a superior theory. I gave you one.

PastorAIO:


I wonder if you may have a superior theory for the mechanism of how the Goat came about.

Your memory is selective. read what I wrote again.

UyiIredia:


I have never seen nature create but I see nature destroy created things a lot.

Kindly explain the conditions under which a he goat can come into existence? Does it require space for the parents and itself to move around?

PastorAIO:



Your memory is selective. read what I wrote again.

Sure. Intelligent design is a mechanism.

Joshthefirst:
Nawa for your rigmarole.

It wasn't my definition. It was google dictionary's definition. You calling it dumb is disingenuous.

Human thoughts are contained in human reality. God's thoughts are impossible to measure because he is above the events of time and sees all parts of our reality at once. That's what I mean.


I use past tense, because I refer to our perception of the matter. I refer to Gods love in relation to us.

I'm sorry, I thought you were using it to support your case. So are you for the definition or not. Don't hide behind google one minute and then disown it the next.

Human thoughts are contained in human reality. This is probably the most intelligent thing you've said since I've started discussing with you.

Could you please tell us how you would measure a human thought? You say it's impossible to measure God's thoughts. I presume therefore that you know how to measure human thoughts.

Weah96:


Kindly explain the conditions under which a he goat comes into existence? Does it require space for the parents and itself to move around?

I'm the one to be asking the questions. U said Nature creates. Theres no evidence Nature does such.

UyiIredia:


Sure. Intelligent design is a mechanism.

No it's not.

Darwin has a theory of Evolution. The mechanism for him is called Natural selection. I won't go into how he says it works because I think you already know it.

Intelligent design is not a mechanism. A mechanism will show you a step by step process with the various forces that act upon the process.

UyiIredia:


I'm the one to be asking the questions. U said Nature creates. Theres no evidence Nature does such.

Is there such a thing as nature to you? We may be using the same word to mean different things in our heads. Nature to me is everything there is. What does nature mean to you in your head?

Weah96:


Is there such a thing as nature to you? We may be using the same word to mean different things in our heads. Nature to me is everything there is. What does nature mean to you in your head?

Very good point. Everyone is obviously referring to something different when they say nature. UyiIredia has called nature something that only destroys.

That actually raises some interesting points.

God creates. Nature destroys. Nature has presumably being continually destroying since Genesis. Without God's continual creation would the world still be here? Or did God create once and for all, and Nature has been destroying since but hasn't got to the end of destroying everything.

PastorAIO:



Very good point. Everyone is obviously referring to something different when they say nature. UyiIredia has called nature something that only destroys.

That actually raises some interesting points.

God creates. Nature destroys. Nature has presumably being continually destroying since Genesis. Without God's continual creation would the world still be here? Or did God create once and for all, and Nature has been destroying since but hasn't got to the end of destroying everything.

God creates your pikin, never mind the influence of your waist.

PastorAIO:


No it's not.

Darwin has a theory of Evolution. The mechanism for him is called Natural selection. I won't go into how he says it works because I think you already know it.

Intelligent design is not a mechanism. A mechanism will show you a step by step process with the various forces that act upon the process.

Intelligent design may not give you a step-by-step of how design took place but we do know intelligent agents acting on matter can make systems similar to those found in nature. In that sense, intelligent design is a mechanism even if we don't know the specifics.

Weah96:


Is there such a thing as nature to you? We may be using the same word to mean different things in our heads. Nature to me is everything there is. What does nature mean to you in your head?

Nature means natural processes independent of life like the sun, the continents, the ocean etc

UyiIredia:


Intelligent design may not give you a step-by-step of how design took place but we do know intelligent agents acting on matter can make systems similar to those found in nature. In that sense, intelligent design is a mechanism even if we don't know the specifics.

An intelligent agent seeks to make a chair. It takes the raw materials, wood and nails and hammer and saw, and he applies them according to a methodology to create a chair. I don't know of any intelligence acting on matter to create anything without the use of a methodology.

Intelligent design is NOT a mechanism. But even worse, it is a totally USELESS theory. We learn nothing from it. All it tells us is 'God did it', or 'intelligent agent did it', but it does not tell us how it was done. So we cannot use the knowledge to create our own technologies.
'God did it' is a Dead end.

There are a couple things to point out here, and forgive me if they've been presented earlier in the thread (I haven't looked through it all yet).

1. How would proving a designer automatically translate to Yahweh? There have been thousands of designer-gods conjured throughout history, literally thousands, many of those far before Yahweh's invention. Why must an intelligent designer point to the Jewish God Yahweh specifically? Hell, why must it point to a monotheistic god, rather than a group of co-operating gods? Why must it point to ANYTHING even remotely human-like? If a designer were to exist, accepting that it was the Jewish God Yahweh ignores an infinite number of just as valid, if not moreso, possibilities.

2. Why is this designer-god emotional? How does that make sense? Another poster mentioned this earlier I think, and the responses were wholly unsatisfactory. Biologically, we know that emotions (and creativity, but I'll set that aside for now) are solely a result of animal cognitive function, and serve distinct survival purposes. Fear, anxiety, and anger, for example, serve to keep us from danger and help us take action in the face of trouble. Sadness and jealousy keep us attached to our kin, driving us to protect our groups and cooperate. What purpose would an infinitely intelligent being, who has no need for survival mechanisms, have with emotions? Especially such potentially disastrous ones like jealousy, anger, and wrath, the types of emotions that Buddhist and Taoist monks meditate for years to be liberated from?

3. What role is the designer playing exactly? Is he conducting the formation of every living organism manually? Or did he simply set in place the natural laws that guide reproduction, metabolism, etc, and then stop interfering from then on? Because those are two very different scenarios with different implications.

If the claim is that he is conducting the formation of every individual organism, then that would seem quite redundant, considering that every new organism, excluding significant deleterious mutations, arises in very predictable ways. In the case of asexual reproduction, the offspring will be nearly the exact same as it's parent, genetically and morphologically. In sexual reproduction, the offspring will be a combination of the genetic information from both his parents, and thus, predictably share similar phenotypic traits. What role would the designer-god be playing here? Is he manually forming the sugar-phosphate bonds linking each DNA molecule?

If so, then when organisms are born with unsettling and even fatal deformities, or spontaneously aborted in the womb (as are up to 50% of mammalian fetuses), would the designer not also be responsible? How can a perfect being design something imperfect, and why would he/it do so intentionally?

If the claim is that he set the laws in place and walked away to let the universe do it's thing for the rest of eternity, then that begs the question, why could the laws not exist on their own? If the designer himself is supposedly the result of some unexplained cause and was not "created" by anything else, then why can't the laws governing nature, & the energy/matter that is constantly being recycled by nature, simply be the same?

And, if the designer god isn't participating in the manual creation of every individual organism, but simply letting the laws he set 14billion years ago run their course, then what relevance does he have in the discussion of how nature works now? The extent of his influence has ended, has it not? All we are left with are these predictable natural laws that do not change for better or worse, whether we pray, fast, worship, or call on said designer-god. Learning these patterns, however, has helped us create technology and medicine, has helped us double our average lifespan as human beings. Hell, scientists are even manipulating life forms to serve our own purposes. The designer however, does not appear to be doing anything new or helpful. So why, if one is arguing for the second scenario, would he/it be relevant at all?

PastorAIO:

Intelligent design is NOT a mechanism. But even worse, it is a totally USELESS theory. We learn nothing from it. All it tells us is 'God did it', or 'intelligent agent did it', but it does not tell us how it was done. So we cannot use the knowledge to create our own technologies.
'God did it' is a Dead end.

This.

I'd also like to point out that ID must not be confused with an actual scientific theory. If we must use the word "theory" for that idea, then it would certainly be the layman's definition, and not the scientific definition: theory (n.) - guess or conjecture; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

PastorAIO:


An intelligent agent seeks to make a chair. It takes the raw materials, wood and nails and hammer and saw, and he applies them according to a methodology to create a chair. I don't know of any intelligence acting on matter to create anything without the use of a methodology.

Intelligent design is NOT a mechanism. But even worse, it is a totally USELESS theory. We learn nothing from it. All it tells us is 'God did it', or 'intelligent agent did it', but it does not tell us how it was done. So we cannot use the knowledge to create our own technologies.
'God did it' is a Dead end.

Your opinion doesn't count as fact and rightly so. Just because intelligent design can't give specifics of design doesn't make it useless and doesn't eliminate the fact that intelligent agency is a mechanism for effecting design. There simply isn't enough data for us to know how design was done. And we are not evolutionists, we don't paint up fanciful imaginary scenarios. Sometimes one must satisfy oneself with the fact that some things may never be known.

cloudgoddess:

This.

I'd also like to point out that ID must not be confused with an actual scientific theory. If we must use the word "theory" for that idea, then it would certainly be the layman's definition, and not the scientific definition: theory (n.) - guess or conjecture; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

ID is a well-established fact given the evidence available. In fact it's the best game in town.