For the Atheists:
How do you account for these phenomena?
1. Science is yet to find a cure to HIV/Aids; but, many have been healed of HIV/Aids without taking any medications.
2. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that, "In a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But can only be transformed from one for to another". The same goes for matter. The Universe is a closed system. Now, How did matter and energy come into being in the Universe?
3. According to the LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, "for every material effect, there's an equivalent material cause before it." My Question is, what caused the Universe?

thehomer:

Changing his mind means he made a decision. Why would he have to change course if he already knows everything that will happen?

He already knows he'll change course even before he did . Here's an example you should be familiar with : God asked men to immolate animals for the atonement of sin in the Old Testament, right ; what then happens in the New Testament? Christ now laid his life for us so that through Him our sins can be forgiven . What's the goal : atonement for sins ; and the paths taken to achieve that was animal sacrifice at first and then Christ himself later .

Now look at this : Even before the universe was caused to exist , God already knew that Christ would come to die for the sins of man ( this is my opinion and I believe some Christians will agree with me) . So with this , will you say God decided to change course to achieve the same goal or he just acted out you know his foreknowledge ? And this knowledge is God's free knowledge - the knowledge of things that will be.

Why doesn't he? Doesn't he want me in heaven?

Of course he wants you in Heaven . But it's left for you to choose - that's your expression of FREEWILL . According to Deuteronomy 15:19

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

God has laid out a gamut of possible choices for us to make and since he knows what is good for us , he wants us to CHOOSE life . Life is all about choices as my newly converted friend would always tell me , it's up to us ; where we are today is due to the choices we made yesterday , what we will be tomorrow would be due to choices we make today .

Not good enough. We as ordinary humans want to inhibit the freewill of criminals. Does God think so little of victims of brutal crimes?

Brutal crimes , natural disasters , accidents ,life's vicissitudes - all these are adversities man faces and God has promised he would see his people through trials and tribulations .

Sure only God knows why but why should someone like me think it is a good reason? Is that really the best way for an omnipotent and omniscient entity to make a good world?

Are you saying FREEWILL is evil ?

KingEbukasBlog is still here not making sense.

dalaman:
KingEbukasBlog is still here not making sense.

Sir Dalaman , you are still an atheist ? Don't tell me that you haven't realized how foolish atheism is ? No nah . It's 2017 oo . Sense be unto you before its too late .

iSpirit1:
For the Atheists:

How do you account for these phenomena?

1. Science is yet to find a cure to
HIV/Aids; but, many have been
healed of HIV/Aids without taking
any medications.

2. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics
states that, "In a closed system,
energy can neither be created nor
destroyed. But can only be
transformed from one for to
another". The same goes for matter. The Universe is a closed
system. Now, How did matter and
energy come into being in the
Universe?

3. According to the LAW OF CAUSE
AND EFFECT, "for every material
effect, there's an equivalent
material cause before it." My
Question is, what caused the
Universe?

o

There is no rationale behind atheism . These questions are otiose to an atheist . We as logical beings try to involve science , cosmology in our discussions with them just to let them know how stupid atheism , I'm glad most of them are now receiving sense . Atheism is a mental disease .

iSpirit1:
For the Atheists:

How do you account for these phenomena?

1. Science is yet to find a cure to HIV/Aids; but, many have been healed of HIV/Aids without taking any medications.

I don't know how and its a perfect explanation supported by evidence

I've had personal unexplainable things happen to me too and you must've had some in your life too

The difference between us however is that you quickly invoke "god" as explanation for those things; we atheists admit our ignorance while you not only invoke "god", you're invoking your version of god as explanation and canceling out the possibility that it could be other gods responsible

The reason evidence supports our own use of ignorance is that these unexplainable things happen to us regardless of our religious affiliation even happen to atheists too

If you don't know something there's no harm in admitting you don't know yet; if you say you know, bring your evidence forward, let's put it to test, peer review it, replicate it

if it works who says we won't accept your explanation?

2. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that, "In a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But can only be transformed from one for to another". The same goes for matter. The Universe is a closed system. Now, How did matter and energy come into being in the Universe?
3. According to the LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, "for every material effect, there's an equivalent material cause before it." My Question is, what caused the Universe?

I'm no cosmologist but you can check out videos of Sean Carroll, preferably the debate between him and William Lane Craig

Or if there's anyone who's expertise is in cosmology, he/she can reply the questions above

There's no sense in invoking God for anything man can't explain, that's simply god of the gaps and only seeks to keep man in perpetual ignorance by forcing an answer on him, an answer we can't prove or disprove

history shows scientific explanations have replaced "supernatural" explanations a lot of times, most of the things we invoke god to answer centuries ago have been proven not to be of supernatural origin; however I'm yet to see one thing we had a scientific explanation for that was later replaced by the supernatural

that should tell you a lot about the naïveté of invoking god as explanations, history doesn't favour such at all

there's no iota of sense behind theism, none at all, there's still some behind Deism I must confess but not theism; theism has not one logic supporting it that isn't self refuting

there's no good argument for theism and I'm ecstatic that Nigerians are finally waking up to unshackle themselves from these chains called theism looking at the unfamiliar monickers on front-page topics putting theism in the trashcan where it belongs

Nigerians in record numbers are dumping the mentally retarded position of theism and I'm happy for the next generation of Nigerians, a generation that would be the first to take the bull by the horn rather than depend on biblical or Koranic verses

KingEbukasBlog:


He already knows he'll change course even before he did . Here's an example you should be familiar with : God asked men to immolate animals for the atonement of sin in the Old Testament, right ; what then happens in the New Testament? Christ now laid his life for us so that through Him our sins can be forgiven . What's the goal : atonement for sins ; and the paths taken to achieve that was animal sacrifice at first and then Christ himself later .

So God knew he was going to change his mind yet he let thousands of animals and at least one person to be killed as sacrifice? You present this story of Christ as if it were an actual sacrifice or even a good thing. It was neither.

KingEbukasBlog:

Now look at this : Even before the universe was caused to exist , God already knew that Christ would come to die for the sins of man ( this is my opinion and I believe some Christians will agree with me) . So with this , will you say God decided to change course to achieve the same goal or he just acted out you know his foreknowledge ? And this knowledge is God's free knowledge - the knowledge of things that will be.

Yes I would say he decided to ineffectively change course and still fail despite the fact that he has all this knowledge.

KingEbukasBlog:

Of course he wants you in Heaven . But it's left for you to choose - that's your expression of FREEWILL . According to Deuteronomy 15:19

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

God has laid out a gamut of possible choices for us to make and since he knows what is good for us , he wants us to CHOOSE life . Life is all about choices as my newly converted friend would always tell me , it's up to us ; where we are today is due to the choices we made yesterday , what we will be tomorrow would be due to choices we make today .

Let me get this straight. He wants me in heaven, knows what to do but has refused to do it? Come on. If he really wanted me to make an informed decision, he knows what to do. Since he doesn't do it, I can conclude that he either doesn't want me or isn't there.

KingEbukasBlog:

Brutal crimes , natural disasters , accidents ,life's vicissitudes - all these are adversities man faces and God has promised he would see his people through trials and tribulations .

There's a difference between a hurricane killing 12 people and a serial killer killing 12 people. The police would try to stop the serial killer by inhibitting his freewill but not the hurricane.

KingEbukasBlog:

Are you saying FREEWILL is evil ?

No, I'm saying your God is evil for saying that freewill prevents him from stopping a series of rape he knows will occur and has the power to prevent from occurring. I would also say that a police officer who knew a series of rape would occur and had the power to stop them but refused to stop them was also evil.

KingEbukasBlog:
o

There is no rationale behind atheism . These questions are otiose to an atheist . We as logical beings try to involve science , cosmology in our discussions with them just to let them know how stupid atheism , I'm glad most of them are now receiving sense . Atheism is a mental disease .

From someone who believes that one person is three people and three people are one person. Someone who believes that donkeys can talk and zombies roamed cities 2000 years ago.

thehomer:


From someone who believes that one person is three people and three people are one person. Someone who believes that donkeys can talk and zombies roamed cities 2000 years ago.

I understand if you have problems with understanding the triune nature of God . I don't know why you have problems with donkeys talking . It's unnatural , yes , but since God can control nature , he made that possible . Atheists want unnatural occurrences to happen like amputees growing limbs as a way of God proving his power but ridicule Christians for believing that God made a donkey talk ? Funny guys

I don't know what you mean by zombies roaming cities 2000 years ago

thehomer:


So God knew he was going to change his mind yet he let thousands of animals and at least one person to be killed as sacrifice? You present this story of Christ as if it were an actual sacrifice or even a good thing. It was neither.



Yes I would say he decided to ineffectively change course and still fail despite the fact that he has all this knowledge.



Let me get this straight. He wants me in heaven, knows what to do but has refused to do it? Come on. If he really wanted me to make an informed decision, he knows what to do. Since he doesn't do it, I can conclude that he either doesn't want me or isn't there.



There's a difference between a hurricane killing 12 people and a serial killer killing 12 people. The police would try to stop the serial killer by inhibitting his freewill but not the hurricane.



No, I'm saying your God is evil for saying that freewill prevents him from stopping a series of rape he knows will occur and has the power to prevent from occurring. I would also say that a police officer who knew a series of rape would occur and had the power to stop them but refused to stop them was also evil.

All I see is you appealing to common sense tacitly : I can't believe God would do or is doing this , therefore He does not exist . It's like you are saying , since God does not fit into my own expectations of Him or definitions I made for Him , therefore He does not exist .

Acknowledging the existence of God is one thing , understanding how God works to a particular level is another thing . Logic helps with the former, divine revelation helps with the latter . That's why I conflate ideas in deism and Christian theism .

So what do you want to actually know ? I can't keep answering questions which would have no use to you .

KingEbukasBlog:


I understand if you have problems with understanding the triune nature of God .

And I'm sure you don't understand it either because it makes no sense.

KingEbukasBlog:

I don't know why you have problems with donkeys talking . It's unnatural , yes , but since God can control nature , he made that possible . Atheists want unnatural occurrences to happen like amputees growing limbs as a way of God proving his power but ridicule Christians for believing that God made a donkey talk ? Funny guys

The fact that you think God can make donkeys talk or made them talk according to some stories but can't make amputees regrow their limbs doesn't make you pause and think? I think it is ridiculous to believe a donkey can speak like we were told in our stories.

KingEbukasBlog:

I don't know what you mean by zombies roaming cities 2000 years ago

You need to read your Bible then. Did you know that on Jesus' death, graves opened up and people had close encounters with zombies?

KingEbukasBlog:



All I see is you appealing to common sense tacitly : I can't believe God would do or is doing this , therefore He does not exist . It's like you are saying , since God does not fit into my own expectations of Him or definitions I made for Him , therefore He does not exist .

You speak as if it is a bad thing to think and act reasonably. Actually, it is more like, certain actions ascribed to a so-called good God make no sense so either the God is malicious or doesn't exist.

KingEbukasBlog:

Acknowledging the existence of God is one thing , understanding how God works to a particular level is another thing . Logic helps with the former, divine revelation helps with the latter . That's why I conflate ideas in deism and Christian theism .

Why acknowledge the existence of a God when there's no good reason to do so? What is your logical proof or demonstration of your God's existence? Did you receive this so-called divine revelation? Or was it from a third party?

KingEbukasBlog:

So what do you want to actually know ? I can't keep answering questions which would have no use to you .

I want to know why you think a good, omnipotent and omniscient God would allow child abuse in his church.
I want to know why you think Jesus' act was a sacrifice.
I want to know why God thought drowning almost all of humanity in a flood was a good idea.
I want to know why God has failed to do what is necessary to get me to believe in him.
I want to know why you've avoided addressing the clear issues I raised.

JackBizzle:


You are not reasoning logically. You say numbers are not boundless and yet, you contradict yourself by saying that there is always an increase. There is no limit to numbers.

No. you are not reasoning logically. every number is defined. don't get ahead of yourself. numbers are boundless doesn't mean they are undefined.

I would argue that infinity itself is a number. There is a symbol for it

This is idi.otic. Infinity is not a number.

To give you a practical example of inifinity being a number, just take the simple division of 22/7 or the symbol called "pi" π.

That "Pi" number is infinite because, equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern.

Pi is simply an irrational number. it cannot be expressed as a fraction of whole numbers. That does not mean it is undefined. It is defined. pi is 22/7

Limitless can increase. You can multiply 2 infinites. For example, let us assume that the universe is infinite in all directions. If I try to travel to the top of the universe, I would not get there because it would take me an infinite time to get to the top of the universe which is infinite. If I then plan a second journey to the bottom of the universe, that would add an infinity to another infinity- it would take longer to go to the top and then backwards to the bottom.

No. It would not take longer, because the time measured is indefinite, as the distance cannot be measured. the distance is undefined, therefore the time is also undefined. this is simple logical reasoning.

The problem with this your infinite God is that infinity does not exist in the real world. It is a contradiction. Something can be infinitely big but can still be bigger. Can God make a God more powerful than himself? The apparent contradiction is soo clear. What if God gives birth to God 2.0? A self-refuting contradiction.

Infinity is a vital part of our reality. Our universe is a subset of infinite parameters, literally, rationally. Something cannot be infinitely big and still bigger, that doesn't make any sense, numerically it may, but not in the sense I speak of.

As for the bolded, your premise is already destroyed and you're talking nonsense.

johnydon22:


infinity can be greater than infinity contrary to Joshthefirst thoughts. there is an infinite number of values in between 0 and 1 and 1 to 2 but still one is still greater than 0 and 2 greater than 1 even though in the real numerical sense all are infinite - so yes infinity can always increase.

so the omni paradox holds, because it literally contradicts itself

Infinity I speak of is not in the numerical sense.

to make this better for you, give me an example of a number that is undefined.


God is not limitless in a numerical sense, he is limitlessness in an undefined sense. He himself has given you a numerical definition of himself. He is THREE persons, one God.
So using numerical arguments out of the context of my reasoning is stewpid.

Joshthefirst:


No. you are not reasoning logically. every number is defined. don't get ahead of yourself. numbers are boundless doesn't mean they are undefined.

Every number is defined what is the decimal value of 22/7? what number do you get when you divide 1 by 0?

You say that every number is defined and then you go on to contradict yourself by mentioning "irrational numbers" whose values can't be expressed in decimals.

Joshthefirst:

This is idi.otic. Infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a number. The infinity symbol ∞ (sometimes called the lemniscate) is a mathematical symbol representing the concept of infinity.

Joshthefirst:

Pi is simply an irrational number. it cannot be expressed as a fraction of whole numbers. That does not mean it is undefined. It is defined. pi is 22/7

If it is defined, why cant it be expressed in decimals?


Here is another example of an undefined number

Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 also has no defined value;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_symbol

Joshthefirst:


No. It would not take longer, because the time measured is indefinite, as the distance cannot be measured. the distance is undefined, therefore the time is also undefined. this is simple logical reasoning.

Why are you just funny?

Is simple philosophy beyond your reasoning? Is it not longer to travel up and down as compared to travelling only up?

If both up and down are infinite journeys, it means that there are two infinite journeys. Are two infinite journeys not longer than one?

Common sense is not common

Joshthefirst:


Infinity is a vital part of our reality. Our universe is a subset of infinite parameters, literally, rationally. Something cannot be infinitely big and still bigger, that doesn't make any sense, numerically it may, but not in the sense I speak of.

Yet, all the examples of infinities are abstract concepts like numbers and gods.

Joshthefirst:


As for the bolded, your premise is already destroyed and you're talking nonsense.

Greater christian and atheist philosophers have struggled with the omnipotence paradox. A random third world doctor (you) is only deceiving himself if he thinks he can just call it "nonsense"

JackBizzle:


Every number is defined what is the decimal value of 22/7? what number do you get when you divide 1 by 0?

You say that every number is defined and then you go on to contradict yourself by mentioning "irrational numbers" whose values can't be expressed in decimals.

English logicboy. That a number's has no clear decimal value does not mean it is undefined. Its value is still 22/7. It can be polated and reduced by other definite numbers.

1/0 is not a number.

Infinity is a number. The infinity symbol ∞ (sometimes called the lemniscate) is a mathematical symbol representing the concept of infinity.

I'm not your math teacher. And google is your friend.

If it is defined, why cant it be expressed in decimals?

Because it is irrational. Doesn't mean it has no definite value. Note definite value. It's value simply cannot be expressed except as a whole.

Here is another example of an undefined number

Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 also has no defined value;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_symbol

zero/zero is not really a number. It is an ARITHMETIC PROCESS that has no value at all, cannot be reduced etc. 22/7 can be reduced by other numbers and processes. Infact, a number, by nature is always defined. There is no number that is undefined, so your argument has been pointless from the beginning. Try and go deeper than mindless wiki searching, at least think about what you read in results. Giving me 0/0 as an undefined number is quite unfortunate of you.

Why are you just funny?

Who's funny? I'm trying so hard not to debase you. Simple mathematical processes and basic definitions are beyond you. This is the problem with you people. You claim to uphold science yet you don't know basic science. Pathetic.

Is simple philosophy beyond your reasoning? Is it not longer to travel up and down as compared to travelling only up?

If both up and down are infinite journeys, it means that there are two infinite journeys. Are two infinite journeys not longer than one?

Common sense is not common

Mtchew. An Infinite journey as used here, is infinitely long. So this question has no sense. An infinite journey, many infinite infinite journeys, they are all endless in the same way.

Greater christian and atheist philosophers have struggled with the omnipotence paradox. A random third world doctor (you) is only deceiving himself if he thinks he can just call it "nonsense"

What is this? What have you demonstrated here apart from a low grasp of mathematics and a redundant reasoning? When you and your cohorts show that you're smarter than me at least then you can go ahead and appeal to a greater authority if you want. You don't even know what a number is.

Here's the definition of a number from basic google:


number
ˈnʌmbə/
noun
1.
an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations.
"think of a number from one to ten and multiply it by three"
synonyms: numeral, integer, figure, digit; More
2.
a quantity or amount.
"the company is seeking to increase the number of women on its staff"
synonyms: amount, quantity; More





Please read and apply it to further arguments so that I will not be wasting my time.

thehomer:


And I'm sure you don't understand it either because it makes no sense.

I do bro . It's pretty simple

The fact that you think God can make donkeys talk or made them talk according to some stories but can't make amputees regrow their limbs doesn't make you pause and think? I think it is ridiculous to believe a donkey can speak like we were told in our stories.

Who said God can't make amputees grow new limbs ? People just don't have enough faith for that .

You need to read your Bible then. Did you know that on Jesus' death, graves opened up and people had close encounters with zombies?

Quote verses let's discuss them

KingEbukasBlog:


An omniscient being does not need to think . A prescient being only needs to act not to decide . Making a decision entails acting out your thoughts due to uncertainty of the future .

But is God really omniscient? God is actually beyond omniscient : God has all propositional knowledge and the appropriate non propositional knowledge. Having all propositional knowledge means God knows all truths , that is the knowledge of everything ; and having the appropriate non propositional knowledge is like God knowing He is omnipotent , immutable , eternal . But does God know that he is the thehomer ? Of course not . You can say I am thehomer , but God can't say that . God does not know what it feels like to be a sinner but he knows that a sinner feels guilty . So God cannot have all non propositional knowledge but can have only the appropriate non propositional knowledge .

There are three characteristics of God's knowledge : natural knowledge , free knowledge and middle knowledge . Natural knowledge are necessary truths , free knowledge are contingent truths , middle knowledge is like the middle . Natural knowledge things that could be , middle knowledge things that would be and free knowledge things that will be .

There are many philosophers and theologians that believe that God made a descision but in my opinion , he just acted out his foreknowledge.

Excellent answer.

KingEbukasBlog:


I do bro . It's pretty simple

Please go ahead and explain how three people are one person. Or how one person is three people.

KingEbukasBlog:

Who said God can't make amputees grow new limbs ? People just don't have enough faith for that .

I'm saying so. Unless you think no one on earth has ever had enough faith to grow new limbs? Recall that Jesus said it was possible to move mountains with a tiny amount of faith. Do you think people don't have enough for that too?
You can easily show that God can make amputees grow new limbs by you demonstrating your faith on an amputee and making that amputee grow new limbs.

KingEbukasBlog:

Quote verses let's discuss them

Bible NIV:
Matthew
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split
52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Do you really think these events actually occured?

Edit: I notice that for some reason, you skipped the response I made here. Would you like to address that too?

blueAgent:


Excellent answer.

Thank you sir

Joshthefirst:
Here's the definition of a number from basic google:


number
ˈnʌmbə/
noun
1.
an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations.
"think of a number from one to ten and multiply it by three"
synonyms: numeral, integer, figure, digit; More
2.
a quantity or amount.
"the company is seeking to increase the number of women on its staff"
synonyms: amount, quantity; More





Please read and apply it to further arguments so that I will not be wasting my time.

Therefore, infinity is a number.

It is
1) An arithmetic symbol representing a value (an infinite value)

MrMontella:

please show us Job's phd cert.

Lol

DeepSight:


I am truly at a loss sir.
I don't understand what you are saying.

When looking at a created thing, one can see attributes of its creator therein. In simple terms, where one looks at a computer once can discern not just that it was intelligently put together, but that its creator clearly has a need for storage and retrieval of information, for processing documents and programs and the like. Even a bicycle discloses that it has a creator and also discloses attributes of its creator - such as that the creator most likely has a need for movement, and most likely has two legs and two hands.

I don't understand how you can look at a fully formed being, starting as it does from the union of sperm and egg, developing in the wombs into a form with fit-for-purpose body parts: parts intricately designed to aid consciousness and active conscious experience of the world - all of the organs of the Body from the astonishing feat called a brain, to the mind-blowing things called eyes: to the ears, mouth, tongue - The heart, Lungs, Liver, digestive and reproductive systems, nervous and sensory systems: and the fact that therein lives and dwells a mind - of ideas, thoughts, emotions and self conscious will: and say to yourself that this does not of itself disclose a creator or creators who have set that process in movement with very definite intentions for conscious experiencing.

This is why I point to you as evidence of the creator and I can only be befuddled if you do not recognize that the wonder of your existence: in mind, body and spirit: is staggering evidence of the creator or creators.

But, as it happens, you are actually able to look at the totality of your self and declare: "no evidence!"
It can only be that you have a most dim and most low perception of your own being as a creature. You must regard yourself as something lower than an amoeba.

Ol boy, its benumbing.

But then again. . .by your logic. . .one can look a knife and imagine it to be an invention of a creator who wants it to be a weapon of war. 'How can this knife, with a suitable grip and a sharp, short, blade be anything but a weapon of war?'

Likewise, someone can look at the knife and decide it is the work of a creator who designed it to be an excellent cooking utensil for cutting up things in the kitchen with ease.

I could also give the example of the steam engine. When it was 'invented', it had no purpose at all. Absolutely no use at all. It just looked cool. It was almost 50-100 years later that it was discovered that it could be used for powering trains.

Yet another example is one that applies to us, humans. We had always thought of sex as a natural mechanism for reproduction, with pleasure as a by product. Now, observation of homosexual behaviour, MouthAction, and other 'strange' sexual behaviours in over 1500 and counting species of animals has made scientists reconsider it, to be the other way round- sex for pleasure, with reproduction as a by product.

So, sir, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I don't think observation of something is enough to deduce that it was created for a specific purpose.

JackBizzle:




Therefore, infinity is a number.

It is
1) An arithmetic symbol representing a value (an infinite value)

lol

An arithmetic VALUE OR SYMBOL representing a [bbPARTICULAR[/b] quantity.

Infinity is not a real number. Smh lb.

Please just google it.

AnonyNymous:

But then again. . .by your logic. . .one can look a knife and imagine it to be an invention of a creator who wants it to be a weapon of war. 'How can this knife, with a suitable grip and a sharp, short, blade be anything but a weapon of war?'

Likewise, someone can look at the knife and decide it is the work of a creator who designed it to be an excellent cooking utensil for cutting up things in the kitchen with ease.

I could also give the example of the steam engine. When it was 'invented', it had no purpose at all. Absolutely no use at all. It just looked cool. It was almost 50-100 years later that it was discovered that it could be used for powering trains.

Yet another example is one that applies to us, humans. We had always thought of sex as a natural mechanism for reproduction, with pleasure as a by product. Now, observation of homosexual behaviour, MouthAction, and other 'strange' sexual behaviours in over 1500 and counting species of animals has made scientists reconsider it, to be the other way round- sex for pleasure, with reproduction as a by product.

So, sir, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I don't think observation of something is enough to deduce that it was created for a specific purpose.

I think you are wrong for the following reasons:

1. All the examples you have cited still dwell upon purposes of one sort or the other being deduced from observation of something. Whether a Knife is intended to be used as a cooking utensil or as a weapon, both still remain purposes and deduction of either purposes still arises from observation of the nature of the Knife. One may deduce that it was made to be used as either - or even for something else entirely based on observation. It is unlikely that you would conclude that it was designed as clothing, as a meal, or as a means of transportation by air though, just to give examples. In the same way se.x may be observed to be for pleasure or reproduction, this still takes nothing away from the fact that observing se.xual behavior and consequences tells us that it may be for either. Both instances, in short, still disclose purposes deduced from observation.

I doubt that you would deny that walking for example, is amongst the purposes of legs: even where the legs serve many other functions. Ears not just hear, but also give balance to the body.

2. Anything that you can ever comment upon, or make a conclusion of any kind upon, would always be based on observation of one kind or the other.

Finally, somethings are too obviously designed for certain purposes to be denied. Such as eyes being for sight, the tongue being for speech, digestion, taste amongst other things. The way some of our atheists argue though, I would not be surprised if they tell me one day that sight is only an accidental by-product of the existence of the eyes, and that no such thing as sight is the prime purpose of the eyes. Afterall, Dawkins himself wrote that it is theoretically possible for a fully formed eye to spring into existence in a single random mutation, or something along those lines.

I vomited 77 times after going through thE original post!!!

1.The "op" seems not to understand the difference between metaphysics(the realm of fiction/mental illness) and pure physics!!!

2.Remember that philosophy gave us a concept known as the "philosophical nothing'' but in reality, there is no such thing as nothing!!! Nowhere on Earth will you find complete emptiness!!! There is always something there(air,sub atomic-particles,heat,photons)!!!

3.In philosophy/religion, we also have foolish concepts like "it was created", but modern science has proven that the word creation is a highly erroneous notion!!! The more accurate term would be, "the rearrangement of pre-existing material into new forms"!!! This is why it is only a fool who will claim that a carpenter created a wooden chair!!! For all the molecules that exist in the wooden chair have always existed!!!

4.And lastly, we have outdated and outmoded sayings like, "gravity is a force'!!! But modern science has finally revealed to us that Gravity is simply the curvature in the space-time continuum!!!

Na wah for this ancient and archaic philosophers trying to squeeze their heads into the science classrooms!!!

Philosophy is truely the study of "failed models" of the human brain

Niflheim:
I vomited 77 times after going through thE original post!!!

I have tried to restrain myself from doing same after reading yours.

1.The "op" seems not to understand the difference between metaphysics(the realm of fiction/mental illness) and pure physics!!!

Discourses on metaphysics do not necessarily indicate fiction or mental illness.

2.Remember that philosophy gave us a concept known as the "philosophical nothing'' but in reality, there is no such thing as nothing!!! Nowhere on Earth will you find complete emptiness!!! There is always something there(air,sub atomic-particles,heat,photons)!!!

People have different philosophical points of view, and in mine, there is no such thing as nothing either.

If anything I would say that its mathematics that gives us a concept of nothing in the term "zero".

3.In philosophy/religion, we also have foolish concepts like "it was created", but modern science has proven that the word creation is a highly erroneous notion!!! The more accurate term would be, "the rearrangement of pre-existing material into new forms"!!! This is why it is only a fool who will claim that a carpenter created a wooden chair!!! For all the molecules that exist in the wooden chair have always existed!!!

This is simply nonsense. Using pre-existing materials to make something new does not in anyway change the fact that the result is something new. You are saying that no one created aircraft or computers for example. You are merely quibbling with words in a pedantic fashion. I can construct a house from sand, this does not mean it is absurd to say that I created that house from raw materials.

Please go and familiarize yourself with the concepts of creatio ex nhilo, creatio ex deo and creatio ex materia.
It is not always suggested that creation happened from nothingness. Only in the blue above is that suggested. Both of the red suggest otherwise.

4.And lastly, we have outdated and outmoded sayings like, "gravity is a force'!!! But modern science has finally revealed to us that Gravity is simply the curvature in the space-time continuum!!!

Thus it is impossible for a curvature to cause a forceful pull to exist which people may refer to nonetheless as a force?
As I said, you are simply quibbling on words in a pedantic fashion.

Na wah for this ancient and archaic philosophers trying to squeeze their heads into the science classrooms!!!

Philosophy is truely the study of "failed models" of the human brain

A little education can be a terrible thing.

KingEbukasBlog:


Very poor argument against God's existence .I doubt DeepSight would even pay attention to this .

And your doctrine is Jainism's - man's journey is towards apotheosis - nothing new .

Actually its not a poor argument at all, I suggest you reread it.

JackBizzle:


"the palms of you hands are evidence that zeus is a creator"


This is the nonsense non sequitur you are saying.


My body is only evidence of my existence and that I had ancestors. Nothing more.

Frpm his argument, I understand him to mean that 'your eyes were specifically made for you to see'. And that vision is not a by-product of the existence of your eyes. And from the way each part of your body as well has its specific functions, he feels that it was created. He didn't name any particular 'god' all he said was that since each body part has its own specific function, it must've been created. That's what he's asking you to address.

DeepSight:


I think you are wrong for the following reasons:

1. All the examples you have cited still dwell upon purposes of one sort or the other being deduced from observation of something. Whether a Knife is intended to be used as a cooking utensil or as a weapon, both still remain purposes and deduction of either purposes still arises from observation of the nature of the Knife. One may deduce that it was made to be used as either - or even for something else entirely based on observation. It is unlikely that you would conclude that it was designed as clothing, as a meal, or as a means of transportation by air though, just to give examples. In the same way se.x may be observed to be for pleasure or reproduction, this still takes nothing away from the fact that observing se.xual behavior and consequences tells us that it may be for either. Both instances, in short, still disclose purposes deduced from observation.

I doubt that you would deny that walking for example, is amongst the purposes of legs: even where the legs serve many other functions. Ears not just hear, but also give balance to the body.

2. Anything that you can ever comment upon, or make a conclusion of any kind upon, would always be based on observation of one kind or the other.

Finally, somethings are too obviously designed for certain purposes to be denied. Such as eyes being for sight, the tongue being for speech, digestion, taste amongst other things. The way some of our atheists argue though, I would not be surprised if they tell me one day that sight is only an accidental by-product of the existence of the eyes, and that no such thing as sight is the prime purpose of the eyes. Afterall, Dawkins himself wrote that it is theoretically possible for a fully formed eye to spring into existence in a single random mutation, or something along those lines.

So basically, you say that nothing exists without a purpose. Or, if there seems to be no purpose, it means we just haven't figured it out yet? Am I getting you right?

AnonyNymous:

So basically, you say that nothing exists without a purpose. Or, if there seems to be no purpose, it means we just haven't figured it out yet? Am I getting you right?

No I haven't said that: although I believe in purpose: but that is not what I have tried to argue here. What I have said is that where things 9or beings) exist that exhibit made-for-purpose features, it is reasonable to infer that they were deliberately designed or caused.

I cannot take a look at the simplest computer today and fail to admit that its processing powers betrays an intellect behind its design. And no computer on Earth comes anywhere close to the Human Brain.