InesQor:

Lol. Linear taradiddle

No really it's a serious question. How do you know there is a creator? How do you describe this creator? How did this creator come about?

Deep Sight:

Or the marvels of cognition through the human brain.
What exactly does the universe need these things for?

I don't think the universe does need humans.

Deep Sight:

Why does an evolutionary process even produce these things?

The human brain really does aid our survival.

Deep Sight:

What process originating in meaningless chance could contrive such an advanced super-computer such as this?

Not just meaningless chance, there is also natural selection.

Deep Sight:

Any elementary study of the workings of the human brain is enough for thr rational person to discountenance any notion denying a profound level of intelligent design in the living world.

No it isn't. The theory of evolution does give a lot of insights into the human brain.

thehomer:

No really it's a serious question. How do you know there is a creator? How do you describe this creator? How did this creator come about?

Mazaje: I don't know if there is a creator or not, but I personally believe that the universe was created and NOT a result of blind chance,

How does one affirm [i]creation [/i]and speculate on [b]creator [/b]in the same sentence? 

It appears like this, for Mazaje, is a case of personal bellyache against the "popular" Creator figure, and it has caused objectivity to be thrown outside the window! That's why I said linear taradiddle.

Purist:

@Mazaje

I think you're better off labelled an agnostic - Strong Agnostic.  Atheism is barely compatible with the concept of creation - if at all - as such adoption would inevitably negate the very essence of the atheistic stance.  Or better still, an Agnostic Deist, since you believe the universe was created, only that you don't and won't give a hoot who or what this creator(s) is/are, or has to offer because it is your belief that such knowledge is beyond the limits of our scope.

I am an atheist because I know that all the Gods people worship are a creation of men. . . .Read the bible, the koran and the Hindu verdes, all these are the work and creation of men. . . .Such Gods do not exist in reality, the exist only in the minds of those that subscribe to the belief systems. . . . .Atheism has nothing to do with creation, atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods, not the lack of belief in weather the universe has a creator/creators or not, what if the creator/creators of the universe are lifeless(its very possible) or something(s) that is long dead?. . . .What has creation got to do with atheism?. . . .

aletheia:

^How is it a fallacy? You just claimed to be an agnostic

It is a fallacy because you are just begging the question. . . . .

. . .and yet you are certain that the mountain lion is without purpose. Do you see the inconsistency of your position. That the mountain lion's purpose eludes you does not mean that it is without purpose.

I only asked you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .Whats the purpose of the life of a a rattle snake some where in the Arizona desert?. . . .Pls tell me. . .

If you must be consistent to your agnostic position: you cannot dismiss this statement as fallacy:

I want you to tell me what their purpose is. . . .

By your words; if you agree that the [b]Universe is a product of design then

. . .[

I never said the universe was designed,I only said that I believe it was created rather than it appearing as a result of chance. . . .The universe does not look as if it was designed for anything. . . .If you thionk it was designed, then what was it designed for?. . .

without purpose there is no reason to exist. The mountain lion is part of the universe. The instruments used on the ESA observatories are several orders of magnitude less complex than the mountain lion; and yet you cannot say that they are without purpose. . .or can you? If there was no purpose to the ESA; would it exist?

This is a fallacy. . . .Lets just start with our solar system. . .What is the purpose of the 12 planets surrounding planet Jupiter? What is the purpose of asteroids, comets, and the asteroid belt that exist in our solar system? What is the purpose of all the dwarf planets in our solar system? What is the purpose of planet Venus?. . . .What is the purpose of all the billions of stars in our galaxy alone that are just moving away from each other and expanding into space?. . . .The mounting lion is part of the universe and its purpose is what? or is it everything in the universe that has a purpose? What is the purpose of some gas giants(big stars) that have no planets orbiting around them? They are just there(kind of dead but still part of the universe), what exactly is their purpose?. . . .

The only consistent position for you to take is: I do not know. And seek the truth outside of your self.

Yes and I repeat, I dont know is the most rational position to take, you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . . .

toba:

Wow so we still have honest atheists? I find difficult to understand how anyone in hs/hr right frame of mind would give so much credit to the 'big bang' to provide all answers about the universe. this absolute dishonesty.
Mazaje u are atheist poster of 2010

The Big Bang has a lot of evidence to support it, any evidence to support the creation story that is found in the bible which you happen to accept and also believe can provide the answers to the universe?. . . .You are calling other dishonest for believing the BB which has some evidence to support it at least, when your own position does not even have any evidence to support it beside mere belief. . . .

This thread has been made infinitely more interesting but mazaje's declaration of his beliefs.

I think that a creation is an intended thing.  Someone/something/s had the intent to create a world.  Interestingly I am also of the position that it is impossible to epistemologically grasp the creator.  I've said as much in the past and I will not even entertain discussions of such.  However I am a theist.  

What I do 'know' is that I live in a world saturated with Intent.  I believe that the world operates teleologically.  I believe also that my whole being is also saturated with intent.  I also believe that if I do not satisfy this intent that I will remain unfulfilled in life.  

In fact I've said that I believe that adhering to the creators intent is the purest form of worshipping the creator.  One does not have to have an epistemological notion of the creator to do this.

Lol, let me pre-empt you.   In this world of conflicting intents how do we know which one is the creator's?  Good question.

Pastor AIO:

This thread has been made infinitely more interesting but mazaje's declaration of his beliefs.

I think that a creation is an intended thing.  Someone/something/s had the intent to create a world.  Interestingly I am also of the position that it is impossible to epistemologically grasp the creator.  I've said as much in the past and I will not even entertain discussions of such.  However I am a theist.  

What I do 'know' is that I live in a world saturated with Intent.  I believe that the world operates teleologically.  I believe also that my whole being is also saturated with intent.  I also believe that if I do not satisfy this intent that I will remain unfulfilled in life.  

In fact I've said that I believe that adhering to the creators intent is the purest form of worshipping the creator.  One does not have to have an epistemological notion of the creator to do this.

Lol, let me pre-empt you.   In this world of conflicting intents how do we know which one is the creator's?  Good question.

What is the creator(s) intent and how do you know that the creator(s) demand worship?. . .

mazaje:
The Big Bang has a lot of evidence to support it, any evidence to support the creation story that is found in the bible which you happen to accept and also believe can provide the answers to the universe?. .

I think u re jumping ahead of the gun.If u read and understood my post u would realize that i didn't put forward any alternative, neither did i refer to the bible in any part thereof. In my post i made it clear its incredible for anyone to believe that the BB has[b] all[/b] the answers regarding the universe. I'm  sure u'll agree with me on this

. .You are calling other dishonest for believing the BB which has some evidence to support it at least, when your own position does not even have any evidence to support it beside mere belief. . . .

U re still getting it wrong. Im yet to state my position but u're assuming one for me. yes the BB has some evidence but can BB provide all the answers about the universe? note all and not some.

thehomer: Sorry but this creator cannot be viewed as a black box because all we have is the output but not the input unless you wish to simply make up this input.

okay. the input of any blackbox is the seed that germinates to form the output. for the creator, it is the desire and choice to create.

in the case of the God described in the bible -- who i believe is the creator -- this input was/is his word.

in the beginning the Word already existed. the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - john 1:1 nlt
that's the input i refer to. and since you choose not to believe in God, you can also choose to be content that the desire and choice of that intelligent creator to create is the input of the black box.

mazaje:

I am an atheist because I know that all the Gods people worship are a creation of men. . . .

Atheism is not just a lack of belief in "Gods people worship", it's a lack of belief in god(s) generally.  There are people who also lack belief in "Gods people worship", but aren't atheists.

mazaje:

Read the bible, the koran and the Hindu verdes, all these are the work and creation of men. . . .Such Gods do not exist in reality, the exist only in the minds of those that subscribe to the belief systems. . . . .

How do you know this for sure?  I thought you just said the most rational position to hold is "I do not know" - a position which is antithetical to the atheistic worldview by the way, because atheists actually do think they know that there is/are no god(s).

mazaje:

Atheism has nothing to do with creation, atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods, not the lack of belief in weather the universe has a creator/creators or not, what if the creator/creators of the universe are lifeless(its very possible) or something(s) that is long dead?. . . .What has creation got to do with atheism?. . . .

Okay, maybe not directly.  But I had this in mind when I made that comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity

@mazaje: Like I said:

aletheia:

^How is it a fallacy? You just claimed to be an agnostic. . .and yet you are certain that the mountain lion is without purpose. Do you see the inconsistency of your position. That the mountain lion's purpose eludes you does not mean that it is without purpose.

mazaje:

It is a fallacy because you are just begging the question. . .

Now you are throwing around terms in an attempt to mask the inconsistencies in your position.

First you agree that:

mazaje:

. . .I personally believe that the universe was created and NOT a result of blind chance. . .

I then invited you to consider these examples of created objects:

aletheia:

By your words; if you agree that the Universe is a product of design then. . .without purpose there is no reason to exist.. . .The instruments used on the ESA observatories are several orders of magnitude less complex than the mountain lion; and yet you cannot say that they are without purpose. . .or can you? If there was no purpose to the ESA; would it exist?

The only consistent position for you to take is: I do not know. And seek the truth outside of your self.

^By inductive reasoning if the ESA observatories that you used to observe the cosmos are created and have a purpose, why is it that the universe or mountain lion that are way more complex and which you agree are created, purposeless? My mum would not understand the purpose for the LHC at CERN but that doesn't mean it is is without purpose.

mazaje:

I only asked you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .Whats the purpose of the life of a a rattle snake some where in the Arizona desert?. . . .

^You and I know that if I told you what I believe the purpose of the mountain lion and rattle snake is: you would not accept my answer.

mazaje:

I never said the universe was designed,I only said that I believe it was created rather than it appearing as a result of chance. . .

So are you saying that design can arise by random chance?
Did this:

---

[img]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=dlattach;id=29088;type=avatar[/img]

---

come about by chance?

You say this:

mazaje:

I dont know is the most rational position to take

And then turn round to say this:

mazaje:

I am an atheist because I know that all the Gods people worship are a creation of men

Not only do you misidentify yourself (implying that you are uncertain as to what you actually believe) but you go ahead to state that you know. Atheism has everything to do with creation. You believe the Universe was created. . .meaning it had a Cause. That First Cause is what men call God(s). So you are inconsistent when you say the Universe was created but you don't believe God(s) exist. You vacillate between atheism and agnosticism and existential nihilism because your beliefs are still in a state of flux and yet to settle.

mazaje:

you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . .

If I told you that; wouldn't I be expressing just my opinion according to you?

aletheia:

. . .seek the truth outside of your self.

To all those who keep repeating the line of did this come by chance. If you do not know how something came about admit it, not knowing the origin or how something works does not mean its the supernatural that is responsible. PLEASE!!! stop taking us back to the days when peeps thought lightening was the wrath of god

^^
if you want proof of supernatural involvement, remember there is no proof that it came by chance either so you can say you don't know and that will be okay. 

Hello everyone. I know that asking for definitions is usually what stops these conversations dead, but I will do it anyway.

This debate is just another scenario of putting the cart before the horse. If you are going to say that the universe has been designed then present a formal criterion for how you recognize what is designed and what is not. Is it the number of different element that constitute an object. Is it a geometrical shape that the molecules constituting an object take. How are you assigning design. If no one knows your criterion then there simply can be no discussion. Otherwise this discussion is nothing more than people arguing that their own criterion is correct and other people's are wrong without even saying what it is.  You can forgive anyone for not taking anyone's point of view seriously due to its lack of rigor. Without a defined criterion for design this debate is meaningless in every sense of the word. I notice this is a chronic problem with deepsights threads.

I am not aware of any cosmological or evolutionary theories(I mean this in the formal sense) based entirely on the proposition of "random chance". Even worse, so far the arguments people have been making are nothing more than saying that the probability of the Universe/life existing at some unknown point was .0. I use point with caution because in terms of cosmology it sounds like some people are saying that at a time before time the Universe did not exist which is of course a paradoxical statement from which there would be nothing we could reference as a "point".

Not only that, from a cosmological perspective as of the current and past moments(due to causality) the probability of the Universe Existing is/was 1.0. Please note that by saying that that the probability of an already observed event is 1.0 one is simply saying that it happened.  If you have evidence that there are points in time where the probability changes to .0(i.e the Universe did not exist and could not exist) then present it. Otherwise I do not know of any mechanism that would forbid the existence of a/the Universe. If you are saying that the mechanism is that something cannot come from nothing, then the logical conclusion is binary. Either the Universe has always existed(in some form) or it never existed(in any form). The only remaining choice after mere observation would be the former.

When people say the Universe was created are you saying that something always existed and then cannibalized itself to become the Universe? If so, then are you not just saying that the universe has always existed, but in a different forms? If not, then are you not in fact saying that something came from nothing?

Lastly people (deepsight in particular) need to make  more of a distinction of whether they are talking about evolutionary biology or evolutionary cosmology? While both processes have a certain level of statistics involved they are distinct from each other due to the nature of the physical phenomenon in both and the ways each process significantly [b]favor [/b]certain outcomes over others. I do not mean any offense to anyone, but from what I have read some people have no idea what Evolution/Big Bang is about.

cogicero:

okay. the input of any blackbox is the seed that germinates to form the output. for the creator, it is the desire and choice to create.

What if the input was mechanistic?

cogicero:

in the case of the God described in the bible -- who i believe is the creator -- this input was/is his word.
in the beginning the Word already existed. the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - john 1:1 nlt

Why do you think it is the God of the Bible that is the creator and not Pangu or Unkulunkulu or Tawa or any of the other numerous Gods? How do you go from the creator of this universe to the God of the Bible? What is the link?

cogicero:

that's the input i refer to. and since you choose not to believe in God, you can also choose to be content that the desire and choice of that intelligent creator to create is the input of the black box.

I really had no choice in not believing in your God because there are lots of points against him. It seems you have simply assumed your creator from the Bible which I consider poor evidence in this matter.

Pastor AIO:

This thread has been made infinitely more interesting but mazaje's declaration of his beliefs.

I think that a creation is an intended thing.  Someone/something/s had the intent to create a world.  Interestingly I am also of the position that it is impossible to epistemologically grasp the creator.  I've said as much in the past and I will not even entertain discussions of such.  However I am a theist.  

What I do 'know' is that I live in a world saturated with Intent.  I believe that the world operates teleologically.  I believe also that my whole being is also saturated with intent.  I also believe that if I do not satisfy this intent that I will remain unfulfilled in life.  

In fact I've said that I believe that adhering to the creators intent is the purest form of worshipping the creator.  One does not have to have an epistemological notion of the creator to do this.

What if demolishing poor assumptions of creator figures is what this creator wants me to do?

Pastor AIO:

Lol, let me pre-empt you.   In this world of conflicting intents how do we know which one is the creator's?  Good question.

Yes good question but you didn't answer?

@mazaje

Everything that exists has purposes, actually not just purpose but many purposes. The fact that some people do not know the purpose of a thing does not mean that that thing is purposeless. At this point science has evolved to the stage that it can tell you, at least one purpose, of every physical thing in the universe. Lets us quickly go through the things you listed as being purposeless.

mazaje:

It is a fallacy because you are just begging the question. . . . .

I only asked you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .Whats the purpose of the life of a a rattle snake some where in the Arizona desert?. . . .Pls tell me. . .

I want you to tell me what their purpose is. . . .
. . .[

Every creature on earth is an indispensable part of the eco system; every animal, even those invincible are of multipurpose.

The danger that the mountain lion presents in its environment helped in guiding the evolution of other creatures, creatures like man. In the presence on such dangers, the creature can only follow these routes: (1) Evolve towards being almost invincible to the mountain lions; (2) evolve a more sublime body to aid its speed so that it can out run the mountain lion; (3) evolved larger brains so that it can out smart the mountain lion.

Here we have identified 3 major purposes that the mountain lion served in the preservation and evolution of life. Creatures like Zebras followed route (1), they evolved strips which makes them difficult to make out by the lions; lions have poor vision in the day time.
Creatures like humans followed route (3). The dangers presented by creatures like the mountain lion and the rattle snake it one of the impetuous that made prehistoric Homo sapiens develop huge brain; and we humans are products of this evolution. With our huge brains we are equipped with a greater intelligence which enables us to easily outsmart a mountain lion.

Some creatures are immune to the venom of the rattle snakes; some creatures like pigs have thick layers of fat on their skin that prevents the penetration of venom into the blood steam

I can go on and on; but the fact remains such dangers, as those presented by the rattle snake and the mountain lion, helped in making so many creatures what they are today. This danger causes creatures to be on the alert, to move, and their by preventing indolence; this alertness, this movement is very necessary for a healthy life. For where there is lack or movement, lack of exercise, the creature easily.

mazaje:

I never said the universe was designed,I only said that I believe it was created rather than it appearing as a result of chance. . . .The universe does not look as if it was designed for anything. . . .If you thionk it was designed, then what was it designed for?. . .

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

The question is whether this life evolved as a result of the conditions or whether the condition is put in place so that life can thrive.

The possibility of these conditions coming into being by chance is extremely slim; I chose to believe that it was purposely planed to accommodate life.

mazaje:

This is a fallacy. . . .Lets just start with our solar system. . .What is the purpose of the 12 planets surrounding planet Jupiter? What is the purpose of asteroids, comets, and the asteroid belt that exist in our solar system? What is the purpose of all the dwarf planets in our solar system? What is the purpose of planet Venus?. . . .What is the purpose of all the billions of stars in our galaxy alone that are just moving away from each other and expanding into space?. . . .The mounting lion is part of the universe and its purpose is what? or is it everything in the universe that has a purpose? What is the purpose of some gas giants(big stars) that have no planets orbiting around them? They are just there(kind of dead but still part of the universe), what exactly is their purpose?. . . .

Have you ever taken a look at the night sky? The stars and planets add to the beauty of the night sky.

Every planet has a radiation which it sends out to the entire universe; these radiations also help life on earth.

The gravity of each planet, each moon is important in that it helps to maintain the order of the movement of the solar systems. I will give an example, if you take away our moon, this will cause the earth to revolve and rotate slower; this consequence of this is that the earth will no longer be able to maintain its distance from the sun. The earth may plunge into the sun or collide with Venus or Mercury. The same is applicable with Jupiter and her moons.

Every planet in our solar system help life on earth in a way, i.e. the gravity of the moon help plants to grow and tides to arise in the ocean. Venus helps life on earth too in that her radiations reaches the earth. Also it adds to the beauty of the night sky, and it has inspired men as long as man has been on earth, to seek to understand what it is. In this way it helps men to grow in knowledge. It has inspired many poems and many art; all these help in the development of the language and the mood or man, which in-turn will affect or change his physical look.
The asteroids help in shaping the planets or building the planets; they hit planets and change the shape pf the planets; sometime they hit a large planet causing it to split into two planets or resulting in a moon for the planet. Some scientists have speculated that this is how our moon was formed. Asteroids also impact the evolution of live on a planet, the asteroids that hit the earth long time give caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs, allowing Homo sapiens to evolve. Also some scientists have speculated that live on earth or the basic building blocks of life was deposited by an asteroid or a comet. This is called transpermia.

mazaje:

Yes and I repeat, I dont know is the most rational position to take, you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . . .

Isn’t this obvious? It’s quite simple. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Hurricanes, tornadoes and etc gives man the impetus to evolve, to use his brain, to seek out and understand the laws of nature that guides these processes so that he can control them, predict them and escape them.

Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today; as opposed to Nigeria where nature is always gentle, and hence the people are lazy and don’t have good work ethics. Compare California, where there are always earthquakes with Nigeria. Three days ago a huge tree fell and destroyed the power lines here in California, within minutes Edison(Electricity Power supply company) was already there fixing it; I remember in Nigerian if such a thing happens, you have to go beg and bribe NEPA before they will show up, and they usually show up after days or weeks. The constant danger of natural disasters has caused the western world to learn to always be ready, to advance in technology and etc.

The purpose of all life is to survive or to thrive, to survive; the purpose of every man's life is to find supreme happiness and security. Man never finds supreme happiness in material or physical things, only in spiritual things. Hence the purpose of our lives to find ourselves spiritually. In the every human spirit there is the knowledge of the existence of God; the spirit can know of God and it only finds happiness in utilizing this knowledge, which means following the promptings of one's spirit; thus one can only find supreme happiness in following the promptings of his/her spirit, which is tantamount to living according to the will of God.

Everything that exists has many purposes.

Thanks

thehomer:


What if demolishing poor assumptions of creator figures is what this creator wants me to do?

Is that what he wants you to do too? I've been fulfilling that obligation ever since I came to Nairaland.

Yes good question but you didn't answer?

No I didn't . . .

Chrisbenogor:

To all those who keep repeating the line of did this come by chance.[b] If you do not know how something came about admit it, [/b]not knowing the origin or how something works does not mean its the supernatural that is responsible. PLEASE!!!  stop taking us back to the days when peeps thought lightening was the wrath of god

@bolded tell that to your fellow atheist, cos im sure by implication, ur statement is directed to theists. at least one was honest enough to have said 'i know the universe was created and didn't happen by chance' He admitted without having to take us round the circle

---

@ all its better to admit rather than going circuitous or running one liner in a bid to prove something that seems impossible

justcool:

Every creature on earth is an indispensable part of the eco system; every animal, even those invincible are of multipurpose.

I think this is just your opinion. If you have credible data to back this up I would love to see it. I don't think the ecosystem's health hinges on the survival of any one species, or even any several species. Certain species survival might hinge on the ecosystem continuing in a specific state, but I doubt it's the other way around. IMO there are lots of disposable creatures. Creatures may serve some "purpose" in the ecosystem, but that does not equate to them being indispensable. If you can elaborate on this "indispensable" part it would be great. I think it just sounds nice to think we are all special pieces of one puzzle. If a species becomes extinct. ,   others that need it to survive may be threatened, but this may just be an opportunity for others to thrive. The composition of the ecosystem may change, but thats about it IMO. I ain't no biologist or scientist tho so I could be wrong. I just don't buy that indispensable stuff.

IMO, wipe us out and neither the ecosystem nor universe would give a flyin pukc !!

justcool:

The danger that the mountain lion presents in its environment helped in guiding the evolution of other creatures, creatures like man. In the presence on such dangers, the creature can only follow these routes: (1) Evolve towards being almost invincible to the mountain lions; (2) evolve a more sublime body to aid its speed so that it can out run the mountain lion; (3) evolved larger brains so that it can out smart the mountain lion.

Here we have identified 3 major purposes that the mountain lion served in the preservation and evolution of life. Creatures like Zebras followed route (1), they evolved strips which makes them difficult to make out by the lions; lions have poor vision in the day time.
Creatures like humans followed route (3). The dangers presented by creatures like the mountain lion and the rattle snake it one of the impetuous that made prehistoric Homo sapiens develop huge brain; and we humans are products of this evolution. With our huge brains we are equipped with a greater intelligence which enables us to easily outsmart a mountain lion.

Some creatures are immune to the venom of the rattle snakes; some creatures like pigs have thick layers of fat on their skin that prevents the penetration of venom into the blood steam

I can go on and on; but the fact remains such dangers, as those presented by the rattle snake and the mountain lion, helped in making so many creatures what they are today. This danger causes creatures to be on the alert, to move, and their by preventing indolence; this alertness, this movement is very necessary for a healthy life. For where there is lack or movement, lack of exercise, the creature easily.

Is that really how it works? do species develop features to a specific end, or do the features occur by chance/accident and when beneficial, help those with the features to thrive? What I mean is, for ezzampul did zebras develop stripes in response to a threat, or did some just happen to develop stripes which helped them to outlive those that did not? Maybe someone that understands how this stuff works can explain to us. This explanation u have given seems too convenient. Nature isn't that neat/tidy. At least not IMO.

justcool:

T[b]he universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.
[/b]
The question is whether this life evolved as a result of the conditions or whether the condition is put in place so that life can thrive.

The possibility of these conditions coming into being by chance is extremely slim; I chose to believe that it was purposely planed to accommodate life.

Have you ever taken a look at the night sky? The stars and planets add to the beauty of the night sky.

Every planet has a radiation which it sends out to the entire universe; these radiations also help life on earth.

How much life is in the universe? WHat sort of data is this your theory about the universe based on, Life on earth? or have u access to some other life elsewhere in the universe that we do not? I don't think what happens on earth, or in our solar system, is enough to make any inferences about the universe as a whole. Earth may be in a slightly ordered part of the universe. . . doesn't make the entire universe that way, and could also just be a chance occurrence. What I'm saying pretty much is that even if the universe may not be a chance occurrence, the earth very well could be. How do u argue from a created universe (not that u have shown that, but we kinda need to move on from that) to a purposeful earth. One does not follow from, or even remotely suggest the other.

justcool:


Isn’t this obvious? It’s quite simple. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Hurricanes, tornadoes and etc gives man the impetus to evolve, to use his brain, to seek out and understand the laws of nature that guides these processes so that he can control them, predict them and escape them.

Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today; as opposed to Nigeria where nature is always gentle, and hence the people are lazy and don’t have good work ethics. Compare California, where there are always earthquakes with Nigeria. Three days ago a huge tree fell and destroyed the power lines here in California, within minutes Edison(Electricity Power supply company) was already there fixing it; I remember in Nigerian if such a thing happens, you have to go beg and bribe NEPA before they will show up, and they usually show up after days or weeks. The constant danger of natural disasters has caused the western world to learn to always be ready, to advance in technology and etc.

No offence but I think this is pretty bogus.  Now technological advancement is as a direct result of occurrence of natural disaster in a specific area? Puhleeaaasssee. 


Capitalism, greed, curiosity are better explanations for tech advancement than natural disasters IMO. I'm yet to see technology that helps curb natural disasters. A house will keep u dry in the rain, but will collapse on u in an earthquake 

How many things created even by humans are created without purpose ----- even if the purpose is simply for the amusement of the creator and not any particularly functional other purpose

@Krayola

Krayola:

I think this is just your opinion. If you have credible data to back this up I would love to see it. I don't think the ecosystem's health hinges on the survival of any one species, or even any several species. Certain species survival might hinge on the ecosystem continuing in a specific state, but I doubt it's the other way around. IMO there are lots of disposable creatures. Creatures may serve some "purpose" in the ecosystem, but that does not equate to them being indispensable. If you can elaborate on this "indispensable" part it would be great. I think it just sounds nice to think we are all special pieces of one puzzle. If a species becomes extinct. , others that need it to survive may be threatened, but this may just be an opportunity for others to thrive. The composition of the ecosystem may change, but thats about it IMO. I ain't no biologist or scientist tho so I could be wrong. I just don't buy that indispensable stuff.

IMO, wipe us out and neither the ecosystem nor universe would give a flyin fukc!!

What is ecosystem? We live in the age of information; why don’t you type in ecosystem on your search bar and read the definition.

The eco system comprises the entire organism in an environment, if you remove one organism the ecosystem changes, the environment changes. Creatures evolve to survive their environment; in a different environment the evolution of creatures takes a different course. That’s why species that evolved in isolation, like islands, look different and behave definitely than their cousins in the mainland.

Please read the definition of the ecosystem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

Krayola:

Is that really how it works? do species develop features to a specific end, or do the features occur by chance/accident and when beneficial, help those with the features to thrive? What I mean is, for ezzampul did zebras develop stripes in response to a threat, or did some just happen to develop stripes which helped them to outlive those that did not? Maybe someone that understands how this stuff works can explain to us. This explanation u have given seems too convenient. Nature isn't that neat/tidy. At least not IMO.

Yes that’s how it works. Creatures adapt to their environments by developing traits that help them survive the dangers of the environment. Adaptation is a single step in the journey of evolution, although not all adaptations lead to evolution.

Zebras developed strips as strategy for their survival. Some scientists believe that it is a camouflage because a lion cannot make out one zebra from a herd of Zebras owing to the strips which confuse the lion. Do you ever watch National Geographic channel, discovery or science channel? A lion hardly ever chases a herd of Zebras, but when one ventures away from the heard that’s when the lion chases it.

But don’t take my words for it. Goggle it or visit an evolutionary biologist. You can start by reading this:
http://whyzz.com/why-do-zebras-have-stripes
http://whyzz.com/answer/detail/search/why+do+creatures+evolve/qid/133/subcategory/48/category/7

Krayola:


How much life is in the universe? WHat sort of data is this your theory about the universe based on, Life on earth? or have u access to some other life elsewhere in the universe that we do not? I don't think what happens on earth, or in our solar system, is enough to make any inferences about the universe as a whole. Earth may be in a slightly ordered part of the universe. . . doesn't make the entire universe that way, and could also just be a chance occurrence. What I'm saying pretty much is that even if the universe may not be a chance occurrence, the earth very well could be. How do u argue from a created universe (not that u have shown that, but we kinda need to move on from that) to a purposeful earth. One does not follow from, or even remotely suggest the other.

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Also it is not a good idea to use obscenities, like in a forum like this where under aged kids have access to.

Thank you.

justcool:

@Krayola

What is ecosystem? We live in the age of information; why don’t you type in ecosystem on your search bar and read the definition.

The eco system comprises the entire organism in an environment, if you remove one organism the ecosystem changes, the environment changes. Creatures evolve to survive their environment; in a different environment the evolution of creatures takes a different course. That’s why species that evolved in isolation, like islands, look different and behave definitely than their cousins in the mainland.

Please read the definition of the ecosystem here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

I did not ask for the definition of an ecosystem. I asked u to explain how EVERY species in an ecosystem is INDISPENSABLE and what exactly u mean by the term when u use it. U did not deal with the question i raised. How is every species indispensable? Defining an ecosystem has nothing to do with what i asked u.

justcool:

Yes that’s how it works. Creatures adapt to their environments by developing traits that help them survive the dangers of the environment. Adaptation is a single step in the journey of evolution, although not all adaptations lead to evolution.

Zebras developed strips as strategy for their survival. Some scientists believe that it is a camouflage because a lion cannot make out one zebra from a herd of Zebras owing to the strips which confuse the lion. Do you ever watch National Geographic channel, discovery or science channel? A lion hardly ever chases a herd of Zebras, but when one ventures away from the heard that’s when the lion chases it.

But don’t take my words for it. Goggle it or visit an evolutionary biologist. You can start by reading this:
http://whyzz.com/why-do-zebras-have-stripes
http://whyzz.com/answer/detail/search/why+do+creatures+evolve/qid/133/subcategory/48/category/7

My question is that did the stripes appear BECAUSE they helped zebras avoid predators, or did they appear by chance and then helped those that had them outlive those that didn't and pass the genes on. That makes a big difference to your theory

justcool:

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about here.

You said the universe is designed for the life in it to thrive. I'm saying how did u come to this knowledge of the universe. Not just our planet, not just our solar system, but the whole universe. . .

justcool:

Also it is not a good idea to use obscenities, like in a forum like this where under aged kids have access to.

They are just words. context is everything. why is nudity in classical art considered beautiful, but an exotic dancer considered obscene by many? I was expressing myself in a way that comes naturally to me. They were not insults nor were they meant to ridicule anybody. I also think under aged kids have no business on a public internet forum. I get your point tho and i will tone it down. 

@Krayola

Krayola:

No offence but I think this is pretty fukn bogus.  Now technological advancement is as a direct result of occurrence of natural disaster in a specific area? Puhleeaaasssee.  


Capitalism, greed, curiosity are better explanations for tech advancement than natural disasters IMO. I'm yet to see technology that helps curb natural disasters. A house will keep u dry in the rain, but will collapse on u in an earthquake

Here you are kidding right? I will give you a few inventions: weather Doppler, weather raiders, earthquake dictators, earthquake warning devices, accelerometers, seismology and etc.

How many cities in Nigeria have a sound fire department? Not many. Why? Because they can afford not to, since natural fire disasters hardly occur in Nigeria.

Places like California cannot afford not have a very very very sound fire department in all cities. Have you ever heard California wild fires?  How much advancement have our scientists in Nigeria done in understanding fire and how to prevent them? None.

How Seismologist does we have in Nigeria? Places like California cannot afford not have as many sound ones as possible. The threat of earthquake has instigated them to develop that field of knowledge called seismology. And yes technology helps in dictation natural disasters before hand; it helps in communicating to the people of the approaching disaster; it helps in preventing a lot of deaths and etc. I can go on and on and on.  In downtown Los Angeles they have skyscrapers that have pliers of shock absorbers so that during earthquake they never fail. What gave the engineers the urge to develop this technology?

Part of the reason why Africa is backwards technologically is that nature is too kind and gentle with us. While the ancient Europeans were racking their brains trying to figure out how to survive the next winter; our forefathers were happily basking in the all-year-round warmth of sub Sahara Africa. The Europeans had to invent thick clothing, they had to invent heaters or the winter will kill most of them. I can go on and on but I hope you got the gist.

Thanks

justcool:

@Krayola

Here you are kidding right? I will give you a few inventions: weather Doppler, weather raiders, earthquake dictators, earthquake warning devices, accelerometers, seismology and etc.

How many cities in Nigeria have a sound fire department? Not many. Why? Because they can afford not to, since natural fire disasters hardly occur in Nigeria.

Places like California cannot afford not have a very very very sound fire department in all cities. Have you ever heard California wild fires?  How much advancement have our scientists in Nigeria done in understanding fire and how to prevent them? None.

How Seismologist does we have in Nigeria? Places like California cannot afford not have as many sound ones as possible. The threat of earthquake has instigated them to develop that field of knowledge called seismology. And yes technology helps in dictation natural disasters before hand; it helps in communicating to the people of the approaching disaster; it helps in preventing a lot of deaths and etc. I can go on and on and on.  In downtown Los Angeles they have skyscrapers that have pliers of shock absorbers so that during earthquake they never fail. What gave the engineers the urge to develop this technology?

Part of the reason why Africa is backwards technologically is that nature is too kind and gentle with us. While the ancient Europeans were racking their brains trying to figure out how to survive the next winter; our forefathers were happily basking in the all-year-round warmth of sub Sahara Africa. The Europeans had to invent thick clothing, they had to invent heaters or the winter will kill most of them. I can go on and on but I hope you got the gist.

Thanks

What about the gun, the printing press, the washing machine, toilet paper, the automobile, air conditioning  . . What natural factors led to these inventions and does the world outside Africa  have a monopoly on these factors?

These are quotes from the wikipedia article u referred me to.

Introduction of new elements, whether biotic or abiotic, into an ecosystem tend to have a disruptive effect. In some cases, this can lead to ecological collapse or "trophic cascading" and the death of many species within the ecosystem. Under this deterministic vision, the abstract notion of ecological health attempts to measure the robustness and recovery capacity for an ecosystem; i.e. how far the ecosystem is away from its steady state.
Often, however, ecosystems have the ability to rebound from a disruptive agent. The difference between collapse or a gentle rebound is determined by two factors—the toxicity of the introduced element and the resiliency of the original ecosystem.

If every species was indispensable like u say, the extinction of one would be the collapse of the ecosystem, I think. That does not seem to be the case.

Given the great diversity among organisms on earth, most ecosystems only changed very gradually, as some species would disappear while others would move in. Locally, sub-populations continuously go extinct, to be replaced later through dispersal of other sub-populations

Maybe there is something I just don't understand. I admit biology no be my specialty, but I think i still have a clue.


About the whole natural disaster being the driving force of technological advancement, i don't buy it. Maybe some technological advancements. . .but for the phenomenon as a whole, i think that is a very big claim to try to defend.

Rise of a merchant class in Europe, trade, the need to produce more for bigger markets, security from invading armies,humanism, mere curiosity and ingenuity of the human etc these kinds of factors have had more of an impact on technological advancement as a whole than any natural disaster IMO. During the dark ages the Europeans weren't inventing anything. . . . The arabs were though. What natural disasters were responsible for that?

justcool:

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

This is the part of your post I had difficulty with. What do u mean by "life" and what do you mean by "thrive"? The first part is about the universe. . . How do you know this about the universe? The part about the earth is ok. . . though the "precisely" part is debatable. But how do you know this about the whole universe (designed for life in it to thrive)?

aletheia:

@mazaje: Like I said:Now you are throwing around terms in an attempt to mask the inconsistencies in your position.

Nope I am not. . . .

First you agree that:
I then invited you to consider these examples of created objects:^By inductive reasoning if the ESA observatories that you used to observe the cosmos are created and have a purpose, why is it that the universe or mountain lion that are way more complex and which you agree are created, purposeless? My mum would not understand the purpose for the LHC at CERN but that doesn't mean it is is without purpose.

Where did I say that the mountain lion is with out purpose? I WANT you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .It seems you don't even know the purpose of your own life cos i have asked you to tell me and you haven't. . . . .

^You and I know that if I told you what I believe the purpose of the mountain lion and rattle snake is: you would not accept my answer.

Why wouldn't I accept your answer?. . ,

So are you saying that design can arise by random chance?
Did this:

---

[img]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=dlattach;id=29088;type=avatar[/img]

---

come about by chance?

The image you have above was designed for a purpose, Its purpose is to depict a unclothed woman. what was the universe designed for and for what purpose since you claim to know that it was designed for a purpose?

You say this:And then turn round to say this:Not only do you misidentify yourself (implying that you are uncertain as to what you actually believe) but you go ahead to state that you know. Atheism has everything to do with creation. You believe the Universe was created. . .meaning it had a Cause. That First Cause is what men call God(s).

There are a lot of Gods that people worship that have nothing to do with the first cause. . . . .

So you are inconsistent when you say the Universe was created but you don't believe God(s) exist. You vacillate between atheism and agnosticism and existential nihilism because your beliefs are still in a state of flux and yet to settle.
If I told you that; wouldn't I be expressing just my opinion according to you?

I don't believe that the Gods of man made religion(your God inclusive) exist, because non of the said Gods can be show to exist on its own independent of human thoughts, human writings, human conception, human cultural traditions and cultural acceptance, human mythologies and writings and human beliefs. . . .Non of such Gods exist in reality out side human belief or human workings. . .According to the religion your subscribe to, the mostly unknown writers of the bible said that their God once lived with them and appeared to so many of them, they wrote that he fought battles with them, wrote on walls, addressed millions of them through public speech, set up a contest with other Gods to show that he was real and all others were false etc. . . .I wonder why such a God that knows how to write on walls or on stone tablet for all to see fails to write any part of the bible. . . .If such a God can address the whole world through a public speech people will know that he exist in reality, no?. . .A simple reading of the holy books of God(bible koran etc) all say that such Gods do not exist in reality. . . .They are just a creation of men and nothing else. . .

@ Justcool. . .I really appreciate your rejoinders. . .That was what I expected for aletheia but he just kept running round and round in a circle. . . .

justcool:

@mazaje

Everything that exists has purposes, actually not just purpose but many purposes. The fact that some people do not know the purpose of a thing does not mean that that thing is purposeless. At this point science has evolved to the stage that it can tell you, at least one purpose, of every physical thing in the universe. Lets us quickly go through the things you listed as being purposeless.

Don't get me wrong because I never stated that any thing was purposeless, I just wanted him to tell me the purpose since he claimed to have special knowledge. . . .The primary purpose of every living thing on earth and in other parts of the universe if there are any is SURVIVAL. . . . .

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

This is a VERY FALSE statement. . . .Scientists currently believe that 96% of the universe is either dark matter or dark energy, meaning that a scant 4% of the universe is even conceptually accessible by us. Of that 4%, virtually all of it is comprised of empty space some two degrees above absolute zero, which is instantly lethal to living beings. So essentially the universe is almost entirely off-limits to humanity and other living beings, and of that which is not off-limits, almost all of that is trying to kill us or destroy life. Life can not survive out there in space in its natural form, so the nation that the universe was created or designed for life is false. . . . .

I think any world view that gives life (on earth), or humans, some special standing in the entire universe is most likely distorted.

That seems to suggest that if some comet landed on earth and wiped out all life, the universe would have been a failed venture. Dunno about that. . . What would the universe do differently if life on earth were wiped out?