Deep Sight:

You didn't get it, did you? Ok, let's go kindergarten: a fellow man like YOU is claimed to be the first cause. . . need i go on. . . .?

AGAIN you regard this as delusion based on the preassumption

[/quote] God cannot take a human for and walk this earth right?

BIG FAT ASSUMPTION? ? ?
[quote]You must be omniscient to be able to assert conclusively that the first cause is [b]not an element that has attributes of a being!
O well, since you are that first cause yourself, i guess you should know!

More crap.
There is no evidence to conclusively assert the first cause to be a living being is there?

The universe doesn't necessarily need a living being to kick start the chain reaction does it?

^^^ Neither is there evidence to suggest that the First Cause is[b] not [/b] a being. So what are you on about?

In several of our excahnges you have conclusively accepted that there must be a first cause, and you also assert that even scientists accept that.

The contention is therefore the nature of that first cause.

In discussing its nature you cannot conclusively assert that it must per force be devoid of an attribute such as intelligence - unless of course you are omniscient.

Admittedly, neither can i assert its nature conclusively, but the world around me strongly suggests intelligence rather than the absence of it.

Whichever way we argue it, you have no basis for stating that it must lack intelligence as you do not know that for a fact.

My own thinking is that it has intelligence: now although i agree that i cannot be conclusive, since i am not omniscient as you are, at least i have advanced some reasons why i think it must have intelligence. Such as when i argued that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself. Now even if you disagree with this reason, i have at least proferred one.

What reason can you proffer Tudor, for your positive assertion that the first cause cannot be intelligent, and that anyone who believes so is deluded?

For us to be deluded, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

Give us such evidence!

Deep Sight:

^^^ Neither is there evidence to suggest that the First Cause is[b] not [/b] a being. So what are you on about?

In several of our excahnges you have conclusively accepted that there must be a first cause, and you also assert that even scientists accept that.

The contention is therefore the nature of that first cause.

In discussing its nature you cannot conclusively assert that it must per force be devoid of an attribute such as intelligence - unless of course you are omniscient.

Admittedly, neither can i assert its nature conclusively, but the world around me strongly suggests intelligence rather than the absence of it.

Whichever way we argue it, you have no basis for stating that it must lack intelligence as you do not know that for a fact.

My own thinking is that it has intelligence: now although i agree that i cannot be conclusive, since i am not omniscient as you are, at least i have advanced some reasons why i think it must have intelligence. Such as when i argued that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself. Now even if you disagree with this reason, i have at least proferred one.

What reason cau you proffer Tudor, for your positive assertion that the first cause cannot be intelligent, and that anyone who believes so is deluded?

For us to be deluded, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

Give us such evidence!

This is terribly lazy and dishonest.

Even science which tends to agree our present universe as it is now started at a point clearly owns up to its ignorance to the the exact state and nature of such a thing that kick started the reaction.

But lo and behold some people think they can dream up attributes and pass it up as undisputable fact and truth.

You claiming the first cause is intelligent, living being etc are as deluded and psychotic as one who claims it has three heads, a son, loves human sacrifices and encourages paedophilia. . . . .is there any difference?

You are such a hypocrite.
You deny jesus as god based on assumption. . .can you in anyway positively assert with evidence that God did not come to earth in form of man 2000 years ago? Give us such evidence.

Ha ha. I ask for your reasons for positively asserting that the first cause lacks intelligence and all you do is spew insults and entirely avoid the question. Tudor one sign of mental incapacity is brain-dead-self-repetition. You do not use a statement as its own justification, son. Thus your bovine repetition of -

You claiming the first cause is intelligent, living being etc are as deluded and psychotic as one who claims it has three heads, a son, loves human sacrifices and encourages paedophilia. . . . .is there any difference?

- Makes no sense at all, given the fact that i have given REASONS for my suppositions. You attack the supposition of intelligence without advancing ANY REASONS for attacking it. That's frankly infantile.

No escape, its simple enough.

We both agreed there is a first cause.

I said i suppose it has intelligence and i gave my reason -

. . . that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself.

If you suppose the contrarr, namely that it does not have intelligence, give us your reason: either way, for you to describe me as psycotic, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

If you fail to give a reason, then your assertion that the first cause lacks intelligence is nothing but dogma - which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of! Indeed your dogmatism will be far worse than ours because we have proferred reasons - you are yet to proffer ANY reason.

_{Small wonder the thread we opened to hear you out was such an empty skunk.}

And by the way, i did proffer a reason for supposing that God could not walk the earth as a man -

Well i must say that until very very recently my thinking was this: Even if God may incarnate as a man, why should i regard any particular truth-bringer as God himself? I regard Christ as one of many truth bringers, and there is no reason to suppose that he is God himself, especially as he said quite alot to suggest that he is not God.

But recently my thinking has developed slightly. I no longer believe that God may actually enter creation as a man. I reflect that the enormity of divine infinity, which is what God is, cannot be borne within material finity. I do not believe that the material world or the human body can support God: in much the same way as an animal body cannot support a human spirit.

_{Hint: Same way as a more advanced software may not be supported by less advanced hardware.}

But i do not suppose that you will be able to respond rationally to this!

Deep Sight:

And by the way, i did proffer a reason for supposing that God could not walk the earth as a man -


_{Hint: Same way as a more advanced software may not be supported by less advanced hardware.}

But i do not suppose that you will be able to respond rationally to this!

This is a joke right?

Since God created man himself what stops God from creating a human body capable of containing him?

Do you listen to yourself at all?

"You reflect that divine infinity cannot be borne in a creation as man. . . ."

YOU REFLECT?

Can you demonstrate this reflection by way of evidence?

People bring their own assumptions you summarily dismiss them labelling it psychotic. . .rather than stop at that you go ahead and profer your own ridiculous assumptions and expect us to accept it as fact. . .you have got to be kidding me.

still waiting for ya positive evidence that the first cause could not conceivably be intelligent. . .

talk about ridiculuous assumptions!

like i said b4 -

If you fail to give a reason, then your assertion that the first cause lacks intelligence is nothing but dogma - which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of! Indeed your dogmatism will be far worse than ours because we have proferred reasons - you are yet to proffer ANY reason.

@Deepsight
You never fail to impress me. You made a lot of sense your reply to my post.

Deep Sight:

My Dear Friend and Brother Justcool -

Actually i limit my definition intentionally: for the purpose of scientifically engaging the atheistic mind and showing such a mind that something which must be defined as God necessarily exists. However as Tudor has already pointed out, i have at many times also made clear that i believe God to be a being. I will take a few moments in a subsequent post to indicate the reasons for the definitions i gave above.

OK, I now understand. Thanks for explaining, and forgive me for drawing such a hasty conclusion.

Deep Sight:

Well i must say that until very very recently my thinking was this: Even if God may incarnate as a man, why should i regard any particular truth-bringer as God himself? I regard Christ as one of many truth bringers, and there is no reason to suppose that he is God himself, especially as he said quite a lot to suggest that he is not God.

But recently my thinking has developed slightly. I no longer believe that God may actually enter creation as a man. I reflect that the enormity of divine infinity, which is what God is, cannot be borne within material finity. I do not believe that the material world or the human body can support God: in much the same way as an animal body cannot support a human spirit.

No matter how enormous the Divine infinity is, a little part of it can be made finite and incarnated into a physical body. You are right, God in His entirety cannot descend into creation; creation will only incinerate in His presence. This part of God that was made finite and incarnated in a physical body is not God in His entirety; hence we use the expression "son of God." This is why Jesus suggested that He was not God by saying that the father is greater than Him. Jesus is dependant on the father, therefore the father is greater than him. I don't think Jesus ever called himself God, He only said that He is "the son of God"; thus a part of God. His origin is Divine, as opposed to our origin which is spirit.
I will give you an analogy:
The Atlantic ocean cannot be contained in a cup. But a small potion of the Atlantic ocean can fill a cup. This ocean filled cup is not the ocean but a part of the ocean. Eventhough small, it carries all the characteristics of the ocean. Whoever sees and understands the nature of this water in a cup, has seen and understood the nature of the ocean. Hence the biblical statement, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John14:19)
I used the Atlantic ocean to represent God, while the ocean filled cup represents Jesus.

Coming to the issue of the animal body and human spirit. You are right to some extent that the animal body cannot support a human spirit. But this is not necessarily impossible. Remember that the first human spirits that incarnated on earth, incarnated into the bodies of highly evolved animals which were specially guided and developed for the purpose. Thus our physical bodies are basically animistic. A man cannot for instance incarnate into the body of a lion, the major problem is that the lion's body does not have the form to support a human spirit. The human spirit can only wear a cloak that bears the human form which symbolises self consciousness. Something which is inherent in the spiritual and the divine; lower animals do not posses this self-consciousness, and hence they don't have the human form.

Now let us follow the development closely:
Animistic germs started the development of all physical bodies; after thousands of years, the development or evolution yielded different kinds of animals with different forms, each a coarse or an unpolished reflection of beings that exist in higher planes. Certain animals, in their evolution were specially guided by the elemental beings to achieve a form that resembles the human form as much as can be achieved by the animistic. The highest height of the animistic achievement is the most highly developed animals which bears a form that closely resembles the human body. At this point the human spirit which had already journeyed from paradise to subsequent creation, incarnated into these highly eveloved animals, and continued the evolution of the body to the presents day man.
This is what happened with the incarnation of the first humans on earth. The incarnation of the Divine can also be likened to the same process or is a repetition of the same process of development. The human spirit after evolving their inhereted animistic bodies to the present eveloved human body, set a bridge for the incarnation of a higher specie, just like the animistic germs made a bridge for the incarnation of spirit germs. A few humans with healthy bodies were guided to meet each other and mate to achieve healthier bodies. After centuries of this guidance, a couple(man and woman) were achieved, which had bodies strong enough to carry higher radiations than the average body. This man and woman were Mary- the mother of Jesus, and a man who was the biological father of Jesus. When these two people met, they united physically and produced a physical body that was suitable for the incarnation of a part of the Divine.
While the preparation of the physical body was going on on earth, the part of God that separated from Him was also being prepared. Of cause the Divine cannot be directly incarnated into the physical, the gap is too much, and nature or the will of God does not allow gaps. So this part of Divine unsubstantiality, has to first be clothed with Divine substantiality, then clothed with Primordial spiritual, human spiritual, animistic, ethereal, and finally astral which connects it to the physical body.
The bodies affect this Divine part of God in such a way that with each body the Divine radiation that shines through is reduced, thus making this Divine part of God finite.

There is no gap in this process nothing in it is against the laws of nature.

I will give an analogy: Imagine God in His Divine infinity as an all powerful electric current. This current is so much that if it is connected straight to a simple appliance like an electric bulb, the bulb will burst instantaneously. But after passing this current through many resistors, the current can be reduced enough that it can safely power an electric bulb.

This is what happened with Jesus. The bodies He wore,like I mentioned above, acted like resistors which made it possible for Him to were the physical.

Now let us return to the bulb analogy. Imagine a house lighted with many bulbs that are powered by direct currents. In-other to increase the brightness in the house, an electrician decided to power a bulb with an alternating current like I mentined above. This bulb shines brighter because is it powered by 24 volts of alternating current, while the rest of the bulbs in the house are powered by 12 volts of direct current.

The bulb powered by 24 volts of alternating current represents Jesus, while the rest of the bulbs powered by 12 volts of direct current represent human beings.

One is powered by Alternating current, while the rest is powered by Direct current.
Jesus is animated  or powered by Divine essence, while humans are animated or powered by spiritual essence.

Now you see how it is possible for a part of God to be incarnated on a physical body.


Thanks and remain blessed

Tudór:


Since God created man himself what stops God from creating a human body capable of containing him?

Ta. . . didn't expect you to grasp that matter is by nature finite. . . ta ta . . .

Deep Sight:

Ha ha. I ask for your reasons for positively asserting that the first cause lacks intelligence and all you do is spew insults and entirely avoid the question. Tudor one sign of mental incapacity is brain-dead-self-repetition. You do not use a statement as its own justification, son. Thus your bovine repetition of -

- Makes no sense at all, given the fact that i have given REASONS for my suppositions. You attack the supposition of intelligence without advancing ANY REASONS for attacking it. That's frankly infantile.

No escape, its simple enough.

We both agreed there is a first cause.

I said i suppose it has intelligence and i gave my reason -

If you suppose the contrarr, namely that it does not have intelligence, give us your reason: either way, for you to describe me as psycotic, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

If you fail to give a reason, then your assertion that the first cause lacks intelligence is nothing but dogma - which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of! Indeed your dogmatism will be far worse than ours because we have proferred reasons - you are yet to proffer ANY reason.

_{Small wonder the thread we opened to hear you out was such an empty skunk.}

Play the victim card by claiming I insult you all you want, i don't give a damn.

Secondly, I make no assertions as to the nature of the causative element. I willingly own up to my ignorance but basically reject your so-called evidences because they're all based on conjecture.

". . . .that a force cannot bequeath attributes it does not have in itself"


Incase you haven't noticed i'm not given to long stories, plenty talk here and there and senseless grammar that are just empty shells with no substance within. I'm going to ask you these simple questions.

1. That Arthur and wilbur wright created the first aircraft does it mean they can fly?

2. I create an infrared camera does that mean i can see infrared rays?

3. I produce an underwater robot can I survive underwater?

4. My CT and Ultrasound can see internal organs within your body does that preclude me being able to do same?

5. My mobile phone can send information across two continents can I do that with my body?

Dude. . . .

Deep Sight:

Ta. . . didn't expect you to grasp that matter is by nature finite. . . ta ta . . .

More crap.
Matter is converted to energy which can neither be created nor destroyed so what are you blabbing about?

Your last two posts are more like it! Good, Tudor!

I will address them later cos i am heading to my ofis now.

But preliminary thoughts on the penultimate post is this:

To create those things man posessed the intelligence and thought patterns to bring them to reality!

So you have creded the debate again.

This God may not be able to defecate, as humans do, but he similarly posesses the thought patterns and intelligence to create beings that could!

Does it escape you that all those technologies you mentioned contain what is called [b]artificial intelligence! And it is that artificial intelligence that makes them function: which we bequeathed to them![/b]

Capisce?

Will be right back. . .

Again: note that your points amount to stating that the creator of a mobile phone or airplane could not conceivably be intelligent!

You are digging a hole, Tudor!

Tudór:

More crap.
Matter is converted to energy which can neither be created nor destroyed so what are you blabbing about?

And is the energy infinite? Go back to Einstein's works please!

Deep Sight:

Your last two posts are more like it! Good, Tudor!

Screw you. I'm not here to conform to any standards set by you or anybody.

I will address them later cos i am heading to my ofis now.

But preliminary thoughts on the penultimate post is this:

To create those things man posessed the intelligence and thought patterns to bring them to reality!

So you have creded the debate again.

This God may not be able to defecate, as humans do, but he similarly posesses the thought patterns and intelligence to create beings that could!

Does it escape you that all those technologies you mentioned contain what is called [b]artificial intelligence! And it is that artificial intelligence that makes them function: which we bequeathed to them![/b]

Capisce?

Will be right back. . .

What intelligence? Everything up there even to the human brain are a series 0 and 1 binary instructions on a circuit which are all governed by the laws of the universe which also includes behaviour of the elements and how they interact with one another.

As science puts it The universe over billions of years formation the first simple living thing was formed by a mixture of elements then overtime evolution and changing conditions led to the more complex life forms.

What am i saying? Intelligence is nothing supernatural it isn't magical but as a result of simple chemical reactions between elements in the brain. If you isolate all the components needed for our brain function you'd find out they are all to the least indivisible parts atoms.

We are able to create 'artificial intelligence' as you put it because we arrange the elements and reactions in a particular order to acheive such a result.

14 billion years of permutations and combination is a very very very long time for things to be arranged the way they are.

The causative factor of the universe doesn't necessarily have to be intelligent. Containing the the required reactants is enough and time (14 billion years of it) is quite enough to mix them in different proportions and stages to result in intelligence.

No matter how enormous the Divine infinity is, a little part of it can be made finite and incarnated into a physical body. You are right, God in His entirety cannot descend into creation; creation will only incinerate in His presence. This part of God that was made finite and incarnated in a physical body is not God in His entirety; hence we use the expression "son of God." This is why Jesus suggested that He was not God by saying that the father is greater than Him. Jesus is dependant on the father, therefore the father is greater than him. I don't think Jesus ever called himself God, He only said that He is "the son of God"; thus a part of God. His origin is Divine, as opposed to our origin which is spirit.
I will give you an analogy:
The Atlantic ocean cannot be contained in a cup. But a small potion of the Atlantic ocean can fill a cup. This ocean filled cup is not the ocean but a part of the ocean. Eventhough small, it carries all the characteristics of the ocean. Whoever sees and understands the nature of this water in a cup, has seen and understood the nature of the ocean. Hence the biblical statement, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John14:19)
I used the Atlantic ocean to represent God, while the ocean filled cup represents Jesus.

@justcool, the above is cool, Thanks

Deep Sight:

And is the energy infinite? Go back to Einstein's works please!

What are you talking about?
Energy can't be destroyed can it?

No matter how enormous the Divine infinity is, a little part of it can be made finite and incarnated into a physical body. You are right, God in His entirety cannot descend into creation; creation will only incinerate in His presence. This part of God that was made finite and incarnated in a physical body is not God in His entirety; hence we use the expression "son of God." This is why Jesus suggested that He was not God by saying that the father is greater than Him. Jesus is dependant on the father, therefore the father is greater than him. I don't think Jesus ever called himself God, He only said that He is "the son of God"; thus a part of God. His origin is Divine, as opposed to our origin which is spirit.
I will give you an analogy:
The Atlantic ocean cannot be contained in a cup. But a small potion of the Atlantic ocean can fill a cup. This ocean filled cup is not the ocean but a part of the ocean. Eventhough small, it carries all the characteristics of the ocean. Whoever sees and understands the nature of this water in a cup, has seen and understood the nature of the ocean. Hence the biblical statement, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John14:19)
I used the Atlantic ocean to represent God, while the ocean filled cup represents Jesus.

Superb!

Postscript: Kolaxy, I was just about to say that!

But, Justcool, I have a problem with where you defined Christ's genes as a formative consequence of strengthened genes in Joseph and Mary as opposed to Mary, when the entire purpose of Christ's coming would be negated if the birth was not immaculate. I think that should read "Mary's genes" alone. Cheers.

@ Mavenb0x,

But, Justcool, I have a problem with where you defined Christ's genes as a formative consequence of strengthened genes in Joseph and Mary as opposed to Mary, when the entire purpose of Christ's coming would be negated if the birth was not immaculate. I think that should read "Mary's genes" alone. Cheers.

I concur

@ deepsight. I always admire your contribution even though i have somethings you should consider abt Jesus not God. Understand first that the humind mind is limited in capacity & ability. I.e all that human mind can comprehend is not all that is, there is still more to what any man knows & most times when we think we know, we have not known as we ought to know. Now, God decides solely what he does & does not give man d power to determine what he can do, however he reveals to man what he does. God can decide to be whoever he wants to be i.e he can be himself/son/holyspirit which he actually is. So one is three & three is one. Also even tho he is three he decided to put the three of himself into different ranks because only himself can fulfill the purpose of those ranks. Thus he became the Father/son/holyspirit. Because if your read Rev where Jesus appeared to John, he called himself Alpha & Omega which is an attribute that belongs to God alone & d Holyspirit is Ominipresent which is an attribute that belongs to God alone so God manifested as Son & Holy ghost.

Tudor, i presume you are attempting to provide me with comic relief?

Your contradictions are so amazing it simply beggars belief.

I think together with Kay17 and Atheists you must rank as the most confused atheist on this forum.

Let's have a look at it -

I said -

. . . that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself.

And you responded -

1. That Arthur and wilbur wright created the first aircraft does it mean they can fly?

2. I create an infrared camera does that mean i can see infrared rays?

3. I produce an underwater robot can I survive underwater?

4. My CT and Ultrasound can see internal organs within your body does that preclude me being able to do same?

5. My mobile phone can send information across two continents can I do that with my body?

To which i reverted -

To create those things man posessed the intelligence and thought patterns to bring them to reality!

Does it escape you that all those technologies you mentioned contain what is called artificial intelligence! And it is that artificial intelligence that makes them function: which we bequeathed to them!

I am surprised that you did not discern your ghastly gaffe at this point. Let me briefly point it out again -

Premise A - You suppose my assertion that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself - to be a wrong assertion; and you propose to debunk it by -

Premise B - - giving examples of things created by intelligent beings and which thereby contain artificial intelligence! ! !

Do you see it now, duh? You gave an example for my case, not against my case: your example dwelt on intelligent beings bequething artificial intelligence!

What a hocus pocus laugh! Talk about playing into my hands entirely!

Any onlooker can easily see that you have spent your energy arguing my own point for me!

What you effectively showed by your examples is that pieces of technology with articial intelligence built into them are the products of intelligent minds! Tudor, have you had something to eat today? What sort of analogy was that? Since when did i hire you to make points favourable to my case?

And as though that was not enough, you now went on to solidify my case by a total and unconditional concession of defeat. It really shocked me that you could make arguments so favourable to my case and yet stand back clueless about what you have said.

See your own words -

We are able to create 'artificial intelligence' as you put it because we arrange the elements and reactions in a particular order to acheive such a result.

GBAM! GBAM!! GBOGA!!!

End of story, someone help me out here, what more need i say?? You have yourself explained why we can create artificial intelligence. You have talked about "arranging elements in a particular order!"

And yet you comically insist that our own intelligence needed no preceding intelligence!

Tudor, since when did you become an apostle of intelligent design? Why are you arguing in favour of the existence of a higher intelligence?

_{P.s: all that hocus pocus about 14 billion years is a non-starter because it presumes things to be already existent, whereas the universe is finite in the past. Shelve it.}

O, and in addittion, you still haven't given me your evidence that the first cause decidedly and conclusively CANNOT be intelligent.

I dey wait.

_Joker.

Deep Sight:

Tudor, i presume you are attempting to provide me with comic relief?

Your contradictions are so amazing it simply beggars belief.

I think together with Kay17 and Atheists you must rank as the most confused atheist on this forum.

Let's have a look at it -

I said -

And you responded -


To which i reverted -


I am surprised that you did not discern your ghastly gaffe at this point. Let me briefly point it out again -

Premise A - You suppose my assertion that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself - to be a wrong assertion; and you propose to debunk it by -

Premise B - - giving examples of things created by intelligent beings and which thereby contain artificial intelligence! ! !

Do you see it now, duh? You gave an example for my case, not against my case: your example dwelt on intelligent beings bequething artificial intelligence!

What a hocus pocus laugh! Talk about playing into my hands entirely!

Any onlooker can easily see that you have spent your energy arguing my own point for me!

What you effectively showed by your examples is that pieces of technology with articial intelligence built into them are the products of intelligent minds! Tudor, have you had something to eat today? What sort of analogy was that? Since when did i hire you to make points favourable to my case?

And as though that was not enough, you now went on to solidify my case by a total and unconditional concession of defeat. It really shocked me that you could make arguments so favourable to my case and yet stand back clueless about what you have said.

See your own words -

GBAM! GBAM!! GBOGA!!!

End of story, someone help me out here, what more need i say?? You have yourself explained why we can create artificial intelligence. You have talked about "arranging elements in a particular order!"

And yet you comically insist that our own intelligence needed no preceding intelligence!

Tudor, since when did you become an apostle of intelligent design? Why are you arguing in favour of the existence of a higher intelligence?

I thought this guy would come at me with something sensible instead of huffing and panting trying to force me to agree with him?

All these are characteristics of a confused man who cannot refute my arguments.

I clearly stated we are able to re-create intelligence because we can arrange stuffs in an order manipulating the forces and laws of nature to acheive the end result.

My question is; we are all made up of atoms, what stops nature from arranging the elements in a particular order to bring about the end result as we have it today. . .is 14 billion years not time enough?

P.s: all that hocus pocus about 14 billion years is a non-starter because it presumes things to be already existent, whereas the universe is finite in the past. Shelve it.

After the big bang the universe started to expand among the things at that point were atoms which are the building blocks of matter including you and I.

Extrapolate backwards and you'd find the source of all elements and you'd get to that point including the elements responsible for your intelligence.

The first cause needn't be a super-einstein it just needed to be made up of atoms which over time fell into place to produce this reality. Simple!

Tudór:


I clearly stated we are able to re-create intelligence because we can arrange stuffs in an order manipulating the forces and laws of nature to acheive the end result.

And this again contradicts and belies -

Tudór:

what stops nature from arranging the elements in a particular order to bring about the end result as we have it today. . .

O, SO "NATURE" goes about arranging things just like we do eh? Another gaffe. If we need intelligence to arrange things why wouldn't nature need intelligence to perform its super-arrangements?

Extrapolate backwards and you'd find the source of all elements and you'd get to that point including the elements responsible for your intelligence.

Whoa, he finally and unwittingly admits that the first cause contains intelligence.

Enuff of this merry-go round jaare.

Deep Sight:

O, and in addittion, you still haven't given me your evidence that the first cause decidedly and conclusively CANNOT be intelligent.

I dey wait.

_Joker.

I wanted to let it slide and focus on how we might have gotten intelligence issue but you seem to think your so called evidence ". . .a creator cannot bequeath  attributes it does not have to its creation"

I gave you instances and you dismissed them as man passing intelligence. Tell me,

When the Wilburs created their first aircraft what was the purpose. . .to think out mathematics or to fly?
What attribute did the brothers bequeath to their craft if not the ability to Fly What is the intelligence bequeath by the wright brothers to their aircraft?
Have they not bequeath an attribute they do not have i.e ability to fly, to their aircraft?

As for the other cases where man has created "artificial intelligence". . .bad news. Man did not conceive anything rather they look at what nature has already done and copy it.

Nature can take millions of years of sedimentation and erosion to create an island or a lake but man can use less than 5 years using the same principles to landfill a site or dig a hole creating an island or lake. Does that mean nature is intelligent?

Deep Sight:

And this again contradicts and belies -

O, SO "NATURE" goes about arranging things just like we do eh? Another gaffe. If we need intelligence to arrange things why wouldn't nature need intelligence to perform its super-arrangements?

Whoa, he finally and unwittingly admits that the first cause contains intelligence.

Enuff of this merry-go round jaare.

Elements for intelligence and Intelligence do they mean the same thing?

Raw materials and finished product are the the same?

Did you weed your way through school?

The first cause might be made up of the raw materials but the finished product requires time!!

Sorry, Tudor. Although I've been trying to follow the gist between you and Deep Sight, let me ask a question:

Tudór:

What attribute did the brothers bequeath to their craft if not the ability to Fly

But how does that 'ability to fly' become an 'attribute'?

Excuse me? I don't understand your question. Please rephrase

Well, thanks - and I'm sorry to have crafted it as above. Here is the rephrase:

Why is 'ability to fly' to be understood as an 'attribute' that the brothers 'bequeathed' to their craft?

The reason I ask this is because it does not seem to me to reckon with the context of discussions of this nature is all about. I can't figure how that should be an 'attribute', because it does not stand to reason that man had bequeathed an 'ability' as such to a craft - just as is to be understood if one were to say that someone bequeathed the ability to fly to birds. In the latter scenario, the birds have received that 'ability' and thus flap their wings and take flight; but a craft (such as you described in your example) does not just take take flight, but relies on still being worked upon in some way by the engineers who crafted it at the time they wish to take a flight. In other words, the craft does not have the 'ability' to fly - and that was why I wondered how you might have drawn the same inference of making it an 'attribute'.

In any case, I don't think that example was a good one for your defence.

First let it be understood that we're talking about the ability to fly.

The bird is simply designed and streamlined with the necessary modifications for flight.

I don't see the difference. The bird sees danger decides to flap its wings and soar away. . . . An engineer pushes a button and an aircraft soars away into the sky.

You can push the button on another creation like the TV it won't fly why? Because it hasn't been designed with the ability to.

Ability is the capability to do. A plane has the capability to fly and a car does not. Its that simple.

Edit

Tudór:

The bird is simply designed and streamlined with the necessary modifications for flight.

This is not 'ID' ('intelligent design') argument. . . but I'm tempted to ask: 'designed' - by who/what? No bother, just ignore that - I was thinking aloud.

I don't see the difference. The bird sees danger decides to flap its wings and soar away. . . . An engineer pushes a button and an aircraft soars away into the sky.

I see a set of differences even in the way you've just described. For one, the bird is not like a device with a botton to be pressed for flight as in the case of the craft; for second, the craft could do nothing if it 'sees' danger; besides, thirdly, birds (for the purpose of this analogy) take to flight for very many reasons of their own experiences, whereas a craft does not have an experience of its own that informs its decision for any particular flight. There's more. . but just observing that there are indeed differences (please consider them carefully).

You can push the button on another creation like the TV it won't fly why? Because it hasn't been designed with the ability to.

Agreed.

Ability is the capability to do. A plane has the capability to fly and a car does not. Its that simple.

Okay, I understand your context now (although I disagree) - and I think that answers my question initially:how does that 'ability to fly' become an 'attribute'?. Thanks.