ijawkid:

Even if we explain from now till forever u'll never wanna reason d bible's way.....

I asked ya brother atheist why we get old,but answers I didn't get.....

Read d bible to know why we are in this mess u guys will say NOOO........

What do u want us to do??

Time is what will teach u guys

I have been reading the bible, I dont understand what mess you are reffering to.
And please, why would I want to reason the bible's way(whatever that means).?
And what do you mean that disease came after the fall?
Please elaborate on that.

ijawkid:

I asked ya brother atheist why we get old,but answers I didn't get.....

O, if you are refering to me, i would have given you answers, but your religious mind has been trained to reject scientific facts and evidences, yet you enjoy scientific inventions and discoveries that your religion/bible will never give you. gerontology is a branch of science that studies aging and why we get old, there are seasoned scientists that will do justice to that topic more than i can. so, if really you want to know and not just playing around, start with these sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontology
http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/

ijawkid:
Read d bible to know why we are in this mess u guys will say NOOO........

its funny how you wrongly assume a lot of fallacies about atheists. the other time you say they cant love. this got me laughing in ancient Greek. now you are wrongly assuming they dont read the bible. some of us know the bible more than your pastors and religious leaders. we concluded that religion is a bullcrap after we studied it and discovered its nothing more than mind games to control people. nothing more nothing less. i personally can engage you on any biblical topic, but it will be futile because i understand you people's mentality. you will overlook and try to justify all the contradictions and errors in it, because you had been frightened and taught that if you refuse to believe it, you wont inherit the kingdom. tell me about blackmail.

click here to see for yourself why the bible is NOT a reliable guide.

Evil Brain:

You've answered your own question. Germs are also living things, and they also evolve. If humans develop a way consistently wipe out the germ that causes the disease, then that germ will be under evolutionary pressure to find a way around it. This is the reason why hospitals are full of antibiotic resistant "superbugs".

Another thing a consider is a germs don't actually benefit from killing their hosts. If the host dies, then all the germs inside it die too. Very virulent diseases like ebola tend not to do well in the long run because they kill their victims too fast. So ebola descends on a village, kills everyone inside and peters out once it runs out of victims. On the other hand, intestinal roundworms are one of the most successful and widespread human parasites because spread quietly, they don't kill their victims and they hardly cause any disadvantages to their hosts.

That means that germs tend to evolve to become less virulent over time as the pathogens adapt to the hosts and vice versa. In nature, the rule is adapt or die. The virus that caused the great flu pandemic of 1918 failed to adapt and became extinct the day its last victim died. Meanwhile the germ that causes syphilis evolved from a "you have 3 months left to live" disease 600 years ago to a chronic illness only kills you after decades of spreading to all your girlfriends.

Evolution is simply natural selection happening over a long time. Natural selection simply means that inheritable traits that give a living thing a survival advantage tend to become more common in the population over time. This a such a basic and obvious thing that its hard to imagine why any sensible person will deny that its happening.

Think of it this way: If a deadly new zombie apocalypse disease emerged and you and your kids were the only ones immune to it. Billions will die but most of your descendants will grow to adulthood and have kids of their own. Within a few centuries, the world will be full of little mobingas, the majority of whom will be immune to the zombie virus. And because the original Mobinga had black skin, a big nose and a tiny JohnThomas, so will a large percentage of the world's population.

Evolution is little incremental changes occurring over time. It's hard to appreciate it in the short span of a human lifespan because it occurs so slowly in larger organisms with long life-cycles. But life has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Try and wrap your mind around how long a million years is, then you'll understand how it is impossible for living things not to change dramatically within that scale of time.

You deserve some sort of award for this, but I fear your target audience will not get it.

all they'd have do (if they were looking for shorter time-frames) is look at dog breeds, the taller europeans being ~5 feet about 500 years ago (look at their armour, even the napoleon complex is a bit of a misnomer, he was not short for that era), and the precarious condition of bananas: the much feared bananacoplypse (no, really). That is asides from viruses and all the others already pointed out in this thread. It will still end up with quotes from a book which was written during the times when the round wheel was cutting edge stuff, with no evidence. In their defence parts of the book may have been written with good intentions.

plaetton: The notion of a perfect and omnipotent creator designing and fashioning the universe, should at minimum, guarantee a perfect an orderly functioning of the creator's most valuable flagship product,man.

Apparently, that is not case. Just like a badly made product,the human product is beset with all manners of disfuctions and malfuctions, and without any reset or reboot buttons.

left untreated, a simple bodily malfunction can lead to a gradual degeneration and inevitable death.

This begs the question of how can a perfect omnipotent creator be credited with so much design flaws?

However, from an evolutionary point of view, disease, disfunction and malfunction should be expected and makes perfect sense. The trial and error mechanisms of ceaseless cell divisions are guaranteed to produce errors that manifests in the form of unfavourable genetic mutations.

From a christian viewpoint, I believe the world is a damaged world hence disease. i.e. if your car malfunctions because you use it badly, it doesn't mean that your car was badly designed.

But then again as part of creation yourself, how can you know what a perfect creation is? Would you recognize it if you saw it?

Another question: Isn't the fact that you recognize that the world is imperfect an indication that there must be a perfection from which it deviates?

If you didn't observe any form of order at all, you wouldn't have talked about imperfection. Doesn't the fact that you can observe this intricate and precise order suggest an intelligence and hence an intelligent agent?

Now, do you really believe that mindless random processes actually account for mindful conscious order as is seen in our existence?

Mr_Anony:

From a christian viewpoint, I believe the world is a damaged world hence disease. i.e. if your car malfunctions because you use it badly, it doesn't mean that your car was badly designed.

false analogy. i didn't create the car and i didnt claim to be perfect. the car malfunctions by default, not by bad use.

a more accurate analogy is if toyota claims that they are perfect car manufacturer but all the cars manufactured is faulty by default (original sin), the fault is now blamed on the first manufactured prototype that toyota already knows will develop fault (adam and eve story). and threatens to sue and imprison forever every purchaser and user of the car that eventually manifests the inevitable faultiness of the manufactured car (eternal damantion)

Mr_Anony:

But then again as part of creation yourself, how can you know what a perfect creation is? Would you recognize it if you saw it?

Another question: Isn't the fact that you recognize that the world is imperfect an indication that there must be a perfection from which it deviates?

If you didn't observe any form of order at all, you wouldn't have talked about imperfection. Doesn't the fact that you can observe this intricate and precise order suggest an intelligence and hence an intelligent agent?

you dont have to mystify and deify perfection and order as if it can only be found in your imaginary paradise and whatever does not measure up is considered imperfect. you have been using this tired line of comparing everything to your religious standard, which is less than perfect in many ways, that you must defend its "perfectness" by all means necessary even if it means turning a blind eye to glaring realities.

Mr_Anony:
Now, do you really believe that mindless random processes actually account for mindful conscious order as is seen in our existence?

do you really believe that a mindless process actually account for creation of the mind of this so-called creator that you assume created the so-called conscious order as is seen in our existence?
if you can assume by default that his complex mind is un-created, what makes you think the universe IS NOT un-created?

moreso, where is the order. considering billions and billions of galaxies each with billions of stars with their own planets, it would be a miracle if at least one of them does not have a favourable condition for life.
its like a man who wins lottery among millions of others. it will be a true miracle if nobody wins the lottery.

if you are ready to learn, there are writings of dedicated cosmologists and scientists on these subjects, and they will be a able to give you a proffesional scientific explanation i.e. if your religious bias and creation myths dont get in the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

cyrexx:

LOL so what is scientific or true about creationism. it is neither sensible or reasonable that the universe was created in six days less than 10,000 years ago by a perfect omniscient being. but the actual fact is that this being was created, replicated and sustained in the minds of deluded religionists who refuse to accept the glaring scientific truth staring at them in the face.

take a rest, pal. sensible chrstians dont talk against evolution anymore, at best they interpret their creation story with a little modification in the light of scientific undisputable facts. thats a FACT!!

And since when did the evolution myth become a scientific fact? How much more an indisputable one Scientists who are much more intelligent than your self are sensible enough to term it a theory cos it remains yet to be proven yet you are arrogantly expressing your ignorance on a public forum. Smh

Pastor Kun:
And since when did the evolution myth become a scientific fact? How much more an indisputable one Scientists who are much more intelligent than your self are sensible enough to term it a theory cos it remains yet to be proven yet you are arrogantly expressing your ignorance on a public forum. Smh

You are ignorant to what a theory is

-gravity remains a theory
-Germ theory

Pastor Kun:
And since when did the evolution myth become a scientific fact? How much more an indisputable one Scientists who are much more intelligent than your self are sensible enough to term it a theory cos it remains yet to be proven yet you are arrogantly expressing your ignorance on a public forum. Smh

SMH for you too.
the fact you call evolution a myth shows how hopelessly and deliberately ignorant you are, moreso on a public forum. SMH again

visit this link below and cure your ignorance, in case there is still hope for you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Mr_Anony:

From a christian viewpoint, I believe the world is a damaged world hence disease. i.e. if your car malfunctions because you use it badly, it doesn't mean that your car was badly designed.

But then again as part of creation yourself, how can you know what a perfect creation is? Would you recognize it if you saw it?

Another question: Isn't the fact that you recognize that the world is imperfect an indication that there must be a perfection from which it deviates?

If you didn't observe any form of order at all, you wouldn't have talked about imperfection. Doesn't the fact that you can observe this intricate and precise order suggest an intelligence and hence an intelligent agent?

Now, do you really believe that mindless random processes actually account for mindful conscious order as is seen in our existence?

You are a funny guy. You never ever attempt to answer any questions at all. You answer questions with questions. Childish.

But please, kindly enlighten us, what damaged the earth?

Evil Brain:

Evolution is simply natural selection happening over a long time.

I say to you that there is evolution, but natural selection alone is absolutely insufficient to explain it as it has occurred leading up to humans.

Natural selection simply means that inheritable traits that give a living thing a survival advantage tend to become more common in the population over time.

Now note the bold words above. Do you suggest to me that the traits we see in humans today all existed as inheriable traits within the first unicellular organisms? Because its a line you know. If you say "inheritable traits" - then no new traits would have ever developed: only traits already existing and inheritable right from the first unicellular organism.

You would only have had such unicellular organism continuing to adapt its existing traits but not attaining altogether new traits - not inherent in its gene code, such that it one day becomes the ancestor of a staggering thing like a human being.

Aside from the fact that the Theory of Evolution is inherently inchoate as it does not address the origin of the first unicellular life. Why jump to life already existing, and string out the theory from there? Is it not also relevant HOW inanimate chemicals evolved into unicellular organisms - which by the way, are complex in themselves. This is a leap too great for any evolutionist to comtemplate, and as such it is deliberately left out of the scope of the theory - even when it is the root and most important question.

Again, consider something like the EYE. This particular tool of conscious sobservation is far too improbable in evolutioary terms alone, when one looks at the entire scope from unicellular organisms upwards. Even Drawin expressed perplexity at it: but nowadays we have nit wits like Richard Dawkings writing that the eye could have "sprang into existence in a single lucky mutation".

How about that?

plaetton:

You are a funny guy. You never ever attempt to answer any questions at all. You answer questions with questions. Childish.

But please, kindly enlighten us, what damaged the earth?

Classic escapism

Mr_Anony:
Classic escapism

Anony, you're a joke. Is that all you can say?

Mr_Anony:
Classic escapism

I am shocked that Plaetton did not recognize the profound depth of some of the questions you raised.

If perfection does not exist, there would be no basis for complaining about imperfection - it would be the only reality. The very fact that we recognize imperfection and complain about it already evinces recognition of perfection.

And then you asked him how, as a part of creation, he would recognize a perfect creation, being a part of creation already. I was shocked that he did not pause at this one. For heaven's sake I hate the fact that we defecate. Its inconvenient and stinks. But somebody tell me its not perfect biological design suitable for living sustainably on earth as a mammal.

Lastly I am amused that people who subscribe wholeheartedly to evolution miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. That is JUST AMAZING.

Deep Sight:


If perfection does not exist, there would be no basis for complaining about imperfection - it would be the only reality. The very fact that we recognize imperfection and complain about it already evinces recognition of perfection.

And then you asked him how, as a part of creation, he would recognize a perfect creation, being a part of creation already. I was shocked that he did not pause at this one. For heaven's sake I hate the fact that we defecate. Its inconvenient and stinks. But somebody tell me its not perfect biological design suitable for living sustainably on earth as a mammal.

Lastly I am amused that people who subscribe wholeheartedly to evolution miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. That is JUST AMAZING.

If perfection does not exist, ten tere is no perfect designer, no God.

Deep Sight:

I am shocked that Plaetton did not recognize the profound depth of some of the questions you raised.

If perfection does not exist, there would be no basis for complaining about imperfection - it would be the only reality. The very fact that we recognize imperfection and complain about it already evinces recognition of perfection.

And then you asked him how, as a part of creation, he would recognize a perfect creation, being a part of creation already. I was shocked that he did not pause at this one. For heaven's sake I hate the fact that we defecate. Its inconvenient and stinks. But somebody tell me its not perfect biological design suitable for living sustainably on earth as a mammal.

Lastly I am amused that people who subscribe wholeheartedly to evolution miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. That is JUST AMAZING.

C'mon Deepsight, dont cherry pick to suit your viewpoint. The issue here is not whether perfection exist or not. That is not the debate here. The question is why a supposedly perfect creator(an notion that you subscribe to), who is proud of creation, would create an imperfect, defective species.

Another point of correction: Those of us that subscribe to evolution DO NOT miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. Infact, that is exactly what I have always argued on many posts on this forum.
Thiests, on the other hand, always blame adam and man's infinite debt to god as the origin of disease and death. That is why I called them here to come and defend that claim.
So far, they have all chickened out.

plaetton:

C'mon Deepsight, dont cherry pick to suit your viewpoint. The issue here is not whether perfection exist or not. That is not the debate here. The question is why a supposedly perfect creator(an notion that you subscribe to), who is proud of creation, would create an imperfect, defective species.

Now let me tell you something. A lot of people imagine God as some sort of creative man in the skies with all powers and as such begin to ask questions like this. This is not a deep, perceptive or nuanced view of what God is. God is the ultimate reality, and as such, only proceeds along the self-existent laws of logic which are the sum of what God itself is. As such, if there is an "up", then in self existence there will be a "down". If there is a "light", then in self existence there will be a "dark", according to the equally self existent principles of duality inherent in reality. This is why we have positive and negative, and this is why we have generation (health) and degeneration (diesease).

In the broad scheme of things, these cancel out as an even reality: which balance of transcendent things is what the perfection (and justice) of GOD rests in.

I expect YOU to appreciate this.

Another point of correction: Those of us that subscribe to evolution DO NOT miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. Infact, that is exactly what I have always argued on many posts on this forum.

And since God is the logical flow of reality, we do not see God "magicking" things into existence. They proceed along logical lines of existence and process, and this is why we have evolution. Now, in that process, what more perfect way to gradually improve species than have inherent in the process - the self same attributes of duality - generation and degeneration inherent in the system. - - -> [b]which is what then leads to evolution.[/u] It could not be otherwise anyway, being the balance of the existent God.

In fact, on a higher philosophical level i will say that this very reasoning is what renders God existent.

That existent God is not merciful the way the religious person thinks to individuals - but is balanced and adamantine on a cosmic scale.

Thiests, on the other hand, always blame adam and man's infinite debt to god as the origin of disease and death.

We know that this is a foolish teaching. But in no way does disease (degeneration) obviate the perfection of God as I have described it to mean. Indeed, that is the cycle of all things even at the cosmic scale. Even stars degenerate for crying out loud.

That is why I called them here to come and defend that claim.
So far, they have all chickened out.

It is weak, when addressing issues as big as the perfection of God, to attack only religious myths. I would expect you to broaden your discourse to the notion of God as a philosophical and logical construct.

Would you bother to address these questions to a Greek who believed in Zeus? Why then bother with Yahweh?

Addittionally, not all theists believe in original sin.

Logicbwoy:

If perfection does not exist, ten tere is no perfect designer, no God.

Let's do it properly shall we?

If the design of the universe is imperfect, then there must be a perfectly designed universe from which it deviates.
If this perfect order/design exists, then there must be a perfect designer, God.

If the perfect designer does not exist, then there is no possibility of a perfect design.
If there is no perfect design, then there cannot be an imperfect design or any design at all, Total Chaos and Disorder.

So which is it God or Absolute Chaos?

Deep Sight:

I say to you that there is evolution, but natural selection alone is absolutely insufficient to explain it as it has occurred leading up to humans.



Now note the bold words above. Do you suggest to me that the traits we see in humans today all existed as inheriable traits within the first unicellular organisms? Because its a line you know. If you say "inheritable traits" - then no new traits would have ever developed: only traits already existing and inheritable right from the first unicellular organism.

You would only have had such unicellular organism continuing to adapt its existing traits but not attaining altogether new traits - not inherent in its gene code, such that it one day becomes the ancestor of a staggering thing like a human being.

Aside from the fact that the Theory of Evolution is inherently inchoate as it does not address the origin of the first unicellular life. Why jump to life already existing, and string out the theory from there? Is it not also relevant HOW inanimate chemicals evolved into unicellular organisms - which by the way, are complex in themselves. This is a leap too great for any evolutionist to comtemplate, and as such it is deliberately left out of the scope of the theory - even when it is the root and most important question.

Again, consider something like the EYE. This particular tool of conscious sobservation is far too improbable in evolutioary terms alone, when one looks at the entire scope from unicellular organisms upwards. Even Drawin expressed perplexity at it: but nowadays we have nit wits like Richard Dawkings writing that the eye could have "sprang into existence in a single lucky mutation".

How about that?

Have you heard of dna mutations? Certain conditions can cause dna to mutate(not adapt) to produce completely different strands and structures of protein molecules. As such, an organism can develope new traits and new forms over millions and billions of years. That is a fact.

The theory of evolution does not have to fully address the origin of the first unicellular life in order to be fact.It can speculate on it, it can even say " we dont know or we are not sure". That is the scientific method. It is ongoing? Evolution is still evolution even if we have not figured out how or why the first unicellular organism sprang from.
Can you dismiss the evolution of the universe even if we have not figured out how it came about?
So there are gaps in knowledge , so what?

You talk so much about infinity, yet you cannot imagine that form and function can actually harmonize together in millions and billions of years of trial and error?
You are not true to your very own notions

plaetton:

Have you heard of dna mutations? Certain conditions can cause dna to mutate(not adapt) to produce completely different strands and structures of protein molecules. As such, an organism can develope new traits and new forms over millions and billions of years. That is a fact.

No, this is a lie. Not without external impetus of an intelligent and directed kind.

The theory of evolution does not have to fully address the origin of the first unicellular life in order to be fact.

I did not say it is not a fact, I have always said it is a fact. I said that it is inchoate. Is this a lie?

You talk so much about infinity, yet you cannot imagine that form and function can actually harmonize together in millions and billions of years of trial and error?

There is nothing, i REPEAT, nothing, in the material universe that would spontaneously conjure life. Much less spontaneously marshal it to arrive at beings such as ourselves. I repeat: NOTHING.

Mr_Anony:

Let's do it properly shall we?

If the design of the universe is imperfect, then there must be a perfectly designed universe from which it deviates.
If this perfect order/design exists, then there must be a perfect designer, God.

If the perfect designer does not exist, then there is no possibility of a perfect design.
If there is no perfect design, then there cannot be an imperfect design or any design at all, Total Chaos and Disorder.

So which is it God or Absolute Chaos?

Good. You have done better this time.
Chaos is the order of the universe. From our miniscule vantage point in space and time, we falsely imagine order and beauty. But our perceptions are very very limited. Since we imagine beauty and perfect order, we invent an imaginary god to give credit.

Mr_Anony:

Let's do it properly shall we?

If the design of the universe is imperfect, then there must be a perfectly designed universe from which it deviates.
If this perfect order/design exists, then there must be a perfect designer, God.

If the perfect designer does not exist, then there is no possibility of a perfect design.
If there is no perfect design, then there cannot be an imperfect design or any design at all, Total Chaos and Disorder.

So which is it God or Absolute Chaos?

Huh? imperfection does not always imply that there is a perfect standard. Use your brain. Imperfection could mean that there is a flaw. Correcting the flaw would not still make that thing perfect. Why does bacteria exist? Lets kill bacteria and not more sickeness from bacteria. In doing that, youwould harm other animals that benefit from the bacteria.

plaetton:

Good. You have done better this time.

He did excellently the first time: and you had NO response to his profound queries.

Chaos is the order of the universe. From our miniscule vantage point in space and time, we falsely imagine order and beauty.

This is an assumption. How do you know this?

But our perceptions are very very limited. Since we imagine beauty and perfect order, we invent an imaginary god to give credit.

Why do we imagine perfect order?

Logicbwoy:


Huh? imperfection does not always imply that there is a perfect standard. Use your brain. Imperfection could mean that there is a flaw. Correcting the flaw would not still make that thing perfect. Why does bacteria exist? Lets kill bacteria and not more sickeness from bacteria. In doing that, youwould harm other animals that benefit from the bacteria.

There can be no concept of imperfection without a concept of perfection, son!

Just as there is no concept of positive without negative, no concept of light without dark, no concept of up without down.

Do think about it: If there was no "up" could you say that anything is "down"?

As such, if there is no perfection, how can you say that anything is imperfect.

Please put on your philosophical cap on those noodles, this time, dear son.

plaetton:

Good. You have done better this time.
Chaos is the order of the universe. From our miniscule vantage point in space and time, we falsely imagine order and beauty. But our perceptions are very very limited. Since we imagine beauty and perfect order, we invent an imaginary god to give credit.

Are you serious??!! Do you know the meaning of Absolute Chaos at all?

What you have just done is to imply that all science is flawed because to attempt science, one must assume order.
Your statement is devoid of any evidence whatsoever, in fact it is anti-evidence and anti-logic.

You have just shown the worst kind of blind faith in the non-existence of God.

Now I've ranted let me ask you:
How do you know for sure that from our vantage point, our imagination of order is false?

To state this with any certainty at all, wouldn't your vantage point need to be from a position where you can observe the entirety of the universe in detail? i.e God's vantage point?

wow, this is getting interesting

Mr_Anony:
Are you serious??!! Do you know the meaning of Absolute Chaos at all.
What you have just done is to imply that all science is flawed because to attempt science, one must assume order.
Your statement is devoid of any evidence whatsoever, in fact it is anti-evidence. You have just shown blind faith in the non-existence of God.

Now I've ranted let me ask you: How do you know for sure that from our vantage point, our imagination of order is false?
To state this with any certainty at all, wouldn't your vantage point need to be from a position where you can observe the entirety of the universe in detail?
i.e God's vantage point?

Exactemente sir. He actually makes a bold and blind statement from ignorance.

I just said on another thread that one needs a bird's eye view to make such a statement.

Let's just imagine the universe is a human body. Any planet based in the rectum will have its inhabitants conclude that it consists of chaotic faeces.

Any planet based in the brain will have its inhabitants observe the order of the body.

Any planet based outside the body will have its inhabitants observe the full wonder and glory of the complete knowing sentient human being.

Deep Sight:

No, this is a lie. Not without external impetus of an intelligent and directed kind.



I did not say it is not a fact, I have always said it is a fact. I said that it is inchoate. Is this a lie?



There is nothing, i REPEAT, nothing, in the material universe that would spontaneously conjure life. Much less spontaneously marshal it to arrive at beings such as ourselves. I repeat: NOTHING.

What is life? Do you really think you have 100% knowledge of what constitutes life? Is life not just intangible energy(perhaps of a unique kind).
Come to think of it, does life beget consciousness or does consciousness beget life?

If life is pure intangible, uniquely configured energy,then the possibility of life springing spontanously (into view) in certain conditions cannot be far fetched. Since energy is the only thing that is self-existent and eternal(your words), then energy can, over an infinite time,come up with this unique configuration which we call life or consciousness.
So life may just be another energy transformation, something that we all very familiar with.
If you cannot imagine this possibility, then I just wonder how you can come up with the notion of a self-existent eternal conscious god. It just beats my imagination. You believe in one idea when it suites you and then you slam the very same notion when it suites you.

plaetton:
What is life? Do you really think you have 100% knowledge of what constitutes life? Is life not just intangible energy(perhaps of a unique kind).
Come to think of it, does life beget consciousness or does consciousness beget life?

If life is pure intangible, uniquely configured energy,then the possibility of life springing spontanously (into view) in certain conditions cannot be far fetched. Since energy is the only thing that is self-existent and eternal(your words), then energy can, over an infinite time,come up with this unique configuration which we call life or consciousness.
So life may just be another energy transformation, something that we all very familiar with.
If you cannot imagine this possibility, then I just wonder how you can come up with the notion of a self-existent eternal conscious god. It just beats my imagination. You believe in one idea when it suites you and then you slam the very same notion when it suites you.

My good friend and brother, you are ducking the issues. Mr. Anony has given you brilliant posers. Deal with them.

Gotta go now. Lawyer don turn to oshodi-marketwoman.

Mr_Anony:
Are you serious??!! Do you know the meaning of Absolute Chaos at all?

What you have just done is to imply that all science is flawed because to attempt science, one must assume order.
Your statement is devoid of any evidence whatsoever, in fact it is anti-evidence and anti-logic.

You have just shown the worst kind of blind faith in the non-existence of God.

Now I've ranted let me ask you:
How do you know for sure that from our vantage point, our imagination of order is false?

To state this with any certainty at all, wouldn't your vantage point need to be from a position where you can observe the entirety of the universe in detail? i.e God's vantage point?

I used the word false because from our vantage point, we have made many many false assumptions about the the universe in past. That is understandable because we had no means of finding out.
It is these false assumptions that scientific knowledge has been correcting over past several centuries? do you dispute that?

Deep Sight:

Exactemente sir. He actually makes a bold and blind statement from ignorance.

I just said on another thread that one needs a bird's eye view to make such a statement.

Let's just imagine the universe is a human body. Any planet based in the rectum will have its inhabitants conclude that it consists of chaotic faeces.

Any planet based in the brain will have its inhabitants observe the order of the body.

Any planet based outside the body will have its inhabitants observe the full wonder and glory of the complete knowing sentient human being.

Exactly!...........and they say atheism is not fanatical blind faith.

The atheist position is a foolish position to hold .....and I mean no offense by saying this. I simply state it as a fact.

plaetton:

I used the word false because from our vantage point, we have made many many false assumptions about the the universe in past. That is understandable because we had no means of finding out.
It is these false assumptions that scientific knowledge has been correcting over past several centuries? do you dispute that?

Question is how can science correct anything without first assuming that there is a right order to correct to?

Mr_Anony:
Question is how can science correct anything without first assuming that there is a right order to correct to?

THANK YOU ! ! ! ! !