Kay17:


1. wouldn't that be a miracle?

2. where could life have come from? spiritual forces?

Before I answer :

R1 What do you understand by "miracle"

R2 Where do you think life came from .

dalaman:


What is the true purpose of science? Almost everything of value that we know as humans we know through science. It is through science that we gotvto know how to cultivate food, preserve it, shelter and cloth ourselves, treat our selves from diseases , ease the way we do things like transport ourselves, communicate with each other and run a good and more efficient society. What jas religion given man beside the need to belief in mythical stories and rally round them.

The DNA, what it is made up and how it functions was discovered by science and only science can tell us about its origin . Life has been explained very well only through science, No religion comes cllose in terms of its explanatory ability. The writers of your bible don't know anything about how life began. They know nothing about how the planet came about. Read the thrash they cooked up in genesis. Science has nothing to do with the various religious myth. Science is very glad to say it doesn't know. During the time that your bible was written the writers thought the heart controlled reasoning and they said peoeple think and reason with their hearts until science showed us that we reason with our brains. How did life come from non life? I don't know. How did life come about in general? I don't know and so do you. That is the fact. We both don't know. You only chose to accept the unverified mythical narratives of some ancient men who thought that earth was the center of the universe and their God's most cherished creation. Science is real, it is universal. We are using the proceeds of science to communicate through this medium. Religion is fictitious, it is not universal and has never been used to better the lot of any group of people the way science has. Science is the only true.mechanism that has thought us and will continue to teach us the truth about the universe and the world we.live in not religion that we all.know was founded on mythology and fiction.

You just helped explain why I said christians know the purpose of both religion and science , thanks a lot
But you've not shown me, using science , how

1. Something came from nothing without a cause and begat everything

2 Life came from inorganic matter (non living )

dalaman:


Two things. It's either the pains went away as a result of placebo effect something that has been documented to be real. Pastors, Hindu gurus, Islamic marabouts and loval traditional healers all take advantage of the placebo effect or you are simply telling lies which os actually what most faith healers do. A lot have been exposed as liars that employ cheap tricks used by magicians to beguile their church members. Faith healing has been studied and documented and has shown to be fake. Why can't God heal amputees and restore their limbs back? Because you can't fake the healing lf an amputated limb.

R1. Even medical practitioners are very strong Christians .

R2 .God can heal an amputated limb .

KingEbukasBlog:


You just helped explain why I said christians know the purpose of both religion and science , thanks a lot
But you've not shown me, using science , how

1. Something came from nothing without a cause and begat everything

2 Life came from inorganic matter (non living )

I never made those claims. Just asked both sides to provide evidence and prove their case.

KingEbukasBlog:


R1. Even medical practitioners are very strong Christians .

And you saw them using which part of the bible to perform surgeries or diagnosis?

R2 .God can heal an amputated limb .

No God can do that. We can put that to test and see how it will work out.

dalaman:



And you saw them using which part of the bible to perform surgeries or diagnosis?

Exactly what Ive been saying . Christians know the purpose of religion and science .


Religion is the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

(Definitions )

Please dont get things mixed up . Science tries to explain how it was done .

No God can do that. We can put that to test and see how it will work out.

Sure you can . So how do you plan doing that ?

dalaman:


I never made those claims. Just asked both sides to provide evidence and prove their case.

So why do you mock people that say the supernatural is responsible . Science tries to explain how it was done and religion explains why it was done

Lemme give you a quick example :

1. Why was the universe or earth formed?

Science : No answer

Religion : To be inhabited by intelligent , free moral agents to whom God will reveal Himself to

2 . How was the universe or earth formed

Science : accretion ; big bang

Religion : No answer

We were born into this earth ; science just tries to explain how all these came into being (how) . Religion tells us the cause (who is responsible ; who is in charge ) , why (the purpose of life ) and other stuff like understanding the purpose of life , how we should live our lives etc

thehomer:
By the process of evolution.

Evasion number 1:
You have not answered my question. Merely name-dropping the word "evolution" does nothing to explain how it being a purposeless process can create purposeful objects. So please answer the question: How exactly does a purposeless process (i.e. evolution) create purposeful objects?

Now how does this fact lead to your God?

What fact are you talking about? Are you referring to the "evolution" that you are yet to explain as “fact”?

Please make your argument.

Information must necessarily have meaning therefore in order to create it, one must first conceptualize it and then output it. Conceptualization is something that only minds can do. Since computers do not have minds, therefore they cannot conceptualize, therefore they cannot create meaning, therefore they cannot create information. They can only receive data, arrange it based on certain mechanistic settings and then output the rearranged data without creating any meaning whatsoever. This rearranged data may now be read as information by a mindful being capable of creating meaning. To say that a computer is creating information is to say that the computer understands the meaning of the information that it is outputing. This clearly isn't the case.

Now your turn: Can you make your argument as to why you think that computers - having no minds - can create information?

By more independent, it would be less predictable.

A faulty GPS is less predictable. Does a faulty GPS have a mind?

Enough for it to be less predictable.

Evasion number 2: Again you haven't answered my question.

What is the computing power in terms of the processing speed (in hertz) and memory (in bytes) of a mindful GPS device?

The output is information. Well the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning. The GPS purpose is to get you to your destination.

I see. So you are saying that the GPS acts intentionally yet doesn't have a mind?

Actually my reason is that minds don't exist without physical structures. So, unless you can show me a mind without a physical structure, you're still wrong.

I asked you what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information? Your answer is that minds have physical structures. This has nothing to do with the question I asked but since it is your answer: Please explain exactly how a mind with a physical structure shows that other things apart from minds can create information.

Experimental psychology shows that minds develop as brains develop.

It is not enough to make the claim. How exactly does experimental psychology show this?

I see that it is red herring season again.

Irrelevant question #1.

Where are these minds that are functioning through a physical brain?

How exactly does a non-physical object have a physical location? How exactly does location affect whether or not something is functioning through another?
Where are these minds of yours that are developing with a physical brain?

Irrelevant question #2.

How do they pick a brain to interact with?

How exactly does method of picking change whether something is functioning through another?
How do your minds pick which brain to develop with?

Irrelevant question #3.

Can they switch brains?

How exactly does ability or inability to switch tools change whether something is being used as a tool or not?
Can your minds switch brains and develop somewhere else?

Irrelevant question #4.

Where do they go when a person dies?

How exactly does whether or not something can leave another change whether it is using the other as a tool?
Where do your minds go when a person dies?

Irrelevant question #5.

Are there multiple minds or just one mind split into multiple bodies?

How exactly does whether a thing has multiple users or whether multiple users use one thing change the fact that there is a user/used relationship?
Are there multiple minds or just one mind developing with multiple brains?

Seriously your questions have nothing to do with the premises being discussed. I too will have nothing to do with them.

The fact remains that DNA is an actual molecule that interacts with other molecules.

I have never denied this. Now do you deny that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction?

A website is very different from a biological organism.

Yes but still they are very analogous in the sense that both DNA and the computer code are specific arrangements of objects such that they contain information that is capable of effecting changes in the organism they are defining. Do you affirm or deny this?

Ah yes. The classic distinction without a difference. As I've said before and will say again, you are not your literally DNA.

As I've said before and will say again, you are quite literally your DNA

This is more rubbish. Unless "quite literally" means the opposite of literally, then you're still saying rubbish. You are not literally or "quite literally" your DNA. DNA is a physical molecule interacting with other physical molecules. DNA is not some conscious entity "instructing" cells, those terms are shorthand for the entirely mechanistic process by which DNA works.

The information in your DNA is specifically instructing your cells. Do you deny this? You are welcome to explain in very specific terms this “mechanistic process” by which DNA works if you think I am using the word "instructing" inaccurately.

It has everything to do with it e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

Another empty assertion. What has where God came from got to do with whether or not you were mindfully created?

Each time you say the information defines me.

The information that defines you is the information in your DNA as encoded by the specific arrangements of your nucleotide bonds, so are you saying that the information in your DNA is a human conception and hence doesn't actually exist objectively?

This is why I said before that you don't know how to have a conversation. When you said I should assume he had a body, that implied you were happy to go along with that premise.

Liar. This shows the emptiness of your position. Judging by how much you are fighting to cling unto this red herring of yours. I never said that God has a body neither did I ever show any willingness to follow your red herring. What I said is that you can assume God has a body if you like, it will still have nothing to do with our discussion which is whether or not you are mindfully created. Why are you so desperate to avoid the actual discussion? Do I really scare you that much?

So many irrelevant diversions.

You mean like the lies, evasions, red herrings and petty semantic games you've been throwing about? Yeah, there are indeed so many irrelevant diversions.

You asked for what God revealing himself to me would look like I answered here and followed you down this trail. Now can you answer the question I asked there? Can your God do these things?

Answered here. Unless your claim is that revelation (in the manner you have described) is the only basis for believing in a thing's existence then it it is irrelevant to ask whether God can or cannot do that. So are you saying that such revelation is the basis for believing in a thing's existence?

Where you accepted it for the sake of argument.

I never did. Rather I pointed out your red herring and now I point out your lie.

This is irrelevant. Your God has revealed himself to people who didn't seek him so he should have been able to reveal himself to me whether or not I sought him. Just ask him to reveal himself to me.

This is not irrelevant. In fact it casts doubts on your sincerity especially since you are the one demanding proof. Do you seriously want to know whether God exists or not or do you only want to argue about it?

thehomer:


Is this a serious question or are you actually ignorant?

Evasion number 3: Maybe I am ignorant but it is definitely a serious question: What exactly does DNA actually do in cells?

thehomer:


No I'm saying there's no reason to think that nothingness was ever the case.

Evasion number 4: If you think that nothingness was never the case then it is either the universe was caused to exist or it has always existed. So now please answer my question. Was the Universe caused to exist? If so, what properties would a thing capable of causing the universe have? . . .or do you think that the universe has always existed?

Do you think nothingness was ever the case? If so, how can something come from nothing?

I think the universe was brought into existence. Since evidently we both agree that something can only come from something, which means we both agree that there must be a first uncaused cause. What properties do you think that this first cause has?

thehomer:
That is how fossils explain evolution. Do you know what a transition is?

Perhaps I don't know what a transition is. Please what is a transition and how exactly can we tell its occurrence from looking at fossils? i.e. what should we look out for in the fossils that will inform us that a transition has occurred?

thehomer:
And your response shows the self delusion that you people like.

Yet you conveniently omitted that part in your response. Why are you so shamelessly dishonest?

Does "fast to an extent" mean slow or something else? Why are you so ignorant? Why is it hard for you to accurately represent facts of the matter? Do you think you are literally your DNA?

It means "fast to an extent" and yes I am quite literally my DNA. Why were you so dishonest in your exchange with Uyi? What stopped you from properly representing him the first time? Calling me ignorant hasn't masked the fact that your dishonesty had to be called out.

thehomer:


Sure I was. Go through his comment history and expose my fear by linking to the relevant thread.

This very thread will do just fine. Let those who read it judge for themselves.

thehomer:

This is the sort of dishonesty and moaning I've come to expect from people in your position. Was my response inaccurate? Was davidylan actually correct? The fact that I laced my response with insults when I'm insulted shouldn't be a cause for concern. Since you wish to paint yourself as a neutral third party, why don't you address the substance of my statement? You can drag davidylan back to actually show my errors rather than you continuing down the ignorant path he began.

.....so we are now dishonest and moaning. Well the thread is here for all to read and judge for themselves. I don't expect you to admit your own fear publicly.

Also feel free to highlight which line in davidylan's post was insulting to you so as to warrant the insults in your reply

Also, since you want us to examine the "substance" of your claim, can you provide any evidence for your claim there? Specifically this one:

thehomer:
The brain doesn't multiply rapidly. Neither do the heart and lungs. The cellular machinery like the ion pumps and cell membrane would still work for a while if all your DNA magically disappeared instantaneously.

thehomer:
No appearing designed doesn't mean it was actually designed.

Yes it true that appearing to be designed doesn't prove it is actually designed. However since you have given us no alternate explanation, we have no reason not to go with how things appear i.e. assume they are designed until proven otherwise.

Your burden of proof is to show that the theory of evolution is actually wrong. The theory of evolution explains that. As I've said before, I'm not going to give free biology lessons online to anonymous strangers. There are books and articles on the theory of evolution available.

Evasion number 5: Trying to shift the burden of proof? It is you who needs to show us a reason to deny the apparent design that we observe.
Secondly, merely claiming that the theory of evolution explains your position means nothing if you cannot actually show how it does. Seeing as you are unwilling to explain your position, you have not met your burden of proof and so we haven't been presented with any reason for us to reject design which by your own admission is obvious to us as observers.
Thirdly, judging by how you keep throwing the word "evolution" about without actually explaining what you mean, I am beginning to suspect that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hope to hide this fact by making empty audacious statements. Are you afraid that your ignorance will become exposed?

Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. Please explain to me how humans came to exist using your own point of view. You now say even showing you evidence of evolution doesn't count because it is evolution in action. What a joke.

Evasion number 6: Trying to shift the burden of proof again?
You are a funny character. It was you who said that living things look designed. How exactly does showing a transition from one designed object to another designed object disprove design? What you need to show in order to prove your point is a non-living thing that doesn't look designed transform into a living thing that looks designed via a mindless process.

Once you have done this, then I am more than happy to explain to you how I think human beings came to exist. But first of all, meet your burden of proof.....or can't you?

thehomer:


I will when you tell me what your point is besides the definition of words.

My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Now can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

Again, what exactly is your point beyond word definitions? You've still not said what your point is.

Evasion number 7: What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

Can you please answer my question and stop dodging?

I understand what I'm saying and you've just said length isn't a physical property. Is length then non-physical?

Another lie. Please show where I said that length isn't a physical property?

You were the one who said that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and that length are a physical property of hunger pangs. So please explain to us how exactly you aren't saying that a physical property has a physical property.

Okay. Am I to take this as meaning that there are no physical properties of what we perceive?

How did you get that from what I just explained to you?

No hunger is not matter but it can have some physical effects as I've said before. Please will you answer my question?

If hunger is not matter, how then does it have physical properties? Are you suggesting that there are physical properties that do not describe material things?Also, what question are you referring to?

I know about my mind because I'm conscious. Can you just answer my own questions?

Similarly, I know my hunger because I am conscious. Hunger pangs are an effect of non-physical hunger on the physical body. Again what questions are you referring to?

As usual, I've been answering your questions but you avoid answering mine. I will start enforcing that as part of this exchange.

Osheyy "Mr Enforcer" . Actually it is you who has been dodging my questions, I have pointed out 7 clear instances of you evading my questions (not counting the posts you ignored entirely). Please make sure you answer them meaningfully before you start enforcing whatever it is you want to enforce.

Kay17:


I will answer both A and B together. Sorry for the long delay, do manage to relate it with the entire thread.

I think the Universe is governed by physical laws which are made known by observation. Our observation could be wrong at times but we understand that there is a systemic regularity in the manner things are run in the Universe. We are so adapted to regularity that we hardly question it. The common regularity and arrangement we find in the Universe is imposed by the physical laws, and all structural complexities and causalities are governed by it. By structural complexities, that includes man-made complexities as well as complexities we see about. And like Uyi and Davidylan who are able to see the commonality between man-made complexities and complexities we see about, I see that structural complexity binding both.

Now, Uyi and Davidlyan both think that we can extrapolate the workings and displays of human intelligence to the Universe, because both seem to have a defined structure. And to them, all structures require a foresight. There must be a guided anticipation to accomplish the function of the structure. So they argue more or less, that we should find the function and then by reverse engineering find the maker.

But humans exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe, and modelling their structures to align with them. For example, when humans decided to travel every fast, we realized that there is a way things work and there are rules which we have to follow. We cannot build block cars in our F1 races, rather the cars must be streamlined just as fishes are. Similarly with houses, they function as shelters but they need foundations, weight bearing standards etc. Maybe that is why magic does not work.

In another way, the Universe is a platform for human designs. So the Universe is actually influencing our designs and not the other way round. So all extrapolations made regarding the Universe with human designs are wrong. So also, to find the Universe designed, you have to seek for another platform upon whose rules the Universe was designed to align with.

The obvious question you will ask, the origin of physical laws, and to be sincere I have thought about it but i can only speculate.

I have read and reread your answer. It seems to me that while you agree that the physical laws governing the universe show enough structural complexity to suggest design, your argument is that for us to properly assume design we must first explain what design constraints these physical laws are based upon since our designs are based on these physical laws.

Have I represented your position accurately? Please correct me if I haven't or if I've overlooked anything.

MrAnony1:


I have read and reread your answer. It seems to me that while you agree that the physical laws governing the universe show enough structural complexity to suggest design, your argument is that for us to properly assume design we must first explain what design constraints these physical laws are based upon since our designs are based on these physical laws.

Have I represented your position accurately? Please correct me if I haven't or if I've overlooked anything.

More or less

KingEbukasBlog:


So why do you mock people that say the supernatural is responsible . Science tries to explain how it was done and religion explains why it was done

Lemme give you a quick example :

1. Why was the universe or earth formed?

Science : No answer

Religion : To be inhabited by intelligent , free moral agents to whom God will reveal Himself to

This might sound like an answer but in reality it is empty platitudes. The earth was not created for humans. Humans just found themselves on earth. There are like a zillion times more microbes on earth so we can as well say the earth was created for microbes, since they are everywhere. Which God out of the many that humans have invented will reveal himself to them? This answer is empty and has nothing to do with reality. It is fictitious just like everything religion.

2 . How was the universe or earth formed

Science : accretion ; big bang

Religion : No answer

We were born into this earth ; science just tries to explain how all these came into being (how) . Religion tells us the cause (who is responsible ; who is in charge ) , why (the purpose of life ) and other stuff like understanding the purpose of life , how we should live our lives etc

Religion can not tell you true purpose of your life because even religion doesn't know. It only pretends to know. Every religion ascribes different purpose to its adherents. Which of the Gods is responsible for the earth amd purpose of life? Another empty claim that has no basis in reality. Religion is a system created by men just like science. While science tries to dwell on the observable reality, religion on the other hand dwells on fiction, unfounded assumptions and mythology. Both religion and science are man made processes. Only that science has proven to be more valuable to humans than religion.

KingEbukasBlog:


Exactly what Ive been saying . Christians know the purpose of religion and science .


Religion is the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

(Definitions )

Please dont get things mixed up . Science tries to explain how it was done .

Religion doesn't even try to explain how it was done. It just makes empty assertions without evidence. Religion says God did it and that's all. Accept it the way we have claimed and let it be. Example please use God alone and explain to me why the DNA of some.organisms mutate.

Sure you can . So how do you plan doing that ?

We can bring an amputee and do what Jesus said in◄ Mark 11:24

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

If you truly believe in Jesus he says what ever you ask for on prayers amd believe that it. It will be yours. So you can pray for an .amputee whose name I will drop jere and let's see how it goes. The amputee is a christian by the way. He truly believes.

Kay17:

To sincere, I do not see your objection. You seem to accept the appearance of design is owed to physical laws, which is my point all along.

For the 'bolded', an eye is not an 'appearance of design'; It is a design; so is a fish, cat, termite....etc.

You manage to miss the fact that my argument implies design is governed by physical laws which in itself is design too.
In order words, the forces of nature interact the way they are designed to. If the physical laws loses balance, the universe will be destroyed. Balance, like symmetry is an intrinsic attribute of design.

Where there is coherent design, there is a who behind it. This fact is yet to be disproved; therefore:

He(Logos) is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Col 1:17

The remainder points you raised are all moot; whether termites are intelligent or not. Assuming the termites are not intelligent and are stupid, and they blindly stumbled upon anthills with cooling system will be interesting and good luck with them.

They are not moot; They invalidate the nonsense you where trying to spin around to discredit the fact that design can only be the product of intelligent mind.

Theists tie design with God's existence as a matter of necessity. Removing that necessity, removes the necessity of God's existence.

Now the serpent is out of its hole. Did you succeed in removing the 'necessity' by appealing to insanity?

SNCOQ3:

For the 'bolded', an eye is not an 'appearance of design'; It is a design; so is a fish, cat, termite....etc.

You manage to miss the fact that my argument implies design is governed by physical laws which in itself is design too.
In order words, the forces of nature interact the way they are designed to. If the physical laws loses balance, the universe will be destroyed. Balance, like symmetry is an intrinsic attribute of design.

Where there is coherent design, there is a who behind it. This fact is yet to be disproved; therefore:

He(Logos) is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Col 1:17

But the physical laws themselves create the balance and the symmetry because in their absence there will be nothing of balance nor symmetry. The physical laws are the platform for which any 'who' has to stand on. Imagine a Universe without any physical laws, humans themselves will be unable to create. Imagine all the laws become void, humans will be incapable of building houses, spaceships and other designs which you so much admire. Also note that design arises from the surrounding environment not by the mere wish of the designer like you are suggesting. If an environment is lacking why then the design?! This environment is formed by physical laws and to prove physical laws are designed, you must point out the surrounding environment which necessitated the design.

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 4: If you think that nothingness was never the case then it is either the universe was caused to exist or it has always existed. So now please answer my question. Was the Universe caused to exist? If so, what properties would a thing capable of causing the universe have? . . .or do you think that the universe has always existed?


I think the universe was brought into existence. Since evidently we both agree that something can only come from something, which means we both agree that there must be a first uncaused cause. What properties do you think that this first cause has?

This part killed it. We can keep going round and round in circle or cycle, we would still go back to default of ' what happened in the beginning of time'?

If it evolved, what propelled it to evolve?

The bible is not a scientific material, neither will it try to prove anything scientifically. But it rather gave explanations, which can be aligned with in the absence of any scientific contradiction about the origin of the universe

Kay17:


Also note that design arises from the surrounding environment not by the mere wish of the designer like you are suggesting. If an environment is lacking why then the design?!

This is so not true to say the least.

Have asked from the Japanese why they chose the design for Honda and Toyota?
Have you heard of the word conceptualisation?
Have you heard of creativity?
What about inspiration?

I compose songs and my lyrics are from my inner minds and not my environment.

So many designers would say, I just decided to make this shirt this way

Whilst not saying environmental impacts makes not contribution to a design, I'm saying not in all cases. Creativity can be inborn

Kay17:
More or less

If that is the case, then you haven't answered my question in any meaningful sense.

This was my question: What reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you?

First of, to say that because we don't know what design constraints the physical laws have shows that the universe isn't designed is absurd mainly because design constraints are not a necessary component of design rather they are external things that inspire amendments to an already conceptualized design.

Secondly, even if I was to assume (though I am not) that the fact that we don't know the design constraints of physical laws shows that it is undesigned, the fact still remains (and you admit this fact) that fishes, trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas e.t.c. appear designed and equally have the universe as their platform and the physical laws as their constraints just like human designed things such as aeroplanes, houses, oil rigs e.t.c.

So seeing that they both appear designed, they both operate on the same platform and they both have the same physical constraints, what then specifically is this distinction that should make us believe that one category is designed while the other isn't?

KingEbukasBlog:


So why do you mock people that say the supernatural is responsible . Science tries to explain how it was done and religion explains why it was done

Lemme give you a quick example :

1. Why was the universe or earth formed?

Science : No answer

Religion : To be inhabited by intelligent , free moral agents to whom God will reveal Himself to

2 . How was the universe or earth formed

Science : accretion ; big bang

Religion : No answer

We were born into this earth ; science just tries to explain how all these came into being (how) . Religion tells us the cause (who is responsible ; who is in charge ) , why (the purpose of life ) and other stuff like understanding the purpose of life , how we should live our lives etc

here's something from Stephen William Hawking CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA

Text of `Origin of the Universe' by S.W. Hawking Copyright 1988 Stephen W. Hawking. All rights reserved.:

Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.

Science May solve some problems, but there are couple of other things that science will never ever solve till maybe man or the universe ceases to exit. eg according to Hawkings, why does the universe bother to exist


1 Corinthians 1:27
Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.

Kay17:

But the physical laws themselves create the balance and the symmetry because in their absence there will be nothing of balance nor symmetry.

You are describing the purpose of physical laws not defining what it is. We are in agreement on what it does.

The point is: physical laws create and sustain balance and symmetry on objects because balance and symmetry are intrinsical to physical laws; therefore physical laws falls under the category of design. (I have mentioned before that balance and symmetry are properties of design.)

-- forgive my verbosity, just trying to clarify things --

Now, physical laws are simply the forces of nature with balance and symmetry causing constraint - DESIGN.

This forces of nature interact with one another- upsetting the balance and symmetry in space-time in a controlled fashion causing vibrations hence motion - ENGINEERING.
(vibration is a result of forces trying to regain balance consequently generating waves - this is fundamental to physics).

Think of physical laws as invisible self-regulating machine sustaining the universe.

The physical laws are the platform for which any 'who' has to stand on.

The platform was created to be a platform for 'who' to stand on the same way a fine artist must create a canvas to paint is mona lisa on.

Imagine a Universe without any physical laws, humans themselves will be unable to create. Imagine all the laws become void, humans will be incapable of building houses, spaceships and other designs which you so much admire.

I have to be free from the constraint of this earthly body to understand life without physical laws. As long as I am constrained, I can only apply the law of displacement, that is: to replace the laws of physics with my virtual laws in my imagination.

Also note that design arises from the surrounding environment not by the mere wish of the designer like you are suggesting.

You are repeating a claim you are yet to validate.

Both the object and its environment falls under the category of design: the environment is designed to constrain, support and sustain the object.

Give me matter and motion and I will construct the universe – Rene Descartes
The keyword is 'me' and 'I'.

If an environment is lacking why then the design?!

Who said environment is lacking?

This environment is formed by physical laws and to prove physical laws are designed, you must point out the surrounding environment which necessitated the design.

Here is my earlier quote:

Physical laws is not an imposition on design but a part of what constitute the environment. The other part is space-time.
The environment and all things in it is called the Universe- A grand design; Therefore physical laws is part of the grand design.

Now, lets evaluate my comment in successive order:

Space-time: an environment for physical laws to operate.
Physical laws: environment for objects to exist and operate within space-time.
Therefore: Space-time and physical laws constitute an environment for objects to exist and operate.

Objects are design.
The environment is designed to support objects.
Therefore: the objects and the environment is design.

The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia)

The Universe is a design.
The Universe is in motion.
The Universe has a beginning.

By logical implication, Designer, Engineer, Architect, Prime Mover, Intelligence, Uncaused Cause must suffice.

UyiIredia:


My mistake, they aren't fatal. Are these precursors present in living things ?

Yes amino acids are present in living things.

UyiIredia:

I've made the argument. You denied its premise.

Yes and have you rectified that problem?

UyiIredia:

You are being deceptive. I clearly stated there was a second argument where God was inferred from the role intelligence plays in humans building functional systems. The analogy wasn't flawed
, you ignored instances where design was biological in nature, you ignored similarities between living systems and human designs.

That isn't being deceptive, that is being factual. Evolved systems are different from objects designed by humans. Making that analogy will always fail because it a poor one. You've not shown how intelligence can even exist without a material substrate i.e a brain.

UyiIredia:

How is it an argument from ignorance ?

It is an argument from ignorance because whether or not I prove you wrong doesn't make you right. You still have to show your God.

UyiIredia:

I stated why the refutation was wrong, you continued in your denial.

The reason you gave wasn't reason wasn't sufficient as my point above shows.

UyiIredia:

I don't need to show God, inferring God is sufficient.

No it isn't because firstly intelligence needs a material substrate. In the case of humans, we have the brain. Does your God have a physical substrate that you can show for you to even begin to make the comparison?

timonski:

What one has to go through to deny existence of the Almighty Creator. SMDH!

What do you have to show for your creator?

SNCOQ3:

You are describing the purpose of physical laws not defining what it is. We are in agreement on what it does.

The point is: physical laws create and sustain balance and symmetry on objects because balance and symmetry are intrinsical to physical laws; therefore physical laws falls under the category of design. (I have mentioned before that balance and symmetry are properties of design.)

-- forgive my verbosity, just trying to clarify things --

Now, physical laws are simply the forces of nature with balance and symmetry causing constraint - DESIGN.

It seems we are on the same path except where you try to imply that the intrinsic properties of physical laws make physical laws themselves a design. That will be a convolution of reasoning. Since physical laws function as a source of design to objects etc, they themselves can not be said to be designs.

So if any designer including God, intends to make a creation, he must abide to the structure, symmetry and balance provided by physical laws. Again, I agree with you that physical laws act as a constraint.

This forces of nature interact with one another- upsetting the balance and symmetry in space-time in a controlled fashion causing vibrations hence motion - ENGINEERING.
(vibration is a result of forces trying to regain balance consequently generating waves - this is fundamental to physics).

Think of physical laws as invisible self-regulating machine sustaining the universe.

I think physical laws not only as self regulating but foundational. I wouldn't want to equivocate forces of nature with physical laws, because the interaction between the particular forces of nature you talk about, are themselves ordered and governed by the overarching physical laws.

The platform was created to be a platform for 'who' to stand on the same way a fine artist must create a canvas to paint is mona lisa on.

If you read my slightly long post on physical laws, I said we often extrapolate from human creativity and conclude the Universe itself, is not dissimilar from other human creations but I further said a prerequisite was our understanding of physical laws. If you really understand me, you would know I do not presume that all things are created. Now for you to suggest that the platform is created, is entirely unappealing to me. Of course the analogy of the artist and his canvas is apt but not to be taken literally but limited to its expository purpose. Yet contained in every act of creativity, a platform is required. Especially when the question is asked, upon what platform was the Universe created.

I have to be free from the constraint of this earthly body to understand life without physical laws. As long as I am constrained, I can only apply the law of displacement, that is: to replace the laws of physics with my virtual laws in my imagination.

Yes in your imagination, but such imagination is expressed in the constraint of design.

The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia)

The Universe is a design.
The Universe is in motion.
The Universe has a beginning.

By logical implication, Designer, Engineer, Architect, Prime Mover, Intelligence, Uncaused Cause must suffice.

Since you believe the Universe constitutes the environment as well and both are created, what then are the constraints necessary for design?

UyiIredia:


Losing the original function is vestigiality itself. The reason for that belief is the assumption that the organs have little or no function.

What would you say is the function of legs?

UyiIredia:

Similarity doesn't conclude common ancestry moreso if all that is observed is that species vary within limits their genes allow. Common design is a better inference given the level of sophistication of what you've mentioned, we also know that humans can deploy a given technology in multiple ways such as the use of Java in devices ranging from remote controls to laptops.

That isn't the only line of evidence. Recall that there are other lines of evidence. Using your example of Java, is it not the case that native applications generally run better and faster than Java programs?

UyiIredia:

Even assuming bad design is correct, it doesn't eliminate the fact of design. A poor design or a flawed design still is a design. Furthermore, such 'blunders' are based on an ignorance of design constraints or functions which we are unaware of till they are brought to light.

Bad design is evidence of a bad designer thus cannot be the work of a perfect person. God shouldn't have any constraints should he?

UyiIredia:

For example, it is now understood that the backward wiring of the retina helps in focusing light to it while also averting severe irritation to light-sensitive photoreceptors. See here, here and here.

But there are better designs available so why should humans and other organisms along that lineage have that similarity? That is bad design or even malicious design when we know that there are better designs available.

UyiIredia:

Recurrent laryngeal nerves serve to enneervate other nerves and likely take the circuitous route due to developmental constraints in embryos. See here and here

And those constraints are there because the organism evolved. A good designer won't take the circuitous route.

UyiIredia:

. And whale hip bones are now though to serve a role in supporting whale sex organs who typically have sex at high pressures in the ocean's depths. See here and here.

I talked about whale leg bones. Again, the fact that they've been repurposed isn't why they're vestigial in the biological sense.

UyiIredia:

Bad design arguments wilfully ignore several instances human inventions were reverse-engineered from living things. The 3-axis control systems that allowed the Wright brothers build the first working airplane was derived from birds.

"On the basis of observation, Wilbur concluded that birds
changed the angle of the ends of their wings to make their
bodies roll right or left." - Wright brothers Wikipedia page

So what?

UyiIredia:

You can always go to Wikipedia's biomimetics page to see other designs scientists copied from living things.

Again, so what?

UyiIredia:

Finally, It is very stupid to assert bad design of systems we don't even come close to designing ourselves and in numerous ways are still ignorant of. The correct disposition_and the prevailing one_ is that living things reveal an exquisite design.

It is foolishly dense and ignorant to assert organisms that evolved over millions of years were designed by an intelligent person. It is also buffoonish to say that one cannot point out bad design when we've seen good design.

UyiIredia:

Answer the question please. Is consciousness a chemical compound or a form of energy ?

It is neither.

UyiIredia:

It refers to patterns as exhibited by various objects.

Just make your point or a summary of what you're trying to get at.

SNCOQ3:


Now, lets evaluate my comment in successive order:

Space-time: an environment for physical laws to operate.
Physical laws: environment for objects to exist and operate within space-time.
Therefore: Space-time and physical laws constitute an environment for objects to exist and operate.

But don't physical laws determine how spacetime operates and interacts with matter? Do the intricacies of the triangle or causality vanish outside the sphere of spacetime? Can a tangible entity such as spacetime confine the operations of an intangible entity such as physical laws?

Objects are design.
The environment is designed to support objects.
Therefore: the objects and the environment is design.

Your logic is sits well with itself however, you are making an assertion that the objects influence the environment rather than the other way round. If you said the environment supports the objects, rather than the environment is designed to support objects, we wouldn't come to the conclusion that the environment is designed.

The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia)

The Universe is a design.
The Universe is in motion.
The Universe has a beginning.

By logical implication, Designer, Engineer, Architect, Prime Mover, Intelligence, Uncaused Cause must suffice.

But upon what was the Universe created on? God's head?

timonski:
Thehomer you never still burn out. You don lose this case since page 19

Thank you for your concern. Please can you tell me what I lost and how exactly I lost it?