Kay17:

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.

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.

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.

That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.

I suspect that one of the errors of your assumptions is to think of designs only as material objects. Stratagem, tactics, well-crafted words, mode of operation, algorithms, system of constraints, and laws are intangibles. My question for you is: are they designs or not? Also bear in mind that they can be represented in visual forms.

Another question for you. Do you agree with the following:
1. The organization of elements into a complex whole is one category of design.
2. The organization of actions so as to enable them to work together effectively is another category of design.
3. This coherent organizing principles is design.
If not, why?

So if any designer including God, intends to make a creation, he must abide to the structure, symmetry and balance provided by physical laws.

It only makes sense that God will consider the environment (physical laws and space-time) when creating in a physical world just like an Artist must consider the nature of his canvas before and while painting on it. What is important is that the paint, the canvas and the artwork were made.

Again, I agree with you that physical laws act as a constraint.

Yea, but be mindful of the context in which I use 'constraint' : It was was a reaction to someone who was saying that physical laws is not design but constrain. and my argument is, what is designed to constrain is a design.

I think physical laws not only as self regulating but foundational.

Well, it takes an intelligent mind to lay a good foundation.
You can also think of them as environment, 'invisible machine', relationships.... some things in life are multifaceted, it all depends on context of usage.

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.

True, equating physical laws to forces of nature is erroneous. My bad. Nevertheless, physical laws is a subset of the universe- a grand design.

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.

We do not extrapolate from human creativity alone, it takes termites to build an anthill, a bird to make a nest, bees to make honeycomb. Understanding physical laws is not a prerequisite to reach the rational conclusion that their is a designer behind a design.

If you really understand me, you would know I do not presume that all things are created.

Only that you have no rational argument to support your claim so far.

Now for you to suggest that the platform is created, is entirely unappealing to me.

I am only interested in the truth- not what is appealing to you.

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.

Eternity is the "platform".

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

People find it hard to believe a pig can fly; that to defy laws of physics this way is either a stuff of the imagination or by supernatural means.

Since you believe the Universe constitutes the environment as well and both are created,

Falsehood. The reverse was my statement:
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 consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe also encompasses all of life, all of history... -Wikipedia

what then are the constraints necessary for design?

First, a Law that transcends this universe cannot be described as 'overarching physical laws' but a superphysical or supernatural law.

The "constraint" necessary for the design of the universe is the Logos and the universe is a Rhema- Spoken Words from the Logos

SNCOQ3:

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.


That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.


Yea, but be mindful of the context in which I use 'constraint' : It was was a reaction to someone who was saying that physical laws is not design but constrain. and my argument is, what is designed to constrain is a design.

The Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe also encompasses all of life, all of history... -Wikipedia

First, a Law that transcends this universe cannot be described as 'overarching physical laws' but a superphysical or supernatural law.

The "constraint" necessary for the design of the universe is the Logos and the universe is a Rhema- Spoken Words from the Logos

Following your arguments that constraint is key to design and such constraints are designs themselves, aren't you confounded with the contradiction that Logos is itself designed?!

Kay17:


Following your arguments that constraint is key to design and such constraints are designs themselves, aren't you confounded with the contradiction that Logos is itself designed?!

No contradiction.
It follows that: If their is an Uncaused Cause, a Prime Mover; then their is an Undesigned Designer.

SNCOQ3:

No contradiction.
It follows that: If their is an Uncaused Cause, a Prime Mover; then their is an Undesigned Designer.

In the light of your own words --

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.


That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.

There is a contradiction, because the Logos/superphysical/supernatural law is the constraint that effects design and following the above quote, the fact Logos exhibits that, implies itself is a subject of design. And you further say this design is uncaused.

Kay17:

In the light of your own words --

In the light of sound logic --

There is a contradiction, because the Logos/superphysical/supernatural law is the constraint that effects design and following the above quote, the fact Logos exhibits that, implies itself is a subject of design. And you further say this design is uncaused.

Empty rhetoric.
Unless you have a superior argument against the kalam cosmological argument, their is no contradiction.

SNCOQ3:

In the light of sound logic --


Empty rhetoric.
Unless you have a superior argument against the kalam cosmological argument, their is no contradiction.

And how neatly your argument falls apart.

Kay17:


And how neatly your argument falls apart.

Proof?

SNCOQ3:

Proof?

In our prior posts.

Kay17:


In our prior posts.

reference it.

SNCOQ3:

reference it.

We had a conversation in the a series of connecting replies and responses; and at the culmination where you find yourself stuck in a contradiction, you ask for proof! How ridiculous!

SNCOQ3:

reference it.

You begin with a starting premise:

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.


That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.

And the Logos eventually performs this same role of creating symmetry and patterns, and following your premise, we arrive at the concluison that your uncreated Logos has to be designed. That is the contradiction.

Kay17:


We had a conversation in the a series of connecting replies and responses; and at the culmination where you find yourself stuck in a contradiction, you ask for proof! How ridiculous!

I asked for a proof because no one got stuck in your imagined contradiction.
Your faux bewilderment betrays dishonesty.

Kay17:


You begin with a starting premise:

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.


That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.

And the Logos eventually performs this same role of creating symmetry and patterns, and following your premise, we arrive at the concluison that your uncreated Logos has to be designed. That is the contradiction.

In which case, the factory robot represents physical laws. The designer of the robot represents the Logos.

Their is also a quote where you conflate the Logos and superphysical law(supernatural law). My response to that is: Their are laws, be it supernatural, physical, moral; and their is a lawgiver. Its been demonstrated already.

The causal relationship of Design-Designer is essentially the same as Cause-Effect, the difference is context of usage. Therefore, to expose a contradiction, you must first debunk the argument for the Uncaused Cause, starting with the KCA.

SNCOQ3:

In which case, the factory robot represents physical laws. The designer of the robot represents the Logos.

Their is also a quote where you conflate the Logos and superphysical law(supernatural law). My response to that is: Their are laws, be it supernatural, physical, moral; and their is a lawgiver. Its been demonstrated already.

The causal relationship of Design-Designer is essentially the same as Cause-Effect, the difference is context of usage. Therefore, to expose a contradiction, you must first debunk the argument for the Uncaused Cause, starting with the KCA.

Saying 'they are laws' therefore require a lawgiver/writer is a convolution of language itself. Laws which we humans use as normative standards are not in the same sense as laws in the physics sense. Besides your analogy is quite convenient but useless. The factory robot is created by the human designer whilst the human designer is created by ? ? ?

But you argued here that whatever gives order must itself be an example of order and therefore designed. You made that generalized argument not me.

Kay17:


Saying 'they are laws' therefore require a lawgiver/writer is a convolution of language itself. Laws which we humans use as normative standards are not in the same sense as laws in the physics sense. Besides your analogy is quite convenient but useless. The factory robot is created by the human designer whilst the human designer is created by ? ? ?

But you argued here that whatever gives order must itself be an example of order and therefore designed. You made that generalized argument not me.

You have been effectively nailed and you know it. But of course, you must have the last face-saving words as is customary of you; so please go ahead.

SNCOQ3:

You have been effectively nailed and you know it. But of course, you must have the last face-saving words as is customary of you; so please go ahead.

Address what I have said.

KingEbukasBlog:


You've been asking me pretty pointless questions

No I haven't.

KingEbukasBlog:


So why have you been asking me questions you too can look up ?

Because I don't know if you would agree with the answers out there since Christianity isn't the only religion.

KingEbukasBlog:


so this is deemed as a reasonable question ? Cant you look up this one too ?

Yes it is a reasonable question. No I can't. Do you have an answer?

KingEbukasBlog:


"Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?"

The answer isn't there. If you think it is, please provide a link to the answer you agree with.

KingEbukasBlog:


How about google.com , then in the search box you type " Does God have a body " ... that should do the trick at least you brought up the looking up stuff on google

Please provide a link that agrees with your view.

KingEbukasBlog:



Lets be pragmatic

Read these stories : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005489/Meet-son-10-Baptist-parents-baffled-experts-vivid-accurate-accounts-past-life-danced-Broadway-acted-opposite-Mae-West.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943568/Five-year-old-boy-convinced-reincarnated-black-woman-Chicago-called-Pam-died-fire-1993.html

and tell me what you think + read the comments in the articles before you refute the proposition

Daily mail articles aren't verification of reincarnation, they're stories.

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm not afraid in any way . I asked you questions and you regarded mine as "vague and pointless " but sought for me to reply yours? You answer mine , I answer yours

Because they were vague and pointless. Yes you raised issues about your God creating people.

KingEbukasBlog:

It isnt established ? There are 6 .5 billion people who believe in the supernatural and why should the opinion of <500 million count ?

Because number of people who hold a view doesn't make it correct. Especially when those views are in conflict.

KingEbukasBlog:

So you believe in evolution , complex life coming from one simple cell(common ancestor) , life coming from in organic matter and the big bang ? Can you explain the initial conditions of the big bang ? So inanimate objects now in 200-800 million years will be living and then evolve into new animals ? Why haven't other inorganic matter that were in existence millions of years ago brought forth life ? Denial of the existence of God (supernatural ) indeed is outright hypocrisy

What is your most pressing question?

thehomer:


Because they were vague and pointless. Yes you raised issues about your God creating people.

And you raised issues of people "arising naturally" whereas unproven by you

Because number of people who hold a view doesn't make it correct. Especially when those views are in conflict.

same as yours

What is your most pressing question?

umm ... will non-living things become living in 200 -800 million years then evolve into new animals ?

thehomer:


Daily mail articles aren't verification of reincarnation, they're stories.

lemme reiterate : "Lets be pragmatic "

thehomer:


Please provide a link that agrees with your view.

there is no link .. The bible is my "link" . You 've been asking me so many questions but waved mine aside -that's the problem . Honestly , I''ll love to answer you only if you'd address mine

UyiIredia:


I'm the one asking you that. This argument started from my claim that natural factors cannot make biochemicals, you pointed out naturally-occurring amino acids and I noted there were two types while life uses just one type. You are yet to account for how natural factors used ju
st that type.

I told you the answer but you rejected it. So, please say what the mechanism is.

UyiIredia:

Feel free to go back to your earlier statement or leave things at that.

No, I want to know what you're referring to. Or have you become confused again?

UyiIredia:

Not bad, though river banks aren't enclosed the way pipes and blood vessels are.

They don't have to be to serve the function. All it shows is that you've successfully made no sense.

UyiIredia:

And where did I ever say my argument was true because you didn't show it's false. I consistently said you can't say it's false without reason.

Each time you asked me to prove you wrong.

UyiIredia:

Look above.

Simply read.

Kay17:

The factory robot is created by the human designer whilst the human designer is created by ? ? ?

Lady , your problem is that you neither understand who God is nor what the supernatural is. Do away with whatever you understood as the former and the later - start afresh . Understand the religion and who we see as God . Then your questions might seem be sensible to me

UyiIredia:


You'll have to provide evidence. I don't think whales have actual leg bones.

You've not been reading. Here's a link for you.

UyiIredia:

Species vary within limits while your theory requires that there's no limit to how they can vary, which is why bacteria could evolve over time to become mammals.

That isn't what the theory of evolution says.

UyiIredia:

Aren't you lazy by not reading even one of the links ?

No it is prudence. If you can't even read your own sources, why should I? I asked you to provide quotes and you can't even do that?

UyiIredia:

The definition of design I posted doesn't contradict evolution. Though, it's a pity evolutionists must deny the fact of design in living things and the obvious and right inference to an intelligent agent.

It is a pity that creationists deny the evidence of evolution and assert a God.

UyiIredia:

What my point is ?

"If consciousness is neither one of them (ie chemical compounds or energy) it's clear that
the chemical processes in the brain aren't sufficient to
account for consciousness, since as anyone knows
chemical reactions usually limited to producing chemical
compounds and a release/use of energy."

There. That's my point.

Consciousness is neither a chemical compound nor energy therefore the brain can't be the source of consciousness?

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise so that argument is invalid.

UyiIredia:

You keep making inane claims of fallacy with poor reasoning. I didn't use the fact that Darwin was a failed theologian to dismiss his theory, I used the fact that a failed theologian's theory was deemed acceptable to show that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have to be a scientist to assess, accept or dismiss scientific claims.

You're on a roll of making no sense. What does the fact that Darwin decided not to become a clergyman have to do with anything? You need certain background knowledge to even start assessing scientific claims and you're sorely lacking in them.

UyiIredia:

As I said earlier I've read the evidence presented for evolution and saw that it is based on poor reasoning, typically a given fact about lifeforms is pointed out (eg similarities in genes) and it is simply asserted that this supports common descent.

It is experimentally shown that it supports common descent. This is just more of your ignorance revealing itself.

KingEbukasBlog:


And you raised issues of people "arising naturally" whereas unproven by you

What sort of proof are you looking for?

KingEbukasBlog:

same as yours

My view isn't based on larger numbers.

KingEbukasBlog:

umm ... will non-living things become living in 200 -800 million years then evolve into new animals ?

I don't know.

KingEbukasBlog:


lemme reiterate : "Lets be pragmatic "

Okay. Why do you believe in reincarnation?

KingEbukasBlog:


there is no link .. The bible is my "link" . You 've been asking me so many questions but waved mine aside -that's the problem . Honestly , I''ll love to answer you only if you'd address mine

The Bible contains incorrect information so why should I take it seriously?