KingEbukasBlog:


The verity of the life of Jesus Christ

What a joke. So the Jesus mythology is proof that Yahweh created the universe?

DeepSight:


You are the evidence.
Good night.

How did God create humans? What did he use to create humans? Why did he create humans and what specific evidence shows that humans were created by the deist version of God and not the God of theism?

benzics:

How do you prove a computer has a creator?

if that was a question to sound smarter, then it failed.. the design of the computer is enough proof that it was created.. computers have production dates.. most are listed in the boxes... computers are so designed in a way that it would be plain stupidity to say that a computer has no creator

Simple as that, we won't take your words for "facts"!

You claim you want to prove to us that God exists, how did you yourself come to the conclusion that the existence of God is a fact if not through assertions? So we should all take your assertions for facts?

Pfft

these are not just mere assertions.. they were gotten through logic.. mr D.eepsight gave you the logical breakdown.. and you said there were just beliefs.. but you're asking for scientific proof.. and i asked.. which method of science should we use to give you the desired or required proof?. there is no said machine that can capture the supernatural.. you asked for proof of God.. you expect a live picture of a sky daddy.. which is impossible cuz “God" is not a sky daddy... it is not a God that is just somewhere.. it is everywhere... the kind of proof you require is the type that will let you see air.. I'm not sure even science has discovered such a machine

dalaman:


How did God create humans? What did he use to create humans? Why did he create humans and what specific evidence shows that humans were created by the deist version of God and not the God of theism?

you've changed the discussion... you were arguing the existence of a “supreme being" not how we were created.. deism doesn't hold a certain creation story like that religions.. deism is proof that we don't need books to verify our creation or the existence of a supreme being.. different religions can give different descriptions for the creation of the universe.. but that doesn't negate the fact that it was indeed created... for the fact than 10 people claim to make a robot does not imply that the robot popped into existence

Wilgrea7:


if that was a question to sound smarter, then it failed.. the design of the computer is enough proof that it was created.. computers have production dates.. most are listed in the boxes... computers are so designed in a way that it would be plain stupidity to say that a computer has no creator

BAM!! What I wanted to hear, you just proved a computer creator exists because the computer has info about his creator, it is designed in such a way that you'll know that it was created... What info do the universe or humans have of God , how would you possibly know the universe is in such a way that it must be created? Nothing!

these are not just mere assertions.. they were gotten through logic.. mr D.eepsight gave you the logical breakdown.. and you said there were just beliefs.. but you're asking for scientific proof.. and i asked.. which method of science should we use to give you the desired or required proof?. there is no said machine that can capture the supernatural.. you asked for proof of God.. you expect a live picture of a sky daddy.. which is impossible cuz “God" is not a sky daddy... it is not a God that is just somewhere.. it is everywhere... the kind of proof you require is the type that will let you see air.. I'm not sure even science has discovered such a machine

They are assertions for the umpteenth time!!

Do we seriously need to start writing "just because something is logical do not mean it's a fact" before having a discussion with theists or deists?

"Steve Jobs was the ceo of Apple, Apple is a Mobile or software company, it is logical that bill gates was a software engineer or a programmer, so therefore bill gates is a programmer, yes it is a fact because it's logical"

That's what we get when you tell us "logic proves god As a fact", and what pisses me off more is when you go to the extent of explaining the god nature as a fact!!

Can you please for once stop telling us "God is eternal, god wasn't created, god is this, god is that", logic can not tell you all this, so they are nothing but assertions!

It is okay to say a computer has a creator, and even take it as a fact.. But going to the extent of telling us the creator of this computer is a white male, and still telling us that it's a fact, you really need to get your head checked!

@picture what describes you deists and Theists

Wilgrea7:


you've changed the discussion... you were arguing the existence of a “supreme being" not how we were created.. deism doesn't hold a certain creation story like that religions.. deism is proof that we don't need books to verify our creation or the existence of a supreme being.. different religions can give different descriptions for the creation of the universe.. but that doesn't negate the fact that it was indeed created... for the fact than 10 people claim to make a robot does not imply that the robot popped into existence

A supreme being is an assumption. The evidence that everything came from a single entity is what?

DeepSight, as admirable as your writing skill is, you're a terrible logician, and I'll demonstrate why as you read on:

DeepSight:

I have said that God is eternal and was not created.

I'll leave this here because it is the hypothesis which you seek to derive by logic.

What does it mean for something to be self existent? It means that it exists by default: it could not but exist - existing is its core nature: it needs no creator. Infinite Time is an example and so is infinite space.

Self-existence, much like "infinite time" and "infinite space", while clearly defined, isn't a logical statement. It is merely an assumption which you have compelled, with no basis whatsoever, to inhabit reality.

God is that necessary primordial self existent factor on which all reality rests.

Note that this is still just a claim. God, in your statement, is an undefined equivalent of a black box system which could consist in/of any number of things. Indeed, there can be many necessary primordial self-existent factors on which all realit(ies/y) rest(s). These factors may be mindless processes acting in parallel or may be a chain of uncontrollable/unpredictable reactions. Logic demands definitions, but none is given yet.

You go on to outline your logical argument as follows:

Understand:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

The logical argument above is as technically accurate as proposing "some shape" as the answer to the question: "What is a square?" You've made an argument about "something", "somethings" and "nothing", which is vague, and then gone on to synonymise "something" with "god" without providing clarity on what god means (as I discussed earlier). The futility of such an approach quickly becomes apparent if I replace the word "god" with "jagojago".

Now to your specific points:

1) One wonders if your concept of "something" is a universal set of all the possible thing(s) that could be "god", including mindless parallel processes and unpredictable consequences of a mindful/mindless cause? This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't, because if "something" is a set group, I am forced to ask why you have bothered distinguishing between "something" and "somethings" in your first 3 sentences. And if it isn't, what informs its semantic singularity? Please clarify.

2) Your points 4 and 5 do not logically follow from point 3. Processes can consume each other so that while a cause can be inferred, the initial process can never be retraced, rendering the initial process effectively "dead" (or impermanent). Chaos theory has well-formulated examples of this.

3) Point 7 isn't clear at all. Do you mean to say self-existing things are permanently immutable or that they cannot mutate of their own accord. Either ways, this point is baseless. In the former case, while we've never experienced any self-existing object(s), our knowledge of random fluctuations may hint to the possibility of mutations in our hypothetical self-existing object. Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form, as any physicist would point out to you. And if you meant the latter, then there is always the possibility that they can mutate by interaction with other self-existing things. You haven't given a reason as to why two or more self-existing entities cannot co-exist.

4) In point 8 and 9, you create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existing objects. Vibrational energy is not matter! Although, it is mutable; and can transform, given the right frequency and momentum, into matter and vice versa. It may or may not be permanent, but so far, nothing we know has ever caused it to annihilate. The jury is still out on this one!

5) Needless to say, point 10 is a faulty conclusion.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

You say this as if cop outs and paradoxes are the only things that invalidate logic.

As you have seen, your logic is, borrowing from Tesla's expression, a beggar garbed in dazzling eloquence!

benzics:

BAM!! What I wanted to hear, you just proved a computer creator exists because the computer has info about his creator, it is designed in such a way that you'll know that it was created...

you asked me how I can verify that a computer has a creator na.. u didn't ask how a computer can verify its a creation.. i showed how a human can verify a computer is a creation.. applying the same concept to the God situation, it would be a verification for higher powers that we are a creation.. although higher powers already know that

What info do the universe or humans have of God , how would you possibly know the universe is in such a way that it must be created? Nothing!

i can't believe i just read this..

Do we seriously need to start writing "just because something is logical does not mean it's a fact" before having a discussion with theists or deists?

"Steve Jobs was the ceo of Apple, Apple is a Mobile or software company, it is logical that bill gates was a software engineer or a programmer, so therefore bill gates is a programmer, yes it is a fact because it's logical"

ok

That's what we get when you tell us "logic proves god As a fact", and what pisses me off more is when you go to the extent of explaining the god nature as a fact!!

Can you please for once stop telling us "God is eternal, god wasn't created, god is this, god is that", logic can not tell you all this, so they are nothing but assertions!

we approach the God nature etc logically cuz there is no other way to approach it.. if there is then please tell me. no scientific method can measure eternity... forgive me for using logic which you consider irrelevant because it doesn't support you.. but you fail to give us any said scientific machine or method that can falsify our claims.. you take it as all logical claims are false.. but you've failed to prove me wrong.. you've not even done any test that could falsify our claims.. its just like putting someone in a swimming pool and telling the person to swim meanwhile you refused to teach the person how to swim and you're just yelling swim swim swim.. you've been asking for proof.. you rejected logic.. forgetting that logic was the bedrock of your science.. you obviously don't believe in the spiritual and you fail to tell us how or what scientific method we can use to prove this to you.. you haven't given us any contrary proofs to our claims.. so why should we take you as correct... we're on two sides of a coin.. one of us although lacks equipment tries to use him mind(logic) to explain something.. the other also lacks equipment and rejects using his mind to explain that something.. but instead tells the one who explains with his mind that he is wrong without bringing any contrary evidence either by equipment or by mind(logic)

It is okay to say a computer has a creator, and even take it as a fact.. But going to the extent of telling us the creator of this computer is a white male, and still telling us that it's a fact, you really need to get your head checked!

if you noticed in my recent posts... i referred to the God as “IT".. because the concept of a supreme being may not agree well with gender.. i don't usually personalize God as a male except when I'm discussing with fellow Christians or muslims cuz they tend to understand it in the light of their belief

hopefulLandlord:


Kingebukasblog is really fighting hard to attain a new level of idiocy, I've observed a kind of downward trend in his intelligence ability to make sense since 3 things happened

1. Winner01 disappeared
2. He stopped using big words
3. our "billionaire" that has a nephew in Pennsylvania disappeared

So you noticed too

wiegraf:

Let us examine your madness

You say all this while you yourself are "matter with mind"!

Are the molecules that make up the brain with a mind or not ?

wiegraf:

What am I missing here?

That matter has no mental properties.

wiegraf:

Or can you deny that?

No.

wiegraf:

Also, do computers posses mind? As you're also aware that they are capable of creating new material configurations, yes?

Computers partially display one aspect of mind which is cognition, hence their ability to create new material configurations. Which brings me to another point: matter lacks the ability to compute (ie accept input and process it into output) but obviously computers do. So also, matter lacks mental properties but in brains they effect them.

wiegraf:

You're aware that an AI like alphago is capable of coming up with completely novel strategies on its own?

Someone designed the AI that way, no?

dalaman:


How did God create humans?

Most likely using materials that existed on early earth. I assume this out of other possible scenarios.

dalaman:

What did he use to create humans?

Materials present in early earth.

dalaman:

Why did he create humans and what specific evidence shows that humans were created by the deist version of God and not the God of theism?

I don't know why God created humans and won't bother over it so long as I can't converse with God. Actually, teleological arguments for God describe a deist God since they don't give specific evidence for the creation myths of various theistic religions.

benzics:

@picture what describes you deists and Theists

You are being foolish as usual. That picture only describes the beliefs of some theists and deists. It certainly is not descriptive of all of them.

UyiIredia:

Are the molecules that make up the brain with a mind or not ?

Just a quick interjection:
This is not so much a question of mind vs matter, as it is a question of holism vs reductionism. When you look at a painting on the wall, you don't for a second assume that the individual electrons bound to the atoms that make up the colourful molecules that make up the paints used, have colours of their own, do you? But combined in particular configurations, these colourless electrons arrange themselves in such a way as to absorb, transmit or reflect light to give a semblance of colourfulness to the beautiful painting which you observe.

Obviously, it makes as much sense to ask if the electrons are with colour as it does, to ask if the molecules that make up the brain are with a mind.

Over to you Wiegraf!

AgentOfAllah:

Just a quick interjection:
This is not so much a question of mind vs matter, as it is a question of holism vs reductionism. When you look at a painting on the wall, you don't for a second assume that the individual electrons bound to the atoms that make up the colourful molecules that make up the paints used, have colours of their own, do you? But combined in particular configurations, these colourless electrons arrange themselves in such a way as to absorb, transmit or reflect light to give a semblance of colourfulness to the beautiful painting which you observe.

Obviously, it makes as much sense to ask if the electrons are with colour as it does, to ask if the molecules that make up the brain are with a mind.

Over to you Wiegraf!

It is a question of mind vs matter within the context of the discussion. The holism vs reductionism question is also a part of it. Dismissing the former is silly.

Your analogy with electrons only buttresses my point. Just as electrons without color constitute a painting with color so do molecules without minds constitute a brain with minds.

That is why I asked wiegraf whether the molecules in brains have minds. Because he was challenging my statement that matter lacks mental properties. If you want to be wiegraf's partner in idiocy be my guest.

AgentOfAllah:
DeepSight, as admirable as your writing skill is, you're a terrible logician, and I'll demonstrate why as you read on:

Au contrairé. You are the inept logician.

AgentOfAllah:

I'll leave this here because it is the hypothesis which you seek to derive by logic.

Self-existence, much like "infinite time" and "infinite space", while clearly defined, isn't a logical statement. It is merely an assumption which you have compelled, with no basis whatsoever, to inhabit reality.

Very foolish statement. Just because something is assumed doesn't make it false or illogical. Self-existence, like the concepts of infinite time and space is axiomatic and as such is self-evidently true except to blokes. It is obvious that in a given chain of causes there MUST be a cause that itself exists without respect to any other cause, which is what self-existence is.

AgentOfAllah:

Note that this is still just a claim. God, in your statement, is an undefined equivalent of a black box system which could consist in/of any number of things. Indeed, there can be many necessary primordial self-existent factors on which all realit(ies/y) rest(s). These factors may be mindless processes acting in parallel or may be a chain of uncontrollable/unpredictable reactions. Logic demands definitions, but none is given yet.

So you disparage Deep Sight's definition of God as an undefined black box yet bring two undefined black boxes of yours. You failed to specify the mindless processes and unpredictable reactions.

AgentOfAllah:

You go on to outline your logical argument as follows:


The logical argument above is as technically accurate as proposing "some shape" as the answer to the question: "What is a square?" You've made an argument about "something", "somethings" and "nothing", which is vague, and then gone on to synonymise "something" with "god" without providing clarity on what god means (as I discussed earlier). The futility of such an approach quickly becomes apparent if I replace the word "god" with "jagojago".

It's only vague to an idiot. Something obviously refers to the universe and nothing means the absence of anything at all. Replacing the word God doesn't in the least hamper the point. There is also a distinction between somethings (the universe) and something (a being that preceded the universe).

AgentOfAllah:

Now to your specific points:

1) One wonders if your concept of "something" is a universal set of all the possible thing(s) that could be "god", including mindless parallel processes and unpredictable consequences of a mindful/mindless cause? This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't, because if "something" is a set group, I am forced to ask why you have bothered distinguishing between "something" and "somethings" in your first 3 sentences. And if it isn't, what informs its semantic singularity? Please clarify.

See above.

AgentOfAllah:

2) Your points 4 and 5 do not logically follow from point 3. Processes can consume each other so that while a cause can be inferred, the initial process can never be retraced, rendering the initial process effectively "dead" (or impermanent). Chaos theory has well-formulated examples of this.

Poor logic. It does. Obviously, if things comes from things, then if things exist there was always a thing. Furthermore, that primordial thing must have always existed (ie eternal) for there to be things. Your example with chaos theory is irrelevant to the point, we are dealing with final causes here not causality within nature.

AgentOfAllah:

3) Point 7 isn't clear at all. Do you mean to say self-existing things are permanently immutable or that they cannot mutate of their own accord. Either ways, this point is baseless. In the former case, while we've never experienced any self-existing object(s), our knowledge of random fluctuations may hint to the possibility of mutations in our hypothetical self-existing object. Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form, as any physicist would point out to you. And if you meant the latter, then there is always the possibility that they can mutate by interaction with other self-existing things. You haven't given a reason as to why two or more self-existing entities cannot co-exist.

The more appropriate criticism here would be that Deep Sight did not give a reason as to why being self-existent demands immutability. Your objection using natural phenomena is pointless, unless you are suggesting nature and its matter are self-existent.

AgentOfAllah:

4) In point 8 and 9, you create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existing objects. Vibrational energy is not matter! Although, it is mutable; and can transform, given the right frequency and momentum, into matter and vice versa. It may or may not be permanent, but so far, nothing we know has ever caused it to annihilate. The jury is still out on this one!

Insofar you have refrained from categorically stating that vibrational energy is self-existent I should dismiss this argument. This is an argument by insinuation. You are suggesting that vibrational energy is self-existent. Furthermore, since vibrational energy is not matter Deep Sight's point stands on a technicality.

AgentOfAllah:

5) Needless to say, point 10 is a faulty conclusion.
You say this as if cop outs and paradoxes are the only things that invalidate logic

Not at all. But I would and must say that Deep Sight's argument could have been better put. I'll still give it a pass.

AgentOfAllah:
As you have seen, your logic is, borrowing from Tesla's expression, a beggar garbed in dazzling eloquence!

Honestly, you are no better. In fact, you are even worse given your particularly foolish statement that self-existence isn't logical. Then you try to suggest matter is self-existent using vibrational energy.

hopefulLandlord:


lol



I'm good bro, I lost access to my mail cuz I don't have the phone number used to register with me right now so I can't reply the mail you said you sent

Alright boss. Can we talk on whatsapp?

UyiIredia:


You are being foolish as usual. That picture only describes the beliefs of some theists and deists. It certainly is not descriptive of all of them.

Lol..

Why is this one pained?

UyiIredia:

It is a question of mind vs matter within the context of the discussion. The holism vs reductionism question is also a part of it. Dismissing the former is silly.

You completely missed the point then. Mind vs matter is a superfluous rehashing of the holism vs reductionism debate.

Your analogy with electrons only buttresses my point. Just as electrons without color constitute a painting with color so do molecules without minds constitute a brain with minds.

Yes, it only buttresses your point to the extent that it demonstrates that an object made up of a collection of things can suddenly acquire holistically distinct and uncorrelated properties than those of its individual constituents. Where we diverge, is that whereas I have implied, with evidence, that the sudden acquisition of the distinct properties of the whole from its fundamental units can be fully explained by material/physical phenomena; you, on the other hand, seem tyrannically compelled to disentangle the property from its object, simply because its units do not exhibit similar properties as the whole (object).

That is why I asked wiegraf whether the molecules in brains have minds. Because he was challenging my statement that matter lacks mental properties.

And he is right to challenge you statement; it is absurd! Given the right physical configurations, matter can have mental properties.

I ended my interjection with the following:

AgentOfAllah:

Obviously, it makes as much sense to ask if the electrons are with colour as it does, to ask if the molecules that make up the brain are with a mind.

This was an understated expression, intended to argue that it makes no sense to assume that matter, in all its forms, does not have mental properties on the basis that it doesn't exhibit mental properties in most of its forms. By anthropic principle, you (I presume), Wiegraf, and I are examples of the state in which matter can exhibit mental properties.

If you want to be wiegraf's partner in idiocy be my guest.

No, I'd rather be your partner in learning. Thanks for the offer though!

UyiIredia:


It is a question of mind vs matter within the context of the discussion. The holism vs reductionism question is also a part of it. Dismissing the former is silly.

Your analogy with electrons only buttresses my point. Just as electrons without color constitute a painting with color so do molecules without minds constitute a brain with minds.

That is why I asked wiegraf whether the molecules in brains have minds. Because he was challenging my statement that matter lacks mental properties. If you want to be wiegraf's partner in idiocy be my guest.

A brick can't be a house. A group of bricks though, can.

In fact, I'll go further and state that houses do not exist without bricks.

It's not feasible.

Simple

There must needs be the material building blocks before the house manifests. Else 'house' remains but an abstract concept.

That a brick cannot be called a house takes nothing away from the fact that houses are indeed bricks

Simple

Simple

Simple

Stop creating problems where there are non.

Moving on, do note that of course houses need not be made of bricks or designed by conscious agents. Natural forming phenomena, like cave formations, can be houses, no? Trees house animals, no?

I get the feels you think naturally forming phenomena can't come up with a mind, and I can't see why. Especially considering the fact that we exist means it must have happened before. Your reasoning using the nature of mind is complete hogwash, as has been shown (by agentofallah, especially). Please provide a better one

As for the AI, the fact that was designed is irrelevant. What matters is that it came up with a completely new way of doing things which its designer could never have come up with. That's a new idea, the basis of which new material configurations are built on.

And insulting me is fine. I even like it. Insulting others that are being nice and helpful is just churlish.

Apologise or no cabin for you

benzics:

Blah blah blah

Is there God? - NONE that we know of..

Does God die - how the hell are we supposed to know when there is no God we know?

.... .

Are you God - everyone is a god!

You can now see that the video is flawed. The video shows us that there is God and that He dies.

AgentOfAllah:
DeepSight, as admirable as your writing skill is, you're a terrible logician, and I'll demonstrate why as you read on:

I'll leave this here because it is the hypothesis which you seek to derive by logic.

Self-existence, much like "infinite time" and "infinite space", while clearly defined, isn't a logical statement. It is merely an assumption which you have compelled, with no basis whatsoever, to inhabit reality.

Wrong !

Self existence denotes timelessness and spacelessness . And timelessness here isn't the classical view held by Issac Newton whereby timelessness = infinite time . Timelessness as in the non existence of time ! God became temporal with the universe and was timeless without it .

Matter and anything physical need space to exist and since God is immaterial and non physical , It does not need to space to exist.

jimmyjenseng:

Alright boss. Can we talk on whatsapp?

I only use bbm bro

Image123:


You can now see that the video is flawed. The video shows us that there is God and that He dies.

The video follows the premise in which deists and Theists determine god exists, "everything must have a creator", showing how stupid that premise is.. .

wiegraf:


A brick can't be a house. A group of bricks though, can.

In fact, I'll go further and state that houses do not exist without bricks.

It's not feasible.

Simple

There must needs be the material building blocks before the house manifests. Else 'house' remains but an abstract concept.

That a brick cannot be called a house takes nothing away from the fact that houses are indeed bricks

Simple

Simple

Simple

Stop creating problems where there are non.

Moving on, do note that of course houses need not be made of bricks or designed by conscious agents. Natural forming phenomena, like cave formations, can be houses, no? Trees house animals, no?

I get the feels you think naturally forming phenomena can't come up with a mind, and I can't see why. Especially considering the fact that we exist means it must have happened before. Your reasoning using the nature of mind is complete hogwash, as has been shown (by agentofallah, especially). Please provide a better one

As for the AI, the fact that was designed is irrelevant. What matters is that it came up with a completely new way of doing things which its designer could never have come up with. That's a new idea, the basis of which new material configurations are built on.

And insulting me is fine. I even like it. Insulting others that are being nice and helpful is just churlish.

Apologise or no cabin for you

I'll leave smart people to draw the right conclusion from the highlighted statement. I won't waste any more time with you.

AgentOfAllah:
You completely missed the point then. Mind vs matter is a superfluous rehashing of the holism vs reductionism debate.

Go back to my initial response and educate yourself on the context.

AgentOfAllah:

Yes, it only buttresses your point to the extent that it demonstrates that an object made up of a collection of things can suddenly acquire holistically distinct and uncorrelated properties than those of its individual constituents. Where we diverge, is that whereas I have implied, with evidence, that the sudden acquisition of the distinct properties of the whole from its fundamental units can be fully explained by material/physical phenomena; you, on the other hand, seem tyrannically compelled to disentangle the property from its object, simply because its units do not exhibit similar properties as the whole (object).

Good then. Explain the process by which chemical reactions in the neurons of the brain result in consciousness. Keep in mind principles governing chemistry. I'm waiting.

AgentOfAllah:

And he is right to challenge you statement; it is absurd! Given the right physical configurations, matter can have mental properties.

My statement doesn't deny that certain physical configurations have mental properties. My statement was that matter in itself (or in its most basic form eg atoms, elements and even compounds) lacks mental properties: this is why when wiegraf countered that I'm a matter with mind, I didn't deny it but asked him whether molecules in the brain could be said to be conscious. Now that I have further clarified myself I hope you won't continue in this display of idiocy.

AgentOfAllah:

I ended my interjection with the following:
This was an understated expression, intended to argue that it makes no sense to assume that matter, in all its forms, does not have mental properties on the basis that it doesn't exhibit mental properties in most of its forms. By anthropic principle, you (I presume), Wiegraf, and I are examples of the state in which matter can exhibit mental properties.

I never said matter in all its forms does not have mental properties. That's a strawman. Obviously you did not comprehend my argument.

AgentOfAllah:

No, I'd rather be your partner in learning. Thanks for the offer though!

Okay.

hopefulLandlord:


I only use bbm bro

My guy you better upgrade. WhatsApp is far more popular than BBM given how easy it is to use compared to BBM. All you need is a phone number and a person is your contact.

benzics:

The video follows the premise in which deists and Theists determine god exists, "everything must have a creator", showing how stupid that premise is.. .

If it followed the premise, it shouldn't have lost/twisted the facts. Anybody can twist things to arrive at a position.

Image123:


If it followed the premise, it shouldn't have lost/twisted the facts. Anybody can twist things to arrive at a position.

which facts? Can you look up the definition of "fact" please, mere assertions are never facts.. BELIEFS ARE NOT FACTS

benzics:
which facts? Can you look up the definition of "fact" please, mere assertions are never facts.. BELIEFS ARE NOT FACTS

The facts written in the Bible have been twisted. What is the definition if i may ask you?

UyiIredia:


I'll leave smart people to draw the right conclusion from the highlighted statement. I won't waste any more time with you.

Happy new year!

UyiIredia:

Au contrairé. You are the inept logician.

Let's examine this accusation.

Very foolish statement. Just because something is assumed doesn't make it false or illogical. Self-existence, like the concepts of infinite time and space is axiomatic and as such is self-evidently true except to blokes. It is obvious that in a given chain of causes there MUST be a cause that itself exists without respect to any other cause, which is what self-existence is.

I take it you're not a bloke then? A claim that demands to be brazenly qualified as "self-evident" and "obvious" ever so often, usually turns out dubious. But what does an idiot like me know?

So you disparage Deep Sight's definition of God as an undefined black box yet bring two undefined black boxes of yours. You failed to specify the mindless processes and unpredictable reactions.

Those weren't black boxes, those were invoked as examples of possible contents in DeepSight's black box called "God", in order to illustrate the fact he has not been clear about the meaning of "god". But your misapprehension is probably because I'm an idiotic communicator.

It's only vague to an idiot. Something obviously refers to the universe and nothing means the absence of anything at all. Replacing the word God doesn't in the least hamper the point. There is also a distinction between somethings (the universe) and something (a being that preceded the universe).

See above.

Idiot is as idiot does!

Poor logic. It does. Obviously, if things comes from things, then if things exist there was always a thing. Furthermore, that primordial thing must have always existed (ie eternal) for there to be things. Your example with chaos theory is irrelevant to the point, we are dealing with final causes here not causality within nature.

This probably made so much sense in your head. But who am I to judge the wisdom of a person so obviously smarter than I am?

The more appropriate criticism here would be that Deep Sight did not give a reason as to why being self-existent demands immutability. Your objection using natural phenomena is pointless, unless you are suggesting nature and its matter are self-existent.

Oh! How did I miss such a blatant criticism? I forgot to emphasise in my rebuttal that "Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form"

Insofar you have refrained from categorically stating that vibrational energy is self-existent I should dismiss this argument. This is an argument by insinuation. You are suggesting that vibrational energy is self-existent. Furthermore, since vibrational energy is not matter Deep Sight's point stands on a technicality.

You should have dismissed the argument, but you just couldn't help but miss the point, could you?

Not at all. But I would and must say that Deep Sight's argument could have been better put. I'll still give it a pass.

Thank you teacher!

Honestly, you are no better. In fact, you are even worse given your particularly foolish statement that self-existence isn't logical. Then you try to suggest matter is self-existent using vibrational energy.

And your rebuttals tried, with success, to exemplify ignoratio elenchi!

AgentOfAllah:

Let's examine this accusation.

Let's see if you've learnt anything.

AgentOfAllah:

I take it you're not a bloke then? A claim that demands to be brazenly qualified as "self-evident" and "obvious" ever so often, usually turns out dubious. But what does an idiot like me know?

Thanks for calling yourself the idiot. I gave a reason as to why self-existence is needful. You simply assert it's dubious with no reason whatsoever. Not unexpected.

AgentOfAllah:

Those weren't black boxes, those were invoked as examples of possible contents in DeepSight's black box called "God", in order to illustrate the fact he has not been clear about the meaning of "god". But your misapprehension is probably because I'm an idiotic communicator.

For the meaning of God go check your dictionary. That said, to the extent you didn't specify a process or reaction, those were black boxes. But then you have said you are (probably) an idiotic communicator. Thanks for the heads up. I would say it's more accurate in this case that you are an idiotic reader.

AgentOfAllah:

Idiot is as idiot does!

Ad hominem.

AgentOfAllah:

This probably made so much sense in your head. But who am I to judge the wisdom of a person so obviously smarter than I am?

Ad hominem again. No reason whatsoever.

AgentOfAllah:

Oh! How did I miss such a blatant criticism? I forgot to emphasise in my rebuttal that "Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form"

Your rebuttal only applies to things with form that are permanent. Since God is immaterial, God is formless. But then again an idiot won't know that.

AgentOfAllah:

You should have dismissed the argument, but you just couldn't help but miss the point, could you?

I don't think I missed the point. Humor me though by stating the point.

AgentOfAllah:

Thank you teacher!

*shrugs*

AgentOfAllah:

And your rebuttals tried, with success, to exemplify ignoratio elenchi!

To the extent you did not bother to clarify yourself, or examine anything, going on with dim-witted mistatements I'd take this assertion as seriously a mad man's ramblings.