Logicboy03:

The irony is killing me

there is no irony. Christians are secure in the fact that salvation is by faith. It is those who crow about being the purveyors of "reason" who seem to amaze me with their nonchalant attitude to logic and common sense.

Logicboy03:

What is the evidence for nature? Do you live in a vacuum?

Are you an alien from the black hole?

What a slimy dishonest creature. The question i asked was WHAT CREATED NATURE? It just exists by magic?

Kay 17: Truthlight and davidlyan

Both of you haven't still responded on my points. I have tried to be clear.

I was saying experience of a phenomenon is the sole criteria for knowing whether it was intelligently designed or naturally made. We can identify man made designs by their association with man.

However intricate designs like the water cycle don't have an intelligent hand guiding it or designing it, therefore it is naturally occuring.

For Gravity, we haven't seen an intelligent being coming along to put it there, so we can't presume intelligent design.

Truthlight was concerned about chance being blind etc. Water doesn't boil by chance, clouds don't form by chance, neither do mountains; because they all follow physical laws, hence chance is not needed.

This is quite senseless. The water cycle is an amazing example of intelligent energy conservation... gravity is precise down to a decimal point... but somehow they are all just accidents of nature? Incredible stupidity.

davidylan:

What a slimy dishonest creature. The question i asked was WHAT CREATED NATURE? It just exists by magic?

The irony is killing me.....my guy shoots a loaded question and I'm dishonest.....


Craze dey worry you

..

davidylan:

This is quite senseless. The water cycle is an amazing example of intelligent energy conservation... gravity is precise down to a decimal point... but somehow they are all just accidents of nature? Incredible stupidity.

If it so, praise is owed to Nature. Precision is likewise natural also. Or are we to presume precision is all intelligently made??

davidylan: @logicboy

What a slimy dishonest creature. The question i asked was WHAT CREATED NATURE? It just exists by magic?

exactly!

It takes a deceitful, dishonest mind to make the pronouncement: "there is no God".

How can one make such a fundamental proclamation without evidence makes one ashamed. It takes bigtime self delusion to get to that.

It is truthful indeed the statement:
"common sense, not so common".

True and factual that ^^^ statement is.

davidylan:

This is quite senseless. The water cycle is an amazing example of intelligent energy conservation... gravity is precise down to a decimal point... but somehow they are all just accidents of nature? Incredible stupidity.

Thank you very much.

Having to explain this to someone that is not an infant gets very boring over time.

"common sense, not so common".

Kay 17:

If it so, praise is owed to Nature. Precision is likewise natural also. Or are we to presume precision is all intelligently made??

I want to belief that you are an adult.

So, as an adult with mental faculties, can you point out an intelligent thing or part of nature that you have seem and believe came by chance that should informed your decision that the things of the natural world around us came by chance?

Dont forget, that you said that rational thinking and extractions are and should be a function of experience.

See your words:

Kay 17: Truthlight and davidlyan

I was saying experience of a phenomenon is the sole criteria for knowing whether it was intelligently designed or naturally made.

So, state what informed your stance above.

Please do, we are waiting.

this are your words, i only wish you lived up to it:

Kay 17: Truthlight and davidlyan

I was saying experience of a phenomenon is the sole criteria for knowing whether it was intelligently designed or naturally made.

so, it means : "experience is the sole criteria for knowing things, according to you.

So, state that part of things in nature that are intelligent that came by chance that hence informed your decision based on experience that intelligent things in nature came by chance. QED.

Very simple question i think.

Kay 17:

If it so, praise is owed to Nature. Precision is likewise natural also. Or are we to presume precision is all intelligently made??

@Kay 17, I am really interested in knowing exactly where you draw the line between precision and chance and why constant repeated precision does not translate to intelligence for you. Basically, how do you personally infer intelligence?

truthislight:

I want to belief that you are an adult.

So, as an adult with mental faculties, can you point out an intelligent thing or part of nature that you have seem and believe came by chance that should informed your decision that the things of the natural world around us came by chance?

Dont forget, that you said that rational thinking and extractions are and should be a function of experience.

So, state what informed your stance above.

Please do, we are waiting.

As water boils by the dictates of physical laws, so also natural occurences. I never mentioned chance.

truthislight: this are your words, i only wish you lived up to it:



so, it means : "experience is the sole criteria for knowing things, according to you.

So, state that part of things in nature that are intelligent that came by chance that hence informed your decision based on experience that intelligent things in nature came by chance. QED.

Very simple question i think.

How is childbirth chance? How is plant growth chance? How is the watercycle chance? You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. You are asking questions miles away from my focus.

Our only issue is in determining what constitutes intelligent design.

I say "watch the cause, and if its intelligent hence intelligent design"

You say "we presume intelligent design by mathematical precisions"

Simple. No one is advertising chance here.

Mr_Anony:
@Kay 17, I am really interested in knowing exactly where you draw the line between precision and chance and why constant repeated precision does not translate to intelligence for you. Basically, how do you personally infer intelligence?

I see intelligence in twofolds, ability to understand and decipher one's enivornment (Universe's laws) and then making use of such laws towards our end.

I didn't say anything about chance.

Lol. Lol in 100 languages.

An may all atheist rise up an hail the grand master of atheism for answering the question on what natural intelligence occurring things in nature that to his experience occurs by chance that inform his decisions that nature should take the credit for things ocurring by chance?
And he says:

Kay 17:
As water boils by the dictates of physical laws, so also natural occurences.

lol.

The irrationalities of atheism in deed.

Cant west my time on such, let others help you if you will learn.
Peace

*edited*

@ truthlight.

You face a dilemma. Once you are accept natural ocurrences, you inevitably deny intelligent design. Because the intelligent designer ought to have designed such "natural occurences".

So you one way or the other, accept that what I believe to be Nature's handiwork, exhibits numerous forms of precision.

Kay 17: @ truthlight.

You face a dilemma. Once you are accept natural ocurrences, you inevitably deny intelligent design. Because the intelligent designer ought to have designed such "natural occurences".

So you one way or the other, accept that what I believe to be Nature's handiwork, exhibits numerous forms of precision.

obviously you are not science-oriented. Nature tends towards a state of entropy/chaos. To say that it organizes itself with such precision for absolutely no purpose whatsoever is to have blind faith in nature.

davidylan:

obviously you are not science-oriented. Nature tends towards a state of entropy/chaos. To say that it organizes itself with such precision for absolutely no purpose whatsoever is to have blind faith in nature.

Davidlyan, there lies an irony here; in your view the intelligent designer is the actual cause/creator for Nature, and therefore Nature must act intelligently and in exact precision. In your mind, there is actual no self regulating Nature.

Hence you have to agree with me that Nature expresses structural complexity and precision.

However you will try to persuade you that we should lean on our experience rather than overstretch an induction.

Kay 17:

Davidlyan, there lies an irony here; in your view the intelligent designer is the actual cause/creator for Nature, and therefore Nature must act intelligently and in exact precision. In your mind, there is actual no self regulating Nature.

Hence you have to agree with me that Nature expresses structural complexity and precision.

However you will try to persuade you that we should lean on our experience rather than overstretch an induction.

this is complete nonsense. For the life of me i couldnt understand the word salad above.

This is one of my post to show a few designs in nature that does not require a designer, but happens but happens by chance.

https://www.nairaland.com/915300/chance-intelligent-design-creation

How convenient!

I think theism (the Abrahamic version) is the most irrational state of mind a mind can descend to. In that state of mind everything is possible as long as it supports its idea of God, and every other thing is impossible if it contradicts its notion of God. If a natural phenomenon is not understood due to its chaotic and unpredictable manner it expresses itself, the theists would say it is evidence of God, and only God understand his creations. If the natural phenomenon is so well understood, that it can be explain in details and used to make things that add value to human life, the theists would say the intricate and perfect order of nature is still evidence that God is a perfect designer, and if one single known parameter of nature is not fine tuned, then we, our world or our universe could not exist. Then when the laws governing these same natural phenomena is purported to be broken(natural anarchy) with no known explanation, they still shout it is evidence of God being able to break his natural laws.

So in summery, we understand the complexities of nature - evidence of the Abrahamic God. We have no ideas (or they reject the scientific explanation) of the nature of the universe - still evidence of the Abrahamic God.

Can someone please help me define irrationalily.

wirinet:

Can someone please help me define irrationalily.

a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

The above 3 definitions seem to align more closely with atheism, which is the belief in nothing, or something , or manythings , none of which have any factual basis for consideration .

frosbel:

a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

The above 3 definitions seem to align more closely with atheism, which is the belief in nothing, or something , or manythings , none of which have any factual basis for consideration .

Where did you get those definitions? I ask because I'm pretty sure that atheism isn't the belief in nothing, something or manythings.

davidylan:

obviously you are not science-oriented. Nature tends towards a state of entropy/chaos. To say that it organizes itself with such precision for absolutely no purpose whatsoever is to have blind faith in nature.

Actually, the fact that universe as a whole tends towards higher entropy doesn't mean that in some small or localized systems, the tendency towards lower entropy in certain periods won't be available.

thehomer:

Where did you get those definitions? I ask because I'm pretty sure that atheism isn't the belief in nothing, something or manythings.

I have met atheists who confess under pressure to a belief in some intelligent being, others who out rightly deny such, and then some who hold both positions, finally, the majority who are unsure of either position and would rather just get on with it , choosing to live in ignorance than to explore precious truths.

thehomer:

Actually, the fact that universe as a whole tends towards higher entropy doesn't mean that in some small or localized systems, the tendency towards lower entropy in certain periods won't be available.

and you know this for a "fact" how?

wirinet: I think theism (the Abrahamic version) is the most irrational state of mind a mind can descend to. In that state of mind everything is possible as long as it supports its idea of God, and every other thing is impossible if it contradicts its notion of God. If a natural phenomenon is not understood due to its chaotic and unpredictable manner it expresses itself, the theists would say it is evidence of God, and only God understand his creations. If the natural phenomenon is so well understood, that it can be explain in details and used to make things that add value to human life, the theists would say the intricate and perfect order of nature is still evidence that God is a perfect designer, and if one single known parameter of nature is not fine tuned, then we, our world or our universe could not exist. Then when the laws governing these same natural phenomena is purported to be broken(natural anarchy) with no known explanation, they still shout it is evidence of God being able to break his natural laws.

So in summery, we understand the complexities of nature - evidence of the Abrahamic God. We have no ideas (or they reject the scientific explanation) of the nature of the universe - still evidence of the Abrahamic God.

Can someone please help me define irrationalily.

This is the best summary of religious irrationality i seen so far.
May I have your permission to borrow some or all of the phrases in the future?

plaetton:

This is the best summary of religious irrationality i seen so far.
May I have your permission to borrow some or all of the phrases in the future?

what don't you borrow, or haven't borrowed or do not intend to borrow in the near future.

Mate, it's high time you admit ignorance and start an honest search for the truth.

frosbel:

what don't you borrow, or haven't borrowed or do not intend to borrow in the near future.

Mate, it's high time you admit ignorance and start an honest search for the truth.

Ofcourse, I am ignorant.

A famous quote: "It is better to begin with uncertainty with aim of arriving at certainty than to begin with certainty and end up with uncertainty"

Religion beliefs begin with certainties and then end up with uncertainties. That is why you are here to do patch patch work on the uncertainties of your deeply held beliefs.
Its not my fault Frosbel.
Atheists are not the authors of your belief system.
So stop lashing out.

davidylan:

and you know this for a "fact" how?

We see this right here on earth. The poles of the earth form ice while the rest of the universe tends towards disorder at the larger scale.

At the end of the day, the religious theist sticks adamantly to his faith.