Uyi Iredia:

The same way there is power in the names of Einstein, Gandhi, Krishna etc.

no. There isnt power in any of those names. You know that as well as i do. You also know no one spoke like jesus

Chibuebem: no. There isnt power in any of those names. You know that as well as i do. You also know no one spoke like jesus

I was considering the fact they are share similarities in that they are very famous and well-respected.

Uyi Iredia:

I was considering the fact they are share similarities in that they are very famous and well-respected.

i was considering the fact that all claimed to be men, while Jesus claimed to be the son of God, had power to do miracles that science cant understand till today, rose from the grave. Why do some people fight against the truth? Or feel too big and proud for the knowledge of God through Jesus? I direct that question to you.. First they doubt him, then if their doubts are answered, they claim not to understand him, if that is resolved, they simply claim he doesnt exist because they misinterpret some physical event. Look at Jesus and his life, he was loving and kind. He went about righting the wrongs of mans mistake, spreading the true way of eternal salvation with power. understand his finished work on the cross, and his ressurection from the dead. Believe him. And go to a bible believing church. Answer my questions Mr Iredia.

Chibuebem: i was considering the fact that all claimed to be men, while Jesus claimed to be the son of God,

All men are sons of God and Jesus is not the only man to have claimed the position for himself.

Chibuebem: had power to do miracles that science cant understand till today, rose from the grave.

Every miracle must occur physically to be relevant. In that sense, I don't believe in miracles as such. Other men (even within the Bible like Elisha and in present times) have done (or been products of) miracles.

Chibuebem: Why do some people fight against the truth?

Either because they fear it, or because they think what is truth is a lie, or they need to be convinced.

Chibuebem: Or feel too big and proud for the knowledge of God through Jesus? I direct that question to you.

Because they believe the knowledge they have supercedes that of knowing God via Jesus, or they simply believe it is not for them.

Chibuebem: First they doubt him, then if their doubts are answered, they claim not to understand him, if that is resolved, they simply claim he doesnt exist because they misinterpret some physical event.

Agreed. The same is applicable to the attitude of some (if not most) to topics like say homo$exuality or atheism. In fact, it is applicable to believers of opposing philosophies in any human aspect.

Chibuebem: Look at Jesus and his life, he was loving and kind.

Okay. But. The challenge that His morality was flawed in that He supported eternal torture in hell is worth noting.

Chibuebem: He went about righting the wrongs of mans mistake, spreading the true way of eternal salvation with power.

Ah yes ! Preach Jesus as the only way. Easily forget that before and after him great people have preached a truth (religious or otherwise) from Socrates to Karl Marx, from Confucius to Thomas Huxley.

Chibuebem: understand his finished work on the cross, and his ressurection from the dead.

I understand the story but disagree with it, especially when I consider other events in the Bible.

Chibuebem: Believe him.

I can but won't_maybe for now, maybe never again_for reasons you, with due respect, won't comprehend.

Chibuebem: And go to a bible believing church.

Where people are conditioned to think everything necessary to a fulfilled destiny is found only in the Bible. As if, even in the Bible, men weren't fulfilling destiny without it; or as if there aren't men wholly opposed to the Bible who have found fulfilled destinies outside of it.

Chibuebem: Answer my questions Mr Iredia.

I have. Now please answer these 3 questions:

Can God do evil ?

A Christian philosopher once said "God is, but doesn't exist" what do you think that (apparently contradictory) statement means ?

Do you think Christianity is the only way to understand God ?

I await your replies.

Uyi Iredia:

All men are sons of God and Jesus is not the only man to have claimed the position for himself.



Every miracle must occur physically to be relevant. In that sense, I don't believe in miracles as such. Other men (even within the Bible like Elisha and in present times) have done (or been products of) miracles.



Either because they fear it, or because they think what is truth is a lie, or they need to be convinced.



Because they believe the knowledge they have supercedes that of knowing God via Jesus, or they simply believe it is not for them.



Agreed. The same is applicable to the attitude of some (if not most) to topics like say homo$exuality or atheism. In fact, it is applicable to believers of opposing philosophies in any human aspect.



Okay. But. The challenge that His morality was flawed in that He supported eternal torture in hell is worth noting.



Ah yes ! Preach Jesus as the only way. Easily forget that before and after him great people have preached a truth (religious or otherwise) from Socrates to Karl Marx, from Confucius to Thomas Huxley.



I understand the story but disagree with it, especially when I consider other events in the Bible.



I can but won't_maybe for now, maybe never again_for reasons you, with due respect, won't comprehend.



Where people are conditioned to think everything necessary to a fulfilled destiny is found only in the Bible. As if, even in the Bible, men weren't fulfilling destiny without it; or as if there aren't men wholly opposed to the Bible who have found fulfilled destinies outside of it.



I have. Now please answer these 3 questions:

Can God do evil ?

A Christian philosopher once said "God is, but doesn't exist" what do you think that (apparently contradictory) statement means ?

Do you think Christianity is the only way to understand God ?

I await your replies.

jesus didnt just claim to be a son of God, he claimed to be 'The son of God' the messiah, the saviour of the world. And he proved that by rising from the dead. He was more than a man. As for your questions, God doesnt have evil. The bible says he is good. But he is also just, and he can bring punishment or 'evil' on someone for the sin the person commits. But he's a loving and forgiving God. God exists. And john 14:6 answers your last question.

Chibuebem: no. There isnt power in any of those names. You know that as well as i do. You also know no one spoke like jesus

Actually, many are of the opinion that Jesus might have been greatly influenced by the teachings of Buddha while journeying to the east in his youth.

Chibuebem: i was considering the fact that all claimed to be men, while Jesus claimed to be the son of God, had power to do miracles that science cant understand till today, rose from the grave. Why do some people fight against the truth? Or feel too big and proud for the knowledge of God through Jesus? I direct that question to you.. First they doubt him, then if their doubts are answered, they claim not to understand him, if that is resolved, they simply claim he doesnt exist because they misinterpret some physical event. Look at Jesus and his life, he was loving and kind. He went about righting the wrongs of mans mistake, spreading the true way of eternal salvation with power. understand his finished work on the cross, and his ressurection from the dead. Believe him. And go to a bible believing church. Answer my questions Mr Iredia.

Yeah. science still can't understand how Nna mbe managed to outsmart all the other animals in the forest.

Chibuebem: jesus didnt just claim to be a son of God, he claimed to be 'The son of God' the messiah, the saviour of the world. And he proved that by rising from the dead. He was more than a man. As for your questions, God doesnt have evil. The bible says he is good. But he is also just, and he can bring punishment or 'evil' on someone for the sin the person commits. But he's a loving and forgiving God. God exists. And john 14:6 answers your last question.

I know a lot of people who claim to be the saviour of the world. Infact, I know a few that even claim to be god.
So what's new about that.
Wait a minute.
Jesus never made those claims personally. His followers made those claims.

And by the way, did you see him die and rise from the dead?

Nna mbe (the tortoise) once fell from the sky, had his shells broken into pieces. But miraculously, he glued them together and thats why we can still see the broken patched pieces even today.
For me since I can see evidence of nna mbe's miraculous survival, it seems more credible to me than the fable from the middle east.

Chibuebem: jesus didnt just claim to be a son of God, he claimed to be 'The son of God' the messiah, the saviour of the world. And he proved that by rising from the dead. He was more than a man. As for your questions, God doesnt have evil. The bible says he is good. But he is also just, and he can bring punishment or 'evil' on someone for the sin the person commits. But he's a loving and forgiving God. God exists. And john 14:6 answers your last question.

An atheist rose after being dead for three days. If you want to hear his testimony watch the YouTube video below. As for the questions:

• If God doesn't have evil where does it come from ? The answer that it is from man or devil fails because despite their free-will they are God's creations.
• I didn't ask whether God exists or not. I asked what you think "God is but doesn't exist" means.
• If Jesus is the only way, how did the old prophets and the likes of Ruth and the Jericho prostitute appreciate God, or even relate one-on-one with Him as Moses did ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb1N9WQd4KU

Uyi Iredia:

An atheist rose after being dead for three days. If you want to hear his testimony watch the YouTube video below. As for the questions:

• If God doesn't have evil where does it come from ? The answer that it is from man or devil fails because despite their free-will they are God's creations.
• I didn't ask whether God exists or not. I asked what you think "God is but doesn't exist" means.
• If Jesus is the only way, how did the old prophets and the likes of Ruth and the Jericho prostitute appreciate God, or even relate one-on-one with Him as Moses did ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb1N9WQd4KU

there is a difference between the old testament and the new testament. The old has been done away with a better covenant.

plaetton:

I know a lot of people who claim to be the saviour of the world. Infact, I know a few that even claim to be god.
So what's new about that.
Wait a minute.
Jesus never made those claims personally. His followers made those claims.

And by the way, did you see him die and rise from the dead?

Nna mbe (the tortoise) once fell from the sky, had his shells broken into pieces. But miraculously, he glued them together and thats why we can still see the broken patched pieces even today.
For me since I can see evidence of nna mbe's miraculous survival, it seems more credible to me than the fable from the middle east.

ok. Do u like arguing?

Chibuebem: there is a difference between the old testament and the new testament. The old has been done away with a better covenant.

So in other words, god has repented?

Better covenant means that the old covenant was defective or not good enough.
So , in other words, god erred with old covenant.
So much for a perfect all-knowing god who could know in advance that the old covenant was going to flop.

^^^ plaetton, you said you wanted to discuss. Could you please answer my questions, thanks.

Uyi Iredia: ^^^ Please answer the following questions. A simple yes or no will suffice and we will take it from there ?

Is it only a conscious and intelligent person that can intuit consciousness or unconsciousness ?

Is energy and its interactions conscious ?

Can consciousness arise from unconsciousness ?

I await your answers.

Sorry . I did not know that the questions were directed at me.

1st question: I dont really understand the question. Animals are conscious and are intelligent to varying degrees. I think that whatever is alive is conscious to some , even if very minute and undetectable degree.

2nd question: My answer is no, but consciousness is likely the result of energy interactions reaching a certain electromagnetic threshold.

3rd question: If everything is energy, then can configure itself to infinite levels of complexity and manifestation.
So the answer is yes, change is the only constant. Things change from one form to another, irrespective of what names we call them.

plaetton:

Sorry . I did not know that the questions were directed at me.

1st question: I dont really understand the question. Animals are conscious and are intelligent to varying degrees. I think that whatever is alive is conscious to some , even if very minute and undetectable degree.

2nd question: My answer is no, but consciousness is likely the result of energy interactions reaching a certain electromagnetic threshold.

3rd question: If everything is energy, then can configure itself to infinite levels of complexity and manifestation.
So the answer is yes, change is the only constant. Things change from one form to another, irrespective of what names we call them.

I will rephrase the first question. Do you have to be conscious and intelligent to know the concepts called 'consciousness' and 'unconsciousness' ? Please answer it.

You state that energy and its interactions isn't conscious till a certain threshold, please describe this threshold. I think consciousness and intelligence in certain living things is contingent on the brain.

You agree that consciousness can arise from unconsciousness because energy (which you take to be unconscious and unintelligent) is pushing towards more complexity that can be infinitely expressed. I will take this to be true for the purpose of argument. We will revert back to this statement. Now answer this question: What is energy ? I need to know what your conception of energy is since it is vital to your argument.

plaetton:

Sorry . I did not know that the questions were directed at me.

1st question: I dont really understand the question. Animals are conscious and are intelligent to varying degrees. I think that whatever is alive is conscious to some , even if very minute and undetectable degree.

2nd question: My answer is no, but consciousness is likely the result of energy interactions reaching a certain electromagnetic threshold.

3rd question: If everything is energy, then can configure itself to infinite levels of complexity and manifestation.
So the answer is yes, change is the only constant. Things change from one form to another, irrespective of what names we call them.

I will rephrase the first question. Do you have to be conscious and intelligent to know the concepts called 'consciousness' and 'unconsciousness' ? Please answer it.

You state that energy and its interactions isn't conscious till a certain threshold, please describe this threshold. I think consciousness and intelligence in certain living things is contingent on the brain.

You agree that consciousness can arise from unconsciousness because energy (which you take to be unconscious and unintelligent) is pushing towards more complexity that can be infinitely expressed. I will take this to be true for the purpose of argument. We will revert back to this statement. Now answer this question: What is energy ? I need to know what your conception of energy is since it is vital to your argument.

plaetton: [/b]

So in other words, god has repented?

Better covenant means that the old covenant was defective or not good enough.
So , in other words, god erred with old covenant.
So much for a perfect all-knowing god who could know in advance that the old covenant was going to flop.

read romans from chapter 3 till chapter 12 patiently. It answers all these questions. The law(old testament) was perfect. I cant explain it to you shaa. I pray you'll understand as you read. Dont feel too big to read it or postpone it. God didnt err with the covenant, just as he didnt err with the tree.

Why is it that most enlightened theists accept that the stars, galaxies, planets, etc. all evolved over time from star dust, but they bulk at the idea of biological life, especially conscious human life, also evolving from stardust?

Are there any evidence that human life and other biological life , no matter how complex, contains elements or minerals other than those contained within the very star dust of which stars, galaxies and planets are made ?

If stars and galaxies evolve, as Deepsight readily accepts, then what would make conscious biological life or the complex human brain an exception to the rules of universal evolution?

plaetton: Why is it that most enlightened theists accept that the stars, galaxies, planets, etc. all evolved over time from star dust, but they bulk at the idea of biological life, especially conscious human life, also evolving from stardust?

Are there any evidence that human life and other biological life , no matter how complex, contains elements or minerals other than those contained within the very star dust of which stars, galaxies and planets are made ?

If stars and galaxies evolve, as Deepsight readily accepts, then what would make conscious biological life or the complex human brain an exception to the rules of universal evolution?

It is not an exception. There is evolution in everything. It just cannot be the case without other factors. Ditto the universe.

Deep Sight:

It is not an exception. There is evolution in everything. It just cannot be the case without other factors. Ditto the universe.

But ofcourse, there are an infinite number of factors, known and unknown, involved in transformation from inorganic to organic, and from organic to protolife, and eventually to complex conscious life.
Do you accept that humans evolved from lesser species?

^^^ I still await your reply to my post above Deep Sight's.

Uyi Iredia:

I will rephrase the first question. Do you have to be conscious and intelligent to know the concepts called 'consciousness' and 'unconsciousness' ? Please answer it.

The answer to hat is quite obvious, isnt it?

Uyi Iredia:

You state that energy and its interactions isn't conscious till a certain threshold, please describe this threshold. I think consciousness and intelligence in certain living things is contingent on the brain.

I do not know what that threshold is. It is an electromagnetic frequency threshold.
Consider a developing foetus .

When it develops to a certain threshold, it's heart starts to beat.
When it reaches a certain developmental threshold, its brain (electrical)activity begins to register.
When that brain (electrical) activity reaches a certain mathematical electromagnetic threshold, it becomes conscious. Shortly after birth, again electrical activity in the brain reaches another critical threshold and the infant slowly becomes self-aware.

I have demonstrated that a single unicellular spermatozoa did not magically transform into a complex thinking being, but by a series of small incremental steps over time, in this case, just nine months.

Now consider the universe with a gestation period of 14 billion years and counting.

Uyi Iredia:

Now answer this question: What is energy ? I need to know what your conception of energy is since it is vital to your argument.

I am loath to offer a definition of energy as such would only be semantics. I have no doubt that you and I have the same conception of energy.

@Deepsight:

In response to your post on another thread:

Deep Sight:


Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with programmed logic.


First, I am glad you admit that evolution truly occurred. So we can now remove evolution from the realm of theory to fact, according to you.
Progress.

On the second statement, you seem to be under the false assumption that programmed logic of physical laws and chance event s are somehow mutually exclusive.
Not so my friend.
The theory of Evolution does not propose that one single chance event led to all the complexities that we find in nature.
Just imagine a quadrillion chance events occurring very nano-second over the past 14 or more billion years.

The programmed logic you are referring to in this case would be the immutable laws of physics, chemistry, biology, celestial mechanics , etc.
The random and chance motions of matter and energy must conduct it's activities according to the programmed logic of the laws of physics.

So, to correct your statement:

"Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing everything to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with random chance events and their reactions with programmed logic of the immutable laws of physics,chemistry, biology and Celestial mechanics".

Deep Sight:


You forget, ofcourse, that the creating being may not experience time in the way that we do. Even we do not experience time in the same way that other creatures right here on earth do, and so this only stands to reason. The creating being may experience your billions of years as a fraction of a second, especially as an eternal being.


Please ,if you cannot offer us a biography for this creative being, I suggest that Santa Clause would suffice, or better still, the almighty FSM.

Deep Sight:


No it is not, because evolution has no need or requirement for things like the capacity for philosophy, music, art and the varied aestheic appreciation which are key qualities of the human mind. If you think about it, you will find that there is no human being on earth who has ever lived his life on the presuppositions that you are making. Every human being from birth, has experienced life as a thinking, feeling being cognizant of a past and future, elements which are ALL recognized as immaterial realities. This is awfully personal, my friend, and you have only to pause for a second to recognize it.

Evolution has no impetus for consciousness, much less the sentient sapience that humans have.


You of all people still do not, or stubbornly refuse to see it for what it means.

Evolution is just changes that occurs over time. It does not set out to accomplish anything.
Rather, the accidental end products of evolution sometimes chart their courses.

As an analogy, if matter, in random flux, churns out some random numbers and letters, it could in a matter of time spew out the equation :

2x+ y =10+y

Now, the equation takes on a life of it's own by trying to balance itself.
It balances itself by finding a value for x and y.
The new values of x and y, when plotted in Cartesian coordinate, produces the image of a perfectly symmetrical leaf of a flower. Add colour, and viola, you have beauty.

So, in this hypothetical situation, random flux of numbers and letters gives us a quadratic equation that when solved and plotted, gives us a beautiful oval shape of a flower leaf. We see that evolution, the process of random flux, did not set out to create a flower, but a flower did indeed emerge as a result of the random chance events.

I just used this analogy to try show how evolution works.


Most importantly,
These are some false assumption of that people like you make about evolution.

1.You misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation

2.It is quite obvious that you,and the host of other anti-evolutionists seem to calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium , or a complex human organ such as the brain, by random events. This is not the idea.

3. You assume that there is a fixed number of random events, with fixed sequences for each event, that are required for the transformation of simple to very complex.
Wrong.

4. You calculate the probability of sequential chance events, rather than simultaneous chance events.

5. You greatly underestimate the number of particles or energy units, factors, co-factors and catalysts present in any given group of random sequential events.

By your incorrect use of statistical probability, you falsely arrive at the impression that the formation of even the smallest organ and organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

For example, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random. The chance events in this formation would be the availability of the raw materials.
So, again, we see that chance events and the programmed logic of the laws of biochemistry are not mutually exclusive.

The first "living things" would be much simpler than the simplest bacteria. Over time, these simple molecules would have slowly evolved into more co=operative self-replicating systems, finally into simple organisms , and ultimately into conscious self-aware and sentient beings.
(Modify) (Quote) (Report)

Intelligent Design Debunked[/size][size=8pt][size=8pt][/size]

The main thrust of the intelligent design theory is that biological systems, especially human organs are simply too symmetrical, to aesthetic, and much too complex to have been formed by any series of random events or changes over time, no matter how long.

I want to show below that a series of random events can indeed form a very symmetrical, very complex and very aesthetically pleasing forms that also combine form with function.

The snow flake is one such things that are formed purely from the agglomeration of chance conditions or events.

Below is description of how snowflakes are formed.

Have you ever looked at a snowflake and wondered how it formed or why it looks different from other snow you might have seen? Snowflakes are a particular form of water ice. Snowflakes form in clouds, which consist of water vapor. When the temperature is 32° F (0° C) or colder, water changes from its liquid form into ice. Several factors affect snowflake formation. Temperature, air currents, and humidity all influence shape and size. Dirt and dust particles can get mixed up in the water and affect crystal weight and durability. The dirt particles make the snowflake heavier, and can cause cracks and breaks in the crystal and make it easier to melt. Snowflake formation is a dynamic process. A snowflake may encounter many different environmental conditions, sometimes melting it, sometimes causing growth, always changing its structure.

What are common snowflake shapes?

Generally, six-sided hexagonal crystals are shaped in high clouds; needles or flat six-sided crystals are shaped in middle height clouds; and a wide variety of six-sided shapes are formed in low clouds. Colder temperatures produce snowflakes with sharper tips on the sides of the crystals and may lead to branching of the snowflake arms (dendrites). Snowflakes that grow under warmer conditions grow more slowly, resulting in smoother, less intricate shapes.


•32-25° F - Thin hexagonal plates
•25-21° F - Needles
•21-14° F - Hollow columns
•14-10° F - Sector plates (hexagons with indentations)
•10-3° F - Dendrites (lacy hexagonal shapes)

Why are snowflakes symmetrical (same on all sides)?

First, not all snowflakes are the same on all sides. Uneven temperatures, presence of dirt, and other factors may cause a snowflake to be lop-sided. Yet it is true that many snowflakes are symmetrical and intricate. This is because a snowflake's shape reflects the internal order of the water molecules. Water molecules in the solid state, such as in ice and snow, form weak bonds (called hydrogen bonds) with one another. These ordered arrangements result in the symmetrical, hexagonal shape of the snowflake. During crystallization, the water molecules align themselves to maximize attractive forces and minimize repulsive forces. Consequently, water molecules arrange themselves in predetermined spaces and in a specific arrangement. Water molecules simply arrange themselves to fit the spaces and maintain symmetry.

Is it true that no two snowflakes are identical?

Yes and no. No two snowflakes are exactly identical, down to the precise number of water molecules, spin of electrons, isotope abundance of hydrogen and oxygen, etc. On the other hand, it is possible for two snowflakes to look exactly alike and any given snowflake probably has had a good match at some point in history. Since so many factors affect the structure of a snowflake and since a snowflake's structure is constantly changing in response to environmental conditions, it is improbable that anyone would see two identical snowflakes.

If water and ice are clear, then why does snow look white?

The short answer is that snowflakes have so many light-reflecting surfaces they scatter the light into all of its colors, so snow appears white. The longer answer has to do with the way the human eye perceives color. Even though the light source might not be truly 'white' light (e.g., sunlight, fluorescent, and incandescent all have a particular color), the human brain compensates for a light source. Thus, even though sunlight is yellow and scattered light from snow is yellow, the brain sees snow as white because the whole picture received by the brain has a yellow tint that is automatically subtracted.

^^^
@ Deepsight and other ID apologists:

Now considering that something as symmetrical, mathematically precise, aesthetic, and complex as a snowflake takes less than a day to form by the simple flux of energy in the upper atmosphere, why would intelligent design apologists consider it impossible that much more complex systems can be equally formed by the same, and perhaps more intense flux of energy both within and outside the earth's surface over a period of 4.7 billion years?

What is also so interesting here is the fact no two snow flakes are ever a like , and that is for the simple reason that the factors that help in the formation of snowflakes are random and always in flux. They are not fixed.
They are purely random,
In the same way that no two human dna(except for identical twins), no two human fingerprints or iris are ever the same.

The reason?
Again because the micro factors that lead to the formation of all systems , living and non-living, are the same series of random chance events.

No god required.

Intelligent Design Debunked, part 2.

This demonstration shows that when sound (energy) enters a such as water, it affects the structure of that medium and causes it to behave or appear different from its previous static state.


http://www.zmonline.com/video/water-reacts-to-sound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uENITui5_jU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wvJAgrUBF4w#t=3s



In this next demonstration, we, again, see how the different frequencies of energy cause the formation of different beautiful, intricate, complex and mathematically precise geometrical shapes and patterns.

This is what happens in the universe at the atomic, cellular and celestial levels.
Different vibrational frequencies produce different shapes, patterns and degrees of complexity.

Echoing Nicoki Tesla,
" If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibrations".

Galaxies, stars, planets, organic and inorganic matter, life, consciousness, self-awareness. These are all different frequencies of energy.
The Earth has it's own unique frequency.
Life itself is a unique frequency.
Every biological life has it's own unique frequency.
Consciousness is a unique frequency within biological life.
Self-awareness is a unique frequency within conscious biological life.

The universe is analogous to a radio set.
Tune in to a particular frequency and you get a particular station with their own news, music and shows quite different from other stations operating on other frequencies.

Intelligent design anyone?.
The universe is doing all the designing all by itself.
And it has been doing fine so far, thanks.
No god required.

Nothing you wrote up there addresses the most fundamental conundrum of all: why something instead of nothing?

Anyhow, I am in the mood now. I will address the core question of this thread shortly.

I have tried to adumbrate the argument against the idea that Evolution accounts for consciousness; particularly sapient and knowing consciousness of the human kind.

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Perhaps I may expand on each of the points in further posts: However, I leave them in all their bare simplicity below for you and others to reflect closely on.

These are the fundamental pillars of reasoning whereat I say that current scientific thinking, from the Big Bang through to evolution, cannot, and does not account for consciousness as we know it.

The reasons are reduced to these very simple posers:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on The Theory of Evolution:

1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often argued that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. If that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the origin of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

2. Since the Theory of Evolution does not explain first life, it is and remains inchoate as far as explaining our existence is concerned: for it leaves a huge gap in the overall story: to wit: the origin of life.

3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

4. Assuming again, that notwithstanding the foregoing, multicellular organisms came to exist by some improbable evolutionary quirk. There remains the question of how such organisms would develop towards consciousness - with attributes such as sight, hearing, smelling, taste, and the like. Not to speak of thought.

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment, and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer. This leads us to see that we are beings: and not simply the agglomeration of physical parts: for which evolution would have had no need or impetus in the first place.

Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

7. Organs such as the eye and the brain will eternally befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever. The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists. It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

11. Evolution cannot account for the many pre programmed faculties we take for granted in our lives. It cannot account for how babies of mammals know to seek a b.reast and derive milk therein - as soon as they emerge from the womb into a world they have never known before. It does not account for how baby turtles know to head for the sea as soon as they break from their eggs. It does not account for how or why the body does not just keep growing throughout life, but stops at an age. These are pre set programs amongst billions of pre set programs obvious in life which are undeniable and which evolution alone can never account for.

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.

Here is a thought: if life was a result of energetic interactions with matter then won't it be possible for the mind to manipulate energy to produce 'miracles'?