thehomer:

But you do consist of matter unless of course you're not human.

Maybe you consist of matter, I do not. I am a spirit being within a material cloak.

Dead matter? Is the moon alive or dead? Last time I checked, it consisted of matter. No I don't say that because there are certain conditions required.

STOP RUNNING. DONT BE A COWARD. IT IS IN FACT YOUR RPOSITION, IS IT NOT, THAT DEAD MATTER, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, CONTRIVED TO FORM HUMAN BEINGS, NO?

Can a corpse appreciate great wine?

You'll be surprised.

Meh. A universe is still very different from a house.

O, infinitely greater and more magnificent, yes of course.

Deep Sight: Don't worry, with time, this could become a human being - Thehomer

By Spontaneous generation in a primordial soup, and subsequently by natural selection, no help needed.

Excellent. I know sticking to attacking strawmen is easier but it still doesn't mean you've actually addressed my argument.

striktlymi:


Enjoy your thread o! I don comot! This ya plan to take this thread to the 15th page shall not work.

Thanks. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

thehomer:

Huh? How you make these leaps, I will never know.

That is your position and you CANNOT resile from it: namely that bare and dead matter somehow, with the passage of time, contrived Human Beings.

If they can do their work without introducing your God, then your God is not necessary for them to do their work.

Dont make me laugh. "Necessary' as you surely know, has nothing to do with their ability to do their work. Don't be a toad. It has to do with the inescapable necessity of God in logic about the origin of existence.

thehomer:

Excellent. I know sticking to attacking strawmen is easier but it still doesn't mean you've actually addressed my argument.

That is your argument: do not run away from it. You say that matter did contrive human beings over time unaided by any intelligence, no?

Deep Sight:

Maybe you consist of matter, I do not. I am a spirit being within a material cloak.

You don't consist of matter? That's interesting.

Deep Sight:
STOP RUNNING. DONT BE A COWARD. IT IS IN FACT YOUR RPOSITION, IS IT NOT, THAT DEAD MATTER, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, CONTRIVED TO FORM HUMAN BEINGS, NO?

Not just time.

Deep Sight:
You'll be surprised.

Hmm I would be indeed. Maybe you can get the corpse a bit part in a movie.

Deep Sight:
O, infinitely greater and more magnificent, yes of course.

Then your comparison is inappropriate.

thehomer:

Thanks. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

What heat? The heat where you make completely unsound premises such as a God who cannot be detected and yet is detected in its works by millions of humans? That you dont share their opinion does not mean you have shown that they have not detected God in its works about them.

Secondly, as an alternative, you them offer the farcical and absurd doctrine of dead matter contriving human beings, given enough time.

Abegi!

thehomer:

You don't consist of matter? That's interesting.

Of course not. Most integral to what I am are my thoughts. Thoughts are not matter, are they now?

Not just time.

Waxing taciturn are we now? What else is required. Is everything that exists not physical, according to you? So matter it is, whichever way you spin it. You see, you suddenly see how sil.ly it appears to advance such a position!

Hmm I would be indeed. Maybe you can get the corpse a bit part in a movie.

O, send your address, i will be glad to help.

Then your comparison is inappropriate.

On the contrary, it is most appropriate; for if you will not accept that houses could "just exist", then the greater, grander, more complex, more amazing universe, containing greater intricacy and oddities such as you, logically is far less likely to "just exist."

thehomer: The single deity of various monotheistic religions.

Lol, monotheistic religions define God as the creator of the cosmos.

No I did not concede that. What I said was that if the universe had been any other way, you would have made the same statement. It does not mean that the universe actually could have been any other way.

Lol, listen to yourself. Then why bring up the "if" when you don't think the universe can possibly be any other way?

No I do not agree with that claim either.
e.g If I could fly, I would fly to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Does this mean that I believe I can fly?

But it means that you have invoked a possible world where you can fly in other to make your argument. Basically you have said that your lack of ability to fly is not an impossibility only that in your current form of existence you cannot fly.

No I made no such concession. So the sun was created? So were hydrogen and the ocean? Again, explains everything, explains nothing. Water is not wet by definition. Water can be H₂O by definition, a chemical by definition but not wet by definition. Wetness is one of its properties. Just as it is also a property of kerosene. I don't see how you can talk about a computer computing without having some notion of how it actually is.

Lol, my point has already been made. By conceding that "everything" could possibly exist in a different form, you have granted that "everything" does not exist by necessity and hence is contingent on a necessary something

The moon began to exist and it orbits round the earth but it wasn't created by anyone.

Yeah it began to exist and orbits around the earth because of initial conditions and physical laws that allow it to do so. In fact we can accurately mathematically predict it's birth existence and death by imputing a set of specific mathematical constants in our equations. These set of specific constants ensure that the moon fits into the order of the universe. We could just as easily have a universe where this numbers could be different and then we'll have a different particle behaving very diferently or even no particle at all. Not only the moon but the whole universe follows this same mathematical order.
Now tell me exactly how you know that the moon wasn't created and why it has to follow this specific order and not another?

Would you like an article? Because that is specific enough to make my point.

Yeah let's have it.

@thehomer:

To make it easier for me to understand you: Can you tell the difference between the work of an intelligent agent and the effect of a non-intelligent agent? i.e can you tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not designed? If you can, then please tell me how you differentiate between design and non-design by observation.

Although I'm not in the "chance responsible for the Universe" gang, but what dismisses Chance as responsible for the intricate complexity is the fact that the idea of Chance is too simplistic to conceiand pre-determine the Universe.

A more complex mind on the other hand, can grasp and conceive the mysteries and grandiose design of the Universe, just as an engineer's trained conceptual mind would.

The problem is God seems simpler than Chance.

Kay 17: Although I'm not in the "chance responsible for the Universe" gang, but what dismisses Chance as responsible for the intricate complexity is the fact that the idea of Chance is too simplistic to conceiand pre-determine the Universe.

A more complex mind on the other hand, can grasp and conceive the mysteries and grandiose design of the Universe, just as an engineer's trained conceptual mind would.

The problem is God seems simpler than Chance.

Interesting. How so?

.....and by the way what do you define God as?

^^
A mind?

All this take about consciousness as if it were something magical. Is software SPIRIT?

Kay 17: ^^
A mind?

Hmm, how does a mind seem simpler than chance in this scenario?

That's what most theists say. Deepsight especially has claimed God the simplest entity, such that he is an accumulation of parts and causes.

However complexity prima facie indicates causation.

thehomer:
This is of course a text book case of the bandwagon fallacy. Millions claiming to detect God or to hear him doesn't make it true. For all we know, those claiming to hear him may have some psychological problems while others claim to detect him because he got them a parking space near the supermarket entrance. If they can actually hear God, then God is interacting with the universe in some way.

Precisely the kind of bandwagon fallacy used by evolutionists.

thehomer: The universe is a very different beast from a house. It is like comparing an apple to a pod of whales.

The similarities are what is his focus. That they can be decribed using physical laws. That they contain interacting parts. That they are made up of matter and can exhibit energy.

Mr anony:
Lol, monotheistic religions define God as the creator of the cosmos.

No they don't "define" it that way, they say he did it.

Mr anony:
Lol, listen to yourself. Then why bring up the "if" when you don't think the universe can possibly be any other way?

To show you that you would say the very same thing.

Mr anony:
But it means that you have invoked a possible world where you can fly in other to make your argument. Basically you have said that your lack of ability to fly is not an impossibility only that in your current form of existence you cannot fly.

Is there any other form of existence?

Mr anony:
Lol, my point has already been made. By conceding that "everything" could possibly exist in a different form, you have granted that "everything" does not exist by necessity and hence is contingent on a necessary something

But I never made such a concession.

Mr anony:
Yeah it began to exist and orbits around the earth because of initial conditions and physical laws that allow it to do so. In fact we can accurately mathematically predict it's birth existence and death by imputing a set of specific mathematical constants in our equations. These set of specific constants ensure that the moon fits into the order of the universe. We could just as easily have a universe where this numbers could be different and then we'll have a different particle behaving very diferently or even no particle at all. Not only the moon but the whole universe follows this same mathematical order.
Now tell me exactly how you know that the moon wasn't created and why it has to follow this specific order and not another?

You never said who created the moon. The moon wasn't created by anyone because there was no one here to create it. It has to follow the physical laws of the universe because it is the type of thing that does.

Mr anony:
Yeah let's have it.

Here you go. Pay attention to the applications.

Mr anony: @thehomer:

To make it easier for me to understand you: Can you tell the difference between the work of an intelligent agent and the effect of a non-intelligent agent? i.e can you tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not designed? If you can, then please tell me how you differentiate between design and non-design by observation.

Generally, how we tell the difference is that works of intelligent agents are tools that are used to achieve a certain end while works of unintelligent agents don't have such ends. And these tools are often assembled in a way that is unlikely to occur by chance.

Now can you answer your own questions?

Uyi Iredia:

Precisely the kind of bandwagon fallacy used by evolutionists.

And he's back just hurling fallacies left and right. I've told you time and again to actually demonstrate the fallacy rather than throwing out a name.

Uyi Iredia:
The similarities are what is his focus. That they can be decribed using physical laws. That they contain interacting parts. That they are made up of matter and can exhibit energy.

It looks like you don't know how to carry out relevant comparisons. By that reasoning, an apple like the Eiffel Tower can be described using physical laws, contain interacting parts and are made up of matter. Therefore we're being reasonable when comparing them in a discussion of which one of them is sweeter.

thehomer:
The Christian God since you're a Christian.

Okay.

thehomer:
Well I reject your definition because I see no reason to think the universe was created.

Then don't advance the notion that God is an ambiguous concept. Here's a clear definition which you reject.

thehomer:
This of course depends on what you mean by "begins to exist" and "cause".

I wonder what else he meant.

thehomer:
And with this, you show that you don't understand the argument. Saying "everything proves God" is saying nothing about God. Since we sometimes observe tsunamis and sometimes don't, does it mean God both wants tsunamis and doesn't want them?

Just like 'everything proves evolution' says nothing about evolution.

thehomer:

And he's back just hurling fallacies left and right. I've told you time and again to actually demonstrate the fallacy rather than throwing out a name.

The way you threw out a name. Now are you open to correction. I know you for being stubborn.

thehomer: It looks like you don't know how to carry out relevant comparisons. By that reasoning, an apple like the Eiffel Tower can be described using physical laws, contain interacting parts and are made up of matter. Therefore we're being reasonable when comparing them in a discussion of which one of them is sweeter.

And that comparison can be made. Take a part of the Eiffel tower, stick it in your mouth and report back to me.

Let's say thehomer argument is true. How do we account for the universe and life on earth.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay.



Then don't advance the notion that God is an ambiguous concept. Here's a clear definition which you reject.

I know. I rejected it.

Uyi Iredia:
I wonder what else he meant.

"Begins to exist" can mean beginning to exist from pre-existing "stuff". Cause can mean being preceded by time.

Uyi Iredia:
Just like 'everything proves evolution' says nothing about evolution.

But no one actually says that.

Uyi Iredia:

The way you threw out a name. Now are you open to correction. I know you for being stubborn.

Can you show me where I pointed out a named fallacy without explaining why it was fallacious?

Uyi Iredia:
And that comparison can be made. Take a part of the Eiffel tower, stick it in your mouth and report back to me.

And with this, it is clear that you're either unserious or you don't know how to have a reasonable conversation.

thehomer:
I know. I rejected it.

I know. Just don't say the term God is ambiguous. It isn't in this context.

thehomer: "Begins to exist" can mean beginning to exist from pre-existing "stuff". Cause can mean being preceded by time.

And what else can 'begins to exist' mean ? Cause is a condition necessary for another to take place. Your definition is flawed because time isn't an object and can't precede itself.

thehomer: But no one actually says that.

That is strongly suggested. I believe the phrase 'massive evidence for evolution' is known to you.

thehomer:
Can you show me where I pointed out a named fallacy without explaining why it was fallacious?

In the OP I replied. I coukd be wrong, of course, but you'll have to show how.

thehomer: And with this, it is clear that you're either unserious or you don't know how to have a reasonable conversation.

What is clear is that you are dull and need to nderstand the concept of taste (see Wikipedia) to see that my point was valid.

Kay 17: ^^
A mind?

How do you define chance ? Why is it simpler than a mind ?

thehomer:
No they don't "define" it that way, they say he did it.



To show you that you would say the very same thing.



Is there any other form of existence?



But I never made such a concession.



You never said who created the moon. The moon wasn't created by anyone because there was no one here to create it. It has to follow the physical laws of the universe because it is the type of thing that does.

This is just you beating about the bush and you know it. You have already conceded that the laws defining how the universe behaves do not exist necessarily. You wouldn't have made the contention "if the universe had been any other way" if you thought the universe existed necessarily. Not only that, you have also conceded that the universe began to exist at some point.

Now let me ask you again and this time pointblank. [size=13pt]Does the universe exist necessarily in it's current form and function? Yes or no.[/size]

And just so you don't misunderstand me, by "form" I mean - the way it appears, and by "function" I mean - the way it behaves

Be very careful how you answer this question. Let me tell you the implications: If you say yes, then you would be saying that the idea of a multiverse is a logically incoherent idea. If you say no, then you would be saying that the universe must ultimately be contingent on something that exists necessarily. Your call

Here you go. Pay attention to the applications.

I have read it and I think you have missed my point but just to be sure I got what you were talking about, by "chaos" you mean something like this?

The movement of a double pendulum.

thehomer:

Generally, how we tell the difference is that works of intelligent agents are tools that are used to achieve a certain end while works of unintelligent agents don't have such ends. And these tools are often assembled in a way that is unlikely to occur by chance.

Now can you answer your own questions?

I think I can almost get what you are saying but seeing as you have the remarkable ability of being deliberately vague, I'll push you to clarify further. As per the bold. Must you know precisely what the end to be achieved is in order to know if it is a design or not?

I have already answered the same question here (fourth paragraph).

Uyi Iredia:

How do you define chance ? Why is it simpler than a mind ?

Because by the mere fact that a mind can direct, imagine and conceptualize.

Kay 17:

Because by the mere fact that a mind can direct, imagine and conceptualize.

You defined attributes of mind. I asked for the definition of chance and why it was simpler than mind.