Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,202 members, 7,953,742 topics. Date: Friday, 20 September 2024 at 02:35 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. (8439 Views)
Catholicism Doctrines And Its Biblical Root(debunking An Argument) / The Pink Unicorn Argument Against Religion / 10 Reasons Why Any Reasonable Man Has To Submit To God Today (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by Mranony: 6:40am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Kay 17: @anonyI don't know where you are heading with this. I have already explained to you that the mind is not the same kind of thing as a car or a swiss army knife. It is not intricate/complex in the same way a car is intricate/complex. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Besides you still haven't told us how this intricate mind is simpler than chance. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 8:33am On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer: You mean the idiocy that characterizes you, not to mention the bold lies, because anyone who reads through our short discussion will find I referred you to the OP as an example requested. But laziness typically being the distinguishing features of demented goats such as yourself, all you do is ignore the question and focus on trivialities. Your constant evasion of points raised has been noted. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by chukkynwob(m): 8:39am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Uyi please can we keep the conversation civil? |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 8:45am On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer: The whining exemplified by old hags and lazy bums. I raise points. That you objectify time. I said how your definition of cause is flawed with reasons. I suggested you read an article on taste so you know the Eiffel tower can be tasted. You ignore them. But then ! Ignorance is the hallmark of fools. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 8:47am On Jun 06, 2013 |
chukkynwob: I respond in kind to comments. I wouldn't give outright insults unless I'm provoked or insulted. I think you should talK to thehomer as well and ask him why he replies my POINTS with insults. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 8:59am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Kay 17: Sorry for breaking up my argument, I thought the qualities of the mind only will convince one of its higher complexity than Chance. The possibility (or likelihood) is not an attribute of the event itself. It is an attribute humans ascribe to the event just like time and location. Chance, time, location are concepts used by humans to describe the event. Without humans and/or their pre-requisite intelligence such concepts won't matter - they won't exist. What I can agree with is that there is an event. 1 Like |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by thehomer: 9:42am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: You just keep resurrecting it. Mr anony: Then let me show you again. What you're describing is for instance a universe where the speed of light rather than being a constant at say 3E6m/s, you're thinking of one where it may be 1 m/s then becomes 200m/s then becomes 0.2m/s then 7E9m/s. My question to you is whether or not such a phenomenon is actually possible. Mr anony: No I don't because I presented you with what I meant by chaos. You on the other hand were talking about something else. You're saying we don't observe chaos but the article I showed you to said otherwise. Note once more that I'm talking about physical possibilities not logical possibilities. Mr anony: What on earth are you talking about? You're the one talking about some necessary existence and claiming that I made some concession but for some reason, you've been unable to show me making these mysterious concessions. Mr anony: If what I'm saying is wrong, then you have to actually show me that I'm wrong. Mr anony: That is not a misrepresentation. That is the implication of what you said. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by thehomer: 9:58am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: No I don't agree because I DNA is not unlikely to occur by chance. Note that DNA is a molecule that can be represented as a code. Secondly, even if I agreed that DNA was designed, it still doesn't get you to God since there could be other designers like extra terrestrials and fairies. Mr anony: Pay attention to what you're doing. You're saying everything in the universe has: it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed. But what you're hiding is the fact that the entire phrase in bold is what you mean by design so you've successfully begged the question of design. Unless of course you think that that phrase in bold could be true but it still won't be designed. What I'm pointing out to you is that you're saying everything in the universe was designed by God and with that, you've explained nothing by explaining everything. What I'm trying to do is to understand using examples, what you mean by inferring design. You can still help if you could tell me whether or not the following objects are designed. Viruses, neutron stars, crickets, sand, melon, water, electron, vacuum, amoeba. Note that you've not actually demonstrated your claim that I made the fallacy of composition but you on the other hand are saying that God did it all except when I point out to you what humans actually did. Edited for clarity. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by Mranony: 10:20am On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer:Of course it is possible. Do other particles not change speed? What is so special about a photon? Once again this proves that the speed of light does not exist by necessity. A universe where the speed of light varies is very logically possible. No I don't because I presented you with what I meant by chaos. You on the other hand were talking about something else. You're saying we don't observe chaos but the article I showed you to said otherwise. Note once more that I'm talking about physical possibilities not logical possibilities.But I have also shown you that what you mean by chaos is not truly chaos but can be predicted accurately as long as it is measured accurately. What on earth are you talking about? You're the one talking about some necessary existence and claiming that I made some concession but for some reason, you've been unable to show me making these mysterious concessions.Lol, never mind, you have already said that you don't know. Just don't get any bursts of memory soon. If what I'm saying is wrong, then you have to actually show me that I'm wrong.Lol, this is just too funny. Let me remind you what I asked you: I asked you if the universe exists necessarily and I gave you this warning "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" You read it all and then replied that you didn't know if the universe existed necessarily. At that point, you knew fully well what it means to exist necessarily you knew that to say a thing exists necessarily is to say that it is logically impossible to exist any way else. By claiming that you don't know, you have excused yourself from making the contention "if the universe were different" because that will mean that you KNOW that the universe does not exist and function necessarily. I pointed that out to you. Claiming ignorance is not a shield here sir. If you don't know, then you can't contend because contention requires that you know. That is not a misrepresentation. That is the implication of what you said.no it is not. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by OLAADEGBU(m): 10:22am On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer: What exactly is your point? |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by Mranony: 10:53am On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer:Lol, interesting, first of all I'd like to know where you draw the line for things likely resulting from chance and things that are unlikely to result from chance otherwise what you've just said is pretty vague I can as well say that a computer software is not unlikely to occur by chance. You have really said nothing here. I am especially interested in where you draw the chance line between dna code of for instance a banana and a computer code like nairaland. Secondly, a computer program is a software that can be represented by code. and by the way, we can engineer genes by tweaking the DNA code same as software programs by tweaking the code. Thirdly, the question is not who designed DNA but whether DNA is designed according to your criteria. If you think there are extraterrestrial design teams floating about, feel free to give evidence for them later. For now tell us whether you think the DNA code is designed. The part I highlighted there is your strawman. I said "the universe has constituent parts....." not "everything in the universe has....". I am focussing on the universe as a specific entity and applying my criteria for inferring design to it. But what you're hiding is the fact that the entire phrase in bold is what you mean by design so you've successfully begged the question of design. Unless of course you think that that phrase in bold could be true but it still won't be designed.This is the problem with your strawman not my argument What I'm trying to do is to understand using examples, what you mean by inferring design. You can still help if you could tell me whether or not the following objects are designed.I have a feeling that this is a red herring but I'll answer you either way. I will only use this response to explain what I mean. I will not be drawn on a tangent following from this viruses - i don't know enough about them to make a call neutron stars - i don't know enough about them to make a call crickets (by which I suppose you mean the insect) - yes, they consist of constituent parts arranged in such a way that they work according to a specific pattern that can be recognized analyzed and predicted. sand - i don't know enough about them to make a call melon - yes for the same reasons given for crickets water - not necessarily designed electron - not necessarily designed vacuum (if by vaccum you mean nothing)- not designed amoeba - yes Note that you've not actually demonstrated your claim that I made the fallacy of composition but you on the other hand are saying that God did it all except when I point out to you what humans actually did.I accused you of that fallacy because I thought you actually got my argument. I am now convinced you did not. You were arguing a strawman all along |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by Kay17: 11:05am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: I didn't insist the mind was of the same complex material as a car or swiss army knife, rather on complexity simpliciter. The idea of jurisprudence is complex but not of the same complex material as matter. Also I have stressed and described on the complexity of the mind many times already! Besides you admitted to the complexity via function/behaviour, then you turn around acting puzzled about complexity of d mind |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by thehomer: 11:49am On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: Once again, you're answering a question I did not ask. I asked if it was physically possible. Mr anony: That is directly contradictory to what is in the article. Wikipedia: Mr anony: Once again, you run from demonstrating your own claim that should be easy. Mr anony: This still stems from your failure to understand the entire realms of the possibilities. Let me make it even more explicit. Here are the only two possibilities. 1. The universe necessarily exists the way it does. 2. The universe does not necessarily exist the way it does. My point is if (1) your response is: God did it that way. If (2) your response is: God did it that way. So in your attempt to explain it all, you explain nothing at all. Mr anony: Then show that it doesn't follow. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by mazaje(m): 12:04pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: How can you say you don't know what it was designed for , yet still claim it was designed?. . .A car is desiged for driving. . .What is the universe designed for?. . . How does the universe behave? It acts in accordance to physical laws of nature e.g the law of gravity That does not mean it was designed, it just means it acts in certain ways. . .Chance can also make it act in such ways. . . Try specific patterns of motion such that we can calculate and predict these movements, collisions and explosions. It only means that the universe acts in a particular way. . . I never said anything about the universe functioning as a human society That is what your entire premise is, re-read what you have written. . .If we are to go with your claims, we can as well say that the universe has designers. . . |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by thehomer: 12:11pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: The line is a statistical one but what you need to realize of course is that however unlikely computer software might be, it is still less likely without the initial presence of sapient beings therefore, the presence of sapient beings is more likely than the presence of computer software. Mr anony: Wrong. A computer program is code. Tweaking the DNA code is a short way of saying you're moving around specific molecules. Mr anony: Actually, the question of who is very much in play because your aim with this line of inquiry is to present DNA as being evidence for God. Mr anony: This is why you should have read the entire sentence before randomly picking out something and calling it a strawman. What you did was to edit out the rest of your own quote and you called it a strawman. Really. The words following the semicolon that are in bold are in fact your very own words. Mr anony: I quoted your own argument and you're calling part of it a strawman? Mr anony: It is not a red-herring and what you've just demonstrated is that you're partly making an argument from ignorance and contradicting yourself. Let me explain as usual. You don't know whether or not some of those objects were designed. If you don't know that, then you cannot actually say (what follows is a direct quote from you on own method of inferring design not a strawman): it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed. You also said some of those objects weren't designed. If they weren't designed, but you're willing to attribute the moon to your God's design, how did they come about? Mr anony: I really find it difficult to understand why you guys just chuck out the name of a fallacy and think it settles everything. That isn't how to have a serious discussion. Please can you actually show me how I committed this fallacy? If you had tried to do that and read my post in its entirety, you'll have realized that it wasn't a strawman. Unless of course you failed to recognize your own ideas being quoted back to you verbatim. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by mazaje(m): 12:21pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
davidylan: Since emotions do not interact with the universe in a detectable manner, i therefore declare it non-existent. Here is the problem, god as defined by christianty is supposed to be detectable. . .He is said to always interact with humans and wants to be in a relationship with the. . .Even the bible talks about signs that will follow believers so that unelievers will see and believe. . .The bible does NOT talk about an undetactable god any where. . .it talks about a god that is actively engaged with humans. . .Not the hidden god christians apologist are now constantly selling. . . .That is not the god advertised in the bible. . . |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by Mranony: 12:25pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer: Once again, you're answering a question I did not ask. I asked if it was physically possible.I remember pointing out to you that particles change speed all the time and asking you why you seem to be convinced that a photon can't. That is directly contradictory to what is in the article.This is also from the article: Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.This tells me that the key issue here is precision which is basically what I said. Once again, you run from demonstrating your own claim that should be easy.i don't see the need since you have now claimed ignorance. This still stems from your failure to understand the entire realms of the possibilities.Lol, no that is not what I am arguing at all. What I'm arguing is that If (1) the universe necessarily exists the way it does then there is no need to say that God did it that way. If (2) the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does, then it can be said that God did it that way. Then show that it doesn't follow.I'll give you rough analogy. Let us say that Seun wrote the entire code that defines Nairaland. The constituent parts of Nairaland you see result from that code. The comments we type can be seen as our own creations made by re-assembling parts of an already created Nairaland. Your argument against the moon is like saying Seun created Nairaland but didn't create the "Submit" icon. To make this argument you must show that another mind created the submit button and that it doesn't follow from the code. The same can be applied to the universe and it's physical laws resulting in all of it's space, time and matter. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by Mranony: 12:45pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer:interesting, I can also say that however unlikely a DNA code is, it is still less likely without the initial presence of an intelligent being and therefore the presence of an intelligent being is more likely than the presences of the DNA code. Notice that you have not told us anything about why one code is more likely or less likely than the other Wrong. A computer program is code. Tweaking the DNA code is a short way of saying you're moving around specific molecules.Constituent parts all assembled and working according to a set of specific pattern such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function. Or to use your criteria: parts assembled so that it works in such a way that it achieves a certain end btw: I can also say tweaking a computer code is merely changing a bunch of alphabets and numbers it doesn't change anything about the software being designed Actually, the question of who is very much in play because your aim with this line of inquiry is to present DNA as being evidence for God.The question to you is do you think it was designed? You are not under any obligation to say who This is why you should have read the entire sentence before randomly picking out something and calling it a strawman. What you did was to edit out the rest of your own quote and you called it a strawman. Really. The words following the semicolon that are in bold are in fact your very own words.Read again exactly what I highlighted and what I said about what it It is not a red-herring and what you've just demonstrated is that you're partly making an argument from ignorance and contradicting yourself. Let me explain as usual.I remember specifically saying that I didn't know enough about them to say if they were designed or not i.e. I don't know their constituent parts and how they work properly enough to make the call. If you gave me more information about them, then I'll be in a better position to tell you if they are designed or not. There is no contradiction there ....and yes a vacuum is not designed neither is it an object. It is nothing. I really find it difficult to understand why you guys just chuck out the name of a fallacy and think it settles everything. That isn't how to have a serious discussion. Please can you actually show me how I committed this fallacy? If you had tried to do that and read my post in its entirety, you'll have realized that it wasn't a strawman. Unless of course you failed to recognize your own ideas being quoted back to you verbatim.Go back and read it again. Pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 2:13pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Mr anony: Allow me to answer. I think they are not necessary. For example, there's nothing to prevent hydrogen and oxygen mixing to become salt, or the atom just being a static neutron. We can think of these. Furthermore, why are these phenomena consistent ? I therefore suppose that an intelligence arbitrated these properties. How ? I don't know. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 2:29pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
thehomer: 1. God either exists or he doesn't exist. The argument is okay. The weakness is in 3. Things which can be presumed to exist may not be detectable. A very good example of this is in atoms. Millenia before the atom was detected philosophers such as Democritus proposed its existence. Planets such as Pluto have presumed before being detected. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 2:32pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
jayriginal: A non detectable god is for all intents and purposes a non existent god. Hence, dark endrgy, dark matter and multiverses are non-existent since they aren't detectable. Unrecorded past events also don't exist since they aren't detectable. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by mazaje(m): 2:36pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: God as presented by religions like christianity is supposed to be detectable by definition, because he intereacts in the world all of the time..... |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by DeepSight(m): 2:46pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
It is a waste of time discussing with people who do not know what they are. People who thnk that they were assembled by dead stones, purposelessly. A man could not be more dead than one who has such a belief. When I used the word 'corpse', it probably for this same reason was entirely lost on thehomer. I will chat about this one last time. In Plaetton's thread on consciousness, or in a new thread. When I am done, I will NEVER discuss this ediocy again. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 2:48pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
mazaje: Agreed. My point still stands. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by mazaje(m): 2:54pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Nope it doesn't. . .Dark energy, dark matter and multiverses are NOT things that intereact with humans, they do not have a personal relatiionship with humans, do not answer their prayers, protect them or favor them over other humans. . .God is said to do all these things, if it is true then god must be detected in one way or the other by a neutral observer. . .actually the bible even talks about signs that will follow believers so that those that do not believe will see and believe. . .The fact that we do not see any of these claims or promises in reality and the with the fact that the christian god that is said to be detectable remains undetectable means he does not exist. . .Mind you when we talk about god, we are talking about god as advertised or presented by the christians not, the deist undetectable god people like anony are trying to sell here. . .The god as presented in the bible is NOT what anony or davidylan are trying to sell on this thread. . . |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 2:58pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Deep Sight: More like, assembled in a purposeless primordial soup given plausible conditions. A certain evolutionist on talkorigins advanced the silly notion that billions of chemical reactions going on in an ocean filled with chemical compounds 'solved' the problem of making life. I think design and purpose found in living organisms is the best evidence for intelligence. Further evidence is in the proposition that: natural conditions are limited in the kind of complexity they make (e.g. snow, diamonds, stalactites etc) |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by DeepSight(m): 3:07pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
mazaje: Sorry sir Mazaje, but this is just arrant sttupidity. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by DeepSight(m): 3:09pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Uyi Iredia: Indeed: particularly the point about undetectable things in the past: which may never be detected, but without which we would not exist. Thehomer's argument reads like saying evolution never happened until it was detected. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by wiegraf: 3:09pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Deep Sight: One doesn't agree with you = eediocy? Do you know what eediocy means? This is all opinions, and we know what they're like, but I would think that word very clearly applies to you. |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by DeepSight(m): 3:13pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
wiegraf: You of course must be very very slow not to have realized a long time ago that it is nothing but ediocy not to agree with me. Agreeing with me is very smart: disagreeing is ediocy, becuase I am always right. Now, I am not being sarcastic: I mean it: I am always right. Disagree at peril of your own ediocy. Thehomer and anyone else, including yourself sire, who believes that mindless matter purposelessly assembled human beings over time, is a prize winning eddiot and certainly no better than a goat or rooster in terms of brains or perception. 2 Likes |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by DeepSight(m): 3:20pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
Deep Sight: I take this back: it is an insult to goats and roosters. 2 Likes |
Re: An Argument Against Any Reasonable Knowledge Of God. by UyiIredia(m): 3:22pm On Jun 06, 2013 |
mazaje: Yes, it does. From Jayriginal's point that dark matter, dark energy and unrecorded past events are non-existent. Jayriginal's point rests on the supposition that things which aren't detectable don't exist. You admit that dark matter et al aren't detectable, hence, they don't exist. Dark matter is a mass (masses are supposed to be detectable) which interacts with the universe. Here's a piece from Wikipedia Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. Now why is something that is supposed to be detectable but not detected (such as dark matter) exist while the Christian God doesn't exist ? |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply)
Prayer Points On Today's Open Heavens: Sunday, August 8, 2021 / Christianity has Contributed much positively To Mankind / Life Changing Quotes By Apostle Joshua Selman
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 143 |