Uyi Iredia:

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.

Uhm no, I think you are mistaken about water H₂O is what water is by definition. However I agree that the atom could just as well been a static neutron with no electrons and we'll have ourselves an entirely different universe. Everything points to the fact that the universe is not the way it is out of necessity.

Deep Sight:

I take this back: it is an insult to goats and roosters.

lololol, hahahahaha . . . .DeepSight you are wicked!

Deep Sight:

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.

That's my point, you're rather foolish.

mazaje:
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 can I say that I know it is designed without knowing what it is designed for? In the same way I can know that this was designed without knowing what it was designed for.
[img]www.glmorris.net/pilot/concept_art/Complex_Machine_small.jpg[/img]
If you disagree with me then it will mean that every machine you have ever used, you thought they assembled themselves by chance until you learnt how to use them. These include your phone, TV, car, clothes, paintings, writings e.t.c.

That does not mean it was designed, it just means it acts in certain ways. . .Chance can also make it act in such ways. . .

chance has no laws that can make behavior predictable

It only means that the universe acts in a particular way. . .

my point exactly

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. . .

Try Occam's razor. There is no need to multiply causes beyond necessity

What even muddles the case of detectability is that fictional characters are made visually detectable (on screens) and by touch (via toys). And yet we know they don't exist. Keep in mind that dreams and hallucinations make us detect things which don't exist seperately.

Mr anony:
Uhm no, I think you are mistaken about water H₂O is what water is by definition.

Then what is water by definition ?

mazaje:

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. . .

1 Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

BTW, never have i read or met a more fallacious fellow than thehomer. Its like an infection.

Uyi Iredia:

Then what is water by definition ?

Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen

Image123:

1 Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

BTW, never have i read or met a more fallacious fellow than thehomer. Its like an infection.

A classic example.

thehomer: 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?

Denying the consequent. Saying you could fly clearly means that you believe you can fly. The rhetoric question (posed by thehomer) implies otherwise.

Mr anony:
Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen

That's what H2O describes.

Are prions and viruses life?

Uyi Iredia:

That's what H2O describes.

Let's not beat this unnecessarily

Mr anony: 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.

The fact that a photon's speed can change doesn't mean that the constant known as the speed of light can. In fact, the speed of light changes within various media this still doesn't mean the speed of light isn't a constant.

Mr anony:
This is also from the article:

This tells me that the key issue here is precision which is basically what I said.

What you just pointed out isn't contradictory to what I showed you from the same article. In fact, what I showed you from that article was much clearer.

Mr anony:
i don't see the need since you have now claimed ignorance.

What did I claim ignorance of? And how would that prevent you from demonstrating my concession?

Mr anony:
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.

Okay. Now that the confusion has been clarified, how do you know the universe doesn't necessarily exist the way it does? Do you know of any other universe?

Mr anony:
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.

This rough analogy isn't accurate because based on what you're saying, he didn't write the entire code that defines Nairaland because he used a programming language that he didn't define himself. On the other hand, you're saying God did it all. You're saying God created the "tools" themselves the constants that eventually arrived at the moon in the same way that Seun would need to have created HTML and the Python Language (I think is one of the tools that powers Nairaland). He would also need to have created the server software and all that for your analogy to be accurate. Then these programs would have written Nairaland spontaneously.

Mr anony: Let's not beat this unnecessarily

I would hope not since your reply makes your disagreement baseless.

wiegraf:

That's my point, you're rather foolish.

Doesn't matter, since we're just matter.

Kay 17: 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.

The universe is complex, hence, it requires causation.

Mr anony:
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.

Huh? What do you mean?

Mr anony:
Notice that you have not told us anything about why one code is more likely or less likely than the other

Remember that I said DNA was a molecule that can be represented as a code. From that and the chain rule in probability theory, if computer code needs to be created by sapient creatures, then the probability that we have computer code must be less than the probability that those sapient creatures exist.

Mr anony:
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

How on earth can you not see this? Computer code is actually code. DNA is actually a molecule that can be represented as code.

Mr anony:
The question to you is do you think it was designed? You are not under any obligation to say who

This is a separate question but no I don't think it was designed. My point is that with your very first response, you indicated that it was God that you had in mind. If this line of inquiry isn't supposed to lead to your God, then please say so.

Mr anony:
Read again exactly what I highlighted and what I said about what it

I did that before and pointed out that you highlighted the tail end of my response and the beginning part of your own conception. You were quote-mining yourself and didn't realize it.

Mr anony:
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

I know you specifically said that and with your answers to those questions. What you said amounts to saying you didn't know what a neutron star was but that (your own conception again): 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.

My point is that if you do not know enough about it, then you cannot make that conclusion.

The contradiction is that you claimed that since God specified the laws and what not and the moon was designed, then God designed the moon. But you turn around and say that other objects like water and the electron weren't designed yet they too came about by those same laws. That my friend is a contradiction. If you say God through the laws designed some things, it follows that he designed it all.

Mr anony:
....and yes a vacuum is not designed neither is it an object. It is nothing.

Hmm. This is interesting. A vacuum is nothing? Yet it came about by the very same laws you attributed to God and credited with making the moon.

But hey, since you say a vacuum is actually nothing, that's all well and good. Just remember that you said it here.

Mr anony:
Go back and read it again. Pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red

The part you highlighted in red was a part of my own statement and a quote you mined from your own conception. And I've read it now please actually show that I have committed any of the fallacies you've accused me of. Notice that each time is point out that you committed a logical fallacy, I actually show you the error in your line of reasoning.

Deep Sight:

Sorry sir Mazaje, but this is just arrant sttupidity.

I am talking about a specific god like the christian god that has defined attributes, not your imaginary oneness of infinity that is undefined and has no defined attributes except what YOU personally chose to give it. . .Oneness of infinity is just a god idea you personally created out of thin air and it has nothing to do with the point am making. . .

Deep Sight:

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.

Tut tut tut.
Still with the tantrums I see. Why don't you ragequit like you normally do?
Well, no cake for you. You're excused from the adult table.

Image123:

1 Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

BTW, never have i read or met a more fallacious fellow than thehomer. Its like an infection.

What this hell is this nonsense? no man has seen god, yet we are told that people like Moses have seen him face to face?. . .

Image123:

1 Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

BTW, never have i read or met a more fallacious fellow than thehomer. Its like an infection.

But for some reason, you find it difficult to actually show me the fallacious error I made. Try to back up your assertion and show me the fallacy.

thehomer:
The fact that a photon's speed can change doesn't mean that the constant known as the speed of light can. In fact, the speed of light changes within various media this still doesn't mean the speed of light isn't a constant.

Read this 4 times. It still doesn't make sense.

What you just pointed out isn't contradictory to what I showed you from the same article. In fact, what I showed you from that article was much clearer.

Good then we are both agreed that none of your chaos examples violates the physical laws by which the universe is defined. The only problem is our inability to measure them precisely.

What did I claim ignorance of? And how would that prevent you from demonstrating my concession?

You have expressly claimed ignorance of whether or not the universe exists necessarily hence there is no need to show you previous places where you conceded it didn't exist necessarily.

Okay. Now that the confusion has been clarified, how do you know the universe doesn't necessarily exist the way it does? Do you know of any other universe?

Asked and answered here

This rough analogy isn't accurate because based on what you're saying, he didn't write the entire code that defines Nairaland because he used a programming language that he didn't define himself. On the other hand, you're saying God did it all. You're saying God created the "tools" themselves the constants that eventually arrived at the moon in the same way that Seun would need to have created HTML and the Python Language (I think is one of the tools that powers Nairaland). He would also need to have created the server software and all that for your analogy to be accurate. Then these programs would have written Nairaland spontaneously.

....uhm no you miss the point. Nairaland represents the universe in the analogy and the submit button represents the moon. Now please go and read it again

Uyi Iredia:

The universe is complex, hence, it requires causation.

Which isn't in dispute, what is; is to claim a mind (which is inherently complex) is without cause. I believe some form of harmony should be ironed out with God being uncaused and un-complex.

Deep Sight:

Doesn't matter, since we're just matter.

Look up words like synergy along with eediocy.

If being matter depresses you so much, pele. Many of us are perfectly fine accepting reality. Contrary to the beliefs of those who need special friends to deal with various fears, barbarians that need the fear of DOG before they value other life enough to respect it, those so unambitious and sheeple-like they are incapable of setting goals for themselves, plain old looneys, etc etc, godless materialists do just fine when assigning their various values.

Even non-eediotic theists have no problems understanding this.

mazaje:

What this hell is this nonsense? no man has seen god, yet we are told that people like Moses have seen him face to face?. . .

you said that the Bible does NOT talk about an undetectable or hidden God anywhere. Your ignorance is not my fault, no vex.

thehomer:

But for some reason, you find it difficult to actually show me the fallacious error I made. Try to back up your assertion and show me the fallacy.

Bros, there are more gainful things that can be done, sorry.

wiegraf:

Look up words like synergy along with eediocy.

If being matter depresses you so much, pele. Many of us are perfectly fine accepting reality. Contrary to the beliefs of those who need special friends to deal with various fears, barbarians that need the fear of DOG before they value other life enough to respect it, those so unambitious and sheeple-like they are incapable of setting goals for themselves, plain old looneys, etc etc, godless materialists do just fine when assigning their various values.

Even non-eediotic theists have no problems understanding this.

I verily believe that you are yet to sit down and have yourself a good think. Some of us were born, children of thought and thinking, and as such we see, you can take that to sound, if you please, as self congratulatory as you may wish.

For if you have begun to think at all, when I say to you that the being does not consist of matter, that existence itself does not consist of matter alone, you would have averted your mind to such questions as -

- Is a thought a physical material thing?

- Are emotions physical material things?

- Are ideas physical material things?

- Are dreams physical material things?

And at the existential level -

- Is time a physical material thing?

THEN - Do these things mentioned above exist or are they non-existent?

If they are non-existent, then you will agree that your existence is a mirage.

If they are existent, then you will agree that non material things exist.

You see, ol boy, I can only smile at you and the likes of thehomer. I have millions of things to say to you both, but life is too hectic. Suffice to say, however, for now, that you are yet to be schooled in thought, in thinking.

Now let me quickly save you the embarrassment you are about to fall into, by giving you a hint. Here is the hint: I did not ask if the things mentioned above are created by or spring from material things. I asked if they exist, and if they themselves are material things.

Deep Sight:

I verily believe that you are yet to sit down and have yourself a good think. Some of us were born, children of thought and thinking, and as such we see, you can take that to sound, if you please, as self congratulatory as you may wish.

For if you have begun to think at all, when I say to you that the being does not consist of matter, that existence itself does not consist of matter alone, you would have averted your mind to such questions as -

- Is a thought a physical material thing?

- Are emotions physical material things?

- Are ideas physical material things?

- Are dreams physical material things?

And at the existential level -

- Is time a physical material thing?

THEN - Do these things mentioned above exist or are they non-existent?

If they are non-existent, then you will agree that your existence is a mirage.

If they are existent, then you will agree that non material things exist.

You see, ol boy, I can only smile at you and the likes of thehomer. [size=16pt]I have millions of things to say to you both[/size], but life is too hectic. Suffice to say, however, for now, that you are yet to be schooled in thought, in thinking.

Now let me quickly save you the embarrassment you are about to fall into, by giving you a hint. Here is the hint: I did not ask if the things mentioned above are created or spring from by material things. I asked if they exist, and if they themselves are material things.

The big text, even I'm not that jobless. Get to your point or move along. I just want to point out your foolishness which involves, of course, this silly hubris.

So, let's see, about materialists and embarrassment, you are well aware they do not deny the existence of the abstract, yes?

^^^ Answer my questions above one by one and dont be distracted by your ego, my friend.

wiegraf:
they do not deny [size=16pt]the existence[/size] of the abstract, yes?

With this alone, I need hardly say anything. Any thinking person should recoil in embarrassment at this statement.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Answer my questions above one by one and dont be distracted by your ego, my friend.

Erm, you're talking about egos?

Are you going to get to the point or not. In case it's not clear, I really could care less for you.... OPINIONS. Just want to point out the foolishness, and quickly.

wiegraf:

Erm, you're talking about egos?

Are you going to get to the point or not. In case it's not clear, I really could care less for you.... OPINIONS. Just want to point out the foolishness, and quickly.

I only see this as cowardice. The questions are simple and very short. Do you fear perhaps that answering them will show up just how ridiculously untenable and thoughtless the materialist position is?

Please just keep that ego to one side. Me sef, I no dey vex for small jibes, so get over that already and stop wasting your time in that regard. I am not here to score petty sucker points. So it irritates me when anyone takes my yaps seriously.

If you will, be a man, and address yourself straight to my very simple and very short questions.