Image123:
i'm happy to read the bolded from you. It's what we have been telling you for ages as regards the spirit realm.

The spirit relm or what ever can not be seen but it can be detected no?. . .

mazaje:

The spirit relm or what ever can not be seen but it can be detected no?. . .

You have been forever arguing that it has to be seen to be believed or taken seriously, no?

Image123:
You have been forever arguing that it has to be seen to be believed or taken seriously, no?

Nope, it has to be detected is all I have been arguing for. . . .

Mazaje I ask you yet again if you can see yourself and if anyone else can see you.

I was dissapointed at your last answer because the strangeness of the question ought to have provoked deeper thought.

Please attempt the question again.

mazaje: You know it was designed ONLY because it is a human product. . .You keep assuming that nature and the universe at large is a human society as such it must be designed. . .Humans always design things. . .All things that humans do are as a result of design, because humans design things does NOT mean that nature must also design things. . .You know that your TV, car, clothes, painting etc were designed because they are all human products. . .Pls tell me just one human product that you know of that was not designed. . .Now tell me if natural things like mount Everest and the Sahara desert were designed. . .What about a hurricane, was it designed?. . .Rain bow nko?. . .Was it designed?. . .What about volcanic mountains, mudslides and earthquakes?. . .Were they designed?. . .

Uhm, you miss the point entirely. When I talk about design, I infer intelligence and intelligence is not exclusively a human trait

You haven't show this to be true in any way. . .

Too bad

It is not unnecessary since you are basing your entire premise on how things function in the human society. . .Complex things and structures here most times require more than one designer. . .

The bold is untrue

thehomer:

Huh? What do you mean?

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

Dude, this doesn't still change the fact that DNA consists of constituent parts arranged in a specific way so that they give specific results.

"DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses."

"Software, is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program) that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations."

The point here is that DNA gives instructions to a cell telling it how to function while Software gives instructions to a computer processor telling it how to function. Yet rather than explain why you think one set of instructions is more likely than the next, you are here dancing around over definitions that have no bearing on the question.

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.

DNA is not merely a molecule represented as code, it is a molecule whose atoms are specifically arranged in a certain way such that they give specific sets of instructions to living cells. In the same way a computer program is a set of symbols arranged in a particular way such that they give a specific set of instructions to a computer processor.
So to follow your in your footsteps,

"....From that and the chain rule in probability theory, if a specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing needs to be created by sapient creatures, then the probability that we have these specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing must be less than the probability that those sapient creatures exist."

Now how about when these sapient creatures themselves function based on a specific set of instructions? Your call

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.

Good, we will come to God later. For now you will still need to show us why you don't think it is designed. Why is one set of specific instructions less likely than another set of specific instructions to you?

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.

No I wasn't, I was showing you that there is a difference between "the universe is designed" and "everything in the universe is designed". In the same way "a car is designed" is very different from "everything in the car is designed". Showing that for instance the door handle was not designed will not prove that the car was not designed. That is the fallacy of composition. To prove that the car is not designed, you must show that the constituent parts of the car do not work together in a specific manner.

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.

How do you read? What happened to your comprehensive skills

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

That's exactly what I said. I do not know enough about it to make that call.

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.

First of all I never said in my response to your query about water and electrons that water and the electron were not designed. You really need to learn to read properly.
Now of course I have said that God specified the instructions and laws by which we have a moon and water and electrons therefore God designed them. Notice that I am arguing for design from the starting point that there are specific instructions that define the universe therefore it can be said that things following from those instructions can be said to exist by design.
Notice also that the question with the list was you trying to find out how I infer design. That meant I have to now look at all the examples as individual sets on their own. And when I do that, I'll have to examine whether they consist of constituent parts working in a specified manner. Water and the electron in that sense are not necessarily designed.
What you are committing is the fallacy of composition. You are trying to argue that if the electron is not designed, therefore the universe is not designed. That's like saying if mud particles are not designed, then mud bricks and consequently mud houses are not designed. It doesn't follow.

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.

I don't see where this line of reasoning is leading you. Did you mean something else by a vacuum? If so pray tell

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

Again I remember I said "if by a vacuum you mean nothing" If you meant something else, then tell me what you meant.

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.

Shown in this very response.

thehomer:
Let me make things more explicit then. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant approximately 3E⁶ m/s. This doesn't change even when the speed of a photon changes to 6 m/s. Basically, a constant doesn't change. You on the other hand, seem to think it can so, is your own idea of chaos physically possible?


I never said it did. What I said was that the universe had chaos (the conception I presented) inbuilt into it.


And you have once again shown that you don't understand the difference between a logical possibility and a physical possibility. Saying that since it is logically possible therefore it is physically possible means you have no idea of what you're talking about. Please examine those concepts again.

This is getting quite boring really. I suspect your problem is that you don't know (or are pretending not to know) what is meant by necessary. Let me see if I can help you. What do you think is meant when someone says that a thing exists necessarily? Once you understand what that means, then we'll begin to make some progress.

You do because you claimed that I made a concession. If I made this concession, you should show it otherwise one can conclude that you were lying against me.

I have showed you the same over and over but it seems you are not getting it. It makes no sense showing you something you don't even understand. I'll ask again what do you understand is meant by necessary?

Nairaland cannot represent the universe because it relies on other tools itself. That is why your analogy is not accurate.

uhm the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily but that's by the way, I'll ask you what do you understand is meant by necessary? An answer to that will help us tie in this argument so it doesn't fly into multiple directions.

Mr anony:
Dude, this doesn't still change the fact that DNA consists of constituent parts arranged in a specific way so that they give specific results.

"DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses."

"Software, is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program) that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations."

The point here is that DNA gives instructions to a cell telling it how to function while Software gives instructions to a computer processor telling it how to function. Yet rather than explain why you think one set of instructions is more likely than the next, you are here dancing around over definitions that have no bearing on the question.

I've already done that. DNA is actually a molecule and like many other molecules e.g ammonia, it doesn't need to be designed but computer code is actually code and that has to be designed.

Mr anony:
DNA is not merely a molecule represented as code, it is a molecule whose atoms are specifically arranged in a certain way such that they give specific sets of instructions to living cells. In the same way a computer program is a set of symbols arranged in a particular way such that they give a specific set of instructions to a computer processor.
So to follow your in your footsteps,

"....From that and the chain rule in probability theory, if a specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing needs to be created by sapient creatures, then the probability that we have these specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing must be less than the probability that those sapient creatures exist."

Now how about when these sapient creatures themselves function based on a specific set of instructions? Your call

Atoms in molecules are specifically arranged in a certain way. I hope you're aware that the DNA molecules simply interact with other molecules based on physical laws.

But you've not shown that DNA had to be created by sapient creatures since it is a molecule just as ammonia is a molecule that is out there. While I've show you that computer code had to be created by sapient creatures.

Mr anony:
Good, we will come to God later. For now you will still need to show us why you don't think it is designed. Why is one set of specific instructions less likely than another set of specific instructions to you?

Is this line of inquiry supposed to lead to your God? I don't think the universe is designed because design requires minds acting on physical objects.

Mr anony:
No I wasn't, I was showing you that there is a difference between "the universe is designed" and "everything in the universe is designed". In the same way "a car is designed" is very different from "everything in the car is designed". Showing that for instance the door handle was not designed will not prove that the car was not designed. That is the fallacy of composition. To prove that the car is not designed, you must show that the constituent parts of the car do not work together in a specific manner.

Actually, what you've been saying is that the universe is designed and that everything in the universe is designed.

Mr anony:
How do you read? What happened to your comprehensive skills

My comprehension skills are fine but it looks like you don't even know what you've been saying. You're just confusing yourself.

Mr anony:
That's exactly what I said. I do not know enough about it to make that call.

Then you cannot make that conclusion.

Mr anony:
First of all I never said in my response to your query about water and electrons that water and the electron were not designed. You really need to learn to read properly.
Now of course I have said that God specified the instructions and laws by which we have a moon and water and electrons therefore God designed them. Notice that I am arguing for design from the starting point that there are specific instructions that define the universe therefore it can be said that things following from those instructions can be said to exist by design.

Did you read what you just wrote? This is why I say you're confused. You said.

Mr anony:
water - not necessarily designed
electron - not necessarily designed

Your problems appear to be due to short term memory problems and poor reading comprehension. Would you like to change your previous response?

Mr anony:
Notice also that the question with the list was you trying to find out how I infer design. That meant I have to now look at all the examples as individual sets on their own. And when I do that, I'll have to examine whether they consist of constituent parts working in a specified manner. Water and the electron in that sense are not necessarily designed.
What you are committing is the fallacy of composition. You are trying to argue that if the electron is not designed, therefore the universe is not designed. That's like saying if mud particles are not designed, then mud bricks and consequently mud houses are not designed. It doesn't follow.

Have you looked at them? Because if you haven't, then you cannot make that conclusion. You're saying water and electron are designed on the one hand and they're not designed on the other. You're deeply confused.

Where did I make that argument? I merely pointed out your self-contradiction and logical fallacy.

Mr anony:
I don't see where this line of reasoning is leading you. Did you mean something else by a vacuum? If so pray tell

By vacuum I meant what physicists mean by vacuum.

Mr anony:
Again I remember I said "if by a vacuum you mean nothing" If you meant something else, then tell me what you meant.

By vacuum, I meant:

A region of space that contains no matter.

Mr anony:
Shown in this very response.

No you haven't shown it because you thought I was making an argument when I wasn't. Or you can always quote me making that argument.

Mr anony:
This is getting quite boring really. I suspect your problem is that you don't know (or are pretending not to know) what is meant by necessary. Let me see if I can help you. What do you think is meant when someone says that a thing exists necessarily? Once you understand what that means, then we'll begin to make some progress.

You've started this terrible habit of once again avoiding direct questions. I presented you with what you meant by chaos after you wailed about not comprehending what I said. And I asked you a direct question but you're yet to answer. Instead, you're once again dancing around. I know what it means to say that something exists necessarily and when you asked me this question about the universe, I answered you directly.

Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. Now will you please answer my direct questions? Then answer this question too. Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?

Mr anony:
I have showed you the same over and over but it seems you are not getting it. It makes no sense showing you something you don't even understand. I'll ask again what do you understand is meant by necessary?

Please quote me making this concession.

Mr anony:
uhm the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily but that's by the way, I'll ask you what do you understand is meant by necessary? An answer to that will help us tie in this argument so it doesn't fly into multiple directions.

Wait what? That's not by the way. What you've just conceded here is that the universe doesn't need a God. Let me explain the implication of what you've said before you start whining once again.

Saying that the laws of the universe exist necessarily means that in all possible worlds, the most basic laws of the universe have to exist. If this is so in all possible worlds, then what role is there for a God? Since if they're necessary, then it cannot be that they would be absent.

Mr anony:
I have showed you the same over and over but it seems you are not getting it. It makes no sense showing you something you don't even understand. I'll ask again what do you understand is meant by necessary?

That word 'necessary' as used in these discussions, is a word that MrHomer will NEVER understand during this earth life.

NEVER.

thehomer:

You've started this terrible habit of once again avoiding direct questions. I presented you with what you meant by chaos after you wailed about not comprehending what I said. And I asked you a direct question but you're yet to answer. Instead, you're once again dancing around. I know what it means to say that something exists necessarily and when you asked me this question about the universe, I answered you directly.

Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. Now will you please answer my direct questions? Then answer this question too. Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?

The point is that you don't even understand what your "direct questions" are. Allow me to press you a little bit on your answer. After that, I promise I'll handle your questions.

Now yes it is true that something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. By "possible" here does it mean physically possible or logically possible?

Please quote me making this concession.

We will come to that as soon as we have sorted out what it means to exist necessarily.

Wait what? That's not by the way. What you've just conceded here is that the universe doesn't need a God. Let me explain the implication of what you've said before you start whining once again.

Saying that the laws of the universe exist necessarily means that in all possible worlds, the most basic laws of the universe have to exist. If this is so in all possible worlds, then what role is there for a God? Since if they're necessary, then it cannot be that they would be absent.

If I recall correctly, this is what I said: "the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily"

That means that the laws of the universe are contingent upon laws which necessarily exist. Is it that you don't know what necessary means or you are blind or just disingenuously setting up a straw man. Which is it?

Deep Sight:

That word 'necessary' as used in these discussions, is a word that MrHomer will NEVER understand during this earth life.

NEVER.

Which is really quite sad because he perfectly understands what 'necessary' means when he wants to argue against God's necessary attributes

Mr anony:
The point is that you don't even understand what your "direct questions" are. Allow me to press you a little bit on your answer. After that, I promise I'll handle your questions.

Now yes it is true that something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. By "possible" here does it mean physically possible or logically possible?

Logically possible. Now answer my direct questions.

Mr anony:
We will come to that as soon as we have sorted out what it means to exist necessarily.

Sorted. Now please quote me making that concession.

Mr anony:
If I recall correctly, this is what I said: "the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily"

Exactly. If those other laws exist necessarily, then it means that those laws have to exist.

Mr anony:
That means that the laws of the universe are contingent upon laws which necessarily exist. Is it that you don't know what necessary means or you are blind or just disingenuously setting up a straw man. Which is it?

I know what it is but it appears that you do not. Note what I highlighted in blue. If certain laws necessarily exist, then you have effectively relieved your God of its duties because he is no longer needed to create those most basic laws.

You already accepted that what I said about necessity was correct but you come down here in your confusion and short term amnesia to wail that I do not know what you just agreed that I knew.

Deep Sight:

That word 'necessary' as used in these discussions, is a word that MrHomer will NEVER understand during this earth life.

NEVER.

Punk I sent you to your room without supper. Now put the viagra down. Put it down! Or do you want another mouth scrubbing?

Yep. God [size=18pt]owes[/size] his creations direct proof of his existence...right.

Deep Sight:

That word 'necessary' as used in these discussions, is a word that MrHomer will NEVER understand during this earth life.

NEVER.

Buhahaaha

Thread savagely murdered by "savage" believers of God against "civilised" disbelievers of God!

Striktlmi wielded a coalition of the willing, in his armory, ballistic missiles strik, nuclear bomb anon and hypersonic Jet Deep.

Mr.hoomer, have hommy rocket propelled grenade and dane gun mazaje in his armory with this sort of weapon prayed to d spaghetti monster that he should over come his enemies.

But even the spaghetti monster was no match for a well prepared team!

Words on the streets, thread got gruesomely murdered repeatedly!

thehomer:

I've already done that. DNA is actually a molecule and like many other molecules e.g ammonia, it doesn't need to be designed but computer code is actually code and that has to be designed.

Computer codes are actually molecules too. A computer code on a cd is made up of the cd's molecular structure (polycarbonate plastic), on a punch card it was the punch card's molecular structure, even in DNA computing computer codes are chemicals, in hard disks they are made of ferromagnetic molecules

thehomer:
Atoms in molecules are specifically arranged in a certain way. I hope you're aware that the DNA molecules simply interact with other molecules based on physical laws.

The same way computer code molecules in various media follow physical laws like gravity, electromagnetism etc. and arranged in a specific way.

thehomer:
But you've not shown that DNA had to be created by sapient creatures since it is a molecule just as ammonia is a molecule that is out there. While I've show you that computer code had to be created by sapient creatures.

Computer codes in flash are stored as electric charges. They are mere electric charges - nothing more. Computer codes are actually a lot less complex than 'DNA codes' they could have been created by undirected physical forces.

Deep Sight:
Mazaje I ask you yet again if you can see yourself and if anyone else can see you.

I was dissapointed at your last answer because the strangeness of the question ought to have provoked deeper thought.

Please attempt the question again.

What nonsense is this, i don't have time for your philosophical sophism and ramblings. . .How does the question above help better understand oneness of infinity?. . .

Mr anony:
Uhm, you miss the point entirely. When I talk about design, I infer intelligence and intelligence is not exclusively a human trait

Apart from living beings on earth, you do NOT know of anything that is intelligent. . .I know yo will claim your god is intelligent but in reality your god is human idea and conception, it is a human creation and human attribute to it their own emotions, feelings and character. . .

Too bad

You have failed to show that, you just said it. . .

The bold is untrue

Nope its not. . .You are basing your conclusions solely based on how the human society functions. . .You can not tell me if many things outside our own planet are designed. . Are asteroids designed?. . What about comets, the other planets and dwarf planets in or solar system. . .

mazaje:

Apart from living beings on earth, you do NOT know of anything that is intelligent. . .I know yo will claim your god is intelligent but in reality your god is human idea and conception, it is a human creation and human attribute to it their own emotions, feelings and character. . .

on what do you base this "knowledge"? Just because you have never experienced what he has experienced doesnt mean you know his reality to be exactly as you think it in your head.

davidylan:

on what do you base this "knowledge"? Just because you have never experienced what he has experienced doesnt mean you know his reality to be exactly as you think it in your head.

On the fact that all gods are a creation of men. . .History and human anthropology have all shown this to be true. . .poly theist god to monotheistic god are all a creation of humans. . .God remains a human idea and conception. . .Can you see that you guys are the ones selling and defending that idea to us here. . .You really think that if the god as presented by the bible truly exist in reality, it will rely on you or any human to defend it or make its case for it?. . .

thehomer: Logically possible. Now answer my direct questions.

Good now let us recap.

This is the definition of what it means to be necessary:
Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds i.e. Something necessarily exists if it is logically impossible for it to exist any other way.

Now to answer your question: "Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?"
Answer: I'll answer by making this statement. Physical possibilities are subsets of logical possibilities i.e. all physical possibilities are logical possibilities but not all logical possibilities are physical possibilities. Kinda like how all chimpanzees are apes but not all apes are chimpanzees. If you disagree, be sure to present a physical possibility that is not logically possible.

Sorted. Now please quote me making that concession.

You first conceded that it was logically possible for the universe to exist differently when in page 1 you said this:

thehomer:
Actually, you've not demonstrated anything since your God could also "by definition" or fiat have created a universe without a specific pattern i.e one in utter chaos. Saying your God does it all really says nothing at all.

Notice in your response above that you have granted two possible worlds with universes working differently. Infact I pointed it out to you when I replied:

Mr anony:
.....In a funny way, you have conceded that the universe is not necessarily ordered but could just as easily have been utterly chaotic and therefore the physical laws that define it cannot be necessary laws

We went back and forth on this until you claimed you didn't know whether the laws that define the functioning of the universe exist necessarily or not here.

Then immediately after (in fact in the same post) you said you didn't know if the universe was the way it was of necessity, you said said this:

thehomer: What I showed you was that however the universe turned out, you would still have given the same answer to these very different questions and that means your answer which tries to explain it all actually explains nothing.

Again I pointed to you that you cannot say "however the universe turned out" without presupposing that it is possible for the universe to turn out otherwise. especially after you had just claimed ignorance of whether the universe could turn out differently or not.

The reply that followed was most amusing, and here it is:

thehomer: I don't have to know in order to make that argument. It does not presuppose that about the universe, it demonstrates the fact that your so-called answer tries to explain everything.

You're basically making the same mistake you made when you were confusing logical possibilities with physical possibilities. I don't know that it is physically possible for the universe to be any other way but it is logically possible. Try not to keep confusing these two issues.

Especially in the light that you have now explained to us that: A thing exists necessarily if it is exists in all possible (logically possible) worlds.
Don't you think that the bold shows that you have clearly conceded that the universe does not exist the way it does necessarily? Or are you still going to claim that you don't know if it does?

So for clarity, let me put your words next to each other.

thehomer: Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible(logically possible) worlds

thehomer: I don't know that it is physically possible for the universe to be any other way but it is logically possible.

Now thehomer, once again, is the universe necessarily the way it is? "Yes", "no", or "I don't know"

After you have answered, we shall move on.

Mr anony:
Yes it is true that if a law exists necessarily, then it has to exist.

Okay.

Mr anony:
Lol, The argument you presented here does not follow and I'll explain why in a bit but so that we don't go flying off tangents, first I want you to properly respond to what is about to come next

I'd really like to see you show it.

mazaje:

On the fact that all gods are a creation of men. . .History and human anthropology have all shown this to be true. . .poly theist god to monotheistic god are all a creation of humans. . .God remains a human idea and conception. . .Can you see that you guys are the ones selling and defending that idea to us here. . .You really think that if the god as presented by the bible truly exist in reality, it will rely on you or any human to defend it or make its case for it?. . .

and you know that for a "fact" because? I mean this is a long diatribe that is heavy on subjective opinion.

mazaje:
Apart from living beings on earth, you do NOT know of anything that is intelligent. . .I know yo will claim your god is intelligent but in reality your god is human idea and conception, it is a human creation and human attribute to it their own emotions, feelings and character. . .

This is really a very weak argument. We can stretch it further to say
"Apart from your mind, you do NOT know of anything else that can think......I know you will claim that other people can think but in reality that is only you projecting your mental activities on other people"
Or we can also say....
"Apart from the earth and the moon, you do not know that hydrogen exists anywhere else in the universe. You are only projecting the elements that you see on earth to other parts of the universe, hydrogen outside the earth is only a human conception".

You see, the problem with your counterargument is that it overlooks too much in it's desperate appeal to ignorance.

You have failed to show that, you just said it. . .

Lol, you might as well ask me to show you that triangles have 3 sides. What I showed you there is what chance is.

Nope its not. . .You are basing your conclusions solely based on how the human society functions. . .You can not tell me if many things outside our own planet are designed. . Are asteroids designed?. . What about comets, the other planets and dwarf planets in or solar system. . .

Still attacking a strawman I see. How human society functions has nothing to do with my argument

davidylan:

and you know that for a "fact" because? I mean this is a long diatribe that is heavy on subjective opinion.

Because no god can be shown to exist on its own without human inputs. . .No god can be shown to exist without stories formed and created by humans, books written by humans, religions and cultures created by humans around that god idea they have created and on and on. . .If you know any god that exist outside human input pls point to it. . .God remains an idea created by humans simple. . .

Mr anony:
Good now let us recap.

This is the definition of what it means to be necessary:
Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds i.e. Something necessarily exists if it is logically impossible for it to exist any other way.

The sentence in bold is wrong. Something necessarily exists if it is logically impossible for it not to exist.

Mr anony:
Now to answer your question: "Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?"
Answer: I'll answer by making this statement. Physical possibilities are subsets of logical possibilities i.e. all physical possibilities are logical possibilities but not all logical possibilities are physical possibilities. Kinda like how all chimpanzees are apes but not all apes are chimpanzees. If you disagree, be sure to present a physical possibility that is not logically possible.

Good. Now is the idea of chaos you presented physically possible?

Mr anony:
You first conceded that it was logically possible for the universe to exist differently when in page 1 you said this:

Notice in your response above that you have granted two possible worlds with universes working differently. Infact I pointed it out to you when I replied:


We went go back and forth on this until you claimed you didn't know whether the laws that define the functioning of the universe exist necessarily or not here.

Then immediately after (in fact in the same post) you said you didn't know if the universe was the way it was of necessity, you said said this:

Again I pointed to you that you cannot say "however the universe turned out" without presupposing that it is possible for the universe to turn out otherwise. especially after you had just claimed ignorance of whether the universe could turn out differently or not.

Wow. This is amazing. For some reason, you think that talking about a hypothetical amounts to a concession that the hypothetical is the case.

For me to concede that the universe is not necessarily the way it is, I would say something like: "the universe is not necessarily the way it is." And I've already told you what I think about this.

Mr anony:
The reply that followed was most amusing, and here it is:

Especially in the light that you have now explained to us that: A thing exists necessarily if it is exists in all possible (logically possible) worlds.
Don't you think that the bold shows that you have clearly conceded that the universe does not exist the way it does necessarily? Or are you still going to claim that you don't know if it does?

So for clarity, let me put your words next to each other.





Now thehomer, once again, is the universe necessarily the way it is? "Yes", "no", or "I don't know"

After you have answered, we shall move on.

You just quoted my response and I haven't changed it. Is there something confusing about what I said? You already accept that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities so what is so amazing about what I said?

Now you're free to proceed.

Mr anony:
This is really a very weak argument. We can stretch it further to say
"Apart from your mind, you do NOT know of anything else that can think......I know you will claim that other people can think but in reality that is only you projecting your mental activities on other people"
Or we can also say....
"Apart from the earth and the moon, you do not know that hydrogen exists anywhere else in the universe. You are only projecting the elements that you see on earth to other parts of the universe, hydrogen outside the earth is only a human conception".

You see, the problem with your counterargument is that it overlooks too much in it's desperate appeal to ignorance.

We know some of this things to be real and exist some where else, hydrogen for example exist in other stars, animals have minds etc any way i understand what you are driving at. . .In the case of god there is overwhelming evidence to show that god is a human creation and idea. . .

Lol, you might as well ask me to show you that triangles have 3 sides. What I showed you there is what chance is.

Chance has also created things that looked designed, no?. . .

Still attacking a strawman I see. How human society functions has nothing to do with my argument

It has a lot to do with our arguments and you have implied that in some of your statements here. . .

thehomer:

The sentence in bold is wrong. Something necessarily exists if it is logically impossible for it not to exist.



Good. Now is the idea of chaos you presented physically possible?



Wow. This is amazing. For some reason, you think that talking about a hypothetical amounts to a concession that the hypothetical is the case.

For me to concede that the universe is not necessarily the way it is, I would say something like: "the universe is not necessarily the way it is." And I've already told you what I think about this.



You just quoted my response and I haven't changed it. Is there something confusing about what I said? You already accept that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities so what is so amazing about what I said?

Now you're free to proceed.

Wow Wow Just WOW! This is just disappointingly terrible coming from you.

Let me see if I can make it a little clearer.

You said:
1. Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible(logically possible) worlds
2. I don't know that it is physically possible for the universe to be any other way but it is logically possible.

In case you didn't notice, you have just said that: it is logically possible for the universe to exist another way therefore the universe does not necessarily exist in the way it does.

Do you deny this?

My simple question which you dodged was: Is the universe necessarily the way it is? "Yes", "no", or "I don't know"

Please answer so that we can move on. Stop dancing around.

mazaje:
We know some of this things to be real and exist some where else, hydrogen for example exist in other stars, animals have minds etc any way i understand what you are driving at. . .In the case of god there is overwhelming evidence to show that god is a human creation and idea. . .

The question is:
how do you know that hydrogen exists in other stars? Have you been to them?
How do you know that animals have minds? have you detected their thoughts? if yes how did you detect them? Or are you merely assuming that animals function like a human society?
I hope you are seeing the problems with your counter-argument.

Chance has also created things that looked designed, no?. . .

How did you know that they were created by chance and not design? I thought you said we know design because we know that it is made by a human being. So if you didn't know at the time that it was made by a human being, how did you know it looked designed?

It has a lot to do with our arguments and you have implied that in some of your statements here. . .

No I haven't I hope my comments above have showed you the problems with your position

Mr anony:
The question is:
how do you know that hydrogen exists in other stars? Have you been to them?
How do you know that animals have minds? have you detected their thoughts? if yes how did you detect them? Or are you merely assuming that animals function like a human society?
I hope you are seeing the problems with your counter-argument.

Nope, stars are made up of hydrogen and helium at their core, we have studied our star and many other stars are like ours so we can conclude that they also have hydrogen and helium. . .Other animals have brains, hence they have a mind. . .

How did you know that they were created by chance and not design? I thought you said we know design because we know that it is made by a human being. So if you didn't know at the time that it was made by a human being, how did you know it looked designed?

I made the statement because of my personal experience, I have seen where a dynamite was placed under a big rock(they wanted to break it and construct a road) and after the explosion one of the rock from the debris looked very much like a sword. . . We were so awed that one of the guys working on the site took the piece of rock that looked like sword home. This was just a chance explosion that formed something that looked designed. . .Even natural phenomenon like rain bow and mountain looked designed but they are just occurrences that result when mindless forces interact with each other. . .Just to make things clear, I do NOT believe that the universe came about as a result of chance, but I am also open to that possibility because people have failed to show that chance can not produce anything. . .

No I haven't I hope my comments above have showed you the problems with your position

Not so much. . .