Mr anony:
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?

I see that this is where you've decided to halt the discussion when you find things difficult. Do you recall saying that not all that is logically possible is physically possible? What you're claiming I said directly contradicts the idea that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. Please read through what I said again and read through your own misrepresentation of it.

Then please tell me whether or not your idea of chaos is physically possible.

Mr anony:
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.

Asked and answered here. You also quoted my response here.

Please proceed.

thehomer: Asked and answered here. You also quoted my response here.

Please proceed.

Good, now we shall proceed however let it be known that you have just contradicted yourself by first claiming that you don't know whether or not the universe necessarily exists the way it does and then later claiming that you know the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does.

I see that this is where you've decided to halt the discussion when you find things difficult. Do you recall saying that not all that is logically possible is physically possible?

Halt wetin? We have only just begun. Yes of course I recall saying that. I also recall saying that all physical possibilities are logically possible

What you're claiming I said directly contradicts the idea that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. Please read through what I said again and read through your own misrepresentation of it.

It is exactly what you have said that I have presented. If you feel I have misrepresented you, please show how.

Then please tell me whether or not your idea of chaos is physically possible.

What I meant when I spoke about chaos is a situation where the universe does not follow the current set of physical laws which it now follows in fact it would be so random that we will not be able to pin it down to any set of particular physical laws. Note that this universe has a specific set of physical laws which define what is possible within it. We have also established that it is logically possible for these physical laws to be very different than they currently are. For something to be truly chaotic, it has to randomly obey and disobey the physical laws of this universe.
Since I have already argued that the physical is a specific order, my idea of chaos is a logical possibility which we do not observe within our specific physical order and this proves that the workings of our universe shows a specific complexity and hence can be said to be designed.


Now let us look at your argument I skipped earlier

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.

As I said your argument here does not follow.

Remember that the physical laws that define the behaviour of the universe do not exist necessarily however, they are contingent on necessary laws such as laws of logic. For example; there is no possible world where 2+2=5. but there are possible worlds where the speed of light can be different.
Note also that even though 2+2=4 necessarily exists, the law in itself cannot create anything neither can it actually cause anything to happen not to talk of causing a whole universe to begin to exist. For a universe to begin to exist, and function according to any specific order, an intelligent being must necessarily exist to bring it to be. Basically: Without God, no universe.

It is funny to me though how you knew earlier that Seun was necessary to create Nairaland and Python/Html laws were also necessary. However immediately I told you that the laws of the universe were contingent on necessary laws, you immediately switched to the equivalent of "Seun is unnecessary to create nairaland because the Python/Html can create Nairaland with no intelligent input". Your anti-God bias seems to be blinding you to simple logic these days.

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.

The point you are missing is that both are giving specific instructions that determine function. Your argument that it is a molecule has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

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.

This further proves my point because we are in the kind of universe programmed to such specifics that certain complex interactions of atoms result in specific information that gives rise to purposeful creatures. I hope you also know that bricks simply interact according to physical laws yet we can tell the difference between a heap of bricks and a house

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.

lol you have shown nothing. computer code is just a bunch of symbols like these also are: ykhagy6=vuudk=ll,o,.+3hy\ii

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.

I don't think a computer code is necessarily a mind acting on physical objects

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

Actually that's your strawman. What I've been saying is that the universe is designed because it functions according to a set of specific complex yet arbitrary physical laws

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



Then you cannot make that conclusion.



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



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



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.

Lol of course I'm the confused one whenever you can't read correctly

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

There was no contradiction there. Not necessarily designed is not the same as not designed besides I was very clear in explaining the sense in which they are not necessarily designed.

By vacuum I meant what physicists mean by vacuum.

By vacuum, I meant:

A region of space that contains no matter.

Then I'll say a vacuum is not necessarily designed.

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.

I think it is either your comprehension skills are truly poor or you are purposely being dishonest. If you don't understand what I am saying, ask me to clarify myself. Misrepresenting my argument and then proceeding to argue against your misrepresentation is definitely not the way to go.

@ Mr Anony: The digit 5 could be used instead of 4. Hence, adding 2 and 2 could be equated to (the digit) 5.

Uyi Iredia: @ Mr Anony: The digit 5 could be used instead of 4. Hence, adding 2 and 2 could be equated to (the digit) 5.

The point is the meaning and not merely the digit

Mr anony:
Good, now we shall proceed however let it be known that you have just contradicted yourself by first claiming that you don't know that the universe necessarily exists the way it does and then later claiming that you know the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does.

I did not say that I knew the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does. What I said is that it is logically possible. You really should avoid trying to place words in my mouth.

Mr anony:
Halt wetin? We have only just begun. Yes of course I recall saying that. I also recall saying that all physical possibilities are logically possible

It is exactly what you have said that I have presented. If you feel I have misrepresented you, please show how.

I said:
1. I do not know that the universe necessarily exists the way it does. i.e whether or not it is possible for the physical constants to be different.
2. It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants.

You on the other hand are claiming that I've said:
3. I know that the universe does not necessarily exist in the way it does.

But, I have not said 3 in any way.

Mr anony:
What I meant when I spoke about chaos is a situation where the universe does not follow the current set of physical laws which it now follows in fact it would be so random that we will not be able to pin it down to any set of particular physical laws. Note that this universe has a specific set of physical laws which define what is possible within it. We have also established that it is logically possible for these physical laws to be very different than they currently are. For something to be truly chaotic, it has to randomly obey and disobey the physical laws of this universe.
Since I have already argued that the physical is a specific order, my idea of chaos is a logical possibility which we do not observe within our specific physical order and this proves that the workings of our universe shows a specific complexity and hence can be said to be designed.

How is what you've said different from what I pointed out you meant? You can clarify with examples.
Secondly, you didn't answer the question I asked but some other question you laid out for yourself. The question I asked was whether or not your idea of chaos is physically possible.

Mr anony:
Now let us look at your argument I skipped earlier

As I said your argument here does not follow.

Remember that the physical laws that define the behaviour of the universe do not exist necessarily however, they are contingent on necessary laws such as laws of logic. For example; there is no possible world where 2+2=5. but there are possible worlds where the speed of light can be different.

How do you know that the physical laws do not exist necessarily? Have you checked against some other universe? The laws of logic are axiomatic and it is a category error to refer to them as existing.

Mr anony:
Note also that even though 2+2=4 necessarily exists, the law in itself cannot create anything neither can it actually cause anything to happen not to talk of causing a whole universe to begin to exist. For a universe to begin to exist, and function according to any specific order, an intelligent being must necessarily exist to bring it to be. Basically: Without God, no universe.

I'm sorry but what you're saying is just misinformed. That 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic not that it exists. Using existence to refer to it is a category error.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand what the point of those laws of logic are. They are axiomatic. i.e they are required for rational discussion to occur not that the universe depends on them. The universe depends on physical laws. For one to think and carry out rational discourse, that process requires an axiomatic acceptance of the laws of logic. Totally different concepts.

The part about this intelligent being is what you're supposed to demonstrate but so far, you've not done that.

Mr anony:
It is funny to me though how you knew earlier that Seun was necessary to create Nairaland and Python/Html laws were also necessary. However immediately I told you that the laws of the universe were contingent on necessary laws, you immediately switched to the equivalent of "Seun is unnecessary to create nairaland because the Python/Html can create Nairaland with no intelligent input". Your anti-God bias seems to be blinding you to simple logic these days.

What I pointed out to you was that your analogy was poor. Please take the time to actually read through my response there again.

What you're doing once more is just some more category error because the word "law" is attached to them. The laws of logic are totally different from physical laws. You really need to grasp this before you can proceed with anything.

Mr anony:
The point you are missing is that both are giving specific instructions that determine function. Your argument that it is a molecule has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

It has everything to do with the point you're making. The fact that DNA is an actual molecule out there just destroys your analogy.

Mr anony:
This further proves my point because we are in the kind of universe programmed to such specifics that certain complex interactions of atoms result in specific information that gives rise to purposeful creatures. I hope you also know that bricks simply interact according to physical laws yet we can tell the difference between a heap of bricks and a house

I don't see how it proves your point. We can also tell the difference between a grain of sand and the sun.

Mr anony:
lol you have shown nothing. computer code is just a bunch of symbols like these also are: ykhagy6=vuudk=ll,o,.+3hy\ii

But, DNA is actually a physical molecule consisting of nucleotides, sugars and phosphate. I see how easy it is for you to demonstrate computer code. Now is whatever you type out on your computer actually a DNA molecule?

Mr anony:
I don't think a computer code is necessarily a mind acting on physical objects

Fine. Now please tell me. Is this line of inquiry leading to your God? Yes or no.

Mr anony:
Actually that's your strawman. What I've been saying is that the universe is designed because it functions according to a set of specific complex yet arbitrary physical laws

How is it a strawman? Clarify by answering true or false to these statements:
1. The universe is designed by God.
2. The moon was designed by God.

Edit: How do you know that the physical laws are arbitrary? Are you assuming this or do you actually know this?

Mr anony:
Lol of course I'm the confused one whenever you can't read correctly

You're confused because you find it difficult to appreciate the implications of what you've said.

Mr anony:
There was no contradiction there. Not necessarily designed is not the same as not designed besides I was very clear in explaining the sense in which they are not necessarily designed.

This is ridiculously naive. Something is either designed or not designed. If something is not designed, then it is designed. There is no middle ground. This is elementary logic. Your attempt to weasel out when your ignorant self contradiction is laid bare is pathetic.

Secondly, have you been able to educate yourself on neutron stars, viruses and sand? Because until you do, you're still making another fallacious argument.

Mr anony:
Then I'll say a vacuum is not necessarily designed.

Now a vacuum too is not designed. That's fine too.

Mr anony:
I think it is either your comprehension skills are truly poor or you are purposely being dishonest. If you don't understand what I am saying, ask me to clarify myself. Misrepresenting my argument and then proceeding to argue against your misrepresentation is definitely not the way to go.

I'm yet to actually misrepresent any of your arguments. So far, you've just been trying to weasel out of direct questions and demonstrations of your fallacious lines of thought. I think your problem is beyond reading comprehension. It is just your own confusion of what you're saying and ignorance of the implications of what you say and the terms you use.

You're still welcome to quote me making the argument you attributed to me.

thehomer:
I did not say that I knew the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does What I said is that it is logically possible. You really should avoid trying to place words in my mouth.

Lol, what did you think you were saying here:

thehomer: Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds...
Mr anony: By "possible" here does it mean physically possible or logically possible?
thehomer: Logically possible...

Basically, You said that "the universe does not exist the way it does in all logically possible worlds" = "the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does".

THE WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH ARE ENTIRELY YOURS

I said:
1. I do not know that the universe necessarily exists the way it does. i.e whether or not it is possible for the physical constants to be different.
2. It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants.

You on the other hand are claiming that I've said:
3. I know that the universe does not necessarily exist in the way it does.

But, I have not said 3 in any way.

Lololol, let me spell it out again for you. You said:
1. I don't know whether or not it is logically possible for the physical constants to be different.
2. It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants.

So you seriously can't see that you have just said that you don't know something only to factually state precisely what you have just denied knowledge of.

How is what you've said different from what I pointed out you meant? You can clarify with examples.
Secondly, you didn't answer the question I asked but some other question you laid out for yourself. The question I asked was whether or not your idea of chaos is physically possible.

I did in fact answer your question extensively. I am arguing that the physical laws determine the order we observe by which we infer design and also what is physically possible. Chaos would have to be something that breaks these physical laws themselves and not follow any laws or pattern from which we may infer design.

How do you know that the physical laws do not exist necessarily? Have you checked against some other universe? The laws of logic are axiomatic and it is a category error to refer to them as existing.

Lol you really are a funny chap. You have just told us that: "It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants". Did you check that against other universes? Please stop asking silly questions abeg.
Secondly you are just dribbling yourself for nothing. A necessarily existing thing is usually axiomatic (self-evident). That is why there is no possible world where it does not exist.

I'm sorry but what you're saying is just misinformed. That 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic not that it exists. Using existence to refer to it is a category error.

Lolol, so 2+2=4 does not exist? Please can you define for us what you mean by "existence"? because you seem to be confusing yourself

Secondly, you don't seem to understand what the point of those laws of logic are. They are axiomatic. i.e they are required for rational discussion to occur not that the universe depends on them. The universe depends on physical laws. For one to think and carry out rational discourse, that process requires an axiomatic acceptance of the laws of logic. Totally different concepts.

lol, in other words, the laws of logic exist necessarily.

The part about this intelligent being is what you're supposed to demonstrate but so far, you've not done that.

How can I possibly demonstrate something to you when you can't even understand your own argument

What I pointed out to you was that your analogy was poor. Please take the time to actually read through my response there again.

And I explained to you what it was about

What you're doing once more is just some more category error because the word "law" is attached to them. The laws of logic are totally different from physical laws. You really need to grasp this before you can proceed with anything.

Lol, in what way are they different?

thehomer:
It has everything to do with the point you're making. The fact that DNA is an actual molecule out there just destroys your analogy.

The fact molecule happens to encode more information than a combined pieces of thin wood and ink out there called a Chinua Achebe novel is the point I'm making

I don't see how it proves your point. We can also tell the difference between a grain of sand and the sun.

The point you so happily miss as usual is that you can tell that a certain arrangement of bricks is a designed house while another arrangement of bricks is an undesigned pile of junk.

But, DNA is actually a physical molecule consisting of nucleotides, sugars and phosphate. I see how easy it is for you to demonstrate computer code. Now is whatever you type out on your computer actually a DNA molecule?

Lol.....but the novel Things Fall Apart is actually a physical bunch of thin sheets of wood consisting of spots of ink. You have made no point.

Fine. Now please tell me. Is this line of inquiry leading to your God? Yes or no.

We will get there eventually

How is it a strawman? Clarify by answering true or false to these statements:
1. The universe is designed by God.
2. The moon was designed by God.

This is like me making the argument that a house is designed because it's constituent parts are arranged such that they work according to a specific manner. And instead you reply was bricks are designed? sand is designed? glass is designed? stone is designed? wood planks are designed? e.t.c. Notice that your questions have nothing to do with whether these constituent parts are arranged such that they work according to a specific manner.

Edit: How do you know that the physical laws are arbitrary? Are you assuming this or do you actually know this?

How do you know it is logically possible for the physical constants of this universe to be different?

You're confused because you find it difficult to appreciate the implications of what you've said.

You are confused because you have purposely refused to understand what I have said

This is ridiculously naive. Something is either designed or not designed. If something is not designed, then it is designed. There is no middle ground. This is elementary logic. Your attempt to weasel out when your ignorant self contradiction is laid bare is pathetic.

Secondly, have you been able to educate yourself on neutron stars, viruses and sand? Because until you do, you're still making another fallacious argument.

Now a vacuum too is not designed. That's fine too.

This is what you asked me:

Thehomer: 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.....

You wanted to know how I infer design, I told you that when I see constituent parts of a thing complexly arranged such that they function according to a specific manner then I infer design. If you noticed, I answered you according to the extent of my knowledge of how the constituent parts of your examples work. If you were honestly looking for how I infer design, I have provided it for you.

I'm yet to actually misrepresent any of your arguments. So far, you've just been trying to weasel out of direct questions and demonstrations of your fallacious lines of thought. I think your problem is beyond reading comprehension. It is just your own confusion of what you're saying and ignorance of the implications of what you say and the terms you use.

You're still welcome to quote me making the argument you attributed to me.

Lol, you are such a funny character. I really can't help you if you can't even recognize what you are repeatedly shown.

Mr anony:
The point is the meaning and not merely the digit

Agreed.

Anony and his lols ! Check this out !

Mr anony:
Lol, what did you think you were saying here: . . .

Mr anony: Lololol, let me spell it out again for you. You said: . . .

Mr anony: Lol you really are a funny chap. You have just told us that: . . .

Mr anony: Lolol, so 2+2=4 does not exist?

Mr anony: Lol, in what way are they different?

Uyi Iredia: Anony and his lols ! Check this out !

LOL. Abeg don't blame me. The guy just dey amuse me.

Mr anony:
LOL. Abeg don't blame me. The guy just dey amuse me.

Lol again ! She annoys me. If I'm amused it's condescending.

Uyi Iredia:

Lol again ! She annoys me. If I'm amused it's condescending.

I'm pretty sure thehomer is a he

Mr anony:
I'm pretty sure thehomer is a he

I know. I said that on purpose.

mazaje:


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?. . .

Mazaje, please forget all the back and forth and argumentative egoism going on here.

Because it is an EXTREMELY important question.

I ask it for the third time now, please think about it and answer it -

Can you see yourself, and can anyone else see you?

thehomer:

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

Lolz. Funny whenever I see you do have a sense of humour, makes me smile because you usually respond to posts in a strangely robotic fashion with those one liners that make one think you are some sort of automaton or software or program, rather than a human being.

Would make sense actually, as that would show why you cannot understand the quality of being as something that is not of matter. Human beings do understand that. It is an integral component of their being.

Uyi Iredia:

I know. I said that on purpose.

This is a sexxist comment! You mean that he's being a nagging biatch! That's wrong because it denigrates nagging biatches, and therefore amounts to gender apartheid.

Deep Sight:

Lolz. Funny whenever I see you do have a sense of humour, makes me smile because you usually respond to posts in a strangely robotic fashion with those one liners that make one think you are some sort of automaton or software or program, rather than a human being.

I concur. In fact, it got to a point I started replying him in the same manner.

Deep Sight: Would make sense actually, as that would show why you cannot understand the quality of being as something that is not of matter. Human beings do understand that. It is an integral component of their being.

I'll put it this way. Being is not strictly reducible to matter but it is percieved through matter.

Interesting discussion on both sides.

Mr anony:
Lol, what did you think you were saying here:


Basically, You said that "the universe does not exist the way it does in all logically possible worlds" = "the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does".

THE WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH ARE ENTIRELY YOURS

This is once again why I say you don't understand the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities. Does the fact that it is logically possible mean it is physically possible?

Mr anony:
Lololol, let me spell it out again for you. You said:
1. I don't know whether or not it is logically possible for the physical constants to be different.
2. It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants.

So you seriously can't see that you have just said that you don't know something only to factually state precisely what you have just denied knowledge of.

Something can be logically possible without being physically possible. Not knowing whether or not something is physically possible doesn't mean that it is physically possible. Making that conclusion is an argument from ignorance.

Mr anony:
I did in fact answer your question extensively. I am arguing that the physical laws determine the order we observe by which we infer design and also what is physically possible. Chaos would have to be something that breaks these physical laws themselves and not follow any laws or pattern from which we may infer design.

Chaos according to you would be something that breaks physical laws. Is your type of chaos physically possible?

Mr anony:
Lol you really are a funny chap. You have just told us that: "It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants". Did you check that against other universes? Please stop asking silly questions abeg.

Absurdities upon absurdities. You agree that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities yet you go on to make such a silly statement? Please take the time to educate yourself because you're well and truly confused.

Mr anony:
Secondly you are just dribbling yourself for nothing. A necessarily existing thing is usually axiomatic (self-evident). That is why there is no possible world where it does not exist.

This is just more of your absurdities. How do you know that the laws do not exist necessarily? What sort of information do you have that allowed you to come to that conclusion? Again, recall the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities.

Mr anony:
Lolol, so 2+2=4 does not exist? Please can you define for us what you mean by "existence"? because you seem to be confusing yourself

You're the one claiming that it exists. You go ahead and show it.

Mr anony:
lol, in other words, the laws of logic exist necessarily.

How do they exist? Do they exist like the monitor before you?

Mr anony:
How can I possibly demonstrate something to you when you can't even understand your own argument

This coming from someone who keeps on confusing logical and physical possibilities?

Mr anony:
And I explained to you what it was about

You still didn't understand your error it seems.

Mr anony:
Lol, in what way are they different?

Physical laws are derived our observations of the natural universe and they are clearly not axiomatic while the laws of logic are axiomatic.

Mr anony: The fact molecule happens to encode more information than a combined pieces of thin wood and ink out there called a Chinua Achebe novel is the point I'm making

Then you don't understand what the DNA molecule is. You just don't seem to understand that what we do when you visualize it as strings of letters is to represent it in a certain way.

Mr anony:
The point you so happily miss as usual is that you can tell that a certain arrangement of bricks is a designed house while another arrangement of bricks is an undesigned pile of junk.

This is just more of your confusion. What you've just said amounts to conceding that DNA occurred by a natural process from the physical laws.

Mr anony:
Lol.....but the novel Things Fall Apart is actually a physical bunch of thin sheets of wood consisting of spots of ink. You have made no point.

The point stares you in the face. You can type out Things Fall Apart on your monitor. Can you type out the actual DNA molecules on your monitor?

Mr anony:
We will get there eventually

This is an answer to the question I asked. Again, is this line of inquiry leading to your God? It is a simple yes or no response that it requires.

Mr anony:
This is like me making the argument that a house is designed because it's constituent parts are arranged such that they work according to a specific manner. And instead you reply was bricks are designed? sand is designed? glass is designed? stone is designed? wood planks are designed? e.t.c. Notice that your questions have nothing to do with whether these constituent parts are arranged such that they work according to a specific manner.

And the poor attempt at obfuscation continues. Questions that simply require true or false responses turn to some pointless side attraction. Please answer those questions with a true or false.

Mr anony:
How do you know it is logically possible for the physical constants of this universe to be different?

Another attempt at obfuscation when presented with a direct question. You've started your habit of ignoring such questions while I answer your questions. It is logically possible because it can be asserted without contradiction. Now, how do you know the laws are arbitrary?

Mr anony:
You are confused because you have purposely refused to understand what I have said

What you said made no sense.

Mr anony:
This is what you asked me:

You wanted to know how I infer design, I told you that when I see constituent parts of a thing complexly arranged such that they function according to a specific manner then I infer design. If you noticed, I answered you according to the extent of my knowledge of how the constituent parts of your examples work. If you were honestly looking for how I infer design, I have provided it for you.

Now you're trying to accuse me of being dishonest because you made fallacious and self contradictory statements. You should have resolved your ignorance before stepping into the ring. And I notice that you're yet to actually present non-fallacious arguments.

Mr anony:
Lol, you are such a funny character. I really can't help you if you can't even recognize what you are repeatedly shown.

How can you show me anything when your arguments are based on logical fallacies and self contradiction?

Deep Sight:

Lolz. Funny whenever I see you do have a sense of humour, makes me smile because you usually respond to posts in a strangely robotic fashion with those one liners that make one think you are some sort of automaton or software or program, rather than a human being.

Would make sense actually, as that would show why you cannot understand the quality of being as something that is not of matter. Human beings do understand that. It is an integral component of their being.

Bullshite.

^^^ Lolz, dont get your bosoms in a twist bro, just kidding around. . . .

thehomer:
This is once again why I say you don't understand the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities. Does the fact that it is logically possible mean it is physically possible?

And what has that got to do with the fact that the physical constants that define our universe do not exist necessarily?

Something can be logically possible without being physically possible. Not knowing whether or not something is physically possible doesn't mean that it is physically possible. Making that conclusion is an argument from ignorance.

Nonsense, once again the question here is about the logical possibility of the physical laws themselves to differ

Chaos according to you would be something that breaks physical laws. Is your type of chaos physically possible?

Again a redundant question because we are talking about the possiblity of the physical laws themselves to be different.

Absurdities upon absurdities. You agree that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities yet you go on to make such a silly statement? Please take the time to educate yourself because you're well and truly confused.

This guy you are funny. We have agreed that it is logically possible for the physical laws to differ yet you are trying to shift the goalposts by asking a silly redundant question like is it physically possible for the physical laws to be different? You might as well ask whether it is logically possible for the laws of logic to be different. Your question has nothing to do with what is being argued and it is an unnecessary attempt to muddle the water.

This is just more of your absurdities. How do you know that the laws do not exist necessarily? What sort of information do you have that allowed you to come to that conclusion? Again, recall the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities.

Lol, you have already said that the physical constants that define our universe do not exist necessarily when you said that by necessary you meant it can exist in all logically possible worlds. You argument here is moot.

You're the one claiming that it exists. You go ahead and show it.

Lol, I should show you that 2+2=4 exists? What next will you ask me to show you? that E=MC² exists? I see that this is where you want the argument to halt. You have started dancing around again. Perhaps you may have to tell us what you mean by existence because right now you are confusing everybody.
Remember you said in the op that if something exists, it must be detectable. You also hold on this thread that physical laws and constants exist i.e. they are detectable yet you now want to argue whether 2+2=4 exists or not. Please tell us how you were able to detect physical laws and yet unable to detect mathematical laws? Or were you unable to detect both?

How do they exist? Do they exist like the monitor before you?

Lol, Do the physical laws you've been talking about so far exist like the monitor before you? Keep asking silly questions

This coming from someone who keeps on confusing logical and physical possibilities?

You still didn't understand your error it seems.

Lolololol......I must give it to you, your ability to argue nonsense with a straight face is really something exceptional.

Physical laws are derived our observations of the natural universe and they are clearly not axiomatic while the laws of logic are axiomatic.

unless you are arguing that "axiomatic" = "does not exist", you have really made no point

thehomer: Then you don't understand what the DNA molecule is. You just don't seem to understand that what we do when you visualize it as strings of letters is to represent it in a certain way.

In the same way we are currently representing our thoughts(electrical impulses in our brains) using strings of letters. This doesn't change the fact that they originate from a mind.
We can also visualize and represent a house (an arrangement of bricks) as a series of lines, this does not change the fact that the house is designed. Again the point you are desperately trying to ignore is the specific complexity of the information encoded in the symbols.

This is just more of your confusion. What you've just said amounts to conceding that DNA occurred by a natural process from the physical laws.

I have argued that the physical laws that define nature exist by design. I am also arguing that DNA is evidence of design. The question you should be pondering is whether or not it occured by chance. . . .unless you want to equate natural processes to chance in which case you'll also have to argue that even such things as cars and aeroplanes are due to chance because there is absolutely nothing unnatural and unphysical about cars and aeroplanes. Stick to the argument my friend and stop hunting for strawman concessions

The point stares you in the face. You can type out Things Fall Apart on your monitor. Can you type out the actual DNA molecules on your monitor?

The point stares you in the face too because by typing out the novel Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe typed out a representation of electrical activity in his brain.
You can feel free to contest by asking him to type out the actual brain activity for you. It is interesting how you take the material reductionist path while purposely ignoring the the aspect of information which I am pointing you to.

This is an answer to the question I asked. Again, is this line of inquiry leading to your God? It is a simple yes or no response that it requires.

As I said we will get there eventually

And the poor attempt at obfuscation continues. Questions that simply require true or false responses turn to some pointless side attraction. Please answer those questions with a true or false.

Of course any sentence that is longer than five words amounts to obfuscation for you. I won't help you along in your fallacious reasoning. The question you asked is irrelevant to the argument I'm making which is: that I infer design in the universe if it's constituent parts are arranged such that they work according to a specific manner. Please face my argument and stop clutching straws

Another attempt at obfuscation when presented with a direct question. You've started your habit of ignoring such questions while I answer your questions. It is logically possible because it can be asserted without contradiction. Now, how do you know the laws are arbitrary?

Because it is logically possible for them to be different. They do not exist necessarily

What you said made no sense.

Now you're trying to accuse me of being dishonest because you made fallacious and self contradictory statements. You should have resolved your ignorance before stepping into the ring. And I notice that you're yet to actually present non-fallacious arguments.

How can you show me anything when your arguments are based on logical fallacies and self contradiction?

Lol, I see. Now he accuses me of fallacious reasoning because I won't let him argue his strawman. You are one hell of a character. It is really fun playing with you. Please come back again and tell me about my "fallacious reasoning"

Mr anony:
And what has that got to do with the fact that the physical constants that define our universe do not exist necessarily?

The fact that necessity isn't the only requirement. The fact that it is physical possibility that determines whether or not the physical constants can be different.

Mr anony:
Nonsense, once again the question here is about the logical possibility of the physical laws themselves to differ

Rubbish. That isn't the question, the question has always been about the physical possibility.

Mr anony:
Again a redundant question because we are talking about the possiblity of the physical laws themselves to be different.

Wrong again. I'm the one asking the question and I asked if your idea was physically possible. You've still refused to answer.

Mr anony:
This guy you are funny. We have agreed that it is logically possible for the physical laws to differ yet you are trying to shift the goalposts by asking a silly redundant question like is it physically possible for the physical laws to be different? You might as well ask whether it is logically possible for the laws of logic to be different. Your question has nothing to do with what is being argued and it is an unnecessary attempt to muddle the water.

I see that you've realized the errors in your thinking and now you try to side step once more. My question had always been about the physical possibilities because logical possibilities simply aren't enough to show whether or not something is actually physically possible.

Mr anony:
Lol, you have already said that the physical constants that define our universe do not exist necessarily when you said that by necessary you meant it can exist in all logically possible worlds. You argument here is moot.

No it isn't. If what you're proposing is not physically possible, then you're basically saying rubbish by trying to talk about someone designing something physically impossible.

Mr anony:
Lol, I should show you that 2+2=4 exists? What next will you ask me to show you? that E=MC² exists? I see that this is where you want the argument to halt. You have started dancing around again. Perhaps you may have to tell us what you mean by existence because right now you are confusing everybody.
Remember you said in the op that if something exists, it must be detectable. You also hold on this thread that physical laws and constants exist i.e. they are detectable yet you now want to argue whether 2+2=4 exists or not. Please tell us how you were able to detect physical laws and yet unable to detect mathematical laws? Or were you unable to detect both?

Another poor attempt at obfuscation. What do you mean when you say 2 + 2 = 4 exists? How much does it weigh? Just let us know what you mean by existence because you're the one introducing it and applying it to this axiom. Do you remember how and why I demonstrated chaos? Because I introduced it into this conversation. Your turn.

Mr anony:
Lol, Do the physical laws you've been talking about so far exist like the monitor before you? Keep asking silly questions

Keep asking and giving silly responses. The physical laws can be and have been measured just like the monitor before you.

Mr anony:
Lolololol......I must give it to you, your ability to argue nonsense with a straight face is really something exceptional.

This from one who still confuses the implications of logical and physical possibilities. Pathetically embarrassing.

Mr anony:
unless you are arguing that "axiomatic" = "does not exist", you have really made no point

Maybe I am based on your strange ideas. Once you tell me what you mean by existence here, then we can assess that. Since you could as usual be using some strange idea that you cannot present or defend.

Mr anony:
In the same way we are currently representing our thoughts(electrical impulses in our brains) using strings of letters. This doesn't change the fact that they originate from a mind.

What does this have to do with what I've said? Is the mind a molecule or like a molecule?

Mr anony:
And I have argued that the physical laws that define nature exist by design. I am also arguing that DNA is evidence of design.

More concessions from you but you're just unable to understand when you make these concessions.

Mr anony:
The point stares you in the face too because by typing out the novel Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe typed out a representation of electrical activity in his brain.
You can feel free to contest by asking him to type out the actual brain activity for you. It is interesting how you take the material reductionist path while purposely ignoring the the aspect of information which I am pointing you to.

Actually, you're the one taking the reductionist path. Unless of course you think DNA actually thinks then I don't see how you can accuse me of this. Though, it looks like you've finally gotten the point but are now refusing to accept it.

Let me expatiate as usual.

Electrical signals in the brain ≠ a book.
DNA ≠ code

You're the one arguing that DNA = Code.

Mr anony:
As I said we will get there eventually

Looking at how much you keep evading, I would prefer a direct answer to this question now rather than wasting more time on something you've found difficult. You may just distract yourself along the way so once again, is this line of inquiry leading to your God? Please respond with a yes or no.

Mr anony:
Of course any sentence that is longer than five words amounts to obfuscation for you. I won't help you along in your fallacious reasoning. The question you asked is irrelevant to the argument I'm making which is: that I infer design in the universe if it's constituent parts are arranged such that they work according to a specific manner. Please face my argument and stop clutching straws

This is why I prefer direct answers to direct questions. How on earth is it irrelevant to the design argument whether the moon is designed? I've pointed out to you the fallacy you're making with that phrase but you persist.

Mr anony:
Because it is logically possible for them to be different. They do not exist necessarily

More poor reasoning on display. You seem to think that logical possibility implies physical possibility. This is why I've said you don't know what you're talking about. So according to Mr anony, if something doesn't exist necessarily, then it is arbitrary. You do realize that this makes your God arbitrary since it doesn't exist necessarily. You're welcome to make an argument for God's necessary existence.

Mr anony:
Lol, I see. Now he accuses me of fallacious reasoning because I won't let him argue his strawman. You are one hell of a character. It is really fun playing with you. Please come back again and tell me about my "fallacious reasoning"

You never showed me the strawman. What you thought was a strawman was you quote-mining yourself. Amazing. You're quite the study in logical fallacies.

thehomer:
The fact that necessity isn't the only requirement. The fact that it is physical possibility that determines whether or not the physical constants can be different.
Rubbish. That isn't the question, the question has always been about the physical possibility.
Wrong again. I'm the one asking the question and I asked if your idea was physically possible. You've still refused to answer.
I see that you've realized the errors in your thinking and now you try to side step once more. My question had always been about the physical possibilities because logical possibilities simply aren't enough to show whether or not something is actually physically possible.

Still hugging your strawman I see. The point is that from the moment you conceded that the physical laws themselves can be different, the requirement for things to be consistent with physical laws was rendered null and void

No it isn't. If what you're proposing is not physically possible, then you're basically saying rubbish by trying to talk about someone designing something physically impossible.

And I have been arguing that the physical laws themselves are by design. You have also agreed that the physical laws can differ. So unless you think that it is physically possible to have other physical laws existing, your point is moot.

Another poor attempt at obfuscation. What do you mean when you say 2 + 2 = 4 exists? How much does it weigh? Just let us know what you mean by existence because you're the one introducing it and applying it to this axiom. Do you remember how and why I demonstrated chaos? Because I introduced it into this conversation. Your turn.

Interesting so now you have switched from existence based on detection to existence based on physical properties like weight? If so then please tell us how much does E=MC² weigh?

Keep asking and giving silly responses. The physical laws can be and have been measured just like the monitor before you.

Lol, really? then this question should be easy for you: What is the cubic volume and weight of E=MC²?

This from one who still confuses the implications of logical and physical possibilities. Pathetically embarrassing.

Lololol, someone is getting frustrated.

Maybe I am based on your strange ideas. Once you tell me what you mean by existence here, then we can assess that. Since you could as usual be using some strange idea that you cannot present or defend.

I mean existence in the same way you meant existence in your op i.e. a thing exists if it can be detected.

thehomer:
What does this have to do with what I've said? Is the mind a molecule or like a molecule?



More concessions from you but you're just unable to understand when you make these concessions.

I'm sorry I had edited the comments you responded to before you posted. Please read them again. I have made myself much clearer.

Actually, you're the one taking the reductionist path. Unless of course you think DNA actually thinks then I don't see how you can accuse me of this. Though, it looks like you've finally gotten the point but are now refusing to accept it.

Let me expatiate as usual.

Electrical signals in the brain ≠ a book.
DNA ≠ code

You're the one arguing that DNA = Code.

The point you keep missing is the specific complexity of information that both DNA and the book are pointing to. That comes from a mind.

Looking at how much you keep evading, I would prefer a direct answer to this question now rather than wasting more time on something you've found difficult. You may just distract yourself along the way so once again, is this line of inquiry leading to your God? Please respond with a yes or no.

You cannot force an answer you know. We will eventually get there. If you don't like the questions, you are free to refuse to answer them.

This is why I prefer direct answers to direct questions. How on earth is it irrelevant to the design argument whether the moon is designed? I've pointed out to you the fallacy you're making with that phrase but you persist.

Lol, what fallacy? you are the one trying to commit a fallacy of composition here because I don't see how questioning the design of the moon has anything to do with constituent parts of the universe working according to a set of specific instructions.

More poor reasoning on display. You seem to think that logical possibility implies physical possibility. This is why I've said you don't know what you're talking about. So according to Mr anony, if something doesn't exist necessarily, then it is arbitrary. You do realize that this makes your God arbitrary since it doesn't exist necessarily. You're welcome to make an argument for God's necessary existence.

Hahahahaha.....nice try with the red herring but I'm not interested in chasing it. I've had breakfast already.

You never showed me the strawman. What you thought was a strawman was you quote-mining yourself. Amazing. You're quite the study in logical fallacies.

Lol, I am arguing that the universe is designed because it's constituent parts work according to a set of specific instructions that determine it's behaviour.
You are arguing the straw man that each of the constituent parts of the universe are not designed.
Notice that your counter-argument has nothing to do with whether or not these constituent parts work according to a specific complex pattern. Hug your strawman tight sir.

Mr anony:
Still hugging your strawman I see. The point is that from the moment you conceded that the physical laws themselves can be different, the requirement for things to be consistent with physical laws was rendered null and void

This is the exact reason why I say you don't know the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities.

Mr anony:
And I have been arguing that the physical laws themselves are by design. You have also agreed that the physical laws can differ. So unless you think that it is physically possible to have other physical laws existing, your point is moot.

You're just misusing words left and right. I didn't agree that they can differ, I agreed that it is logically possible that they could be different. This doesn't mean it is physically possible. I don't know how else to tell you that you don't know what you're saying. How can it be moot when you're saying what you're saying?

Mr anony:
Interesting so now you have switched from existence based on detection to existence based on physical properties like weight? If so then please tell us how much does E=MC² weigh?

Explain what you mean by existence. E = mc² is measured. The things being measured there are energy, mass and the speed of light. How do we measure your 2 and four?

Mr anony:
Lol, really? then this question should be easy for you: What is the cubic volume and weight of E=MC²?

The mass being referred to in that equation has a cubic volume and I'm sure you know it can be measured.

Mr anony:
Lololol, someone is getting frustrated.

Hmm you're projecting already.

Mr anony:
I mean existence in the same way you meant existence in your op i.e. a thing exists if it can be detected.

Wow. This is another reason why I say you don't know what you're talking about. What is the conclusion of my argument?

Secondly, you've successfully placed your God in the category of numbers. Since numbers don't cause anything, your God doesn't cause anything. Well done.

Mr anony:
I'm sorry I had edited the comments you responded to before you posted. Please read them again. I have made myself much clearer.

Not really. You just continued in your confusion.

Mr anony:
The point you keep missing is the specific complexity of information that both DNA and the book are pointing to. That comes from a mind.

Yes. The specific complexity. I wonder what the specific complexity of information the sun, viruses, vacuum, sand, water, electrons, the moon and black-holes point to.

Mr anony:
You cannot force an answer you know. We will eventually get there. If you don't like the questions, you are free to refuse to answer them.

Nah. Maybe you will but it is more likely that you've lost your way. Let me know when you're on the right track by answering clearly.

Mr anony:
Lol, what fallacy? you are the one trying to commit a fallacy of composition here because I don't see how questioning the design of the moon has anything to do with constituent parts of the universe working according to a set of specific instructions.

Err the moon is a part of the universe isn't it?

Mr anony:
Hahahahaha.....nice try with the red herring but I'm not interested in chasing it. I've had breakfast already.

Nice to see you're well fed. Though the arbitrary God you presented isn't doing so well though.

Mr anony:
Lol, I am arguing that the universe is designed because it's constituent parts work according to a set of specific instructions that determine it's behaviour.

Again, you have no idea what you're doing. You've made two different arguments.
1. The universe is designed.
2. It's constituent parts are designed (code for your own phrase that you quote-mined).

What I just quoted you as saying above is different from your own two points I just clearly listed which weren't fallacious. It in fact is a text book example of the fallacy of composition because if you take everything in the universe to be designed, it doesn't actually follow that the universe itself was designed.

Mr anony:
You are arguing the straw man that each of the constituent parts of the universe are not designed.

No I'm not. My argument is on the first page of the thread. I simply asked how you knew it was designed and you plead ignorance and that some parts of the universe weren't designed while at the same time, everything in the universe was designed. That is a logical contradiction that kills your entire line of reasoning.

Mr anony:
Notice that your counter-argument has nothing to do with whether or not these constituent parts work according to a specific complex pattern. Hug your strawman tight sir.

You don't know whether or not everything in the universe is designed, you don't know that they all work according to what you're saying and you accuse me of a strawman after quote-mining yourself? Sheesh.

Anyway, since you're unable to show where your argument is going, I see no need to continue with you on this thread. When you become scared of answering direct questions because you're afraid of the concessions it implies that you've made, then it appears to me that you're no longer in the discussion to actually review ideas.

When you have these issues clarified in your mind, just let me know so I can show you where you've gone wrong as usual. My initial argument still awaits your serious response to any of the premises.

Before I leave you, you may want to try reviewing my argument and this thread maybe after a few weeks. Hopefully, you'd have gained some perspective. Oh and please avoid logical fallacies and self contradiction whenever you wish to come back.

Happy reading.