Deist were like religious people without the baggage of worship or cursades or brainwashing


After meeting baba Deepsight and Uyi Iredia, I was harshly reminded of one my early atheistic philosophies that I discarded-

"Any belief in God is illogical"



In short, theism is illogical.


Deepsight bases his deist god purely on scientific arguments. Which is exciting. However, it is still silly. If only deepsight had simply agreed that his God is a raw ball of energy like a classical deist! Unfortunately, he goes on to give his God some impossible qualities. Furthermore, science can never prove a "god". Once your God doesnt have one single physical property available, he is useless to science. Your god remains a philosophical quandary; an idea.


The classical deist will describe god as a life energy flowing withing us and every living thing since we are all star dust. That, I can live with! But DeepSight's God? His god is only a bit less ridiculous than the religious God.


As for Uyi Iredia's God? One word- pseudoscience (trololo)

Abu Mikey: What are you saying

Seems you have more muscle than brains, Mr Nairaland

LogicBoy is making progress in his sea of confusion. Ride on boy, but when you look at the mirror, the image you see is your God and Devil. The God you seek, you are a particle of.

Billyonaire: LogicBoy is making progress in his sea of confusion. Ride on boy, but when you look at the mirror, the image you see is your God and Devil. The God you seek, you are a particle of.

Is this sea of confusion a good thing?

Crucial question 1: Has energy been empirically observed outside of matter ? A yes or no and not a convoluted answer or your 'fails' will do.

Uyi Iredia: Crucial question 1: Has energy been empirically observed outside of matter ? A yes or no and not a convoluted answer or your 'fails' will do.

No?

Logicboy03: Deist were like religious people without the baggage of worship or cursades or brainwashing


After meeting baba Deepsight and Uyi Iredia, I was harshly reminded of one my early atheistic philosophies that I discarded-

"Any belief in God is illogical"



In short, theism is illogical.


Deepsight bases his deist god purely on scientific arguments. Which is exciting. However, it is still silly. If deepsight had simply agreed that his God is a raw ball of energy like a classical deist, he goes on to give his God some impossible qualities. Furthermore, science can never prove a "god". Once your God doesnt have one single physical property available, he is useless to science. Your god remains a philosophical quandary; an idea.


The classical deist will describe god as a life energy flowing withing us and every living thing since we are all star dust. That, I can live with! But DeepSight's God? His god is only a bit less ridiculous than the religious God.


As for Uyi Iredia's God? One word- pseudoscience (trololo)

What's pseudo-scientific is noting a phenomena and using a word to objectify an immaterial thing behind the phenomena. Okay. Try and prove to me that forces exist.

Logicboy03:

No?

Hence energy is not matter but the motion of matter, right ?

Logicboy03:


Is this sea of confusion a good thing?

All is good in nature, there is nothing totally bad. But I advise you keep gravitating from good to better.

Uyi Iredia:

Hence energy is not matter but the motion of matter, right ?

You could find clear answers in the wave-particle paradox of Einstein. That's resolving that wave is a form of energy and expounding on the paradox with matter. Both are same thing at the finite level.

Uyi Iredia:

What's pseudo-scientific is noting a phenomena and using a word to objectify an immaterial thing behind the phenomena. Okay. Try and prove to me that forces exist.

guy, you are speaking babble....

This is sophistry....I even understand Obadiah more than you!

Uyi Iredia:

Hence energy is not matter but the motion of matter, right ?

How does this babble prove your deist god?

You and deepsight always amaze me with your verbose scientific talk with zero proof of God

Billyonaire: You could find clear answers in the wave-particle paradox of Einstein. That's resolving that wave is a form of energy and expounding on the paradox with matter. Both are same thing at the finite level.

Yeah. I know that. I'm getting at the energy part. People confuse the 2 and how they are related. That's why he thinks I'm being pseudo-scientific.

Logicboy03:

guy, you are speaking babble....

This is sophistry....I even understand Obadiah more than you!

You had to start your logicboyism. Okay then, lemme cut to the chase. Verify the following definition of energy in Wikipedia.

"In physics, energy is an indirectly observed quantity which comes in many forms, such as kinetic energy, potential energy, radiant energy, and many others."

You agree with it or not.

Logicboy03:

How does this babble prove your deist god?

You and deepsight always amaze me with your verbose scientific talk with zero proof of God

At least you tried. I got 2 posts before logicboyism started. Just so you know proof is an abstract, immaterial concept.

Uyi Iredia:

At least you tried. I got 2 posts before logicboyism started. Just so you know proof is an abstract, immaterial concept.

look....all these "energy" "matter" nonsense does not prove God and so I wonder why you and your buddy deepsight always mention them

Logicboy03:

look....all these "energy" "matter" nonsense does not prove God and so I wonder why you and your buddy deepsight always mention them

And I repeat, proof is an abstract concept not empirically verifiable.

Uyi Iredia:

And I repeat, proof is an abstract concept not empirically verifiable.

Guy, so what is your proof or evidence for deism? For your god?

Logicboy03:

Guy, so what is your proof or evidence for deism? For your god?

Let's first agree on something. Is proof an immaterial, abstract concept ? Yes or no.

Uyi Iredia:

Let's first agree on something. Is proof an immaterial, abstract concept ? Yes or no.

smh. I know where you are going with your silly question. But let me cut you short- I am talking about hard evidence.


Everything that we can 100% guarantee exists has physical evidence. Where is such evidence for your God?


NONE...your god has no physcial properties. Since a deist god doesnt communicate with human beings, there is nothing you know about your god as a deist. The best you have is an assumption.

Logicboy03:

smh. I know where you are going with your silly question. But let me cut you short- I am talking about hard evidence.


Everything that we can 100% guarantee exists has physical evidence. Where is such evidence for your God?


NONE...your god has no physcial properties. Since a deist god doesnt communicate with human beings, there is nothing you know about your god as a deist. The best you have is an assumption.

LogicBoy, if your quest for answers is sincere, you would read and not insult the persons on this thread, but if your quest is for comic purpose, then its in order for you to continue the debacles.

It could be that you are still viewing God from the Religion point of view, such God, as in Christianity/Islam and other evangelical religion do NOT exist. But if you are looking for Supreme ruling power or force that is the precursor of existence, then study what energy is, there lies all the answers you need.

Logicboy03:

smh. I know where you are going with your silly question. But let me cut you short- I am talking about hard evidence.

And I knew you would revert to logicboyism. When I ask you whether proof is abstract you revert to materialism. You forget that matter, in and of itself, lacks intelligence to think. A dead body is a material thing - it can't think. The physical object is in itself not evidence. It is intelligence that defines a material thing as evidence. BTW, the logic and morality you believe in aren't physical things.

Logicboy03:
Everything that we can 100% guarantee exists has physical evidence. Where is such evidence for your God?

I infer God from Nature in a manner you infer evolution from bones and DNA homologies. Just that I consider facts whilst doing so.

Logicboy03:
NONE...your god has no physcial properties. Since a deist god doesnt communicate with human beings, there is nothing you know about your god as a deist. The best you have is an assumption.

Actually, the physical world you see is God. More importantly, your intellectual capacity to feel, cognate, believe, question and think is the nature of God. The material and immaterial are aspects of the same being - God. Just so you know, science rests on the assumption that the scientific method is true. What materialists (and materialistic scientists fail to realize) is that intelligence can't be accounted for using physical means. Wherever you see it. It involves someone presuming using his intelligence that matter 'somehow' gives rise to intelligence.

As a parting gift, read this. It might help.

The part I wanted to answer. As I've said elsewhere deism best describes my belief state at present. A self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps. An atheist insinuated that it was a phase b4 I become atheist but I think its very unlikely (and I'm being conservative saying that). I always liked the term 'free-thought' used by atheists, very simply, I take it to mean the willingness to contemplate/create ideas - any idea. I still disagree, as I have, that there is no God. As I began to contemplate philosophy more (and I admit this was stimulated by arguments with atheists) I decided life on earth (and intelligence in man - a living thing BTW) was the best pointer there is for God. This is where evolution came in, for while there are rare instances - such as harakiri's - of atheists disbelieving evolution, most atheists defend and believe the theory. I then decided if life could be explained by natural means which I strongly doubted, then atheism would be the logical step. I started by reading Darwin's famed book. The early chapters were good enough, but when the concept of natural selection was presented there were 2 fatal flaws: the first was that it was made in spite of observed limits to variations (e.g a cabbage never possibly chemosynthesizing, or pigeons never having beaks like woodpeckers), the second was the anthropormorphism of the term, a flaw which still bedevils evolutionists till this day. On the basis of that, I considered the theory a non-starter and opted for YEC (which I have dropped) & ID (which I still believe). Of course, since they usually state that people who disbelieve it don't understand it I decided to attempt to understand technicalities, so far as I can tell the problem is the same, in fact even worse, since the theory carries the hidden conjectures that life originated by chance (non-random NS is invoked but that fails because the concept requires a living system is in place), no reverse mutations undo the novel traits that are produced and all 'favorable' mutations must survive and reproduce.

Since the element crucial to a possible atheistic belief was in my eyes, a flaw I (while being a Christian) predicted that at most I could be deist. From, at the very least, skimming (for want of time) philosophical works I decided that there are 2 fundamental opposing philosophies: the materialist - who insists only matter exists (hence no God) and the idealist - who believes in an immaterial element in the universe (hence there is a God). As with all matters concerning ideas, these philosophies have their shades of grey. I decided idealism was preferable but what could justify it and what made materialism (and hence atheism untenable). Deliberating on it made me realize that both the materialist and idealist both share the common attribute of being products of intelligence (the terms thoughts, feelings, beliefs, axioms could also describe them). In justifying idealism, I noted that without intellectual ability one COULD NOT profess to be either a materialist or idealist and, this is crucial, all matter (in themselves) lack this capacity. In the thread 'A reasonable argument against God' DeepSight called thehomer a corpse. I think this insult was meant to reinforce this point. I revert back to the crucial question of life. Creationists and ID theorists can confidently say that:

• undirected matter is limited in what it can make (montmorollite crystals, diamonds, snows etc)

• intelligence (as especially seen in humans) makes systems which simulates life (the way all living things are made from encoded DNA or RNA is some viruses) and they hardly say this,

• intelligence (thoughts, feelings, beliefs, chimeras etc) is necessarily expressed through material means.

Of course, any one (using intelligence) can argue these, either for the sake of, or because of a bias but these 3 propositions are factual. I concluded, therefore that the materialist position confutes itself because it (by definition) denies the existence of what makes it possible while using it intelligence to propose how life and indeed the universe arose. Of course, strict materialists are atheists, then atheism is also shown contradictory. An interesting thing I noted was how people sometimes misused terms. Agnosticism is in fact atheism, the only difference is the agnostic disbelieves God on the basis of limitations in knowledge. I came across a Nigerian who said he was atheist, then next said he believed in an 'Infinite Intelligence', that categorically places him as a deist. I still do think there is good in Christianity and wisdom to be gotten from the Bible, I think however that what bedevils it as theistic religions is personalizing a God who hasn't made itself (himself or herself) explicit except through what is seen in Nature. So while the search continues, I think deism best captures my thoughts for now.

Interesting trivia:

• The founder of the Foursquare Gospel Church, Aimee McPherson, was for a time - an atheist. The reason for this is she became convinced of evolution and when she questioned her pastor on it she got no cogent replies. After she received the baptism of the Holy Spirit when her future husband prayed for her she changed her mind. I think 'evolution-believing' Christians are being naïve when they ignore what both YEC's and Dawkins harp on that evolution supports and is based on a materialistic mindset fundamentally opposed to Christianity. As with, all contradictions, it is rationalized.

• I think God is, like human beings, conscious, infinite and intelligent and unlike humans, not contingent on defined physical laws for his existence or his capacity to affect. We depend on already extant material things to exist not so with God. From the above, one can see we share some qualities with God.

• Is God transcendent or immanent ? I think He could be both. It's like the question of the irresistible force against an immovable object. Let's take the former to be immaterial and the latter to be matter. Can anyone defeat the other. No (as was in a certain cartoon they both surrender). Hence, I understand God to be transcendent in that He is immaterial and immanent in that all matter originates from Him.

Forgive the long post. I just summarized 4 years of searching.

Billyonaire:
LogicBoy, if your quest for answers is sincere, you would read and not insult the persons on this thread, but if your quest is for comic purpose, then its in order for you to continue the debacles.

It could be that you are still viewing God from the Religion point of view, such God, as in Christianity/Islam and other evangelical religion do NOT exist. But if you are looking for Supreme ruling power or force that is the precursor of existence, then study what energy is, there lies all the answers you need.

Agreed. I think what is called energy, is in fact God's intellect at work, the term has simply been embellished as a materialistic dogma. Though out of necessity for brevity and clarity, I do assume the opposing stance that matter and events in the natural world are non-contingent. The following thoughts of Marx Plack capture my thoughts on the issue:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed
science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my
research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This
mind is the matrix of all matter."

- Max Planck

That said do you think, the Christian or Muslim God could, in theory exist ?

@uyi, computers think. Other animals do as well (you yourself assert this) even if at very basic, instinctive levels. It's simply the ability to perform abstract reasoning/computation. Again, animals are capable of only very basic levels of this, so they don't 'reason' like we do, eg most lack a sense of self, etc, but they do. I'm not sure why you guys go on and on about this.

Consciousness = computations + emotions, feelings etc. A sense of self, etc, eventually occurring if certain conditions are met, ie if a brain is capable of certain types of calculations and emotion/feeling. Mix these ingredients with the fact that by the time you finish reading this post your brain will be different. New types of connections formed, others lost (unlike machines which remain static), a feature intrinsically linked to how we learn stuff btw. The different brains we all have, each idiosyncratic in its own way, each unique like fingerprints, and combine that with uncertainty at the quantum level and how that may influence development. The general randomness of it all and the variety. And then voila! Consciousness. Conscious individuals. There's good reason why damaging/altering ones brain can completely change ones personality. Iirc they've even succeeded at implanting memories in mice, but I'll have to dig up the article to confirm. Once we can replicate some of these extremely complex processes we will arrive at AI (though note again, AI would probably require some form of biological components, at least simulated, to evoke feeling/emotion, perhaps growth, etc), and what would we have accomplished then? Magic?

You need extra powerful cpus, like ours which handle all these functions as well as other funtions you're unaware of; your heart beating, muscle coordination eg walking, all very complex issues (and hence the difficulty with building bipedal robots as robust as we are) to handle all these functions. Like our brains, arguably the most complex organ we know of (I think), you need evolution to win the lottery in that direction in order to enjoy the goodness that is our consciousness. Why is it that of the billions of species that have been so far we the only ones to have evolved this sort of consciousness? The rarity is a point for evolution, NOT against it. Extremely low odds of it occurring and hence the fact that we're the only ones we know of capable of such. But impossible? Considering the sheer, unbelievable vastness that is this universe, considering the billions of years involved in nature doing its thing, you still consider this impossible?! It's inevitable


I'm not forcing my beliefs down your throat, but when you look at the numbers involved you're clearly wrong when you say the atheistic (if materialistic) or materialistic, stance is unreasonable. Very much so. Details as to how some of these steps in evolution occurr might not be fully known atm, true, but do please show me where 'god did it!' (whatever conscious god) ever, and I mean EVER, was shown to be true. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

What was this god doing? Altering dna through millenia until it arrived at us? Really? Is he also responsible for alterations caused by micro-evolution, you know, the changes we can observe in labs? What of island gigantism for instance? Was he involved when we were not watching, or somehow abstractly influencing nature via supernatural means? Please do show where the ability to compute without any material base was achieved. Or how he remotely guided these changes, if you will.

I have noticed humans involved in making completely hairless dogs from wolves in a few thousand years. These gods sure did take their time, often at times being capricious in their actions, if their goal was to arrive at consciousness. Look at how long it took us to arrive computing machines. I'd say we're much more competent than any consciousness out there, of course, depending on the goal.

Even the pantheist position is more reasonable than a deist one imo. Where we're all (and I mean ALL life, and perhaps all matter/energy) simply part of some sort of evolving collective subconscious (note; subconscious, not consciously aware,) bumbling along, makes more sense than deist positions to me. And note, even that, or any sort of consciousness, would require a material base to operate from.

So when you all go the materialist stance is untenable, one can only smh and wonder what you're on about. It is not unreasonable, in any shape of form.

edits

wiegraf: @uyi, computers think. Other animals do as well (you yourself assert this) even if at very basic, instinctive levels. It's simply the ability to perform abstract reasoning/computation. Again, animals are capable of only very basic levels of this, so they don't 'reason' like we do, eg most lack a sense of self, etc, but they do. I'm not sure why you guys go on and on about this.

I would certainly hope mp3 players and calculators think. Unfortunately, I wonder how you'll feel if your computer went to reddit.net when you wanted to log-in to Nairaland, of course, it will assuage your fears by telling you it thinks reddit is more suited to your types. Animals, yes they do have intelligence but it appears there are limits to what they can grasp. I wonder if a chimpanzee would pick up interest, in say, classical music or calculus.

wiegraf: Consciousness = computations + emotions, feelings etc. A sense of self, etc, eventually occurring if certain conditions are met, ie if a brain is capable of certain types of calculations and emotion/feeling. Mix these ingredients with the fact that by the time you finish reading this post your brain will be different. New types of connections formed, others lost (unlike machines which remain static), a feature intrinsically linked to how we learn stuff btw. The different brains we all have, each idiosyncratic in its own way, each unique like fingerprints, and combine that with uncertainty at the quantum level and how that may influence development. The general randomness of it all and the variety. And then voila! Consciousness. Conscious individuals. There's good reason why damaging/altering ones brain can completely change ones personality. Iirc they've even succeeded at implanting memories in mice, but I'll have to dig up the article to confirm. Once we can replicate some of these extremely complex processes we will arrive at AI (though note again, AI would probably require some form of biological components, at least simulated, to evoke feeling/emotion, perhaps growth, etc), and what would we have accomplished then? Magic?

Not magic really. Pardon the oncoming 'rambling'. I'm trying to understand reality in terms of one fundamental thing. Materialists say matter. I pick intelligence. You look at the matter which intelligence is expressed. I OTOH note that intelligence is not the attribute of matter, in itself. That's why brains outside bodies are useless as stones, that's why corpses with brains cannot think. You reduce it to matter. I infer intelligence. On magic, I must say I find one ironic thing: it necessarily involves physical things. Even as a Christian just joining Nairaland I began to opine that there could be no supernatural as such. Just natural things we've not yet come to terms with (explained, rationalized etc.) I think even supernatural events like hearing a booming voice in the sky could be explained away or patently ignored especially since they are, you guessed, material. Uncertainty. Randomness. You can't point to an object called random. But you can describe events involving objects as random or uncertain. Actually that's good stuff right there. I just know you'll refer to it (consciousness that is never seen, smelt, heard, tasted or touched) using behaviours of objects people know to be consciousness.

wiegraf: You need extra powerful cpus, like ours which handle all these functions as well as other funtions you're unaware of; your heart beating, muscle coordination eg walking, all very complex issues (and hence the difficulty with building bipedal robots as robust as we are) to handle all these functions.

Good thinking ! So let's agree on something. Good extra-powerful
CPU's require a designer. This designer could, at least in theory, be an intelligent, immaterial being (a.k.a God) or a purposeless, material thing (matter). You assert that matter self-organizes into into systems given certain plausible conditions. But note this, it is purposeless and non-intelligent, let's assume for example that deep time (which is a concept objectified by referring to objects) and matter made a human body without the metabolic processes (which involves controlled motions of enzymes and chemical compounds) vital to make it living. What gives it the impetus to start these processes. Energy, perhaps ? The Blind Watchmaker, no ? Favorable abiotic conditions ? Of course, immaterial intelligence must be sidestepped since it brings in notions of Zeus, Mithra, Brahma etc.

wiegraf: Like our brains, arguably the most complex organ we know of (I think), you need evolution to win the lottery in that direction in order to enjoy the goodness that is our consciousness.

Yeah ! Always talk about evolution in anthropormorphic terms. This is the evolutionists the speck in the eye that plagues evolutionists. The paradox of explaining a purposeless process using purpose-laden terms that denote intelligence e.g win, lose, direction, goodness. And like space, are immaterial. I think you enjoy your brain, you BELIEVE or KNOW or PERCIEVE via the senses, it exists. I don't think you know, believe or percieve the immaterial element so necessary for it to exist.

wiegraf: Then again, why is it that of the billions of species that have been so far, why are we the only ones to have evolved this sort of consciousness? The rarity is a point for evolution, NOT against it. Extremely low odds of it occurring and hence the fact that we're the only ones we know of capable of such.

Why do I get the feeling that even if consciousness evolved in all mammals I would be talking with a Mufasa adulating and reinforcing the process of evolution.

wiegraf: But impossible? Considering the sheer, unbelievable vastness that is this universe, considering the billions of years involved in nature doing its thing, you still consider this impossible?!

You are playing Zeno's mind games you know. Just the way Zeno ignored the obvious perception of a rabbit overtaking a tortoise: and reduced it to an infinitesmal distance that is, practically impossible to cross, and infinity (a concept) that is 'impossible' to cross. You expound on 'unbelievable vastness' (as if I don't know or grasp the concept of infinite largeness of matter and its possible configurations) and billions of years (as if I can't comprehend trillions, nay, nonallions of years) as the 'gods' that made us. Lemme worship them since they are so powerful for mortal men like me to understand, only a priviliged group (including you) know it. You forget, that time is an immaterial concept (defined using events - even DeepSight makes the error attimes) and matter, by itself, has no compulsion to be purposeful.

wiegraf: I'm not forcing my beliefs down your throat,

This . . .

wiegraf: but when you look at the numbers involved you're clearly wrong when you say the atheistic (if materialistic) or materialistic, stance is unreasonable.

. . . contradicts this. Lemme agree that you are simply telling me your belief, no guns drawn and no swords unsheathed.

wiegraf: Very much so. Details as to how some of these steps in evolution occurred might not be fully known atm, true, but do please show me where 'god did it!' (whatever conscious god) ever, and I mean EVER, was shown to be true. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

May I suggest that incredibly vast details you comprehend are involved. Funny thing is ID theorists say there is no viable mechanism as to how intelligence made life. They could and should (and in a sense) co-opt evolutionary thesis. Insist that intelligence
is immaterial, necessarily makes matter and organisms with varying capacities to adapt to their environment and the changes we see are as a result of pre-defined genetic computational abilities.

wiegraf: What was this god doing? Altering dna through millenia until it arrived at us? Really? Is he also responsible for alterations caused by micro-evolution, you know, the changes we can observe in labs? What of island gigantism for instance? Was he involved when we were not watching, or somehow abstractly influencing nature via supernatural means? Please do show where the ability to compute without any material base was achieved.

[/quote]

Lemme ask u something. In our world, it is a fact that matter supports matter. Where a levitation of matter occurs there is a magnetic material involved. Where levitation and described motion occurs a machinery involving magnetic material is involved. Fact: In our solar system, all the planetary motions hang unsupported in space (immaterial '3-dimensional' boundless) following motions that are predictable, what is the material support ? Prediction: you'll appeal that energy does it.

wiegraf: I have noticed humans involved in making completely hairless dogs from wolves in a few thousand years. These gods sure did take their time, often at times being capricious in their actions, if their goal was to arrive at consciousness. Look at how long it took us to arrive computing machines. I'd say we're much more competent than any consciousness out there, of course, depending on the goal.

Hmmn. When you can make the matter (atoms, photons, ions etc.)that makes computers (without using extant matter), give me a call. I think it's unlikely though because matter reigns supreme.

wiegraf: Even the pantheist position is more reasonable than a deist one imo. Where we're all (and I mean ALL life, and perhaps all matter/energy) simply part of some sort of evolving collective subconscious (note; subconscious, not consciously aware,) bumbling along, makes more sense than deist positions to me. And note, even that, or any sort of consciousness, would require a material base to operate.

Saying sub-consciuous while emphazing not conscious sounds to me like fire is under a pot but the water in the point won't heat up. The very concept of sub-conscious is inextricably linked with conscious beings. I already anticipated and (in my mind) clearly expressed that meme in my previous quote here:

• intelligence (thoughts, feelings, beliefs, chimeras etc) is
necessarily expressed through material means.

and herein is the paradox we all (including God itself/herself/himself) must face how the immaterial interacts with the material. Or how a digit '0' denotes nothing. The theist and deist
percieve but can't prove to the atheist that an immaterial conscious effected a material universe. The atheist believes (or knows) that matter constitutes into intelligent things, but those damned theists don't get it ! Let us console ourselves with the fact that albeit sperms and eggs join to make humans, we begin, at a certain age, to believe in things like consciousness, intelligence, love etc.

wiegraf: So when you all go the materialist stance is untenable, one can only smh and wonder what you're on about. It is not unreasonable, in any shape of form.

edits

It is in fact tenable. The very presence of materialists prove this. But for the purpose of advancing my belief and because of my belief I'm BOUND to say it's untenable.

Uyi Iredia:

And I knew you would revert to logicboyism. When I ask you whether proof is abstract you revert to materialism. You forget that matter, in and of itself, lacks intelligence to think. A dead body is a material thing - it can't think. The physical object is in itself not evidence. It is intelligence that defines a material thing as evidence. BTW, the logic and morality you believe in aren't physical things.



I infer God from Nature in a manner you infer evolution from bones and DNA homologies. Just that I consider facts whilst doing so.

Matter lacks intelligence? What kind of argument is that? That then proves God? lol. You say that a dead body is a material thing and cant think. An alive body is also matter and a material thing. Your bran and nervous system are also matter.



THE BOLD IS ACTUALLY THE PART I LIKE. YOU JUST SHOWED HOW YOUR OWN GOD DOESNT EXIST. EVOLUTION HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE AS SUCH. IT IS ONLY A THEORY/CONCEPT WE USE TO EXPLAIN THE CHANGES LIVING ORGANISMS UNDERGO. FOR YOU TO INFER GOD JUST AS DNA AND FOSSIL EVIDENCE POINTS TO EVOLUTION, YOUR GOD REMAINS A CONCEPT AS WELL.

Logicboy03:

Matter lacks intelligence? What kind of argument is that? That then proves God? lol. You say that a dead body is a material thing and cant think. An alive body is also matter and a material thing. Your bran and nervous system are also matter.

What kind of argument should it be. It means the molecules of your body cannot think. If a part of your brain is cut off (as Ben Carson does in hemisphectoromies, that brain doesn't say fail or Anonynizing, does it ? The atoms in your brain do they think ? How come from them you KNOW something is true or not. When YOU are ASLEEP and still alive, are you dead ? Every time I refer you to an IMMATERIAL, ABSTRACT concept, you IGNORE it and talk about the material.

Logicboy03:
THE BOLD IS ACTUALLY THE PART I LIKE. YOU JUST SHOWED HOW YOUR OWN GOD DOESNT EXIST. EVOLUTION HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE AS SUCH. IT IS ONLY A THEORY/CONCEPT WE USE TO EXPLAIN THE CHANGES LIVING ORGANISMS UNDERGO. FOR YOU TO INFER GOD JUST AS DNA AND FOSSIL EVIDENCE POINTS TO EVOLUTION, YOUR GOD REMAINS A CONCEPT AS WELL.

If it has no physical existence, you therefore mean it exists as a concept. But concepts are supposed to be from the brain. So you agree evolution is a bunch of neurological activities going on. But then it gets interesting. Could I ask you a question. Is a concept material or immaterial ?

Uyi Iredia:

What kind of argument should it be. It means the molecules of your body cannot think. If a part of your brain is cut off (as Ben Carson does in hemisphectoromies, that brain doesn't say fail or Anonynizing, does it ? The atoms in your brain do they think ? How come from them you KNOW something is true or not. When YOU are ASLEEP and still alive, are you dead ? Every time I refer you to an IMMATERIAL, ABSTRACT concept, you IGNORE it and talk about the material.



If it has no physical existence, you therefore mean it exists as a concept. But concepts are supposed to be from the brain. So you agree evolution is a bunch of neurological activities going on. But then it gets interesting. Could I ask you a question. Is a concept material or immaterial ?

Guy, a concept is not material. It might relate to material things but it in itself is not material. Exactly how I describe your God. Now, there are logical and fallacious concepts. Evolution- logical, missing link- fallacious. God is one of the fallacious concepts


You are a materialist 99% of your life. It is only when you talk about God that you become some weird immaterialist! If I told you that I have 10 billion dollars, you would ask me for my account balance to believe it. You wouldnt buy a land without seeing it first. You wouldnt marry a woman without seeing her face first.

@ logicboy: Keeping in mind you replied no to the question as to whether energy has been observed outside of matter. What do you say to this definition of energy in Wikipedia:

"In physics, energy is an indirectly observed quantity which comes in many forms, such as kinetic energy, potential energy, radiant energy, and many others."

Will you agree that it suggests that energy itself hasn't been empirically verified ?

Uyi Iredia: @ logicboy: Keeping in mind you replied no to the question as to whether energy has been observed outside of matter. What do you say to this definition of energy in Wikipedia:

"In physics, energy is an indirectly observed quantity which comes in many forms, such as kinetic energy, potential energy, radiant energy, and many others."

Will you agree that it suggests that energy itself hasn't been empirically verified ?

Wait, you have a generator in your house and you made the above post?

PLease, read up;

What is energy?

This section covers the concept of energy itself, what it actually is. In the next sections, we'll discuss its various forms, it properties, how its transferred, how we obtain it, and how we use it.

Most of us have an intuitive concept of energy that goes something like this:

Energy is the stuff we need to accomplish physical actions such as walking, lifting a glass, heating some water, or powering a television set.

Although this definition is correct, its a bit indirect because it really only conveys to us what energy is used for, not what energy is, or even how it behaves (for example, what happens to it after you use it?). A curious person might still ask questions like: Is energy a thing? Or is it a property or a condition of a thing? How do we really define it? How was it discovered? What are its properties? These are some of the questions we will try to answer in this and following sections, as completely, briefly, and simply as possible.

With perhaps the exception of energy in the form of light, energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing.

As we will discuss in more depth later, a book sitting on a table, for example, possesses energy ("potential energy" because of its condition of being able to fall if nudged off the table. A ball flying through the air has energy ("kinetic energy" because of its relative velocity with respect to the ground, and it also possesses potential energy because of its height above the ground.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing. Moreover, we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed. In this way, energy is pretty unique among conditions.

Uyi, what you are actually saying is that there is no God. You just decided on a collective name for everything you see or you think exist and this you term "God". It might as well be "dOg" or "Pug" or "doGG". Just a name your sect coined for everything.

Yes?