Logicboy03:
Guy, a concept is not material.

Gbam ! This contravenes the idea that only matter exists. This implies that concepts are immaterial. Most importantly, because this is the paradox: concepts are always expressed materially.

Logicboy03:
It might relate to material things but it in itself is not material.

Gbam ! My last statement above merely rehashes this. Just note it creates a paradox for both materialists and idealists.

Logicboy03:
Exactly how I describe your God.

Any deist or theist will agree. Just note by stating this you've acknowledged the existence of the immaterial things. Crucial point: all abstracts nouns are ways of expressing immaterial things. Note the paradox: immaterial things. You perforce treat the immaterial as though it exists.

Logicboy03:
Now, there are logical and fallacious concepts.

Yes ! Logical concepts cand be defined as things we agree with. Fallacious concepts as things we disagree with. Fallacy, is a means we use to justify concepts we disagree with (hence the negatives invalid and incorrect). Look at the definition of fallacy in 'List of fallacies' article in Wikipedia:

"A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness."

There is a fallacy in wikipedia called affirming the consequent:

"Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative
conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A."

Every definition affirms itself. Ergo, fallacy, is a affirms the consequent.

You fail to note it by ignoring it (as if it isn't there) or rationalizing it (by making up excuses to justify it) Nuff said !

Logicboy03: Evolution- logical, missing link- fallacious. God is one of the fallacious concepts

Agreed, God is a fallacious missing link. Funny enough there are missing links in the fossil record and evolution is affirmed. Logic and fallacy are concepts you believe, justify, give reasons for, expatiate, feel about.

Logicboy03: You are a materialist 99% of your life.

I can take it anyhow. But I think this is where I should elaborate my thoughts on why atheism seems (or IS as YOU say) logical.
Note where it rehashes thehomer's thoughts here

We empirically percieve the material world using our senses.
Everything that exists is at least capable of being percieved
Anything that cannot be empirically percieved doesn't exist.
God is said to be immaterial.
Immaterial things can't be percieved because they are not material.
Hence, God does not exist.

Let's see the Uyi and DeepSight's view

Our perception is an immaterial idea.
Everything that exists is a perception
Anything that doesn't exist is not a perception
God is said to be immaterial
Immaterial things exist because they are perceptions
Hence, God exists

The problem that is common to both is a contradiction: the materialist by defining the immaterial treats it as if it does. The idealist by defining the immaterial treats it as if it wasn't there.

Now the idealist position gives the notion of things as pink unicorns, leprechauns as if they are empirically verifiable. What the materialist fails to note is that he is skeptical because they haven't materially manifested. In fact, we do this to a limited extent by drawing these ideas, sculpting them and personalizing (or anthropormophizing) them.

The resolution: Simply admit that the immaterial and the material co-exist but one (the immaterial) perforce gives rise to the other (the material)

Logicboy03: It is only when you talk about God that you become some weird immaterialist!

Lol ! Anony see me see wahala ! Didn't you just say concepts are immaterial. You became an idealist too. We are both involved in this.

Logicboy03: If I told you that I have 10 billion dollars, you would ask me for my account balance to believe it.

I MAY or MAY NOT believe you. After all, the a/c can be forged.

Logicboy03: You wouldnt buy a land without seeing it first. You wouldnt marry a woman without seeing her face first.

Yet you talk to Iredia without hearing, touching, smelling, tasting him physically (you only see a bunch of colors thru an LCD screen which could be forged or another person's picture) and you tell people to buy things for you when you are not physically present.

Whew ! Took me about an hour or so of trying to present my idea in a manner logicboy would understand.

Logicboy03:


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

PLease, read up;

Anytime a materialist wants to ignore the immaterial he makes up a term (an abstract term that doesn't refer to a physical object) and treats it as if it was an object. Can the author point out the 'condition' he is referring to ? Prediction: he will refer to various instances of his ideated condition.

Alfa Seltzer: 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?

No ! I believe God to be an immaterial, conscious intelligence. By saying it is immaterial, I have effectively said God is nothing. But note, all material thing exist in nothing. All you gatz do is at least skim Paul Kurtz' book on a universe out of nothing to see an atheist advance the notion. But if it is truly nothing we would not be able to think about it. If indeed we see that the material exists in space (or nothingness) we must perforce assume that nothing has the power to effectuate the something that the material world is. This nothing is intelligence because it is intelligence that percieves matter and the 'nothingness' in which matter exists.

Uyi Iredia:

No ! I believe God to be an immaterial, conscious intelligence. By saying it is immaterial, I have effectively said God is nothing. But note, all material thing exist in nothing. All you gatz do is at least skim Paul Kurtz' book on a universe out of nothing to see an atheist advance the notion. But if it is truly nothing we would not be able to think about it. If indeed we see that the material exists in space (or nothingness) we must perforce assume that nothing has the power to effectuate the something that the material world is. This nothing is intelligence because it is intelligence that percieves matter and the 'nothingness' in which matter exists.

Why do you have to call it "God"?

Critique of the article lb posted.

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

Intuitive. I like that. I'll get back to it. Here's what intuitive means

" Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive"

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

It is abstract and immaterial. Abstract things, by definition don't refer to a physical object. They are used to define what we think of physical objects.

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?

Notice how it is kinda like the God thesis. An atheist asks Is God a thing ? How is it defined ? What are its properties ? How do you know it ? How does God look like (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.

IOW to account for the behaviour of objects as in earth's rotation, magnetism, electromagnetic radiation etc the term energy is invoked. I understand why light is baffling because it (light) is practically massless, weightless etc and involves photons which as it were phase in and out of existence. (Check out virtual photons).
But really, all you call matter proceed from what is called energy.

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.

The same way spirits are said to posses humans. I see the book. I see the book fall. The word 'its potential energy' is invoked to describe its ability to fall. Funny enough. The earth is said to have potential energy. Where is it going to fall if nudged ?

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.

What gives it the impetus. An extant thing of course.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing.

I understand. The way people talk about evolution as a watchmaker, nature as a mother, Time as a waiter and, nothing as if it were something.

Moreover, we
all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and
transported.

All the stated involve materials. In fact, energy is inextricably bound to materials.

The reason that energy has all these aspects
is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject
to, energy is conserved;

By conditions he means energy. Remember, he said energy refer to 'the condition or state'. Substituting word he just said "unlike the many energies objects are 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.

Why do you not see tis energy is in fact God. You take the term energy to directly refer to an instance of energy. You are hesitant to note that energy could possibly act in a way not observed, you call it magic. You see clearly that the way energy is manifested can be described but FORGET that the manifestation isn't energy.

Alfa Seltzer:
Why do you have to call it "God"?

I don't have to, but, the term God like energy, life, space is CONSTRUED to mean something by others. For clarity to them, I have to use the word 'God'.

Uyi Iredia:

I don't have to, but, the term God like energy, life, space is CONSTRUED to mean something by others. For clarity to them, I have to use the word 'God'.

So it could be "doG"? Couldn't it?

Alfa Seltzer:

So it could be "doG"? Couldn't it?

Yes.

Hooray! We have outed one doG worshiper on NL. To think that foolish Seun once banned me for saying doG instead of God. SMH.

Alfa Seltzer: Hooray! We have outed one doG worshiper on NL. To think that foolish Seun once banned me for saying doG instead of God. SMH.

As I said. Terms are construed to mean something. Or miconstrued. For example, I misconstrued your profile name because it makes no sense to me. Of course, the term doG brought out something in Seun.

Uyi Iredia:

Gbam ! This contravenes the idea that only matter exists. This implies that concepts are immaterial. Most importantly, because this is the paradox: concepts are always expressed materially.

That is not a paradox. You are full of nonsense

Immaterial concepts can also explain immaterial things. Immaterial concepts can explain materail things. How is that a paradox.

mtchew

Uyi Iredia:
Gbam ! My last statement above merely rehashes this. Just note it creates a paradox for both materialists and idealists.

Nonsense look above

Uyi Iredia:
Any deist or theist will agree. Just note by stating this you've acknowledged the existence of the immaterial things. Crucial point: all abstracts nouns are ways of expressing immaterial things. Note the paradox: immaterial things. You perforce treat the immaterial as though it exists.

Immaterial things do not exist. Gaddem! You are full of shytt.

Seriously? Did I not tell you that evolution has no physical existence by itself?

Uyi Iredia:
[b]Yes ! Logical concepts cand be defined as things we agree with. Fallacious concepts as things we disagree with. [/b]Fallacy, is a means we use to justify concepts we disagree with (hence the negatives invalid and incorrect). Look at the definition of fallacy in 'List of fallacies' article in Wikipedia:

"A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness."

Anonyism 101; redefine things to meet your fallacious argument.

Uyi Iredia:
Agreed, God is a fallacious missing link. Funny enough there are missing links in the fossil record and evolution is affirmed. Logic and fallacy are concepts you believe, justify, give reasons for, expatiate, feel about.

Uyi Iredia:
I can take it anyhow. But I think this is where I should elaborate my thoughts on why atheism seems (or IS as YOU say) logical.
Note where it rehashes thehomer's thoughts here

We empirically percieve the material world using our senses.
Everything that exists is at least capable of being percieved
Anything that cannot be empirically percieved doesn't exist.
God is said to be immaterial.
Immaterial things can't be percieved because they are not material.
Hence, God does not exist.

Let's see the Uyi and DeepSight's view

Our perception is an immaterial idea.
Everything that exists is a perception
Anything that doesn't exist is not a perception
God is said to be immaterial
Immaterial things exist because they are perceptions
Hence, God exists

The problem that is common to both is a contradiction: the materialist by defining the immaterial treats it as if it does. The idealist by defining the immaterial treats it as if it wasn't there.

Now the idealist position gives the notion of things as pink unicorns, leprechauns as if they are empirically verifiable. What the materialist fails to note is that he is skeptical because they haven't materially manifested. In fact, we do this to a limited extent by drawing these ideas, sculpting them and personalizing (or anthropormophizing) them.

The resolution: Simply admit that the immaterial and the material co-exist but one (the immaterial) perforce gives rise to the other (the material)

too verbiose.

Uyi Iredia:
Lol ! Anony see me see wahala ! Didn't you just say concepts are immaterial. You became an idealist too. We are both involved in this.

Concepts are immaterial and so? Does this make me an idealist?

Uyi Iredia:
I MAY or MAY NOT believe you. After all, the a/c can be forged.

Yes the ATM might be forged. Even the official bank statement is not reliable

Uyi Iredia:
Yet you talk to Iredia without hearing, touching, smelling, tasting him physically (you only see a bunch of colors thru an LCD screen which could be forged or another person's picture) and you tell people to buy things for you when you are not physically present.

Do I not physically communicate with you and others throught text? Abi the screen doesnt exist or the computer doesnt exist?

Uyi Iredia:
Whew ! Took me about an hour or so of trying to present my idea in a manner logicboy would understand.

Nonsense

Uyi Iredia:
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.

First off, the bold is enough for me, but I'll address some of your points for various reasons.

Uyi Iredia:

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.

Computers don't go off to reddit because they lack emotions. No desire on their side to do anything, as they have no 'wills'. But you, that has emotions and what not, could always program one to do so. ie, to achieve your aims.

I don't think even we have free will, but I'll just ignore that for now.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Intelligence exists as an abstract concept. Then again, everything exists as an abstract concept by default. You don't create them, you discover them, see maths. However, intelligence requires a material base to manifest, not the other way round. Note, abstract may or may not, but intelligence definitely requires matter.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Again, abstractions exist by default.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Extra powerful computers do not require a designer. As for 'good', with nature it's "good enough" that counts.

No conscious impetus is needed, sun doesn't need one to shine. All of these are simply logical conclusions. They will be regardless of any sort of consciousness, just as abstractions.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Not sure again what your point is.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

If we ascertained completely and without a doubt that the odds of intelligence evolving were astronomically low, yet we found myriad intelligent species about, then the case for a designer becomes stronger, not weaker, see? Especially if the designs are (logically) optimized, no flaws similar to vestigial organs or inside out eyes. If these condition were met then one could say perhaps there's a purpose, ie some intelligence with a purpose maybe went out of its way to create all these intelligent species, thereby explaining the ubiquity despite the impossible odds.

Note, even in this case, that does not necessarily mean the intelligence responsible is first cause. This would be somewhat similar to adherents of aliens created humanity theories.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Again not sure. But note, time is not as immaterial as you think. In true nothing there's nothing like time, see? It can be measured, etc. As far as abstractions are concerned, again, everything exists as an abstraction by default.

Uyi Iredia:
This . . .

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

It doesn't, I'm not asking you to subscribe to my beliefs, eg something from nothing, etc. But I'm indeed telling you something, there's excellent reason to hold onto these beliefs, they are not some grand folly as you seem to make them out to be.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Having trouble following you here as well. People make the same complaint to me.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Spacetime is not nothing. Nor is energy. Spacetime isn't even boundless in most models, it will simply lead you round and round in circles or something similar. True nothing has no dimensions, including time.

Bosons for the most part are responsible for energy (and perhaps spacetime itself), and they have interesting properties (most beyond me).

Uyi Iredia:

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.

Not sure again

Uyi Iredia:
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.

The conscious beings being us and the rest of life, even if their consciousness is limited or different. And note keywords there are 'evolving' and 'material'. Need not have started with the conscious/subconscious duality, rather it begins with a material base then evolving to the conscious/subconscious. And these aren't my beliefs, they're simply more reasonable than a purposeful god responsible.

Uyi Iredia:
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.

Not sure again.

You don't believe in consciousness, it exists.

Logicboy03:

That is not a paradox. You are full of nonsense

I know. You don't seem to know the same applies to you. No matter how clean you are, you must either $hit, pi$$ or fü©k.

Logicboy03: Immaterial concepts can also explain immaterial things. Immaterial concepts can explain materail things. How is that a paradox.

Why is something that is NOT A THING (immaterial) stated as though it is a thing (material) ?

Logicboy03: mtchew

SMH.

Logicboy03: Nonsense look above

SMH

Logicboy03: Immaterial things do not exist. Gaddem! You are full of shytt.

If they don't exist why are we talking about them as if they exist ?

Logicboy03: Seriously? Did I not tell you that evolution has no physical existence by itself?

Huh ? How then did it make things that exist ? If it isn't physical how does it affect the physical ? By saying it doesn't have physical existence I hope u know it sound very much like God.

Logicboy03: Anonyism 101; redefine things to meet your fallacious argument.

So even quote-mining a definition from Wikipedia is redefining. I posted a definition. I showed a fallacy that applies to the definition then logicboyism 212 (ignore the evidence and state straw-men) takes over.

Logicboy03:

Okay.

Logicboy03: too verbiose.

I won't cry. Spoken words are certainly lost on deaf people. Lemme rehash and summarize it.

A materialist believes only matter exists. An idealist believes only ideas exist. Materialism fails because it is an idea dependent on other people's capacity to know ideas. Idealism fails because all ideas to exist must be expressed using materials of any sort. To resolve both failures we must acknowledge that ideas perforce affect matter.

Logicboy03: Concepts are immaterial and so? Does this make me an idealist?

Yes. For you to say concepts are immaterial, and not state the only materialist's escape of pointing at neurons in the brain, you are an idealist.

Logicboy03: Yes the ATM might be forged. Even the official bank statement is not reliable

Thank God you know that.

Logicboy03: Do I not physically communicate with you and others throught text? Abi the screen doesnt exist or the computer doesnt exist?

No. The text could be from a person who isn't named Uyi. You said you don't talk to people you don't physically see. You haven't physically seen me, have you ? You believe I exist with no physical evidence, lol.

Logicboy03: Nonsense

Next time I'll be sure not to waste my time explaining myself.

If they don't exist why are we talking about them as if they exist ?

Uyi, please, how do you talk of things that don't exist or does talking about imaginations bring them into existence.

If so, then is it right to conclude that in your world, there is no such thing as "inexistence"?

Alfa Seltzer:

Uyi, please, how do you talk of things that don't exist or does talking about imaginations bring them into existence.

Because if they really and truly don't exist, we can't think of or talk about them. Consider this: Can you tell me the largest number ? Yes ! Talking about imaginations perforce makes them exist: Can I demonstrate this to you ?

Alfa Seltzer:
If so, then is it right to conclude that in your world, there is no such thing as "inexistence"?

Clap for yourself. Existence or non-existence exist. If non-existence is true we can't imagine it, talkless of talk about it. Ask yourself why people talk off dead people (like Hitchens or Einstein) or fictional characters (like Batman or James Bond) as if they are alive.

Uyi Iredia:

Because if they really and truly don't exist, we can't think of or talk about them. Consider this: Can you tell me the largest number ? Yes ! Talking about imaginations perforce makes them exist: Can I demonstrate this to you ?



Clap for yourself. Existence or non-existence exist. If non-existence is true we can't imagine it, talkless of talk about it. Ask yourself why people talk off dead people (like Hitchens or Einstein) or fictional characters (like Batman or James Bond) as if they are alive.

If this is deism, I think I prefer christianity. Chei.
This one pass me. Let me requote this to myself, maybe it might make more sense.
Here we go.
"Existence or non-existence exist."
......... thinking..........
No! Still doesn't make sense.

Sorry Uyi. I'll leave you to Logicboy. I think he has the capacity to understand you. I don't.

Alfa Seltzer:

If this is deism, I think I prefer christianity. Chei.
This one pass me. Let me requote this to myself, maybe it might make more sense.
Here we go.
"Existence or non-existence exist."
......... thinking..........
No! Still doesn't make sense.

Sorry Uyi. I'll leave you to Logicboy. I think he has the capacity to understand you. I don't.

Guy, na lie!

It is not me that is going to deal with Uyi's babble!

Alfa Seltzer:

If this is deism, I think I prefer christianity. Chei.

Actually, Christianity does the same.

Alfa Seltzer: This one pass me. Let me requote this to myself, maybe it might make more sense.

Good. You have to realize it. At least, you tried, logicboy would have just said fail.

Alfa Seltzer: .Here we go.
"Existence or non-existence exist."
......... thinking..........
No! Still doesn't make sense.

In fact, it sometimes doesn't make sense to me. But this is critical: if there is really and truly non-existence how come we THINK OF it and TREAT IT AS IF it exists. That's why you can talk of decayed ships, ancient religions and fictional characters as if they really exist.

Why are you thinking. Because you can't think things into existence, if you think of something you face the daunting task of making it with extant materials.

Alfa Seltzer: Sorry Uyi. I'll leave you to Logicboy. I think he has the capacity to understand you. I don't.

You also do.

wiegraf:

First off, the bold is enough for me, but I'll address some of your points for various reasons.

Cherry-picking I see.

wiegraf:
Computers don't go off to reddit because they lack emotions. No desire on their side to do anything, as they have no 'wills'. But you, that has emotions and what not, could always program one to do so. ie, to achieve your aims.

Good.

wiegraf:
I don't think even we have free will, but I'll just ignore that for now.

I see. So you were forced to reply me. My thought: free-will in humans is pre-determined.

wiegraf:
Intelligence exists as an abstract concept. Then again, everything exists as an abstract concept by default. You don't create them, you discover them, see maths. However, intelligence requires a material base to manifest, not the other way round. Note, abstract may or may not, but intelligence definitely requires matter.

I agree intelligence to be made manifest requires a physical base. I also agree that an intelligent God is the nexus of the material world. Especially since I know physical laws could be different.

wiegraf:
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Again, abstractions exist by default.

Why do abstractions exist by default ?

wiegraf:
Extra powerful computers do not require a designer. As for 'good', with nature it's "good enough" that counts.

Extra powerful computers don't need a designer. I guess the course I'm studying (Comp Engr) is needless. Intel and co also need not work since powerful computers don't need designers. Can Nature make a 'good enough' hut ?

wiegraf:
No conscious impetus is needed, sun doesn't need one to shine. All of these are simply logical conclusions. They will be regardless of any sort of consciousness, just as abstractions.

Actually, impetus is needed.

wiegraf:
Not sure again what your point is.

wiegraf:
If we ascertained completely and without a doubt that the odds of intelligence evolving were astronomically low, yet we found myriad intelligent species about, then the case for a designer becomes stronger, not weaker, see? Especially if the designs are (logically) optimized, no flaws similar to vestigial organs or inside out eyes. If these condition were met then one could say perhaps there's a purpose, ie some intelligence with a purpose maybe went out of its way to create all these intelligent species, thereby explaining the ubiquity despite the impossible odds.

Any design involves trade-offs which could be taken to be flaws. Vestigial organs is, in fact, baseless.

wiegraf:
Note, even in this case, that does not necessarily mean the intelligence responsible is first cause. This would be somewhat similar to adherents of aliens created humanity theories.

Yet, materials organizing themselves into living organisms is not absurd - right !

wiegraf:
Again not sure. But note, time is not as immaterial as you think. In true nothing there's nothing like time, see? It can be measured, etc. As far as abstractions are concerned, again, everything exists as an abstraction by default.

The physical world, is also, an abstraction - going by the bolded.

wiegraf:
It doesn't, I'm not asking you to subscribe to my beliefs, eg something from nothing, etc. But I'm indeed telling you something, there's excellent reason to hold onto these beliefs, they are not some grand folly as you seem to make them out to be.

They are a folly, since they deny intelligence is the cause of matter (and life) using intelligence. If materialists were as dull as apes, there would be no debate.

wiegraf:
Having trouble following you here as well. People make the same complaint to me.

Evolution requires vast details - not known. I suggest God making earth and life involves vast details.

wiegraf:
Spacetime is not nothing. Nor is energy. Spacetime isn't even boundless in most models, it will simply lead you round and round in circles or something similar. True nothing has no dimensions, including time.

I agree. I don't think you see what it implies.

wiegraf:
Bosons for the most part are responsible for energy (and perhaps spacetime itself), and they have interesting properties (most beyond me).

Bosons are sub-atomic particles that don't, in the least, answer my question.

wiegraf:
Not sure again

Feigning ignorance.

wiegraf:
The conscious beings being us and the rest of life, even if their consciousness is limited or different. And note keywords there are 'evolving' and 'material'. Need not have started with the conscious/subconscious duality, rather it begins with a material base then evolving to the conscious/subconscious. And these aren't my beliefs, they're simply more reasonable than a purposeful god responsible.

The materials are clearly purposeful too. Since they knew how to organize themselves into living systems that are based on a coded plan.

wiegraf:
You don't believe in consciousness, it exists.

So consciousness exists, but not God. Interesting !

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

Hmmn.

Logicboy03: 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"

Okay.

Logicboy03: In short, theism is illogical.

Not entirely.

Logicboy03: 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.

Science actually rests on God. God is understood through our physical world.

Logicboy03: 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.

Conscious and intelligent energy.

Logicboy03: As for Uyi Iredia's God? One word- pseudoscience (trololo)

Hmmph !

Uyi Iredia:

Cherry-picking I see.

What are you smoking? Did you or did you not post that?

Uyi Iredia:
I see. So you were forced to reply me. My thought: free-will in humans is pre-determined.

Italicized, yes. But that's not necessary atm.

Uyi Iredia:
I agree intelligence to be made manifest requires a physical base. I also agree that an intelligent God is the nexus of the material world. Especially since I know physical laws could be different.

The bolded is completely baseless. And agreed with who? You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

Uyi Iredia:
Why do abstractions exist by default ?

Again, see mathematics. Or do you think someone created the number '1'?

Uyi Iredia:
Extra powerful computers don't need a designer. I guess the course I'm studying (Comp Engr) is needless. Intel and co also need not work since powerful computers don't need designers. Can Nature make a 'good enough' hut ?

So? The computer you're using now had a designer, that means all computers require a designer? That's ridiculous. NEPA generates electricity when they can be bothered, that automatically means all electricity requires a designer.

See your brain, or just about the brain of any organism, to see powerful computers created by no conscious agent.

Uyi Iredia:
Actually, impetus is needed.

Because you say so? Do show me the conscious impetus behind the sun's shining.

Uyi Iredia:
Any design involves trade-offs which could be taken to be flaws. Vestigial organs is, in fact, baseless.

So, deny the obvious, the extremely haphazard machinations of nature? The 99% of genetic mutations that end up being redundant, and lock them away as baseless? As logical trade-offs? 99% useless mutations = logical trade off? How incompetent of a designer is your god then?

Uyi Iredia:
Yet, materials organizing themselves into living organisms is not absurd - right !

Good, but god just immaterially organized himself. Much more sensible.

Uyi Iredia:
The physical world, is also, an abstraction - going by the bolded.

Clearly no. But it exists as an abstraction as well. Erm, why does this need pointing out?

Uyi Iredia:
They are a folly, since they deny intelligence is the cause of matter (and life) using intelligence. If materialists were as dull as apes, there would be no debate.

Che..

Uyi Iredia:
Evolution requires vast details - not known. I suggest God making earth and life involves vast details.

Yes, I know, god did it.

Uyi Iredia:
I agree. I don't think you see what it implies.

Well.. Please enlighten me

Uyi Iredia:
Bosons are sub-atomic particles that don't, in the least, answer my question.

So what holds it up, spiritual power? What should we do to keep everything in place, shout 'abracadabra'? Are you sure you know what bosons are?

Uyi Iredia:
Feigning ignorance.

In case you haven't noticed, just about no one understands what you're on about.

Uyi Iredia:
The materials are clearly purposeful too. Since they knew how to organize themselves into living systems that are based on a coded plan.

Ah...again..well..

Uyi Iredia:
So consciousness exists, but not God. Interesting !

Not really, no. Then again, what one finds interesting is subjective, so this is just my opinion.

wiegraf:



What are you smoking? Did you or did you not post that?

You're a daft you know. You pointed out a part of an earlier statement and left out the others.

wiegraf:
Italicized, yes. But that's not necessary atm.

Okay.

wiegraf:
The bolded is completely baseless. And agreed with who? You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

How is it baseless ?

Precisely. It is non-contingent, unlike humans. If it needed a physical base, it won't be God.

wiegraf:
Again, see mathematics. Or do you think someone created the number '1'?

Who else did ? An alien.

wiegraf:
So? The computer you're using now had a designer, that means all computers require a designer? That's ridiculous. NEPA generates electricity when they can be bothered, that automatically means all electricity requires a designer.

See your brain, or just about the brain of any organism, to see powerful computers created by no conscious agent.

I'll take you seriously when Intel and co goes out of business, due to a supercomputer being made by your precious evolution.

wiegraf:
Because you say so? Do show me the conscious impetus behind the sun's shining.

I can't. You'll have to infer it.

wiegraf:
So, deny the obvious, the extremely haphazard machinations of nature? The 99% of genetic mutations that end up being redundant, and lock them away as baseless? As logical trade-offs? 99% useless mutations = logical trade off? How incompetent of a designer is your god then?

So, it's haphazard when it's God, but 'good enough' when it's evolution. Not to mention tje patent $tupidity in proposing rare 1% beneficial mutations as how species evolved. Design an eye from the scratch, I'll take you a bit more seriously.

wiegraf:
Good, but god just immaterially organized himself. Much more sensible.

It is. You OTOH believe a primordial concoction made the first universal common ancestor.

wiegraf:
Clearly no. But it exists as an abstraction as well. Erm, why does this need pointing out?

Clearly, yes. You said everything exists as an abstraction. Now, are abstractions material or immaterial ?

wiegraf:
Che..

SMH.

wiegraf:
Yes, I know, god did it.

Yeah ! Unfortunately you propound an 'evolution-of-the-gaps' argument.

wiegraf:
Well.. Please enlighten me

God (conscious, intelligent energy) perforce effected our universe. What you call space I call God. Luckily for me, you've stated space is something.

wiegraf:
So what holds it up, spiritual power? What should we do to keep everything in place, shout 'abracadabra'? Are you sure you know what bosons are?

God. Let's assume bosons hold it up. We still have space, lots of it, underneath, so how is it held up. Not to mention your bosons hardly account for the movement of the planets.

wiegraf:
In case you haven't noticed, just about no one understands what you're on about.

It's not my fault you're dense. You make no effort to get what I say.

wiegraf:
Ah...again..well..

Oh save it !

wiegraf:
Not really, no. Then again, what one finds interesting is subjective, so this is just my opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Though I say deism best describes me now, it's tentative.

Uyi Iredia:

You're a daft you know. You pointed out a part of an earlier statement and left out the others.

Che.. Well then, good genius, did you or did you not make that statement, yes or no?

If your answer is yes, could you please tell me in your infinite wisdom why you planted a di.ldo up your own a$$? Do I ever state you didn't post anything else? Wasn't the rest of the post addressing your other issues?!

Actually, I did NOT even want to post a reply, just highlight that particular bit and leave you to your whargarbl. I only posted a somewhat detailed response because I did not want to make your lengthy post seem wasted, call it decorum. That's basically the "other reasons" I speak about in my initial reply.

So, I repeat, that part of the post was enough for me. All I wanted from you was to acknowledge that materialism is a reasonable stance. I hope that's clear now. However, you've now caught my attention, so, time allowing, let's explore your folly..

If your answer is no, well then...

Uyi Iredia:
How is it baseless ?

In case you missed it

me:
You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

So how did your super-immaterial god become intelligent? Ah, yes, the special pleading.

Uyi Iredia:
Precisely. It is non-contingent, unlike humans. If it needed a physical base, it won't be God.

That special pleading thingie again.

Uyi Iredia:
Who else did ? An alien.

No, santa did. He created numbers before he created himself. For instance, there is only 1 santa, however before 1 even existed, and note that he couldn't exist without the concept of the number 1 existing, santa created it.

So, all around the world, the people who discover mathematical laws, created them? I'll be damned, why have the eediots been wasting time with proofs, etc? They should just create the laws, simple. Eg, rather than prove pi = 3.14159, one should have just created any number, like 489ru24944534.434245434556, and called it pi, no? Or rather than show 1 + 1 = 2, they should just create a new answer, like 1 + 1 = "ARE YOU RE.TARDED?", no?

Uyi Iredia:
I'll take you seriously when Intel and co goes out of business, due to a supercomputer being made by your precious evolution.

I'll take you seriously when NEPA goes out of business due to natural phenomena producing electricity

Uyi Iredia:
I can't. You'll have to infer it.

Again

Because you say so?

Please explain why I should just accept something you yourself admit you cannot explain. Or did I cross into sheeple territory? Do it slowly, as this is so counter-intuitive a notion to digest that your answer has to be something epic and monumental, changing the very way we look at the universe like general relativity or quantum mechanics did.

Uyi Iredia:
So, it's haphazard when it's God, but 'good enough' when it's evolution. Not to mention tje patent $tupidity in proposing rare 1% beneficial mutations as how species evolved. Design an eye from the scratch, I'll take you a bit more seriously.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

wiki:
The majority of genetic mutations neither assist, change the appearance of, nor bring harm to individuals. Through the process of genetic drift, these mutated genes are neutrally sorted among populations and survive across generations by chance alone. In contrast to genetic drift, natural selection is not a random process because it acts on traits that are necessary for survival. Natural selection and random genetic drift are constant and dynamic parts of life and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life.

Please, read the above slowly. You seem to have problems grasping the very basics of evolution. Again, s-l-o-w-l-y. And let's even ignore the HARMFUL mutations..

To give you a wider scope, through time, exactly how many species overall have ended up extinct?

For evolution of eye. I'd rather you learned how to use google though..

Uyi Iredia:
It is. You OTOH believe a primordial concoction made the first universal common ancestor.

Go back here

me:
You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

Then do tell, cogently, how your view makes more sense.

me:
Clearly, yes. You said everything exists as an abstraction. Now, are abstractions material or immaterial ?

They are playing golf.

me:
Yeah ! Unfortunately you propound an 'evolution-of-the-gaps' argument.

No, I propound a "please-be-reasonable" argument.

Uyi iredia:
God (conscious, intelligent energy) perforce effected our universe. What you call space I call God. Luckily for me, you've stated space is something.

WWoooooaaahhh. Mind blown. But how does that help your case? I suppose spacetime is intelligent? I can see it, right now besides me, just thinking about breakfast as well...

Uyi iredia:
God. Let's assume bosons hold it up. We still have space, lots of it, underneath, so how is it held up. Not to mention your bosons hardly account for the movement of the planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

wiki:
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson.

As are all forces IIRC. Perhaps you've taken the hype about the higg's boson too literally and decided it really is the "god" particle?

Uyi iredia:
It's not my fault you're dense. You make no effort to get what I say.

And, despite being fairly intelligent, everyone else on this thread and others also failed to make an effort to get what you say?

Use occam's razor and try and deduct (very likely) why no one understands you pls.

Uyi iredia:
A flawed opinion.

How can something as subjective as say selecting your favorite color be objectively flawed? Or are you, as usual, just spouting another (silly) subjective opinion?

wiegraf:

Che.. Well then, good genius, did you or did you not make that statement, yes or no?

If your answer is yes, could you please tell me in your infinite wisdom why you planted a di.ldo up your own a$$? Do I ever state you didn't post anything else? Wasn't the rest of the post addressing your other issues?!

Actually, I did NOT even want to post a reply, just highlight that particular bit and leave you to your whargarbl. I only posted a somewhat detailed response because I did not want to make your lengthy post seem wasted, call it decorum. That's basically the "other reasons" I speak about in my initial reply.

So, I repeat, that part of the post was enough for me. All I wanted from you was to acknowledge that materialism is a reasonable stance. I hope that's clear now. However, you've now caught my attention, so, time allowing, let's explore your folly..

I see that. Just that you cherry-picked. I point that out and you ask non-sequiturs.

wiegraf:
If your answer is no, well then...

I don't give a hoot.

wiegraf:
In case you missed it

So how did your super-immaterial god become intelligent? Ah, yes, the special pleading.

Its intelligence, unlike humans, is not-contingent on matter. I repeat this again, if its intellect depends on matter it isn't God.

wiegraf:
That special pleading thingie again.

Indeed, it bedevils us all. Some see it. Some evotards don't.

wiegraf:
No, santa did. He created numbers before he created himself. For instance, there is only 1 santa, however before 1 even existed, and note that he couldn't exist without the concept of the number 1 existing, santa created it.

So, all around the world, the people who discover mathematical laws, created them? I'll be damned, why have the eediots been wasting time with proofs, etc? They should just create the laws, simple. Eg, rather than prove pi = 3.14159, one should have just created any number, like 489ru24944534.434245434556, and called it pi, no? Or rather than show 1 + 1 = 2, they should just create a new answer, like 1 + 1 = "ARE YOU RE.TARDED?", no?

I can agree Santa made it. Much closer home than aliens.

wiegraf:
I'll take you seriously when NEPA goes out of business due to natural phenomena producing electricity

Which proves my point. Design is needed for computers and electricity generation - not 'Mrs Evolution'.

wiegraf:
Again

Because you say so?

Please explain why I should just accept something you yourself admit you cannot explain. Or did I cross into sheeple territory? Do it slowly, as this is so counter-intuitive a notion to digest that your answer has to be something epic and monumental, changing the very way we look at the universe like general relativity or quantum mechanics did.

It isn't really. Counter-intuitive is how even evolutionists describe their pet theory. However,
a simple inference

We know the physical world could operate differently.
We know this using intelligence.
Ergo, we infer intelligence behind the physical world.

wiegraf:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution


Please, read the above slowly. You seem to have problems grasping the very basics of evolution. Again, s-l-o-w-l-y. And let's even ignore the HARMFUL mutations..

To give you a wider scope, through time, exactly how many species overall have ended up extinct?

For evolution of eye. I'd rather you learned how to use google though..

Oh the patent nonsense from $hitheads such as you, who claim skeptics don't grasp evolutionary basics. You and I see mostly harmful mutations. You wallow in ignorance, I'll keep my reason - thank you ! Evolution of the eye FAILS to show how the eye evolved. Light-sensitive spots in cave-dwelling animals are gesticulated at and then a lot of hand-waving that evolution of the eye started from them. You miss the point. Say from fish-mammals. You need a different kind
of retina, visual cortex, iris etc. All these must happen at once b4 u got a mammal eye from a fish eye. Let the story begin !

wiegraf:
Go back here


Then do tell, cogently, how your view makes more sense.

An earlier (modified) post

"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 for or against 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. From those 3 facts it can be reasonably inferred that intelligence is a crucial factor to life arising from matter."

wiegraf:
They are playing golf.

In wiegraf's holy name may they win. Wiemen !

wiegraf:
No, I propound a "please-be-reasonable" argument.

Yet you kill reason with your 'evolution-of-the-gaps' argument.

wiegraf:
WWoooooaaahhh. Mind blown. But how does that help your case? I suppose spacetime is intelligent? I can see it, right now besides me, just thinking about breakfast as well...

Good. Space-time is intelligent. To help you, note that only intelligent dudes talk about it.

wiegraf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

One, it's hypothetical. Two, it fails to answer the question. You see, you should show HOW the whatever is reponsible directs the earth's movement and supports it.

wiegraf:
As are all forces IIRC. Perhaps you've taken the hype about the higg's boson too literally and decided it really is the "god" particle?

I hardly know about Higgs' boson. Simply, inferences and deductions from elementary physics.

wiegraf:
And, despite being fairly intelligent, everyone else on this thread and others also failed to make an effort to get what you say?

Use occam's razor and try and deduct (very likely) why no one understands you pls.

So Occam's razor helps you understand propositions ? You really are dull. Deducing, I repeat, you are dull.

wiegraf:
How can something as subjective as say selecting your favorite color be objectively flawed? Or are you, as usual, just spouting another (silly) subjective opinion?

I'm referring to the nonsense you posted.

I admit it, this is mind-shattering stuff. I was going to get high, but the foo.lishness on display helped me achieve that, ty. Get your crayons ready, let's see if I can speak schizo

Uyi Iredia:

I see that. Just that you cherry-picked. I point that out and you ask non-sequiturs.

I cherry picked by addressing the whole post?

Uyi Iredia:
I don't give a hoot.

Erm, good for you?

Uyi Iredia:
Its intelligence, unlike humans, is not-contingent on matter. I repeat this again, if its intellect depends on matter it isn't God.

This is you earlier.

Uyi Iredia:
I agree intelligence to be made manifest requires a physical base.

Do you have a sane, coherent, non-m.oronic kindergarten teacher around you? Yes? Does s/he have treats to give you when you're a good boy? Yes? Good. Then please ask him to explain to you how these two statements above $hit all over each other.

Uyi Iredia:
Indeed, it bedevils us all. Some see it. Some evotards don't.



I can agree Santa made it. Much closer home than aliens.

Refer to the teacher, s/he may be able to explain in your terms.

Uyi Iredia:
Which proves my point. Design is needed for computers and electricity generation - not 'Mrs Evolution'.

Oh wow..Like mind-blown..
Just how in whargarbl did you come to that conclusion?!

Uyi Iredia:
It isn't really. Counter-intuitive is how even evolutionists describe their pet theory. However,
a simple inference

We know the physical world could operate differently.
We know this using intelligence.
Ergo, we infer intelligence behind the physical world.

Bolded is a patent assumption

Now, assuming you were indulged, because you used a tool to discern the universe could be different, that means intelligence is behind the universe? Wow. Let's see, I used a sledge hammer to break down a door, that means a sledge hammer was used to make the door. I used a knife to skin a goat, therefore, the knife created the goat.

Are you that desperate for santa?

Uyi Iredia:
Oh the patent nonsense from $hitheads such as you, who claim skeptics don't grasp evolutionary basics. You and I see mostly harmful mutations. You wallow in ignorance, I'll keep my reason - thank you ! Evolution of the eye FAILS to show how the eye evolved. Light-sensitive spots in cave-dwelling animals are gesticulated at and then a lot of hand-waving that evolution of the eye started from them. You miss the point. Say from fish-mammals. You need a different kind
of retina, visual cortex, iris etc. All these must happen at once b4 u got a mammal eye from a fish eye. Let the story begin !

Refer to the teacher. And be nice to her or she might not give you good things.

Pore through the details, look for gaps, apply god. That has never failed humanity. There's a saying from einstein about madness being repeating the same folly, over and over again. Enjoy

Uyi Iredia:
An earlier (modified) post

"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)

Again, m.oron, this is false when you factor in chance and time. And if you want to see haphazard design, look at the awesomeness that is vestigial organs and 99% of uselessness. What an excellent designer your god is.

Uyi Iredia:
• 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,

Yes, because humanity is vewy special and santa lurvs you so spwecially. He created this gargantuan universe just for you. You're quite foo.lish.

Indeed, our brains are optimized. Should those nasty scientists create therapies that fully optimize/unlock the potential of our brains, mayhaps even give us the ability to customize, etc, will your god get jealous?

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

You noticed?!

Uyi Iredia:
Of course, any one (using intelligence) can
argue for or against these, either for the sake of, or because of a bias but these 3 propositions are factual.

Uyi Iredia:
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. From those 3 facts it can be reasonably inferred that intelligence is a crucial factor to life arising from matter."

Uyi Iredia:
Good. Space-time is intelligent. To help you, note that only intelligent dudes talk about it.

Uyi Iredia:
One, it's hypothetical. Two, it fails to answer the question. You see, you should show HOW the whatever is reponsible directs the earth's movement and supports it.

And it may never be observed individually, due to gravity's nature. But it can be inferred both logically and indirectly, eg, gravitational waves

wiki page linked earlier:

Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector.[13] The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole.[13]

However, experiments to detect gravitational waves, which may be viewed as coherent states of many gravitons, are underway (e.g., LIGO and VIRGO). Although these experiments cannot detect individual gravitons, they might provide information about certain properties of the graviton. For example, if gravitational waves were observed to propagate slower than c (the speed of light in a vacuum), that would imply that the graviton has mass (however, gravitational waves must propagate slower than "c" in a region with non-zero mass density if they are to be detectable).[14]

But you struggle with the basics of evolution. Sort that out first before looking at other topics

Uyi Iredia:
I hardly know about Higgs' boson. Simply, inferences and deductions from elementary physics.

ie you're ignorant? No $hit sherlock..

Uyi Iredia:
So Occam's razor helps you understand propositions ? You really are dull. Deducing, I repeat, you are dull.

If you considered me intelligent, then I'd worry. Use occam's razor to try to figure out what why no one understands your nonsense. In crayon-speak, what is the most simple explanation that explains why everyone thinks your whargarbl is unmatched? This is a very simple task, can you manage it?

Uyi Iredia:
I'm referring to the nonsense you posted.

And that's not what I was referring to my good m.oron. Che..

Anyhoo, enjoy your DOG DID IT!!!!

Wow... What a thread....

wiegraf: I admit it, this is mind-shattering stuff. I was going to get high, but the foo.lishness on display helped me achieve that, ty. Get your crayons ready, let's see if I can speak schizo

You speak schizo too well, for a sane person.

wiegraf: I cherry picked by addressing the whole post?

No, by addressing a part.

wiegraf: Erm, good for you?


This is you earlier.


Do you have a sane, coherent, non-m.oronic kindergarten teacher around you? Yes? Does s/he have treats to give you when you're a good boy? Yes? Good. Then please ask him to explain to you how these two statements above $hit all over each other.

God is non-contingent, conscious and intelligent energy. This effected the material world and it (Dog's intelligence) is expressed through the material world. Ergo, God like humans expresses it's intellect thru matter. Unlike humans, it's thinking is not contingent on matter.

wiegraf: Refer to the teacher, s/he may be able to explain in your terms.

I see.

wiegraf: Oh wow..Like mind-blown..
Just how in whargarbl did you come to that conclusion?!

Darwin's ghost told me when you were jizzing off.

wiegraf: Bolded is a patent assumption

Indeed. Like the unproven assumption that physical laws will never change.

wiegraf: Now, assuming you were indulged, because you used a tool to discern the universe could be different, that means intelligence is behind the universe? Wow. Let's see, I used a sledge hammer to break down a door, that means a sledge hammer was used to make the door. I used a knife to skin a goat, therefore, the knife created the goat.

And does intelligence have the relationship described wrt those materials. Did intelligence destroy the universe yet, mr wiegraf ?

wiegraf: Are you that desperate for santa?

Am I ? Someone seems to think aliens made number 1.

wiegraf: Refer to the teacher. And be nice to her or she might not give you good things.

Nah men !

wiegraf: Pore through the details, look for gaps, apply god. That has never failed humanity. There's a saying from einstein about madness being repeating the same folly, over and over again. Enjoy

Same way the magic wand of random mutation and natural selection has been invoked ad infinitum and not ad nauseum.

wiegraf: Again, m.oron, this is false when you factor in chance and time. And if you want to see haphazard design, look at the awesomeness that is vestigial organs and 99% of uselessness. What an excellent designer your god is.

Take out your thyroids and tonsils, a doctor once argued they were vestigial. It is in fact, for example if you retina faced front instead of back, 'twould be over 3 days before you can reply me - it's that sensitive. You design a living thing from inorganic matter and you may perharps have some bragging rights.

Now to the cogent matter. You don't argue that physical events have never been observed to make specified complexity. You plead for Mr Time and Mrs Chance. No evidence. Excuse me. I pointed out facts. Go make a plea in the courts.

wiegraf: Yes, because humanity is vewy special and santa lurvs you so spwecially. He created this gargantuan universe just for you. You're quite foo.lish.

And you are, smart. For believing despite the fact that mutations and NS made species with purpose. I'm 'quite', you ARE föölish

Now to the more cogent matter: you SIDESTEPPED the fact that intelligence has been (even as you later propose that humans customise their brain) the only property observed capable of making objects that simulate living things.

wiegraf: Indeed, our brains are optimized. Should those nasty scientists create therapies that fully optimize/unlock the potential of our brains, mayhaps even give us the ability to customize, etc, will your god get jealous?

Why should it ? You make a brain from nothing, then it'll and I will agree humans are unto something. To be candid, I don't think God petty, unlike mr whargarbl.

wiegraf: You noticed?!

Classic case of cherry-picking. Ignore other facts with ad-hominems. Point out a fact you agree with.

wiegraf: And it may never be observed individually, due to gravity's nature. But it can be inferred both logically and indirectly, eg, gravitational waves

So no empirical basis. You have presented NOTHING as evidence for what holds the earth in space and what makes it move in a certain order. Classic 'boson-of-the-gaps' argument.

wiegraf: But you struggle with the basics of evolution. Sort that out first before looking at other topics


ie you're ignorant? No $hit sherlock..

I can't know everything you know. Do you know who Ihiokpamwonyi is ?

I struggle understand and see flaws with the basics of evolution

as thehomer would say " . . . profound ignorance". I know the basics, even the intermediates. I struggle with the basics of evolution the same way you struggle with ID or creationist basics.

wiegraf: If you considered me intelligent, then I'd worry. Use occam's razor to try to figure out what why no one understands your nonsense. In crayon-speak, what is the most simple explanation that explains why everyone thinks your whargarbl is unmatched? This is a very simple task, can you manage it?

If I didn't consider you intelligent sufficiently dull, we wouldn't be talking.

wiegraf: And that's not what I was referring to my good m.oron. Che..

Then what were you referring to. Clarification matters.

wiegraf: Anyhoo, enjoy your DOG DID IT!!!!

God, I don't think, is bothered with appelations. Call it a kitten if you like.

Uyi Iredia:

You speak schizo too well, for a sane person.

Ty, high praise ideed, considering you're the expert.

Uyi Iredia:
No, by addressing a part.

Get rid of that teacher, find one with experience dealing with "special" kids (or pls ask her to do that for you). Also, I'll be using colors to aid you. I understand some 'special' people learn more easily when colors are involved, I hope it works on you as well.

Now, ask your new teacher 'does this post address only a portion of mine?'.

To highlight, were these not your words?

Uyi Iredia:
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.[/color]

When I say the statement in red is enough for me, just how in your universe does that amount to cherry picking? Here

confusionist; "I think rap is $hit, but I can see why some people dig it"
sane; "Cool. The bolded is enough for me"
confusionist; "YOU'RE CHERRY PICKING MY STAMENTS!!!"

Indeed, if anyone is being taken out of context, it is I!!. And note, asides from the fact that I do NOT modify your meaning in any way, I also actually address your other points in that post (even though I really didn't want to), yet you accuse me of cherry picking? Then what exactly are YOU doing now by ignoring the rest of my post? Not to mention claiming I did not represent your position

I suppose the sane man should never have bothered with the confusionist in the first place.

Uyi Iredia:
God is non-contingent, conscious and intelligent energy. This effected the material world and it (Dog's intelligence) is expressed through the material world. Ergo, God like humans expresses it's intellect thru matter. Unlike humans, it's thinking is not contingent on matter.

And, for the nth time, you assert that intelligence, feelings, etc, need a material base. SO WHY DOES GOD GET A FREE PASS? The only reason you've given is you used intelligence to discern the universe may be different. Therefore; DOG!! Checkmate atheists...

Excellent.

Uyi Iredia:
Darwin's ghost told me when you were jizzing off.

Leave Darwin out of this. It's a respectable pursuit, everyone jizzes excepting asexual folk, of course. In your case, I'm sure you're all too familiar with having a special relationship with your hand.

Very clearly those assumptions you make are FALSE. Lightning, brains, the FACT of evolution, etc, all possible without intelligence, else we wouldn't be here now. As above, where did the intelligence spring out of? Nowhere? Really? You notice how complex objects are built from simple -> complex? You notice how intelligence requires a complex, material base to manifest?

Uyi Iredia:
Indeed. Like the unproven assumption that physical laws will never change.

And where, in your oh so infinite specialness, did you note me make that assumption? Every.single.thing.needs.to.be.pointed.out.to.you. Everything. I appreciate the work of special needs teachers more.

BOTH SCENARIOS ARE ASSUMPTIONS, SO YOUR CONCLUSIONS FROM EITHER COULD ONLY BE THAT, ASSUMPTIONS

As for deductions and likelihoods, we don't know if the universe could be any other way. We don't. We do know though that it is this way, so that is the point any sane man would start from. Your scenario is indubitably an assumption yet you bandy it about like a fact, therefore you've already failed.

To make matters worse your scenario, even if indulged, does not in any way lead to your conclusion. You used intelligence therefore intelligence is necessary to create it? Wtf?!

Uyi Iredia:
And does intelligence have the relationship described wrt those materials. Did intelligence destroy the universe yet, mr wiegraf ?

Don't worry, we'll soon build a mega-black-hole that will suck up the whole universe. CERN's working on it. But wait...this means CERN created the universe..

Uyi Iredia:
Am I ? Someone seems to think aliens made number 1.

Is that really what you got from that exchange? The sad part is I'm not sure if troll or serious. How in whargarbl does abstract = aliens?

Uyi Iredia:
Nah men !

Same way the magic wand of random mutation and natural selection has been invoked ad infinitum and not ad nauseum.

ok

Uyi Iredia:
Take out your thyroids and tonsils, a doctor once argued they were vestigial. It is in fact, for example if you retina faced front instead of back, 'twould be over 3 days before you can reply me - it's that sensitive. You design a living thing from inorganic matter and you may perharps have some bragging rights.

We have a winner here. I'm completely stumped. You win. I gree.

Wait! Is this the same retina that is inside out and features a needless blind spot?

wiki page posted earlier:

The eyes of many taxa record their evolutionary history in their contemporary anatomy. The vertebrate eye, for instance, is built "backwards and upside down", requiring "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns."[32] While such a construct seems to have drawbacks, it allows the outer retina of the vertebrates to sustain higher metabolic activities as compared to the non-inverted design.[33] It also allowed for the evolution of the choroid layer, including the retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells, which play an important role in protecting the photoreceptive cells from photo-oxidative damage.[34] [35]

The camera eyes of cephalopods, in contrast, are constructed the "right way out", with the nerves attached to the rear of the retina. This means that they do not have a blind spot. This difference may be accounted for by the origins of eyes; in cephalopods they develop as an invagination of the head surface whereas in vertebrates they originate as an extension of the brain.

You think your good god could have calibrated it to be, you know, less sensitive? Do note, you aren't even making the case for a conscious being behind the creation of the univeres, eg setting the constants (the only place anywhere where there could be possible questions), manipulating events so that evolution will take place, etc. You're far more foo.lish. You believe this intelligence was actively involved in designing/making humans and all the other life. A good and proper creationist. You also insinuate this great galaxy was created just for us and our specially designed brains. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean all sentient life (though I'm quite sure you don't, let's just say I'm being optimistic).

So, again, could he not have come up with better, optimized designs? For instance, we stand at the cusp of immortality, or at least vastly extended lifespans (something most life craves), are getting rid of faulty issues with our design eg susceptibility to cancer, etc. In essence, unlocking the full potential of our bodies. These we've/will achieve in how many years since the age of enlightenment?

Your god has supposedly been around for eternity, immaterial and all. Somehow effecting events and tuning stuff to meet his grand design? So, why did he require billions of years to achieve sentience via humans, and why is the design in now way optimized, no quality, with just about good enough to deal with nature?

You really think all these;

vestigials
the haphazard quality of nature's designs
common ancestry and evidence for links amongst lifeforms
the inevitable conclusions of natural selection, mutations and time
the observable effects of micro-evolution and artificial selection

All these are scientific hogwash?

You even mention ID as if it were some sort of science...

Uyi Iredia:
Now to the cogent matter. You don't argue that physical events have never been observed to make specified complexity. You plead for Mr Time and Mrs Chance. No evidence. Excuse me. I pointed out facts. Go make a plea in the courts.

See above, and as for time, do you dispute how stars are born? Or even say some of the more mundane like mountains are formed? Would you like to sit around for a few million years to observe this processes take place despite their obvious logical conclusions and evidence of these events taking place? So because you were not there and cannot live the millions of years required to observe these phenomena, someone must have created them?

Uyi Iredia:
And you are, smart. For believing despite the fact that mutations and NS made species with purpose. I'm 'quite', you ARE föölish

Made with purpose?!
If natural selection qualifies, then yes. But is natural selection conscious? OBVIOUSLY NOT

Uyi Iredia:
Now to the more cogent matter: you SIDESTEPPED the fact that intelligence has been (even as you later propose that humans customise their brain) the only property observed capable of making objects that simulate living things.

ME!:

Extra powerful computers do not require a designer. As for 'good', with nature it's "good enough" that counts.

Oh boy, I pity your teachers.

Lemme guess, I'm cherry picking or misrepresenting you or my case, yes?

Uyi Iredia:
Why should it ? You make a brain from nothing, then it'll and I will agree humans are unto something. To be candid, I don't think God petty, unlike mr whargarbl.

If he's mature about it, then I'm sure our genius scientists will share with him. And I do hope you're not whining, or do you think you cover yourself in glory in your exchanges?

Uyi Iredia:
Classic case of cherry-picking. Ignore other facts with ad-hominems. Point out a fact you agree with.

Oh! I see one of the problems. You clearly don't know what cherry-picking is. Oh dear.

Uyi Iredia:
So no empirical basis. You have presented NOTHING as evidence for what holds the earth in space and what makes it move in a certain order. Classic 'boson-of-the-gaps' argument.

You're right, bosons don't exist, there's no empirical basis for them. All the hoopla about the Higgs BOSON last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims. They need the blingin' too. In actuality, pixie dust is all we need. Bosons? DoHOHOHO. Don't make me laugh, that foolish nonsense created by those meddling scientists.

See the big a$$ accelerator they used to search for the Higgs? As that article linked above indicates, you'd need one the size of jupiter to even remotely stand the chance of detecting gravitons. There are other ways of verifying their existence though, as indicated there.

But that's besides the point anyways, as whatever is responsible is a BOSON, they are the force carrier particles

wiki article earlier:
Bosons contrast with fermions, which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (see Pauli exclusion principle).

Since bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter (although in quantum physics the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut).

Focus on the bolded. Read up.

Uyi Iredia:
I can't know everything you know. Do you know who Ihiokpamwonyi is ?

And where did anyone imply you need know everything? However, if you're going to discuss golf, don't you think you should AT LEAST know the rules first?

Uyi Iredia:
I struggle to understand and see flaws with the basics of evolution

You don't say.

Even if you did understand, you clearly want to hold onto the belief of some santa.

And do note, you know how science works? If there's an issue, it gets off its a$$ and looks for a solution. It does not "GOD!!". Look around, that has worked very well for us, unlike "GOD!!"

Uyi Iredia:
as thehomer would say " . . . profound ignorance". I know the basics, even the intermediates. I struggle with the basics of evolution the same way you struggle with ID or creationist basics.

.....
I struggle with creationist basics?!.................
...

Uyi Iredia:
If I didn't consider you intelligent sufficiently dull, we wouldn't be talking.

And then.....so? Ty for gracing me with your unadulterated nonsense?

Uyi Iredia:
Then what were you referring to. Clarification matters.

My opinion about what you find interesting.......4k, every single thing needs to be spelled out..

Uyi Iredia:
God, I don't think, is bothered with appelations. Call it a kitten if you like.

Actually, how can a non-existant being be bothered in the first place?




Now, there is far too much folly in your average post, enough to fit a novella if one were to be honest. Not to mention, while I'm sure it is genuine foo.lishnes, it's still hard to discard the notion that this a troll, as foo.lishness of this level is rarely encountered in people supposedly of the non-sheeple variety. 3? years of training for this? Usually when the hero goes on a 3 year training arc he comes back with impressive techniques, while you have this? Even if what you were saying overall turned out correct, your reasoning is at its very best risible.

Think on the above. If you need any diagrams to help you digest any of these topics, please ask your kindly teacher or god (AKA google) to help. There's only so much folly sane non-qualified folk can endure.

Kudos.

Edits; spambot ban, etc

ban things

wiegraf:

Ty, high praise ideed, considering you're the expert.

. . . says the genius.

wiegraf:
Get rid of that teacher, find one with experience dealing with "special" kids (or pls ask her to do that for you). Also, I'll be using colors to aid you. I understand some 'special' people learn more easily when colors are involved, I hope it works on you as well.



Now, ask your new teacher 'does this post address only a portion of mine?'.

To highlight, were these not your words?



When I say the statement in red is enough for me, just how in your universe does that amount to cherry picking? Here

confusionist; "I think rap is $hit, but I can see why some people dig it"
sane; "Cool. The bolded is enough for me"
confusionist; "YOU'RE CHERRY PICKING MY STAMENTS!!!"

Indeed, if anyone is being taken out of context, it is I!!. And note, asides from the fact that I do NOT modify your meaning in any way, I also actually address your other points in that post (even though I really didn't want to), yet you accuse me of cherry picking? Then what exactly are YOU doing now by ignoring the rest of my post? Not to mention claiming I did not represent your position

I suppose the sane man should never have bothered with the confusionist in the first place.

Now Mr Hyde left Dr Jekkyl a sensible talk can ensue.

You, mr whargarbl, ignored various points I made by claiming misunderstanding. Refer to the post in question and count the 'not sure's'.

wiegraf:
And, for the nth time, you assert that intelligence, feelings, etc, need a material base. SO WHY DOES GOD GET A FREE PASS? The only reason you've given is you used intelligence to discern the universe may be different. Therefore; DOG!! Checkmate atheists...

Excellent.

So lemme assume 'no God'. Explain the universe and life. Let's see if you won't end up appealing for something.

wiegraf:
Leave Darwin out of this. It's a respectable pursuit, everyone jizzes excepting asexual folk, of course. In your case, I'm sure you're all too familiar with having a special relationship with your hand.

Darwin is a part of this. Of course, you have a special tete-a-tete with the stick and its hole.

wiegraf:

Very clearly those assumptions you make are FALSE. Lightning, brains, the FACT of evolution, etc, all possible without intelligence, else we wouldn't be here now. As above, where did the intelligence spring out of? Nowhere? Really? You notice how complex objects are built from simple -> complex? You notice how intelligence requires a complex, material base to manifest?

You notice how intelligence created the theory we argue. Notice how matter has NEVER been seen to make specified complexities; aside from the impressive chimeras of your ilk. Notice how only intelligence makes things that simulate life processes.

wiegraf:
And where, in your oh so infinite specialness, did you note me make that assumption? Every.single.thing.needs.to.be.pointed.out.to.you. Everything. I appreciate the work of special needs teachers more.

Did I say you made the assumption ? You have comprehension issues.

wiegraf:
BOTH SCENARIOS ARE ASSUMPTIONS, SO YOUR CONCLUSIONS FROM EITHER COULD ONLY BE THAT, ASSUMPTIONS

I see !

wiegraf:
As for deductions and likelihoods, we don't know if the universe could be any other way. We don't. We do know though that it is this way, so that is the point any sane man would start from. Your scenario is indubitably an assumption yet you bandy it about like a fact, therefore you've already failed.

It could be. Also note science assumes the scientific method.

wiegraf:
To make matters worse your scenario, even if indulged, does not in any way lead to your conclusion. You used intelligence therefore intelligence is necessary to create it? Wtf?!

Good.

wiegraf:
Don't worry, we'll soon build a mega-black-hole that will suck up the whole universe. CERN's working on it. But wait...this means CERN created the universe..

Maybe. The patent absurdity of time-travel is pleaded for by some scientists.

wiegraf:
Is that really what you got from that exchange? The sad part is I'm not sure if troll or serious. How in whargarbl does abstract = aliens?

Says the guy that asked if aliens made 1.

wiegraf:
ok

Okay.

wiegraf:
We have a winner here. I'm completely stumped. You win. I gree.

Don't patronize me. I'm sure they're hoes and simpletons where you're from.

wiegraf:
Wait! Is this the same retina that is inside out and features a needless blind spot?

The blind spot that's hard to note. That doesn't hinder us from still making full use of our eyes. Call it a vestige as your ilk is won't to do.

wiegraf:
You think your good god could have calibrated it to be, you know, less sensitive? Do note, you aren't even making the case for a conscious being behind the creation of the univeres, eg setting the constants (the only place anywhere where there could be possible questions), manipulating events so that evolution will take place, etc. You're far more foo.lish. You believe this intelligence was actively involved in designing/making humans and all the other life. A good and proper creationist. You also insinuate this great galaxy was created just for us and our specially designed brains. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean all sentient life (though I'm quite sure you don't, let's just say I'm being optimistic).

I have dropped creationism for some time now, try again.

wiegraf:
So, again, could he not have come up with better, optimized designs? For instance, we stand at the cusp of immortality, or at least vastly extended lifespans (something most life craves), are getting rid of faulty issues with our design eg susceptibility to cancer, etc. In essence, unlocking the full potential of our bodies. These we've/will achieve in how many years since the age of enlightenment?

With the God-given brains, no ?

wiegraf:
Your god has supposedly been around for eternity, immaterial and all. Somehow effecting events and tuning stuff to meet his grand design? So, why did he require billions of years to achieve sentience via humans, and why is the design in now way optimized, no quality, with just about good enough to deal with nature?

Did the evolution you worship do any better ? I think evolution must be a p¤$$¥ for making your likes, or for making AIDS and $hit.

wiegraf:
You really think all these;

vestigials
the haphazard quality of nature's designs
common ancestry and evidence for links amongst lifeforms
the inevitable conclusions of natural selection, mutations and time
the observable effects of micro-evolution and artificial selection

All these are scientific hogwash?

Yes.

wiegraf:
You even mention ID as if it were some sort of science...

You have hardly tried to evaluate the facts (central to ID) I presented.

wiegraf:
See above, and as for time, do you dispute how stars are born? Or even say some of the more mundane like mountains are formed? Would you like to sit around for a few million years to observe this processes take place despite their obvious logical conclusions and evidence of these events taking place? So because you were not there and cannot live the millions of years required to observe these phenomena, someone must have created them?

That hardly justifies the evolutionary fairytale that enthralls you.

wiegraf:
Made with purpose?!
If natural selection qualifies, then yes. But is natural selection conscious? OBVIOUSLY NOT

It should be, since it favors and constantly works for the good of the species.

wiegraf:
Oh boy, I pity your teachers.

By all means, carry the burden of pity.

wiegraf:
Lemme guess, I'm cherry picking or misrepresenting you or my case, yes?

Good guess.

wiegraf:
If he's mature about it, then I'm sure our genius scientists will share with him. And I do hope you're not whining, or do you think you cover yourself in glory in your exchanges?

Enjoy your f••ls paradise.

wiegraf:
Oh! I see one of the problems. You clearly don't know what cherry-picking is. Oh dear.

Save the 'dear' for your lover. I'm straight.

wiegraf:
You're right, bosons don't exist, there's no empirical basis for them. All the hoopla about the Higgs BOSON last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims. They need the blingin' too. In actuality, pixie dust is all we need. Bosons? DoHOHOHO. Don't make me laugh, that foolish nonsense created by those meddling scientists.

Okay. You do pretty well playing Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde.

wiegraf:
See the big a$$ accelerator they used to search for the Higgs? As that article linked above indicates, you'd need one the size of jupiter to even remotely stand the chance of detecting gravitons. There are other ways of verifying their existence though, as indicated there.

Okay.

wiegraf:
But that's besides the point anyways, as whatever is responsible is a BOSON, they are the force carrier particles

Magic particles, you mean. No difference really.

wiegraf:
Focus on the bolded. Read up.

I read it up. Bosons are hypothetical. They DON'T explain how the sustenance and movement of the planets are effected. 'Bosons-did-it'
doesn't cut it.

wiegraf:
And where did anyone imply you need know everything? However, if you're going to discuss golf, don't you think you should AT LEAST know the rules first?

I know the rules.

wiegraf:
You don't say.

Done saying that ?

wiegraf:
Even if you did understand, you clearly want to hold onto the belief of some santa.

Oh no ! Get your ABC's right, I said Santa made more sense than aliens making '1'.

wiegraf:
And do note, you know how science works? If there's an issue, it gets off its a$$ and looks for a solution. It does not "GOD!!". Look around, that has worked very well for us, unlike "GOD!!"

Unfortunately it dropped a notch by screaming "Evolution" every chance it gets.

wiegraf:
.....
I struggle with creationist basics?!.................
...

. . . says the dunce that asserts I struggle with evolution.

wiegraf:
And then.....so? Ty for gracing me with your unadulterated nonsense?

An utter fööl like you hardly knows where its sense comes from.

wiegraf:
My opinion about what you find interesting.......4k, every single thing needs to be spelled out.

.

On to the next one . . .

wiegraf:
Actually, how can a non-existant being be bothered in the first place?

How do you treat a non-extant thing as if it was ?

wiegraf:
Now, there is far too much folly in your average post, enough to fit a novella if one were to be honest. Not to mention, while I'm sure it is genuine foo.lishnes, it's still hard to discard the notion that this a troll, as foo.lishness of this level is rarely encountered in people supposedly of the non-sheeple variety. 3? years of training for this? Usually when the hero goes on a 3 year training arc he comes back with impressive techniques, while you have this? Even if what you were saying overall turned out correct, your reasoning is at its very best risible.

Utter $tupidity. Try again.

wiegraf:
Think on the above. If you need any diagrams to help you digest any of these topics, please ask your kindly teacher or god (AKA google) to help. There's only so much folly sane non-qualified folk can endure

You mean my endurance, not yours.

wiegraf:
Kudos.

Okay.

wiegraf:
Edits; spambot ban, etc

Whatever.

me:
vestigials
the haphazard quality of nature's designs
common ancestry and evidence for links amongst lifeforms
the inevitable conclusions of natural selection, mutations and time
the observable effects of micro-evolution and artificial selection

All these are scientific hogwash?

genius:
Yes.

me:
All the hoopla about the Higgs BOSON last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims......

............

.....But that's besides the point anyways, as whatever is responsible is a BOSON, they are the force carrier particles

genius:
Magic particles, you mean. No difference really.

I read it up. Bosons are hypothetical. They DON'T explain how the sustenance and movement of the planets are effected. 'Bosons-did-it'
doesn't cut it.

Let me rewind that

me:
All the hoopla about the Higgs [size=14pt]BOSON[/size] last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims.

genius:
Magic particles, you mean. No difference really.

I read it up. Bosons are hypothetical. They DON'T explain how the sustenance and movement of the planets are effected. 'Bosons-did-it'
doesn't cut it.

Did you even stop to ponder why it's called the Higgs [size=14pt]BOSON[/size]?

http://www.livescience.com/27888-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html

livescience:
"The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is," said CMS spokesperson Joe Incandela in a statement.

Cool. So its not been fully ascertained, but it looks very likely and the predictions seem in order.

Ah! What say you? They've not been observed yet? Still complaining about how bosons are hypothetical magical particles? Perhaps you think your less magical god in all its immaterial, baseless complexity is more likely than the 'magical' bosons.

Ok, ok, to settle this, what about other bosons? Like say photons. Wait?! Those photons used in just about every electronic device?!

wiki:
Photons have many applications in technology. These examples are chosen to illustrate applications of photons per se, rather than general optical devices such as lenses, etc. that could operate under a classical theory of light. The laser is an extremely important application and is discussed above under stimulated emission.

Individual photons can be detected by several methods. The classic photomultiplier tube exploits the photoelectric effect: a photon landing on a metal plate ejects an electron, initiating an ever-amplifying avalanche of electrons. Charge-coupled device chips use a similar effect in semiconductors: an incident photon generates a charge on a microscopic capacitor that can be detected. Other detectors such as Geiger counters use the ability of photons to ionize gas molecules, causing a detectable change in conductivity.

I guess your computer runs on magic then. Exactly what sort of engineer are you planning to be btw?

Btw, you do know gravity is responsible for orbits, so wtf are you on about? Gravity and all the forces are powered by spirit-power?
............................

me:
ie you're ignorant? No $hit sherlock..

^^^In before you try to claim you speak only of the graviton - you weren't




^^^ Sums it up brilliantly. Willfully blind/ignorant just because you want to squeeze GOD!! into it. More likely just foo.lish though.



^^^Sums up the post, and it's some of the finest I've ever seen


Ok, I don't think you could sink any lower (unless you can pull off some miracle), so this time I'm probably gone for good. Kudos for now.