Weah96:


Because you direct access to the divine google

Whatever you want you know, you can ask the invisible divine oracle in your head or heart.

That's what I mean when I say that your actions do not match your claims.

Weah96:

The talking god existed without being in anything, not even empty space.
It was just the talking god by himself without space, time, matter, and even "spirit realm."
What a miserable existence!!!
But how did it create the first SOMETHING?? Any ideas?

You sound pained and angered by something(God?) with all your mockery. I recommend you see a therapist. Pouring vex on nairaland will do you no good.

Kay17:


From which he created from Nothingness..

Ok.

Wonder how IT did it, I mean the magic is too profound to imagine!

How fortunate are we to know Nairalanders who talk to this thing?

Joshthefirst:



You sound pained and angered by something(God?) with all your mockery. I recommend you see a therapist. Pouring vex on nairaland will do you no good.

It was always going to end like this. You've essentially run out of arguments and can no longer continue the discussion.
That's what happens when you talk to divine google spirit people in your heart.

Weah96:


It was always going to end like this. You've essentially run out of arguments and can no longer continue the discussion.
That's what happens when you talk to divine google spirit people in your heart.

I have run out of arguments? seriously?

Weah96:

He is everywhere now, according to you. Where was he before he created this everywhere in which he now lives? Was he nowhere?

Joshthefirst:
before creation, there was no everywhere, and there was no nowhere. there was only God, in his infinity. All of creation is contained within him. He is eternity. He is the container of infinity.

Weah96:

And he talks to human beings in 2016 who then visit Nairaland to spread his message, right?

Weah96:

...
Josh already provided his answer. He claims that the god didn't stay anywhere, not even in the spirit place. He just stood in a corner with no space, time, or matter, or parents.

Joshthefirst:
As I have clarified, before the origin of place, there was no everywhere, and there was no nowhere. There was no corner God was standing in. There was only his Word, calling everything into existence. Birthing place itself from the vastness of his powerful nature. That is what we believe as Christians, so stop mocking like an eediot. If you do not respect my belief, it is hypocritical of you to expect me to expect your own belief of cluelessness.
Stop asking us questions if you cannot handle the answers we give.

Weah96:

Oh, I have no problem with your wild speculations about the initial singularity.
What I find interesting is that you speak to the god, the energy source of the singularity, and yet your actions don't justify the claim. For example, why waste your precious time here on NL , when you already know everything?

Joshthefirst:
How does speaking to god grant me omniscience?

Weah96:

Because you have a direct access to the divine google.
Whatever you want you know, you can ask the invisible divine oracle in your head or heart.
That's what I mean when I say that your actions do not match your claims.

Weah96:

The talking god existed without being in anything, not even empty space.
It was just the talking god by himself without space, time, matter, and even "spirit realm."
What a miserable existence!!!
But how did it create the first SOMETHING?? Any ideas?

Joshthefirst:

You sound pained and angered by something(God?) with all your mockery. I recommend you see a therapist. Pouring vex on nairaland will do you no good.

There's our history. Anyone who reads it can see where argument turned to puerile wailing on your part. I do not carry out discussions with childish wailers and mockers.

KingEbukaNaija:


Dude ! Improvisation is also an exhibition of intelligence . Try again

Improvisation from what? Nothingness?? I am not sure at all you understood kay17's argument as usual

johnydon22:


Improvisation from what? Nothingness?? I am not sure at all you understood kay17's argument as usual

Well not nothingness per se . If you read through pages 5 and 6 you'd understand that nothingness meant no material realm

But :

KingEbukaNaija:


God's foreknowledge of his creation , as an all knowing entity , might have given him the intelligence to create it . In other words , nature was presciently designed .

PastorAIO:


Again Intelligence is a ill defined term that is often used without much deep thought into what is being said.

The above question presumes that Nature is an entity of which we may say it is intelligent or not. That's my first gripe.

Second gripe, There are actually two distinct things that are given the name intelligence.
1) The ability to perceive distinctions, and the ability to derive (or perceive) generalisations.

2) Intelligence is also used to refer to an entity that has Intention/s.


https://www.nairaland.com/294887/what-intellect-ona-kan-o#4191856

So it follows that when I see the question 'Is Nature Intelligent?', I can also interpret that to mean, 'Are Natural Processes Teleological?'. To which I would answer with a resounding 'Yes'.

I'll accept that answer but still I must ask: How did you arrive at the conclusion that natural processes are teleological? What evidence convinces you of this?

plaetton:
Nature is not a distinct entity. Rather, nature is a loose generic term we use to describe the END-PRODUCTS of cosmic interactions in our celestial locality.
As such, nature encompasses all cosmic phenomena .

Since we know that all cosmic phenomena are products of chaos, it naturally follows that nature is an offspring of chaos.

Therefore, by simple deductive logic, it is scientifically obvious that Nature, a COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM, is BEGOTTEN, Refueled and continuously Maintained by the perpetual dance of mother ENERGY and father Random CHAOS.

So, nature itself, is the proof that random choas can and do create and evolve complex functional systems.

This basically answers all your questions.

But, my instincts tell me that these answers are just too simplistic for you, considering how you phrased your questions and the made-to-fit answers you're likely looking for.

In case you need more elaboration, I would be happy to oblige you.

However, I would only do so in purely scientific terms, involving complex scientific and mathematical facts ,ideas and theories .

Good to see you again Plaetton.

If as you claim, nature itself is a complex functional system and it is NOT a product of intelligence, what evidence convinces you of this? Are there other examples of complex functional systems that have come to be by random chance whose origin was observed?

CoolUsername:


There are no eyewitness testimonies in this matter, we don't live for millions of years. What we do have is a crime scene of what happened, and scientists piece the case with available evidence. And you see, eyewitness testimonies are in no way superior to inferences. DNA sampling, has helped to exonerate hundreds of condemned murderers ever since it was developed. In summary, we don't have to place all the burden on eyewitness testimony when we have logical inference.

Ok so you admit that no observation has occurred only inferences have been made. How do you know that you have made the right inferences?

If complex functional systems have never been observed to begin to exist without intelligent design, then upon what basis do you infer that intelligence was not involved in the origination of any given complex functional system?

Ah, but cells are just products of molecular self-assembly. Self-assembly of lipids and proteins form the cell membrane and DNA material, respectively. No outside interference is necessary.

Molecular self-assembly you say. How can anything that lacks agency possibly assemble itself in a specifically ordered mannaer? Or are you suggesting that molecules have conscious agency?

A scientific theory is pure not speculation, DNA sampling, radioisotope dating, and therefore the entire atomic theory all have to be wrong for the evidence that they bring to be discredited.

But all these theories have been proven to be correct in many different and separate applications. Why do they suddenly have to be wrong in the case of evolution?

I don't have a problem with evolution neither am I arguing against it here.

Scholar8200:

Apologies to the op, I am not an expert here.

However, I see nature as the response of all Creation to the ordinances/laws set by the Creator with respect to changes in the Divine order of creation, after the fall.

If it were all energies , chaos and then order, whence the perfectly reasonable and constant laws (eg Gravity)? Who set those laws?

(You mentioned the Goat? I believe those animals underscore the fact of a Creator! Why? If man evolved from Apes, I would have expected that Apes, NOT Goats, would have a goatee!)

I think I agree with what I think is the spirit of what you are saying. Thanks for replying.

MrAnony1:


If as you claim, nature itself is a complex functional system and it is NOT a product of intelligence, what evidence convinces you of this? Are there other examples of complex functional systems that have come to be by random chance whose origin was observed?

Yes.
Plenty.

Cloud formations, movement and dissipations.

Mountain ranges and Rifft valleys.

Rivers and their Tributaries.

Forestations.

Continental drift.


These are all complex functional systems whose origins are underpinned by random chaotic events.

Kay17:
Mranony1


Is Nature intelligent? I would presume intelligence is a preserve of life. Only living things are capable of intelligence in all of human experience.

Are goats a consequence of happy accidents? What is an accident other than unplanned undesirable unintended consequences. Unplanned and unintended by whom?! Now if you notice keenly, the language which you use poisons your thoughts. If you consider events within Nature as unintended or unplanned, you are implicitly suggesting an intelligent designer whose plans have gone AWOL.

When you remove words like happy accidents, you tend to see better.

Erhm...what word would you rather have me use in place of "accident"?

plaetton:


Yes.
Plenty.

Cloud formations, movement and dissipations.

Mountain ranges and Rifft valleys.

Rivers and their Tributaries.

Forestations.

Continental drift.


These are all complex functional systems whose origins are underpinned by random chaotic events.

I see,

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

MrAnony1:


Erhm...what word would you rather have me use in place of "accident"?

Maybe "natural"

I will attempt to assist Plaetton with his thoughts.

His use of the word "random chaos" is contrasted with intelligent agency. Intelligent agency has a central organizing factor whilst random chaos has numerous factors determining causality. Random chaos doesn't mean a total disobedience to physical laws or causality as most theists think it is.

So Plaetton uses that word for this special meaning.

Kay17:
I will attempt to assist Plaetton with his thoughts.

His use of the word "random chaos" is contrasted with intelligent agency. Intelligent agency has a central organizing factor whilst random chaos has numerous factors determining causality. Random chaos doesn't mean a total disobedience to physical laws or causality as most theists think it is.

So Plaetton uses that word for this special meaning.

Thank you.


I had earlier used the phenomena of Brownian Motion to illustrate and emphasize this fine point.

Kay17:


Maybe "natural"

"Natural" doesn't work as well as "accident" when trying to contrast against "intelligent design". especially when the question is whether Natural processes suggest intelligence. To use the word "natural" as in Whether goats originate naturally as opposed to by intelligent design begs the question as it assumes one of the positions that it is required to prove.

Thanks for your suggestion anyway, but I'll stick with the original phrasing.

MrAnony1:

I see,

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

Wikipedia.

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex/intricate whole.

Dictionary.com

an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole

Complex means composed of interconnected parts. So system covers both complex and functional. Now mountains and the watery cycle can be identified not just as a whole but divided into parts which work together. A river feeds the ocean which in turn feeds the river and its source via evaporation. A mountain similarly is naturally forged from multiple bits, it stands on a foundation etc

MrAnony1:


"Natural" doesn't work as well as "accident" when trying to contrast against "intelligent design". especially when the question is whether Natural processes suggest intelligence. To use the word "natural" as in Whether goats originate naturally as opposed to by intelligent design begs the question as it assumes one of the positions that it is required to prove.

Thanks for your suggestion anyway, but I'll stick with the original phrasing.

Your inquiry seeks for an alternative to intelligent agency. For goats, is there an alternative to why they are here? In the absence of an intelligent agency, there is the default position. For the theists we debated on this thread, the default is nothingness to which I disagree.

You are bullying for answers. This means that you're not natural but artificial. Nature has same Code, same number as Mother. That's why all philosophies make references to "Mother/Nature". Nature is Spirit, good and bad. It's the Big Bang that the Supreme Spirit exploded to reveal His Master Piece, the Creations and the creatures. God created Nature in sIx days and rested on the seventh to appreciate the nature of His Works, Nature.

Kay17:


Wikipedia.



Dictionary.com



Complex means composed of interconnected parts. So system covers both complex and functional. Now mountains and the watery cycle can be identified not just as a whole but divided into parts which work together. A river feeds the ocean which in turn feeds the river and its source via evaporation. A mountain similarly is naturally forged from multiple bits, it stands on a foundation etc

No sir, complex systems are not necessarily functional.

A goat for instance is a complex system with specific interconnected parts such as legs, ears, eyes, a brain e.t.c. each of these parts are distinct and specifically work together in such a way that they are functional.

e.g. the goat's eye's function is sight, and it is specifically located and connected in such a way that it performs this function quite well. i.e. it is not located inside the intestine for instance where it wouldn't be able to function properly.
Similarly, the goat's legs are for specifically connected and located so that they can perform the function of movement. The same can be said for all the other parts of the goat.

A goat is not merely a complex system, it is a complex FUNCTIONAL system.

Now please can you tell me...

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

MrAnony1:


No sir, complex systems are not necessarily functional.

A goat for instance is a complex system with specific interconnected parts such as legs, ears, eyes, a brain e.t.c. each of these parts are distinct and specifically work together in such a way that they are functional.

e.g. the goat's eye's function is sight, and it is specifically located and connected in such a way that it performs this function quite well. i.e. it is not located inside the intestine for instance where it wouldn't be able to function properly.
Similarly, the goat's legs are for specifically connected and located so that they can perform the function of movement. The same can be said for all the other parts of the goat.

A goat is not merely a complex system, it is a complex FUNCTIONAL system.

Now please can you tell me...

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

For me, the purpose of interacting subcomponents is functionality (pragmatic value). It is hardly conceivable to find a system that is nonfunctional because all the parts unite to form an integrated whole. To me that is functionality. In the absence of functionality, the system breaks down.

MrAnony1:


Molecular self-assembly you say. How can anything that lacks agency possibly assemble itself in a specifically ordered mannaer? Or are you suggesting that molecules have conscious agency?

Molecular self-assembly is not speculation. It has been observed time and time again by chemists, it is just a type of chemical reaction where base organic compounds organize themselves into ordered structures. There's no debating that.

MrAnony1:


No sir, complex systems are not necessarily functional.

A goat for instance is a complex system with specific interconnected parts such as legs, ears, eyes, a brain e.t.c. each of these parts are distinct and specifically work together in such a way that they are functional.

e.g. the goat's eye's function is sight, and it is specifically located and connected in such a way that it performs this function quite well. i.e. it is not located inside the intestine for instance where it wouldn't be able to function properly.
Similarly, the goat's legs are for specifically connected and located so that they can perform the function of movement. The same can be said for all the other parts of the goat.

A goat is not merely a complex system, it is a complex FUNCTIONAL system.

Now please can you tell me...

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

Mountain ranges and Rift valleys share the same interconnectedness with their ecological environment that a goat has with it's eyes and limbs.

The Mountain range, the Rift valley, the climate, the vegetation, the animal habitats, the preys and the predators all become intertwined by an endless series of random events.

So, going by Kay17's definition of a functional system, the Mountain Range and Rift Valley are functional systems underpinned by a series of random events.

Joshthefirst:
sciencedaily isn't a scientific journal also.

There are many sites that try to report/interpret scientific trends

Do you want us to accept only original journal entries as sources?

Well, it would be advisable. Don't you think so?

KingEbukaNaija:


Well not nothingness per se . If you read through pages 5 and 6 you'd understand that nothingness meant no material realm

But :

You make excellent marketing pro for the Toothfairy.

plaetton:


You make excellent marketing pro for the Toothfairy.

You do realise that all your claims are easily refutable (without exegesis) . This thread have shown that we theists have stronger arguments with the preponderance of evidences . Kay.17 in her little mind felt that no intelligence was required to bring forth complexity from nothingness . Seriously ?

And your kind resort to ridicule in their furtile attempts to refute our arguments .

Now sir , disprove my "claim" : God's foreknowledge of his creation as an all knowing entity gave him the intelligence to create from nothingness

off course you won't ... cos you can't

MrAnony1:


No sir, complex systems are not necessarily functional.

I think an example is a contraption

plaetton:


Mountain ranges and Rift valleys share the same interconnectedness with their ecological environment that a goat has with it's eyes and limbs.

The Mountain range, the Rift valley, the climate, the vegetation, the animal habitats, the preys and the predators all become intertwined by an endless series of random events.

So, going by Kay17's definition of a functional system, the Mountain Range and Rift Valley are functional systems underpinned by a series of random events.

For the umpteenth time , order from randomness and chaos can be a design concept . You need to bring tenable arguments that are cogent enough to preclude a creator .

Na wa oo

Weah96:


Wonder how IT did it, I mean the magic is too profound to imagine!

How fortunate are we to know Nairalanders who talk to this thing?

Just like the magic of nothingness bringing forth intelligence , consciousness , emotions and even complex systems . Magic without a magician - how irrational is that

KingEbukaNaija:


Just like the magic of nothingness bringing forth intelligence , consciousness , emotions and even complex systems . Magic without a magician - how irrational is that

magic without a Magician? How about a Magician without Magic?

Even though I'm avoiding contributing much here because I don't see anyone defining what they mean by intelligence, or consciousness, or emotions…….

I would like to ask, If 'intelligence, consciousness, emotions' (whatever they may actually be) are attributes of God and God has always existed, then can we say that Intelligence, Consciousness, and emotions have always existed?

PastorAIO:


magic without a Magician? How about a Magician without Magic?

Even though I'm avoiding contributing much here because I don't see anyone defining what they mean by intelligence, or consciousness, or emotions…….

I would like to ask, If 'intelligence, consciousness, emotions' (whatever they may actually be) are attributes of God and God has always existed, then can we say that Intelligence, Consciousness, and emotions have always existed?

Yup

And Christians will live eternally with these attributes . Mind births mind . These attributes were passed onto us . For everything to exist an ALL has to be eternal .

Atheists believe nature unconsciously and vacuously (randomness and chaos) produced consciousness and intelligence