Did not require a Designer?

kunleweb:

Cranky hard heartedness,before you consume yourselves on the entire physicology you have learnt from a non God believing lecture try to watch 23Minutes in Hell Video search it on Google or read the Book of enoch,search in google read and learn,don't search for God by your terms and not His,He only reveals Himself by those who earnestly seek Him to select the ones that would believe in Him by faith not by forceful observance of signs and fleece.

Out

So people now have stop watches in hell

Deep Sight my own concern is your very first equation has flaws if I am to look at it mathematically, just say nothing plus nothing is equal to nothing. Sounds ridiculous but that is what you are saying, when you say zero plus zero, you leave a can of worms open, just like wirinet pointed out when you divide a number by zero, what do you get?

So Guys - This needed a Designer -

But this did not?

Which is more complex. Which is a greater intricate wonder. Which is more built for purpose?

Deep Sight:

But this did not?

Which is more complex. Which is a greater intricate wonder. Which is more built for purpose?

Not necessarily. . .

complex relative to what? .  .they are 2 very different things.  What is more complex a plasma tv or a wrist watch?

I don't know if DNA was built (assuming that would be begging the question, big time). I'd say the laptop was built for sure though. . .for purpose. .

Again - a Micro Chip -

Needed an Intelligent Designer?

And this cell did not require similar intelligent design? Is it logical to think these things?

And this? ? ?

What about these cell relationships and functions?

But we will all insist that these simple implements here required intelligent design!

Give me a break!

haha.


I thought u had some argument we hadn't heard before

What is "illogical",imo, are the irrational techniques of persuasion that u are using.

Please make me a list of things these have in common (laptop, microchip, dna, cell, human), and i promise to make u a list 2 or three times as long with things they do not have in common. So how this analogy of yours is goin to work is still a mystery to me.

If i drink a small keg of water, toss the keg, and it happens to fall upright. .  .rain falls and fills the keg.  Two days later someone sees the keg and assumed someone must have purposely  filled it with water. Would that be a logical conclusion to make?

Okay. So why did you conclude that the Laptop was designed?

AND BEFORE YOU TELL ME ITS BECAUSE YOU OBSERVED THAT, WHAT WOULD YOU CONCLUDE ABOUT A LAPTOP OR MICROCHIP THAT YOU FIND ON THE PLANET NEPTUNE?

Popped out of nowhere?

Or designed?

P.S: The mere fact that you have heard an argument before does not mean it holds no water.

Deep Sight:

Okay. So why did you conclude that the Laptop was designed?

AND BEFORE YOU TELL ME ITS BECAUSE YOU OBSERVED THAT, WHAT WOULD YOU CONCLUDE ABOUT A LAPTOP OR MICROCHIP THAT YOU FIND ON THE PLANET NEPTUNE?

Popped out of nowhere?

Or designed?

P.S: The mere fact that you have heard an argument before does not mean it holds no water.

Because i know the laptop was designed. SO do u.

When someone finds a microchip on neptune, we'll discuss that.

That is why i'm hearing u out. I apologize if that comment came out wrong. I just meant that i was really curious to know where u were comin from. I'm always eager to hear new stuff. . .but the "it's complex so it must have a designer" isn't new. I'm still willing to hear u out though. And i'm pretty gullible as long as something makes sense to me

?

Krayola2:

Because i know the laptop was designed. SO do u.

I'm always eager to hear new stuff. . .but the "it's complex so it must have a designer" isn't new.

Remember the point was not simply - its complex so it must have a designer?

The point was -

Design + Purpose = Verifiable Intelligence.

There are already celestial bodies in the cosmos more intriguing than laptops or micro chips. so we needn't wait, Krayola.

I know the Micro Chip is designed because it shows structure and purpose.

These are the same premises that lead me to assert that the Milky Way Galaxy, for example, is designed.

What do you say about the spiral DNA framework. Are you familiar with its workings?

Are you aware that its workings far exceed those of the largest computers in existence.

If you believe that a computer cannot exist without intelligent design, how reasonable is it to contend that objects of far greater intricacy, structure and design can exist by chance.

And this. . . . Was presumably painted by somebody. . .

But this was not ? ? ?

Or this?

What part of 0 + 0 = 0 is not exact mathematics? Why does the numeric figure 0 appear at all in the numeric sequence if it has no relevance?

Or is 0 + 0 = to anything else other than 0?

With respect, this is not an equation based on emotions, you go and fetch me a more correct answer to the question, then i can hear you.

@ Pastor - sorry about the digression. I will leave the thread to concentrate now. Chris, we can address these questions on the other thread.

By all means,

Let us examine what you are saying.

0 + 0 = 0

Nothing in itself is not a quantity, adding two non quantities together is just as useless as thinking about it.

when you move on to

0 + 1 = 1

that is where the mathematics starts, and like I said before

0 + orange = orange

so again

0 + universe = universe

QED

What I have been trying to point out is that the reduction of your problem statement to mathematics is where your own problem lies, you say the universe was caused by something intelligent, I am pretty sure that the model equation for causation is a lot more technical than zero plus one.

Very well Chris, let us not go back . . . i still think you are not getting it though. . .

Any way what do you make of the pictoral analogies above?

Deep Sight:

Remember the point was not simply - its complex so it must have a designer?

The point was -

Design + Purpose = Verifiable Intelligence.

I think it depends on vantage point.

Sometimes accidents/flukes can have stunning consequences. .

e.g 2 off duty FBI agents on their way to meet up with escorts/prostitutes for sex, in a hotel room, enter the wrong room and make the biggest drug bust of their careers. From their point of view, it was just an accident; but the busted drug dealers may think it was several months of investigation and surveillance. (haha. . .hope this tacky analogy gets my point across)

That something seemingly has a design or purpose does not make it so. It could be that we don't like to feel worthless in this vast universe, so it makes us feel better to think that we have a purpose, and were designed for the purpose.  

Deep Sight:

There are already celestial bodies in the cosmos more intriguing than laptops or micro chips. so we needn't wait, Krayola.

I'm in awe of the universe. It's mind blowing when u actually look at some of the stuff thats out there. But i never underestimate human intellectual potential. As long as we don't blow up the earth in some nuclear war, I believe we'll explore the universe, and one day have a better understanding of what is out there. Till then, lets not force answers on the questions we have

The God I deny is the God of religion (bible, Koran etc). If all u were saying was that there "COULD" be a designer, i'd totally agree with u. But i can't make that affirmation that there is one based on my own experiences of the universe. That'll be me imposing my own need for "validtion"/feeling of emptiness etc. on the evidence.

Deep Sight:

I know the Micro Chip is designed because it shows structure and purpose.

I know the microchip was designed because it does not appear in nature, can do complex stuff and the discovery channel said so   .

If i had never seen a  microchip before, and had no idea what it's purpose was,etc i wouldn't assume it had a designer.

Deep Sight:

These are the same premises that lead me to assert that the Milky Way Galaxy, for example, is designed.


What do you say about the spiral DNA framework. Are you familiar with its workings?
[b]
Are you aware that its workings far exceed those of the largest computers in existence.
[/b]If you believe that a computer cannot exist without intelligent design, how reasonable is it to contend that objects of far greater intricacy, structure and design can exist by chance.

do they make mistakes? genetic defects? meteors flying into planets destroying life? etc. It depends on how u look at it. there are a lot of things that could have been designed better. It might as well all be an accident.

I think there is as good a case for an incompetent designer, or multiple designers,as there is for a great designer. I don't think there was a designer. I think the universe just is. . . Does it have a purpose, possibly. . .but i think that may be where all of evolution (of the entire universe) is headed. We don't have a clue yet. 500 years from now we'll be a bunch of ancient clueless minds that didnt know anything about nything. Humans could be going on vacation in neptune. .  who the fukc knows?

i think we need to just chill out, forget about this designer guy, and feed the starvin kids  

Galilleo lived hundreds of years ago. . . that didnt stop him from assessing quite accurately the solar system. . .

Basic logic doesn't change. . . i have more equations for you. . .

Coming up soon. . .

Ok deep sight,
As for the pictures, all I can say is that there is order in chaos.

Deep Sight:

And this cell did not require similar intelligent design? Is it logical to think these things?

I'm suprised you use the word logic with a straight face. What's logical in what you've presented?
That your duplex is built by 3 men means mine must also have been constructed by three men- is that logical?

A laptop isn't found in nature .it's a cheap and inefficient imitation of what it took nature billions of years of trial,error and probability to acheive. There's nothing new or extraordinary about the laptop everything from the way it works to it's composition is found in nature. This brings me to my earlier analogy if you design a stone tool and nature produces a similar one (probably 1 in 2000 chances) that in no way prevents it's use for a purpose.

@ deep sight. Please I want to know the rest of this argument. If u get time abeg

Are you at home with what we have established thus far; namely:

  1. Since 0 + 0 = 0 then the Universe had to be caused by something

  2. That that "something" must be an irremovable and permanent quantity on the left side of the equation (e.g: 0 + 1 = 1)

  3. Accordingly we see logically that that "something" is a necessary and not contingent element, and thus is eternal -      such as numbers, for example, which needn't be created.

  4. That Design + Purpose = Mental Activity

  5. That the presence of mental activity and indeed the eternal nature of numbers presupposes an inherent intelligence within the "something" that caused the universe.

Thus so far we have extablished the existence of an eternal intelligent element which is the cause of the universe and all that exists.

If you are comfortable with the foregoing we can proceed.

I have some issues with it but i doubt we'll resolve them on NL. i just want to know the rest of it. No argument is full proof. it's just good to try to be exposed to as many as possible IMO

The best argument intelligent design can make is that life is too complex to be fully explained as the result of natural processes and therefore life must be the work of a super-intelligent being. That super-intelligent being could be anything though. The vast majority of people who embrace intelligent design, however, do so to justify their belief in a god. More specifically, their god.

Proponents of intelligent design have jumped to the conclusion that since science cannot explain everything about the origin of the universe and life, god did it.
All this does is point out the obvious and then jump to an unjustified conclusion. Of course we haven't figured out all there is to know about our existence. No scientist denies that. But the world's scientists are nowhere near ready to declare that all remaining mysteries in cosmology, biology etc. etc . can only be explained by gods and magic. They are too busy making new discoveries to increase our understanding of our universe and life to even consider giving up.

Intelligent design believers want to end the hunt for answers prematurely because they imagine that they already have the answer - their god.

mantraa:

The best argument intelligent design can make is that life is too complex to be fully explained as the result of natural processes and therefore life must be the work of a super-intelligent being. That super-intelligent being could be anything though. The vast majority of people who embrace intelligent design, however, do so to justify their belief in a god. More specifically, their god.

Proponents of intelligent design have jumped to the conclusion that since science cannot explain everything about the origin of the universe and life, god did it.
All this does is point out the obvious and then jump to an unjustified conclusion. Of course we haven't figured out all there is to know about our existence. No scientist denies that. But the world's scientists are nowhere near ready to declare that all remaining mysteries in cosmology, biology etc. etc . can only be explained by gods and magic. They are too busy making new discoveries to increase our understanding of our universe and life to even consider giving up.

Intelligent design believers want to end the hunt for answers prematurely because they imagine that they already have the answer - their god.

can we please try to hear each other out instead of tryin to ridicule each other all the time? Everything u typed there hs been said on this thread and others over and over again. Where did that ever get us? Even if we disagree we can at least hear each other out. . .what u think?

ok

thank u.