Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,524,572 members, 5,776,924 topics. Date: Saturday, 08 August 2020 at 08:14 AM

Who Created God? - Religion (3) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Who Created God? (8294 Views)

What created God ? A Response To Atheist Question / Who Created God? - An Invalid Question / My Idea On Who Created God (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 7:34am On Sep 24, 2019
freshaboki:


You think you have Answer to everything? What u narrated was noted properly baked. There are so many things i would have liked to tell you but I feel it's better to free you with your reprobate mind than drag me down to that level.

LoL! Look at this clown. I just showed you that OBEs can be induced and your brain melted. LMFAO!
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 7:40am On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


I refrain from answering strawman arguments about what I think. If you want to know what I think about a subject ask me a direct question, don't put words in my mouth.
I did ask you four direct questions of which your response was feigning funny.
Re: Who Created God? by ElidaxZiel: 7:50am On Sep 24, 2019
.
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 8:49am On Sep 24, 2019
shadeyinka:

I did ask you four direct questions of which your response was feigning funny.

Which question did you ask?
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 10:33am On Sep 24, 2019
MissWrite:


But infinite regression is logically possible. In fact, it seems a more likely conclusion to come to by inductive reasoning, considering the law of conservation.

The law of entropy actually proves otherwise. Let me prove it by projecting to the future rather than the past.
According to the law of entropy, there comes a time in the future when every atom, molecule, energy is completely dispersed throughout the universe. At that point, no further change in state of the universe is possible. The second law of thermodynamics is violated with an infinite regression.

MissWrite:

We have never witnessed anything resulting from nothing, therefore, we have no reason to believe that something can result from nothing, when it could be concluded that something has changed from one thing into another. The argument against infinite regression is that the universe can be dated, therefore, we have arrived at the beginning, and must insert the "uncaused cause" at this point. I'm arguing that the origin of the universe does not necessarily lead to the origin of existence and an uncaused cause. It, rather, could be a point of change; and it could be opening us up to an even larger cosmos than we realized. And I come to this conclusion based on the fact that, by everything we know, change is more likely than creation/destruction. The fact that a person can be dated, for example, doesn't negate the fact that there was an interaction between sperm and ovum prior to his "existence".

I think you should rephrase by saying

We have never witnessed anything PHYSICAL resulting from nothing, therefore, we have no reason to believe that something PHYSICAL can result from nothing, when it could be concluded that something PHYSICAL has changed from one thing into another.
All Physical things have an origin i.e. After the Big Bang (when the expansion started cooling down) .
Unfortunately, your reference point is too late in history to conclude the Absolute impossibility of such occuring; for, before the BB, there was absolutely NOTHING. The "gravitational singularity" is not a thing but an abstract concept. Secondly, every physical law and Scientific constants we use now came into effect well aftwr the BB. Hence, you not "witnessing" things created from nothing doesnt hold water.


MissWrite:

Who's to say how large the cosmos really is. The Earth orbits the sun. Our solar system orbits the centre of the Milky Way. And We have no reason to believe that the Milky Way does not orbit the centre of something bigger. And on it goes. The path doesn't necessarily lead to an uncaused cause because the idea of infinity could be explained by imagining a non-liner entity, solely in terms of cause and effect. This idea would be supported by hard determinism, or at least a compatibilist notion, where every event (perceived as past and future) has been predetermined to exist; and that events may have plural determinants across the space-time fabric. The unpredictability observed at the subatomic level does not rule out that every event has a cause. It only shows that no cause could be identified. Not at the time; not with the available instruments.
First, I have proved that an infinite regression is impossible. The theory of "Multiverse" must terminate at a point.

At least we know that the present universe has an origin. A question to be answered really is how long did the gravitational singularity exist before the BB took place AND what caused its change of state??
The present law: First law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Second law of thermodynamics (entropy) show that in the eternal past, there was a singular SOURCE with the ability to "Self Initiate" a change: Everything we see and every energy come from this SOURCE.

You can call the SOURCE any name you like: He isnt a THING else, He'll be just a CONSTANT that cannot produce a change.


MissWrite:

What is consciousness? When non-materialists contemplated that the "Human soft-ware" must be proof of the existence of God, they implied thinking and feeling were both a part of this non-material substance. But thinking and feeling aren't so much a substance as they are a series of cause-effect reactions. As we have learned, prior to the creation of artificial intelligence, every event can ultimately be isolated and simplified into a response to a yes/no question. Binary. One stimulus triggers a specific response. On a macro-level, this would manifest as thought, feeling, free-will and action.

Eckhart Tolle - the hippie new-age religionist - made me rethink the idea of consciousness. Or rather, presence (according to him). And maybe, awareness (according to me). He suggested that the unchangeable element about a person was his being - the fact that a person would always feel like himself, regardless of time. The notion of "I" or ego. I think that this might be an identical concept, irrespective of person, animal, or plant (maybe even inanimate objects). I feel every bit as me as you would feel as you. And the awareness of the self manifests itself in our tendency to self-preserve. Consider phototropism in plants, for instance; a plant in a dark room curves towards the light to enable itself make food through photosynthesis. This behaviour demonstrates that the plant is 'aware' of the sun. And in order for anything to be aware of a next thing, it must first be aware of itself. If a ball is thrown against a wall, the wall interrupts its projection. That's a reaction between two things 'aware' of each other, even if it is simply a reaction to mass and density. The point here is to separate the 'thinking-self' and 'feeling-self' (which are series of cause-effect reactions, and a quality, in varied proportions, of living things) from the being. The "I" or ego is an attribute of everything that exists. And it simply means that everything is its own centre - a unique point of view - its own source of morality. It is a quality that is inseparable from a thing. The formation of anything naturally results in the formation of its being.

In the Freudian model of the human psyche/Soul, this entity would correspond to the Ego; where the id is biological component, and the Superego is the sociological component. Freud defined the Ego as the psychological component, of course, and claimed that the Ego was the decision-maker. He also claimed the Id was incapable of learning and holding memories, but we know that children can burn their fingers and become smarter through that experience which is remembered, therefore, Freud is not irrefutable. And I argue that the Ego is not a decision-maker but simply a witness to itself - the experiencer - the presence - the being.

All this to say that consciousness, as popularly defined, isn't a monolith of non-matter. The part that requires 'creation' (being) is an inseparable quality of matter. Thinking and feeling are merely results of interaction between matter. Therefore, consciousness does not necessarily require a God to exist.

I think if you define CONSCIOUSNESS as SELF AWARENESS or SELF IDENTITY would simplify the issue considerably.

Yes, a plant will respond to sunlight: but is this a prove of Consciousness?
Consciousness cannot exist without the ability to experience both Pain and Comfort AND a Will/Volition to choose.
Emotions and Logic are motivations to exercising the Will/Volition.

With this in mind, one must necessarily differentiate between CONSCIOUSNESS and IRRITABILITY. That is the fact that a plant reacts to the presence of sunlight doesn't prove that it is Conscious: for we must have to establish that the plant can experience Pain/Comfort and a Volition to choose.

It is extremely easy to demostrate forms of Irritability in the Laboratory (eg. Photochromic Lenses) but Consciousness takes a lot more. It is indeed the SOFTWARE that runs the Hardware of a Being: It is called the SOUL of a being. Is the plant aware of the sunlight?
Is the ball aware of the wall? No!

Artificial Intelligence is First a Code and Sets of Data trained within some constraints to make human like choices. The fact that "artificial intelligence" look intelligent is simply because intelligent people coded it to act in manners similar to how intelligent humans would jave acted. This very well support my case.

If Consciousness is like artificial intelligence, can one really prove that its about chemical reactions or about an Intelligent Programmer?


MissWrite:

Is this a push for intelligent design and fine-tuning? Chaos is only chaos because it appears random. But I made a case earlier for hard determinism - every event has a cause. If every event has a cause, then nothing is random. And if nothing is random, then there is never objective chaos, is there? Human beings may perceive an environment which isn't fine-tuned to our existence as chaotic, but this just may prove that we aren't supposed to be the most vital beings of the cosmos. At least not across the space-time fabric. This may be the "Age of Man" but who's to say that the future won't be "The Age of Ants." And then the ants would assume that the universe was fine-tuned to their existence, and decide to call everything preceding that time, chaos. Fine-tuning is an illusion. What is really going on is natural selection. As the environment changes, the fittest thrive.
My frame of reference to chaos is the Big Bang. Some scientists have tried to evade the problem of the big bang being an "explosion" for it breaks the law of entropy. Order cannot come out of disorder. The new theory (modifying the BBT) has to do with a controlled expansion (rather than a bang). Unfortunately, this also produces the big flaw that every planet, star and galaxy were fully wholly subset of the gravitational singularity: this is impossible.

Starting from the BB, how did Entropy suddenly began to reduce before the beginning to increase again?

How did electrons suddenly begin to move round nucleus of atoms? How did protons and neutrons suddenly realize that they should congregate in fairly equal numbers? Did every element start off from one giant atom and then progressively reduced to Hydrogen or did lighter atoms progressively coalesce to form larger and larger atoms?

Things I tell you are highly ordered when you compare it to the big bang period.

I put it to you that natural selection can only take place when the underlying AI codes that run living things are already in place.



MissWrite:

The technology is, apparently, still in its infancy, but artificial intelligence can be used to write code. You can do further research on that, I just checked it out for the purpose of this reply, so I really don't know much about it. To be honest, it won't be all that surprising since AI possess the laws of logic.
Artificial intelligence is First a Code/Algorithm and Training Data. These are products of intelligent minds and not random movements of electrons.


MissWrite:

In answer to the thread, "Who created God?" I'd say Man. Man created this God in response to his fears of the finality of death, the apparent meaninglessness of life, the need for protection from conflicting moralities, and the ignorance of the workings of his environment. This isn't to say that an ultimate being does not exist. In fact, I strongly believe in an ultimate being. But such a being would constitute everything that exists. It would be amoral from our own perspective, simply because (like everything else that exists) it serves its own ego to preserve itself in its unique nature.
Of course, man can create his own gods BUT this is not synonymous with man creating God as a response to his fears.

The fact that you believe an Ultimate Being probably exist is a good step in the right direction BUT do you think you created Him out of your fears or out of logical necessity? At the end, it is either God exists or He doesn't.

If an Ultimate Being exist, the question is: Why this Universe?
Why this commotion of statistical odds called Earth?

3 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 10:40am On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


Which question did you ask?

shadeyinka:

Your claim of disbelief in the SOURCE of everything is a silly Joke.

1. Until you can proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation.

2. Until you can proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.

3. Until you can show how chaos can result into order.

4. Until you can show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.

When you have a physical evidence for these, stop saying "bla black black God of gaps..."
Those are the four questions (sorry I didn't append "?"wink
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 10:50am On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


LoL! Look at this clown. I just showed you that OBEs can be induced and your brain melted. LMFAO!
Proposition:
Ctrl + Alt + Del can shut down a computer
Conclusion: Softwares aren't necessary for computers to function.

Proposition:
HDD was scratched at a point and Microsoft office stopped working
Conclusion:
HDD and not a software is responsible the operations of the computer.

Proposition:
5V DC was injected into pin 34 of the VGA IC and the VDU display becomes Monochrome
Conclusion:
Video output of the computer is a hardware effect and has nothing to do with the Software.

Look at your argument and relate! SMH!

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 11:06am On Sep 24, 2019
shadeyinka:

Proposition:
Ctrl + Alt + Del can shut down a computer
Conclusion: Softwares aren't necessary for computers to function.

Proposition:
HDD was scratched at a point and Microsoft office stopped working
Conclusion:
HDD and not a software is responsible the operations of the computer.

Proposition:
5V DC was injected into pin 34 of the VGA IC and the VDU display becomes Monochrome
Conclusion:
Video output of the computer is a hardware effect and has nothing to do with the Software.

Look at your argument and relate! SMH!

LMAO! You just like creating funny strawmen as arguments. Look at this statement: There is nothing "spectacular" about have having an NDE or OBE, oxygen starved brains have wierd weird experiences. Now rethink your strawmen.
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 11:08am On Sep 24, 2019
shadeyinka:



Those are the four questions (sorry I didn't append "?"wink

Are asking me questions or are you making statements?
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 11:23am On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


Are asking me questions or are you making statements?
What would have been your response if I didn't report that I didn't append the "?" Mark?
Re: Who Created God? by BeLookingIDIOT(m): 11:34am On Sep 24, 2019
Gracealone:
Thank you for this question. I pray that your hunger transcends the knowledge about God, but may it become a burning desire to encounter His person and power, in the mighty name of Jesus.

When God revealed His name “I AM” to Moses at the burning bush, He was revealing something very important about Himself, namely, that He is self-existent; He has the power of being in and of Himself. He depends on nothing and no one for His existence.

This is the idea of self-existence, or what is called in theology the concept of aseity. This attribute captures all of the glory of the perfection of God’s being. What makes God different from people, from the stars, from earthquakes, and from any other creaturely thing is that God—and God alone—has aseity; He alone exists by His own power. No one made Him or caused Him. He exists in and of Himself. This is a quality that no creature shares. People are not self-existent; neither are cars or stars. Only God has the concept of self-existence.

God bless you, in the mighty name of Jesus.
In other words,you believe God doesn't need a creator,then why can't you believe the universe doesn't need a creator.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 11:41am On Sep 24, 2019
shadeyinka:

What would have been your response if I didn't report that I didn't append the "?" Mark?

It would still be the same.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 12:03pm On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


LMAO! You just like creating funny strawmen as arguments. Look at this statement: There is nothing "spectacular" about have having an NDE or OBE, oxygen starved brains have wierd weird experiences. Now rethink your strawmen.
Looks like you've just heard of the phrase "strawman" LOL!
Compare the given analogy with your statement.
On a serious note:
A person is thought to have died when these three occur
1. He stops breathing
2. His heart stops beating
3. Brain activities ceases.

1. In True NDEs, the three above are present. In chemically induced OBEs and NDEs are these three also observed?
2. If brain activities ceases, what do you think manufactures the weird scenes seen by the subject (his brain)?
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 12:05pm On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


It would still be the same.
In other words, it's a redundant statement that at best is to evade the issue at stake
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 1:15pm On Sep 24, 2019
shadeyinka:

In other words, it's a redundant statement that at best is to evade the issue at stake

It is rhetorical since you were not asking questions but making statements. When you ask me a question about my position I will answer you, putting words in my mouth doesn't do the trick.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 1:55pm On Sep 24, 2019
I have removed your excuse of ambiguity, so:
Please do justice to the following:

1. Proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation?.

2. Proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.?

3. Show how chaos can result into order.?

4. Show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.

LordReed:


It is rhetorical since you were not asking questions but making statements. When you ask me a question about my position I will answer you, putting words in my mouth doesn't do the trick.
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 5:57pm On Sep 24, 2019
shadeyinka:
I have removed your excuse of ambiguity, so:
Please do justice to the following:

Just so it is clear, these statements you have laid out are not anything I have proposed, you somehow believe they are or a consequence of my position, they are not.


1. Proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation?.

First off, you should know that showing that something is logically possible is different from showing that thing is possible in reality.

Infinity is how we conceptualize real big numbers, it is not a thing we have actually observed. In mathematics, an infinite regression can be expressed as lim x → infinity (-x) = - infinity
Which in effect means as the variable x tends toward infinity the negative of the variable x will also be negative infinity. This is logically true but has no real world analogue.


2. Proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.?

In reality we do not fully understand what consciousness is or how it arises. What is likely is that it is an emergent property of the workings of a functional brain. All consciousness we have encountered have been constrained by this fact, we have seen no consciousness exist apart from the workings of a functioning brain.


3. Show how chaos can result into order.?

Chaos is how you describe a system in which the components seem to work in a random fashion. It does not preclude the system from actually having effects. Gas molecules for instance behave chaotically but does not stop it from combining with other gas molecules to form even more complex molecules.


4. Show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.


If you mean that alpha-numeric characters left alone with no operator, developing into a code then no it can't.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 6:30pm On Sep 24, 2019
LordReed:


Just so it is clear, these statements you have laid out are not anything I have proposed, you somehow believe they are or a consequence of my position, they are not.
Thanks for at least replying

LordReed:

First off, you should know that showing that something is logically possible is different from showing that thing is possible in reality.

Infinity is how we conceptualize real big numbers, it is not a thing we have actually observed. In mathematics, an infinite regression can be expressed as lim x → infinity (-x) = - infinity
Which in effect means as the variable x tends toward infinity the negative of the variable x will also be negative infinity. This is logically true but has no real world analogue.
My question actually was about the real world scene.
In other words, an infinite regression is impossible in the real world. The consequence is beyond what you think. It could mean that beyond the gravitational singleton there may be nothing else except the Prime Mover (God). The question of who created God is firmly established as none. He is the uncaused First Course!

LordReed:

In reality we do not fully understand what consciousness is or how it arises. What is likely is that it is an emergent property of the workings of a functional brain. All consciousness we have encountered have been constrained by this fact, we have seen no consciousness exist apart from the workings of a functioning brain.
Consciousness exist when at least these two coexist in an entity.
1. Ability to feel both Pain and Pleasure
2. Ability to choose between options based on Logics AND Emotions.

This is different from reactions to stimulus: for a photochromic glass responds to UV yet is not Conscious.

Consciousness is a form of Programming, very similar to AI where a robot (inanimate) behaves in a way similar to how intelligent humans would have behaved.

What do you think make AI robots seem intelligent? Do you think the solution is to look more into the hardware or to look more into the Software?


LordReed:

Chaos is how you describe a system in which the components seem to work in a random fashion. It does not preclude the system from actually having effects. Gas molecules for instance behave chaotically but does not stop it from combining with other gas molecules to form even more complex molecules.
And you should have added ....and also break down into smaller molecules.
However, the question is can chaos consolidate into order?

This only happens when an external force constrains such chaos into condensing into a stable form.

Is that not the case of the big bang?
What constraining Force could have cause chemical elements to come out of the expanding gravitational singleton? Don't forget that science isn't discussing a force outside of this singleton else the next question would have been what force and from where?
LordReed:

If you mean that alpha-numeric characters left alone with no operator, developing into a code then no it can't.
Oh with an operator: throwing characters and numbers into the air infinite numbers of times like dice and attempting to form sentences that can somehow be strung up into a code such as "Hello World!"

If this is not possible, how do you suppose the DNA can write itself?



You are predictable though:
Pride will not allow you to see anything other than "God of gaps"!

However, the questions above all have definite answers requiring a SOURCE or an External FORCE to this universe.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by OLAADEGBU(m): 6:56pm On Sep 24, 2019
dragonflyy:


Christian apologists (well, most of them) like claiming that the universe is too complex to have not been created by an intelligent being. what most of them usually look over is the quality or the attributes of said being. hypothetically, a supreme intelligence capable of manufacturing a complex universe should be complex himself. such a being cannot just appear out of nowhere, thus, my question to the religious apologists: WHO CREATED GOD?

Here is your answer in 3 minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quFZFCRVGUA
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 7:34am On Sep 25, 2019
BOOKED!!!
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 12:16pm On Sep 25, 2019
shadeyinka:

Thanks for at least replying


My question actually was about the real world scene.
In other words, an infinite regression is impossible in the real world. The consequence is beyond what you think. It could mean that beyond the gravitational singleton there may be nothing else except the Prime Mover (God). The question of who created God is firmly established as none. He is the uncaused First Course!

It means we don't know. Asserting a god did it is just that, an assertion.


Consciousness exist when at least these two coexist in an entity.
1. Ability to feel both Pain and Pleasure
2. Ability to choose between options based on Logics AND Emotions.

This is different from reactions to stimulus: for a photochromic glass responds to UV yet is not Conscious.

Consciousness is a form of Programming, very similar to AI where a robot (inanimate) behaves in a way similar to how intelligent humans would have behaved.

What do you think make AI robots seem intelligent? Do you think the solution is to look more into the hardware or to look more into the Software?

We can see the difference between a programmed functional robot and an unprogrammed functional robot. Is there anything analogous in the way consciousness works?


And you should have added ....and also break down into smaller molecules.
However, the question is can chaos consolidate into order?

This only happens when an external force constrains such chaos into condensing into a stable form.
Is that not the case of the big bang?
What constraining Force could have cause chemical elements to come out of the expanding gravitational singleton? Don't forget that science isn't discussing a force outside of this singleton else the next question would have been what force and from where?

Gravity was sufficient to aggregate clumps of matter to form progressively heavier particles so yes chaos can consolidate into order.


Oh with an operator: throwing characters and numbers into the air infinite numbers of times like dice and attempting to form sentences that can somehow be strung up into a code such as "Hello World!"

If this is not possible, how do you suppose the DNA can write itself?

So now you've constrained the process the operator must follow which is what we tell you about how these things proceed. They are constrained by the physical laws of the universe.

DNA is a molecule, it is only described as "writing" or "code" to make it more understandable. They are chemicals performing chemical processes.


You are predictable though:
Pride will not allow you to see anything other than "God of gaps"!

However, the questions above all have definite answers requiring a SOURCE or an External FORCE to this universe.

That is left to you because you are the one proposing a god to fill the gaps in your knowledge, I am quite content to not see any gap filling god until such can be shown to exist.

The questions do not require this source or external force to be a god.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 5:39pm On Sep 25, 2019
LordReed:


It means we don't know. Asserting a god did it is just that, an assertion.
I think I have shown with enough proof that an infinite regression isn't possible in the real world. Projecting this into the past simply means that there is an origin of things. It can also be shown that this Origin isn't a constant else, there would be no initiation of change leading to the formation of the universe. I have also shown you that whatever caused the Big Bang must have done it in a controlled way because an uncontrolled expansion is an explosion (Chaos). Chaos cannot form atoms and elements.

Whatever/Whoever is making these changes in states of the Universe is God. You may disagree about His name, His attributes, His powers but you cannot disagree that HE IS!

LordReed:

We can see the difference between a programmed functional robot and an unprogrammed functional robot. Is there anything analogous in the way consciousness works?
All robots are programmed either electronically or mechanically.

AI robots are given codes to mimic the way humans are likely to behave in certain instances. The codes (invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable) control the hardware.Unfortunatly, our AI robots can never get to the level of self awareness/Consciousness.

We are just like AI robots with bodies (hardware) and programming (soul/spirit) and thus are programmed to be conscious like the Manufacturer (God).

It's easy to comprehend except that you are bent on your struggle against reason to reject the possibility of a "God" (Programmer)

LordReed:

Gravity was sufficient to aggregate clumps of matter to form progressively heavier particles so yes chaos can consolidate into order.
You seem not to appreciate the mechanics of the BBT. Gravitational force happens to be one of the weakest forces available in nature.

Can gravity exist without mass?
At the time just just before the BB radius of the hypothetical gravitational singleton is approximately zero. At times just after the BB even if extremely hot gases are produced, the inter-atomic distances will outweigh the effect of gravity.

Are you also saying that gravity suddenly paired electrons with the nucleus of atoms?
What does gases in a container do? Condense as a result of gravity!?!?
You over-praise the power of gravity.


LordReed:


So now you've constrained the process the operator must follow which is what we tell you about how these things proceed. They are constrained by the physical laws of the universe.

DNA is a molecule, it is only described as "writing" or "code" to make it more understandable. They are chemicals performing chemical processes.
The DNA is made up of six smaller molecules and these make three forms of DNA. Human beings are made up of 46 packets of DNA (46 chromosomes). There are 64 possible words from the DNA library and this make the 20 known amino acids.

I have offered a similar challenge. 26 alphabets, 10 numerals and all the special characters of the English keyboard.

The experimenter has infinite number of times to throw the "dice" (simulating the Billions of years atoms and molecules have to react with each other). I can make it even simpler: the experimenter has infinite numbers of character set to throw at the same time.

We want the character to form the simplest code eg "Hello World!"

Is this possible?

DNA are collections of molecules (amino acids) that carry information and instructions: is that not a code?

LordReed:

That is left to you because you are the one proposing a god to fill the gaps in your knowledge, I am quite content to not see any gap filling god until such can be shown to exist.

The questions do not require this source or external force to be a god.
Ok!
Fill in the GAP to conform to the characteristics of the Prime Mover.
1. Infinite regression is impossible (there must be an Original Prime Mover)
2. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a constant (for it wouldn't be able to initiate a change)
3. The Original Prime Mover cannot be subject to the prevailing laws of the universe (for the Prime Mover must exist before the BB)
4. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a THING (for the BB require a constraining Force else the laws of thermodynamics would be violated)
5. Consciousness is a well established fact (at least you know you are conscious). Consciousness cannot exist by random chance of chemicals reactions.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST SINGULAR DESCRIPTION OF SUCH A PRIME MOVER?

"I don't know" is a hypocritical answer for someone whose job on NL is to persuade others to desbelieve in such a personality!
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 9:41pm On Sep 25, 2019
shadeyinka:
I almost thought you disappeared!
I don't sleep and wake up on Nairaland, you know.

shadeyinka:

Are you aware that this your statement violates the Law of Entropy?
It is impossible for chaos to cause an order without an external energy applied in a controlled manner.
I assume you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Problem is, what you have stated is not the 2nd law. Perhaps, calling it "Shadeyinka's Law of Entropy" would be more apt!

""Is it always possible to find order in a chaotic system?" Ramsey Theory, described in the relatively easy-going, equation-free lecture above (given as part of the Millenium Mathematics Project), offers a reasonable way of determining the minimum amount of structure in a given system".

"Basically, if you have some chaotic system, and you start dividing it up, you'll come up with an "interesting" structure. Something will eventually repeat or have some sort of form (order)".

=> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvwvw/­is-it-always-possible-to-find-order-in-chaos

You just don't know what you're talking about.

shadeyinka:

An infinite regression is a never ending re-initiation of change. If God had always existed, it implies a termination of regression projected into the past. It implies that God is the origin of every change. The irreducible factor of existence.
LOL. Why are you repeating yourself? You are only asserting the impossibility of infinite regression. You are not demonstrating it. There is no reason what so ever that one must reach a point of infinite causation. Even if there were a point, you don't get to magically insert your god (classic God of the Gaps fallacy). We live in a house (local time, local universe, local rules). Everything we know breaks down at Planck Time. Chaos ensues. You are living in this house, in this time, in this system of causality and then attempting to infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house! The only thing you can say about the outside is "I do not know". Any answer besides this exposes dishonesty and deliberate distortion to suit your selfish objectives and i'd expect better from you, Mr. Shadeyinka.
"If god has always existed, how is that not in itself any infinite regress?" was my question. You have yet to answer this. Please kindly explain, in clear words and/or terms which would not obfuscate people and make them look for a dictionary, how your god would have "always existed".

shadeyinka:
If God was material, we can speak of His creation. But God isn't made of material matter and energy. God is SPIRIT (Conscious Immaterial Self-existing Identity).
How convenient indeed!

I believe, Mr. Shadeyinka, based on all our previous encounters and even on this thread, that you have sound knowledge in basic science, am I right? Now notice how your claim that "GoD iS a SpIrIt!" makes your god's existence utterly unfalsifiable, and if you can't test a claim, if you can't confirm or deny it any way, then there's absolutely no reason to believe said claim. The claim is ultimately useless. I've said this countless times already. All you've done is give me a reason to dismiss your position and/or argument even more!

Now,
1> How do you possibly know that god is immaterial and thus exists outside our natural world? Please, no analogies or evasiveness this time. Be direct and honest!
2> How did you find this out in the first place?
3> What is the difference between an unobservable and/or untestable immaterial god and an entity that does not exist?
4> How can a thinking, decision-making god make decisions if it existed our natural world and is/was an eternal being not restricted by space-time?

Your line of reasoning is the inevitable fall back point for anyone faced with the cold, hard fact that they cannot provide a coherent framework for what they WANT to believe. It's the theological equivalent of the kid losing a playground argument who just gets frustrated and says, "I win times Infinity!", takes his ball, and heads home. There is ZERO difference between that young lad and you making this inane, incoherent assertion that "GoD iS a SpIrIt! He iS BeYoNd ScIeNcE!"

shadeyinka:
Interestingly, theoretically, there could be several "gods" rather than ONE single creator God. But, I know only ONE Creator God and several other gods. You don't believe any God/gods, so how I got to know just one Creator God is of no use to you.
In the face of our ongoing discourse, why isn't this a [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche ]thought-terminating cliche[/url]?


If God isn't the Origin or termination of "infinite regression" with respect to the origin of things, then what is it? (for since an infinite regression is impossible, one must certainly have a Primary Source of all things.)

With which instrument do you think you will need to test/evaluate/quantify/detect/measure God if He is the maker of all Physical Laws, Constants, Matter and their interactions? All these things came to being at/after the Big Bang.

The answer is certainly NOT "I don't know!": For such is an escapist answer. There is certainly at least a Creator God: however, we can argue about His nature, ability, name etc. But there must be a SOURCE: this source I call GOD.[/quote]
Can't find the
shadeyinka:

I think I have shown with enough proof that an infinite regression isn't possible in the real world. Projecting this into the past simply means that there is an origin of things. It can also be shown that this Origin isn't a constant else, there would be no initiation of change leading to the formation of the universe. I have also shown you that whatever caused the Big Bang must have done it in a controlled way because an uncontrolled expansion is an explosion (Chaos). Chaos cannot form atoms and elements.

Whatever/Whoever is making these changes in states of the Universe is God. You may disagree about His name, His attributes, His powers but you cannot disagree that HE IS!


All robots are programmed either electronically or mechanically.

AI robots are given codes to mimic the way humans are likely to behave in certain instances. The codes (invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable) control the hardware.Unfortunatly, our AI robots can never get to the level of self awareness/Consciousness.

We are just like AI robots with bodies (hardware) and programming (soul/spirit) and thus are programmed to be conscious like the Manufacturer (God).

It's easy to comprehend except that you are bent on your struggle against reason to reject the possibility of a "God" (Programmer)


You seem not to appreciate the mechanics of the BBT. Gravitational force happens to be one of the weakest forces available in nature.

Can gravity exist without mass?
At the time just just before the BB radius of the hypothetical gravitational singleton is approximately zero. At times just after the BB even if extremely hot gases are produced, the inter-atomic distances will outweigh the effect of gravity.

Are you also saying that gravity suddenly paired electrons with the nucleus of atoms?
What does gases in a container do? Condense as a result of gravity!?!?
You over-praise the power of gravity.



The DNA is made up of six smaller molecules and these make three forms of DNA. Human beings are made up of 46 packets of DNA (46 chromosomes). There are 64 possible words from the DNA library and this make the 20 known amino acids.

I have offered a similar challenge. 26 alphabets, 10 numerals and all the special characters of the English keyboard.

The experimenter has infinite number of times to throw the "dice" (simulating the Billions of years atoms and molecules have to react with each other). I can make it even simpler: the experimenter has infinite numbers of character set to throw at the same time.

We want the character to form the simplest code eg "Hello World!"

Is this possible?

DNA are collections of molecules (amino acids) that carry information and instructions: is that not a code?


Ok!
Fill in the GAP to conform to the characteristics of the Prime Mover.
1. Infinite regression is impossible (there must be an Original Prime Mover)
2. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a constant (for it wouldn't be able to initiate a change)
3. The Original Prime Mover cannot be subject to the prevailing laws of the universe (for the Prime Mover must exist before the BB)
4. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a THING (for the BB require a constraining Force else the laws of thermodynamics would be violated)
5. Consciousness is a well established fact (at least you know you are conscious). Consciousness cannot exist by random chance of chemicals reactions.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST SINGULAR DESCRIPTION OF SUCH A PRIME MOVER?

"I don't know" is a hypocritical answer for someone whose job on NL is to persuade others to desbelieve in such a personality!
Can't find the perfect face-palm for this comment LOL

Clearly someone wasn't paying attention in Logic class. Let us do a fallacy count:
1> God of the Gaps fallacy? Check!
2> Non-sequitur fallacy? Check!
3> Confirmation bias? Check!
4> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam? Check!

Need I go on? Need I say more? Need I keep stressing myself out arguing against an assertion that is Dead On Arrival (DOA) apparently unbeknownst to the proponent?

As for detecting god(s) and/or testing the god(s) hypothesis,

"No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-maker. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe."
-Re: My Argument For God's Existence by XxSabrinaxX(f): 10:55pm on Jan 22

Also, check out my atheist prayer thread where I, Martinez39 and budaatum discussed about reliable processes for establishing base reality.

shadeyinka:

An analogy is a perfect way of presenting or explaining a new phenomenon using already established knowledge. In that sense, it is perfectly logical and sensible.
1. Do you have an objection to the fact that the DNA is a library of codes?
Let me start here by saying that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation combined with non-sequiturs! A CODE is a variation of a particular language. DNA is a biological machine, the structure of which can be represented by A CODE. Our DNA evolved with a great deal of variance in our species, and even more so compared to our ancestors. Even if there was a designer, unless you completely discount evolution, and common descent in particular, the DNA and RNA of contemporary living things is an example of what unguided natural processes can produce, mistakes and all.

In short, your argument has no supporting evidence, because IF you understand and accept evolution, then DNA isn't evidence for a designer, just an example of what can happen naturally (more on this below). IF you don't accept evolution, then a quick scroll through all of the known genetic conditions and inherited diseases should make it obvious that the alleged Intelligent Designer doesn't live up to the title! There is so much "junk" DNA code that does absolutely nothing. Mutations happen with alarming frequency and the vast majority of them are either harmful or negligible. Is the Almighty First Cause / Source not finished or did he just f*ck up 6,000 years ago and hasn't gotten the formula right? Is he (a) Lazy OR (b)Plain Stupid?

I mean, retardation, cancer, amelia.... LOL, your god must really suck at coding!

TLDR; Computer code is a human construct and DNA is naturally occuring (False Analogy). There is no "code" in DNA. Like i said earlier, this is an equivocation fallacy. When the word "code" is used, it is not used with similar meaning as a morse code, a biblical code, or a secret code. DNA is chemical interactions. You assert that DNA is not naturally existing? Can you prove your assertion?

shadeyinka:
. Do you think given an unlimited number of trials (of throwing alphanumerics on the ground) with the 26 letters and numerals a computer code can write itself?
It's like what I said above: the creation of DNA information can be explained by nature viz the evolutionary process. Code sequences that favour survival tend to survive (a gain of useful information) and code sequences that hinder survival tend to vanish (a loss of misinformation) via mutations into new sequences and through random mixing of existing sequences at each new generation. Over many generations, useful information accumulates. Once again, this is IF you accept evolution. IF you don't, see above.

Also, information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement includes shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

shadeyinka:
Unfortunately, the fact that you seem yourself to be conscious suggests that you aren't the only one who could be conscious.
The question to ask is how can a collection of "unconscious" atoms suddenly acquire "consciousness"?

Is consciousness just about chemicals acting on other chemicals?

If we are to project backwards, we must arrive at the FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS in the universe: as Christians, we call Him the SOURCE.

Do you think you that cannot unravel the mystery of your own Consciousness can dissect that of the SOURCE?

You worship the brain as if it is the giver of Consciousness neglecting the software that controls the brain and make it function. It's simply like exalting the CPU and Memory of a computer without referencing the SOFTWARE that make it function.

I submit that Consciousness isn't about chemicals interacting with atoms BUT the SOFTWARE that is written by the SOURCE Himself.

If I altered the chemistry of your brain, your consciousness would change in a predictable manner. Alzheimer patients and people suffering dementia change both in consciousness and in brain structure. The same goes for meditation, "prayer", and many other practices and/or drugs that can lead one to having "religious" experiences. Consciousness and self awareness are emergent properties of the brain. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness.

Chemical reactions can produce molecules: Secondary School Biology / Chemistry

"Chemical reactions occur when chemical bonds between atoms are formed or broken. The substances that go into a chemical reaction are called the reactants, and the substances produced at the end of the reaction are known as the products. An arrow is drawn between reactants and products to indicate the direction of the chemical reaction, though a chemical reaction is not always a "one-way street", as we'll explore further for the next section. For example, the reaction for the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide,
(\text {H}_{2}H2
H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript) into water and oxygen can be written as:
2\text {H}_{2}2H2
2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}\text {(hydrogen peroxide)}O2
(hydrogen peroxide)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, h, y, d, r, o, g, e, n, space, p, e, r, o, x, i, d, e, right parenthesis\right arrow, right arrow 2\text {H}_{2}\text O\text {(water)}2H2
O(water)2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O, left parenthesis, w, a, t, e, r, right parenthesis +\text {O}_{2}\text {(oxygen)}O2
(oxygen)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, o, x, y, g, e, n, right parenthesis
In this example, hydrogen peroxide is our reactant, and it gets broken down into water and oxygen, our products. The atoms that started out in hydrogen peroxide molecules are re-arranged to form water molecules (\text {H}_{2}\text OH2
OH, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O) and oxygen molecules (\text O_2O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript)."

When last did you read anything besides the bible?

Now let's try explaining consciousness with god:
1> How did God create the consciousness?
2> How is it "attached" to the person and the brain?
3> How does the body change consciousness if there isn't a physical connection?
4> If it's "spiritual", how does it interact with our reality?

I guess the most interesting question though, Mr. Shadeyinka, is that how hard could it possibly be for you to fathom that the fact of something's existence does not prove that it necessarily came into existence via a particular process? Tentatively, it's existence could simply be a necessity, a non-contigent fact, like the existence of existence is! Your unending assertion that consciousness springs up from either GOD or NOTHING is a false dichotomy fallacy.
The bitter pill of truth, which is obviously so painful for even you to swallow, is that even if today, you demonstrated successfully that a person remains conscious after brain death, you haven't demonstrated a god existing anymore than you have demonstrated the Flying Spaghetti Monster or my Blue Universe-creating Pixies!

shadeyinka:

It's either you are communicating with demons or you don't even believe yourself of what you've just written.
I'm not sure if I should be amused or impressed by this final comment of yours. It's quite fascinating that you actually have the capacity to reject assertions based on how ludicrous they may sound. The only question is, how will you ever know, hmm? Extraordinary claims will ALWAYS require extraordinary evidence. Pulling all sorts of assertions from your rear ("God iS ImMaTeRiAl!", "iNfInIte ReGrEsS iS iMpOsSiBlE!" etc) and flinging all and sundry onto the wall hoping they will stick without question or criticsm won't help you. I'm no stranger to these arguments. You do not bring anything unique or new to the table, you are just spouting catchphrases and words you hope will impress people. This has always been your M.O., Mr. Shadeyinka.

Anyways, Yahweh appeared to me again this time as a condom on my nightstand. He told to inform you that your arguments are piss poor and wrong as ever. He has asked me to tell you that this argument be ended. Personally, i'm already infinitely bored with all these presuppositional fantasy drivel that apologists keep pushing cause they read nothing other than the Buybull!

5 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 9:59pm On Sep 25, 2019
shadeyinka:

I think I have shown with enough proof that an infinite regression isn't possible in the real world. Projecting this into the past simply means that there is an origin of things. It can also be shown that this Origin isn't a constant else, there would be no initiation of change leading to the formation of the universe. I have also shown you that whatever caused the Big Bang must have done it in a controlled way because an uncontrolled expansion is an explosion (Chaos). Chaos cannot form atoms and elements.

Whatever/Whoever is making these changes in states of the Universe is God. You may disagree about His name, His attributes, His powers but you cannot disagree that HE IS!

You have done no such thing, you merely asserted that it is impossible. It just isn't something you can know in reality.

Who says what ever caused the BB must be a being and a male being for that matter?


All robots are programmed either electronically or mechanically.

AI robots are given codes to mimic the way humans are likely to behave in certain instances. The codes (invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable) control the hardware.Unfortunatly, our AI robots can never get to the level of self awareness/Consciousness.

We are just like AI robots with bodies (hardware) and programming (soul/spirit) and thus are programmed to be conscious like the Manufacturer (God).

It's easy to comprehend except that you are bent on your struggle against reason to reject the possibility of a "God" (Programmer)

Repeating the analogy does not answer my question. Again, We can see the difference between a programmed functional robot and an unprogrammed functional robot. Is there anything analogous in the way consciousness works? Provide a clear example.


You seem not to appreciate the mechanics of the BBT. Gravitational force happens to be one of the weakest forces available in nature.

Can gravity exist without mass?
At the time just just before the BB radius of the hypothetical gravitational singleton is approximately zero. At times just after the BB even if extremely hot gases are produced, the inter-atomic distances will outweigh the effect of gravity.

Are you also saying that gravity suddenly paired electrons with the nucleus of atoms?
What does gases in a container do? Condense as a result of gravity!?!?
You over-praise the power of gravity.

What it seems is you still have a Newtonian conception of gravity. You should update your knowledge of what gravity is.

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

The earliest instance of gravity in the Universe, possibly in the form of quantum gravity, supergravity or a gravitational singularity, along with ordinary space and time, developed during the Planck epoch (up to 10−43 seconds after the birth of the Universe), possibly from a primeval state, such as a false vacuum, quantum vacuum or virtual particle, in a currently unknown manner.



The DNA is made up of six smaller molecules and these make three forms of DNA. Human beings are made up of 46 packets of DNA (46 chromosomes). There are 64 possible words from the DNA library and this make the 20 known amino acids.

I have offered a similar challenge. 26 alphabets, 10 numerals and all the special characters of the English keyboard.

The experimenter has infinite number of times to throw the "dice" (simulating the Billions of years atoms and molecules have to react with each other). I can make it even simpler: the experimenter has infinite numbers of character set to throw at the same time.

We want the character to form the simplest code eg "Hello World!"

Is this possible?

DNA are collections of molecules (amino acids) that carry information and instructions: is that not a code?

You seem to think low odds = impossible. Do you realise that the chance of getting exact combination of genes that produced you are very low but here you are.

In what way is it a code? Define code.


Ok!
Fill in the GAP to conform to the characteristics of the Prime Mover.
1. Infinite regression is impossible (there must be an Original Prime Mover)
2. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a constant (for it wouldn't be able to initiate a change)
3. The Original Prime Mover cannot be subject to the prevailing laws of the universe (for the Prime Mover must exist before the BB)
4. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a THING (for the BB require a constraining Force else the laws of thermodynamics would be violated)
5. Consciousness is a well established fact (at least you know you are conscious). Consciousness cannot exist by random chance of chemicals reactions.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST SINGULAR DESCRIPTION OF SUCH A PRIME MOVER?

"I don't know" is a hypocritical answer for someone whose job on NL is to persuade others to desbelieve in such a personality!

You are jumping the gun. You need to show first how you know a prime mover exists and how you are certain of it's characteristics.

Where did I ever state that my job here is to persuade you of anything?

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by Martinez39(m): 10:50pm On Sep 25, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

I don't sleep and wake up on Nairaland, you know.


I assume you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Problem is, what you have stated is not the 2nd law. Perhaps, calling it "Shadeyinka's Law of Entropy" would be more apt!

""Is it always possible to find order in a chaotic system?" Ramsey Theory, described in the relatively easy-going, equation-free lecture above (given as part of the Millenium Mathematics Project), offers a reasonable way of determining the minimum amount of structure in a given system".

"Basically, if you have some chaotic system, and you start dividing it up, you'll come up with an "interesting" structure. Something will eventually repeat or have some sort of form (order)".

=> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvwvw/­is-it-always-possible-to-find-order-in-chaos

You just don't know what you're talking about.


LOL. Why are you repeating yourself? You are only asserting the impossibility of infinite regression. You are not demonstrating it. There is no reason what so ever that one must reach a point of infinite causation. Even if there were a point, you don't get to magically insert your god (classic God of the Gaps fallacy). We live in a house (local time, local universe, local rules). Everything we know breaks down at Planck Time. Chaos ensues. You are living in this house, in this time, in this system of causality and then attempting to infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house! The only thing you can say about the outside is "I do not know". Any answer besides this exposes dishonesty and deliberate distortion to suit your selfish objectives and i'd expect better from you, Mr. Shadeyinka.
"If god has always existed, how is that not in itself any infinite regress?" was my question. You have yet to answer this. Please kindly explain, in clear words and/or terms which would not obfuscate people and make them look for a dictionary, how your god would have "always existed".


How convenient indeed!

I believe, Mr. Shadeyinka, based on all our previous encounters and even on this thread, that you have sound knowledge in basic science, am I right? Now notice how your claim that "GoD iS a SpIrIt!" makes your god's existence utterly unfalsifiable, and if you can't test a claim, if you can't confirm or deny it any way, then there's absolutely no reason to believe said claim. The claim is ultimately useless. I've said this countless times already. All you've done is give me a reason to dismiss your position and/or argument even more!

Now,
1> How do you possibly know that god is immaterial and thus exists outside our natural world? Please, no analogies or evasiveness this time. Be direct and honest!
2> How did you find this out in the first place?
3> What is the difference between an unobservable and/or untestable immaterial god and an entity that does not exist?
4> How can a thinking, decision-making god make decisions if it existed our natural world and is/was an eternal being not restricted by space-time?

Your line of reasoning is the inevitable fall back point for anyone faced with the cold, hard fact that they cannot provide a coherent framework for what they WANT to believe. It's the theological equivalent of the kid losing a playground argument who just gets frustrated and says, "I win times Infinity!", takes his ball, and heads home. There is ZERO difference between that young lad and you making this inane, incoherent assertion that "GoD iS a SpIrIt! He iS BeYoNd ScIeNcE!"


In the face of our ongoing discourse, why isn't this a [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche ]thought-terminating cliche[/url]?


If God isn't the Origin or termination of "infinite regression" with respect to the origin of things, then what is it? (for since an infinite regression is impossible, one must certainly have a Primary Source of all things.)

With which instrument do you think you will need to test/evaluate/quantify/detect/measure God if He is the maker of all Physical Laws, Constants, Matter and their interactions? All these things came to being at/after the Big Bang.

The answer is certainly NOT "I don't know!": For such is an escapist answer. There is certainly at least a Creator God: however, we can argue about His nature, ability, name etc. But there must be a SOURCE: this source I call GOD.
Can't find the
I think I have shown with enough proof that an infinite regression isn't possible in the real world. Projecting this into the past simply means that there is an origin of things. It can also be shown that this Origin isn't a constant else, there would be no initiation of change leading to the formation of the universe. I have also shown you that whatever caused the Big Bang must have done it in a controlled way because an uncontrolled expansion is an explosion (Chaos). Chaos cannot form atoms and elements.

Whatever/Whoever is making these changes in states of the Universe is God. You may disagree about His name, His attributes, His powers but you cannot disagree that HE IS!


All robots are programmed either electronically or mechanically.

AI robots are given codes to mimic the way humans are likely to behave in certain instances. The codes (invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable) control the hardware.Unfortunatly, our AI robots can never get to the level of self awareness/Consciousness.

We are just like AI robots with bodies (hardware) and programming (soul/spirit) and thus are programmed to be conscious like the Manufacturer (God).

It's easy to comprehend except that you are bent on your struggle against reason to reject the possibility of a "God" (Programmer)


You seem not to appreciate the mechanics of the BBT. Gravitational force happens to be one of the weakest forces available in nature.

Can gravity exist without mass?
At the time just just before the BB radius of the hypothetical gravitational singleton is approximately zero. At times just after the BB even if extremely hot gases are produced, the inter-atomic distances will outweigh the effect of gravity.

Are you also saying that gravity suddenly paired electrons with the nucleus of atoms?
What does gases in a container do? Condense as a result of gravity!?!?
You over-praise the power of gravity.



The DNA is made up of six smaller molecules and these make three forms of DNA. Human beings are made up of 46 packets of DNA (46 chromosomes). There are 64 possible words from the DNA library and this make the 20 known amino acids.

I have offered a similar challenge. 26 alphabets, 10 numerals and all the special characters of the English keyboard.

The experimenter has infinite number of times to throw the "dice" (simulating the Billions of years atoms and molecules have to react with each other). I can make it even simpler: the experimenter has infinite numbers of character set to throw at the same time.

We want the character to form the simplest code eg "Hello World!"

Is this possible?

DNA are collections of molecules (amino acids) that carry information and instructions: is that not a code?


Ok!
Fill in the GAP to conform to the characteristics of the Prime Mover.
1. Infinite regression is impossible (there must be an Original Prime Mover)
2. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a constant (for it wouldn't be able to initiate a change)
3. The Original Prime Mover cannot be subject to the prevailing laws of the universe (for the Prime Mover must exist before the BB)
4. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a THING (for the BB require a constraining Force else the laws of thermodynamics would be violated)
5. Consciousness is a well established fact (at least you know you are conscious). Consciousness cannot exist by random chance of chemicals reactions.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST SINGULAR DESCRIPTION OF SUCH A PRIME MOVER?

"I don't know" is a hypocritical answer for someone whose job on NL is to persuade others to desbelieve in such a personality!
Can't find the perfect face-palm for this comment LOL

Clearly someone wasn't paying attention in Logic class. Let us do a fallacy count:
1> God of the Gaps fallacy? Check!
2> Non-sequitur fallacy? Check!
3> Confirmation bias? Check!
4> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam? Check!

Need I go on? Need I say more? Need I keep stressing myself out arguing against an assertion that is Dead On Arrival (DOA) apparently unbeknownst to the proponent?

As for detecting god(s) and/or testing the god(s) hypothesis,

"No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-maker. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe."
-Re: My Argument For God's Existence by XxSabrinaxX(f): 10:55pm on Jan 22

Also, check out my atheist prayer thread where I, Martinez39 and budaatum discussed about reliable processes for establishing base reality.


An analogy is a perfect way of presenting or explaining a new phenomenon using already established knowledge. In that sense, it is perfectly logical and sensible.
1. Do you have an objection to the fact that the DNA is a library of codes?
Let me start here by saying that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation combined with non-sequiturs! A CODE is a variation of a particular language. DNA is a biological machine, the structure of which can be represented by A CODE. Our DNA evolved with a great deal of variance in our species, and even more so compared to our ancestors. Even if there was a designer, unless you completely discount evolution, and common descent in particular, the DNA and RNA of contemporary living things is an example of what unguided natural processes can produce, mistakes and all.

In short, your argument has no supporting evidence, because IF you understand and accept evolution, then DNA isn't evidence for a designer, just an example of what can happen naturally (more on this below). IF you don't accept evolution, then a quick scroll through all of the known genetic conditions and inherited diseases should make it obvious that the alleged Intelligent Designer doesn't live up to the title! There is so much "junk" DNA code that does absolutely nothing. Mutations happen with alarming frequency and the vast majority of them are either harmful or negligible. Is the Almighty First Cause / Source not finished or did he just f*ck up 6,000 years ago and hasn't gotten the formula right? Is he (a) Lazy OR (b)Plain Stupid?

I mean, retardation, cancer, amelia.... LOL, your god must really suck at coding!

TLDR; Computer code is a human construct and DNA is naturally occuring (False Analogy). There is no "code" in DNA. Like i said earlier, this is an equivocation fallacy. When the word "code" is used, it is not used with similar meaning as a morse code, a biblical code, or a secret code. DNA is chemical interactions. You assert that DNA is not naturally existing? Can you prove your assertion?

. Do you think given an unlimited number of trials (of throwing alphanumerics on the ground) with the 26 letters and numerals a computer code can write itself?
It's like what I said above: the creation of DNA information can be explained by nature viz the evolutionary process. Code sequences that favour survival tend to survive (a gain of useful information) and code sequences that hinder survival tend to vanish (a loss of misinformation) via mutations into new sequences and through random mixing of existing sequences at each new generation. Over many generations, useful information accumulates. Once again, this is IF you accept evolution. IF you don't, see above.

Also, information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement includes shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Unfortunately, the fact that you seem yourself to be conscious suggests that you aren't the only one who could be conscious.
The question to ask is how can a collection of "unconscious" atoms suddenly acquire "consciousness"?

Is consciousness just about chemicals acting on other chemicals?

If we are to project backwards, we must arrive at the FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS in the universe: as Christians, we call Him the SOURCE.

Do you think you that cannot unravel the mystery of your own Consciousness can dissect that of the SOURCE?

You worship the brain as if it is the giver of Consciousness neglecting the software that controls the brain and make it function. It's simply like exalting the CPU and Memory of a computer without referencing the SOFTWARE that make it function.

I submit that Consciousness isn't about chemicals interacting with atoms BUT the SOFTWARE that is written by the SOURCE Himself.

If I altered the chemistry of your brain, your consciousness would change in a predictable manner. Alzheimer patients and people suffering dementia change both in consciousness and in brain structure. The same goes for meditation, "prayer", and many other practices and/or drugs that can lead one to having "religious" experiences. Consciousness and self awareness are emergent properties of the brain. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness.

Chemical reactions can produce molecules: Secondary School Biology / Chemistry

"Chemical reactions occur when chemical bonds between atoms are formed or broken. The substances that go into a chemical reaction are called the reactants, and the substances produced at the end of the reaction are known as the products. An arrow is drawn between reactants and products to indicate the direction of the chemical reaction, though a chemical reaction is not always a "one-way street", as we'll explore further for the next section. For example, the reaction for the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide,
(\text {H}_{2}H2
H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript) into water and oxygen can be written as:
2\text {H}_{2}2H2
2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}\text {(hydrogen peroxide)}O2
(hydrogen peroxide)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, h, y, d, r, o, g, e, n, space, p, e, r, o, x, i, d, e, right parenthesis\right arrow, right arrow 2\text {H}_{2}\text O\text {(water)}2H2
O(water)2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O, left parenthesis, w, a, t, e, r, right parenthesis +\text {O}_{2}\text {(oxygen)}O2
(oxygen)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, o, x, y, g, e, n, right parenthesis
In this example, hydrogen peroxide is our reactant, and it gets broken down into water and oxygen, our products. The atoms that started out in hydrogen peroxide molecules are re-arranged to form water molecules (\text {H}_{2}\text OH2
OH, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O) and oxygen molecules (\text O_2O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript)."

When last did you read anything besides the bible?

Now let's try explaining consciousness with god:
1> How did God create the consciousness?
2> How is it "attached" to the person and the brain?
3> How does the body change consciousness if there isn't a physical connection?
4> If it's "spiritual", how does it interact with our reality?

I guess the most interesting question though, Mr. Shadeyinka, is that how hard could it possibly be for you to fathom that the fact of something's existence does not prove that it necessarily came into existence via a particular process? Tentatively, it's existence could simply be a necessity, a non-contigent fact, like the existence of existence is! Your unending assertion that consciousness springs up from either GOD or NOTHING is a false dichotomy fallacy.
The bitter pill of truth, which is obviously so painful for even you to swallow, is that even if today, you demonstrated successfully that a person remains conscious after brain death, you haven't demonstrated a god existing anymore than you have demonstrated the Flying Spaghetti Monster or my Blue Universe-creating Pixies!


It's either you are communicating with demons or you don't even believe yourself of what you've just written.
I'm not sure if I should be amused or impressed by this final comment of yours. It's quite fascinating that you actually have the capacity to reject assertions based on how ludicrous they may sound. The only question is, how will you ever know, hmm? Extraordinary claims will ALWAYS require extraordinary evidence. Pulling all sorts of assertions from your rear ("God iS ImMaTeRiAl!", "iNfInIte ReGrEsS iS iMpOsSiBlE!" etc) and flinging all and sundry onto the wall hoping they will stick without question or criticsm won't help you. I'm no stranger to these arguments. You do not bring anything unique or new to the table, you are just spouting catchphrases and words you hope will impress people. This has always been your M.O., Mr. Shadeyinka.

Anyways, Yahweh appeared to me again this time as a condom on my nightstand. He told to inform you that your arguments are piss poor and wrong as ever. He has asked me to tell you that this argument be ended. Personally, i'm already infinitely bored with all these presuppositional fantasy drivel that apologists keep pushing cause they read nothing other than the Buybull!
Wow! The balloon d'or for patience and perseverance in the face of the immense bullshit from religious simpletons goes to Sabrina. grin

No matter what you say, they will not be reasonable.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by Martinez39(m): 11:21pm On Sep 25, 2019
dragonflyy:
Christian apologists (well, most of them) like claiming that the universe is too complex to have not been created by an intelligent being. what most of them usually look over is the quality or the attributes of said being. hypothetically, a supreme intelligence capable of manufacturing a complex universe should be complex himself. such a being cannot just appear out of nowhere, thus, my question to the religious apologists: WHO CREATED GOD?

Carl Sagan couldn't have said it better when he said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. The claim of any religious god is a very extraordinary claim. The fact that no one has ever seen any extraordinary evidence for God shows that religious folks are just kidding themselves when they claim to know that their gods exists.

When I ask someone that believes in Yahweh for proof of Yahweh's existence, I start hearing scripture verses, arguments about the complexity of the DNA grin, "anything that begins to exist must have a cause", etc. are these people alright? grin This is like self-imposed mental illness. grin

Before, I was always ready to argue with them but as I grew up, I discovered that people who want to reason will reason, those that want to be deluded will remain deluded. Your reasonable arguments will begin to make sense only when they make themselves open to your arguments by choosing to be reasonable. It's a choice. Even if you floor them with facts, their lunacy will take another form and continue in it's match. Let me give you specific examples :

1) Christians never believed in evolution instead they proudly claimed God literally molded man from the soil. When Darwin published his theory of evolution, he was attacked but when evidences for evolution emerged, they changed their narrative and claimed the story of creation in genesis was an allegory and that god used evolution to create stuffs.
———————————————————–————
2) In the rastafari movement, Haile Selassie was seen in high esteem and many believed he was the second coming of Jesus, legitimating this by reference to their interpretation of the nineteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation. Some perceive him as part of a Trinity, alongside God as Creator and the Holy Spirit, the latter referred to as "the Breath within the temple. During the 1960s, many Jamaican Rastas professed the belief that Haile Selassie would never die. The 1974 overthrow of Haile Selassie by the military Derg and his subsequent death in 1975 resulted in a crisis of faith for many Rastas. Some practitioners left the movement altogether. Others remained, and developed new strategies for dealing with the news. To bolster their argument,
A) they pointed to the fact that no corpse had been produced; in reality, Haile Selassie's body had been buried beneath a toilet in his palace, remaining undiscovered there until 1992.
B) Another perspective within Rastafari acknowledged that Haile Selassie's body had perished, but claimed that his inner essence survived as a spiritual force.
C) A third response within the Rastafari community was that Selassie's death was inconsequential as he had only been a "personification" of Jah rather than Jah himself. (lol. After claiming that he wouldn't die).

Even when Haile Selassie was alive, he denied being immortal but the rastafaris saw the denial as evidence for his immorality. You see, when people have decided to be deluded, there is nothing you can do.

There is nothing you can do against people if they have made up their minds to stupidly believe things. When you floor them with facts, their stupidity will take another form and continue it's match. Sometimes, they will keep repeating stuffs that have been debunked over and over again.


XxSabrinaxX, CAPSLOCKED, LordReed, HardMirror, HopefulLandlord

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 12:03am On Sep 26, 2019
Martinez39:
Wow! The balloon d'or for patience and perseverance in the face of the immense bullshit from religious simpletons goes to Sabrina. grin

No matter what you say, they will not be reasonable.
LOL cheesy

I can't just help it sometimes. Whenever I see religious apologists regurgitating these fallacious and/or dishonestly constructed arguments, it seriously boils my piss to no end.

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 6:26am On Sep 26, 2019
Martinez39:

Carl Sagan couldn't have said it better when he said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. The claim of any religious god is a very extraordinary claim. The fact that no one has ever seen any extraordinary evidence for God shows that religious folks are just kidding themselves when they claim to know that their gods exists.

When I ask someone that believes in Yahweh for proof of Yahweh's existence, I start hearing scripture verses, arguments about the complexity of the DNA grin, "anything that begins to exist must have a cause", etc. are these people alright? grin This is like self-imposed mental illness. grin

Before, I was always ready to argue with them but as I grew up, I discovered that people who want to reason will reason, those that want to be deluded will remain deluded. Your reasonable arguments will begin to make sense only when they make themselves open to your arguments by choosing to be reasonable. It's a choice. Even if you floor them with facts, their lunacy will take another form and continue in it's match. Let me give you specific examples :


———————————————————–————


There is nothing you can do against people if they have made up their minds to stupidly believe things. When you floor them with facts, their stupidity will take another form and continue it's match. Sometimes, they will keep repeating stuffs that have been debunked over and over again.


XxSabrinaxX, CAPSLOCKED, LordReed, HardMirror, HopefulLandlord

Some of the more honest ones admit thy will not be able to provide proof beyond a subjective experience, yet they continue to believe.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 9:18am On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

I don't sleep and wake up on Nairaland, you know.


I assume you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Problem is, what you have stated is not the 2nd law. Perhaps, calling it "Shadeyinka's Law of Entropy" would be more apt!

""Is it always possible to find order in a chaotic system?" Ramsey Theory, described in the relatively easy-going, equation-free lecture above (given as part of the Millenium Mathematics Project), offers a reasonable way of determining the minimum amount of structure in a given system".

"Basically, if you have some chaotic system, and you start dividing it up, you'll come up with an "interesting" structure. Something will eventually repeat or have some sort of form (order)".

=> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvwvw/­is-it-always-possible-to-find-order-in-chaos

You just don't know what you're talking about.
I certainly do know what I am talking about.
1. I actually meant Entropy and not the second law of thermodynamics (which even though is connected with entropy is also violated).

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time.

And by the Law of Entropy, I meant that: The total entropy in the Universe increase and never decrease.

In lay man's terms: the meaning is that given enough time, every mass and energy in the universe would have completely dispersed throughout the universe (a steady state with nothing localised in space).

How does it prove that infinite regression is impossible?
i. The least entropy theoretically possible is ZERO (implication: a starting point/origin that cannot be exceeded)
ii. Projecting into the future leads to a maximum entropy where no further change in state of the universe is possible.

2. I think you should invest in a little understanding in the application of Science rather than jumping to a conclusion because you read a paper which you don't know it's practical application.

Take a compressed mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, apply energy: what you obtain is an explosion (chaos). Of course, for this reaction, you will find order only within isolated Oxygen, Hydrogen and Water molecules BUT never between any pairs of the molecules involved. I am sure you know that in describing chaos, I do not discriminate it in its micro state but macro states. Chaos can never ever lead to ORDER.

Same with in a case of Nuclear fission: it would be robbery to conclude that the Ba141, Kr92 and neurons produced in the nuclear fission of U235 are order produced from chaos.


XxSabrinaxX:


LOL. Why are you repeating yourself? You are only asserting the impossibility of infinite regression. You are not demonstrating it. There is no reason what so ever that one must reach a point of infinite causation. Even if there were a point, you don't get to magically insert your god (classic God of the Gaps fallacy). We live in a house (local time, local universe, local rules). Everything we know breaks down at Planck Time. Chaos ensues. You are living in this house, in this time, in this system of causality and then attempting to infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house! The only thing you can say about the outside is "I do not know". Any answer besides this exposes dishonesty and deliberate distortion to suit your selfish objectives and i'd expect better from you, Mr. Shadeyinka.
"If god has always existed, how is that not in itself any infinite regress?" was my question. You have yet to answer this. Please kindly explain, in clear words and/or terms which would not obfuscate people and make them look for a dictionary, how your god would have "always existed".
Except you have an opposing argument, I have used the law of entropy to show why an infinite regression of cause and reaction is impossible.

Of course Yes, there is a point of Origin of the Universe. That point is the "Uncaused First Cause"! I have avoided the use of the nomenclature "God" but it doesn't really change anything.

Note that: using your analogy, I have not tried to " infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house!". I have only pointed to the SOURCE as the origin without specifying How, Why, What or When the universe was made.

My argument is very simple: the SOURCE isn't a constant, else change in state of space wouldn't be possible.
The Source isn't just a form of Energy: else it's either a constant or the law of entropy is violated. This SOURCE forced Order out of the BB disorder.

You asked: If God had always existed, why is that not an infinite regression?
An infinite regression is a never ending sequence of cause and effect. Projecting into the future we see as a natural consequence of the law of entropy, regression cannot go on indefinitely. Projecting to the past, we see that entropy cannot go below zero.

Hence, it is impossible to have a never ending sequence of cause and effect. What we have is an Uncaused First Cause: God the initiator of Entropy which had its beginning at the BB.

Whatever the SOURCE is, He cannot be made of Matter and Energy: else, He'll be subject to dissipation like the rest of the universe.

You asked to know How God would have always existed!
No one knows!
1. But at least we know that we exist
2. We know that we have not always existed
3. We know that an infinite regression of cause and effect is impossible
4. It leaves us with no other conclusion that our existence was caused by "One who had always existed"!


XxSabrinaxX:

How convenient indeed!

I believe, Mr. Shadeyinka, based on all our previous encounters and even on this thread, that you have sound knowledge in basic science, am I right? Now notice how your claim that "GoD iS a SpIrIt!" makes your god's existence utterly unfalsifiable, and if you can't test a claim, if you can't confirm or deny it any way, then there's absolutely no reason to believe said claim. The claim is ultimately useless. I've said this countless times already. All you've done is give me a reason to dismiss your position and/or argument even more!

Now,
1> How do you possibly know that god is immaterial and thus exists outside our natural world? Please, no analogies or evasiveness this time. Be direct and honest!
2> How did you find this out in the first place?
3> What is the difference between an unobservable and/or untestable immaterial god and an entity that does not exist?
4> How can a thinking, decision-making god make decisions if it existed our natural world and is/was an eternal being not restricted by space-time?

Your line of reasoning is the inevitable fall back point for anyone faced with the cold, hard fact that they cannot provide a coherent framework for what they WANT to believe. It's the theological equivalent of the kid losing a playground argument who just gets frustrated and says, "I win times Infinity!", takes his ball, and heads home. There is ZERO difference between that young lad and you making this inane, incoherent assertion that "GoD iS a SpIrIt! He iS BeYoNd ScIeNcE!"
It seems the use of the phrase "God is a Spirit" is offensive to you. Please no vex!

A "Spirit" is a theological term used to mean or describe a Being, Entity, Personality, Identity who exists in a none material/energy form.

Now to your questions:
1. How do I know that God is immaterial?
If God is material, He would be subject to every Physical law that came to be after the BB. Before the BB, there were no atoms, no electrons, no EM energy etc. The BB at best can be a controlled expansion requiring an external constraints beyond the current laws of matter and energy. Such an Uncaused First Cause cannot thus be of material elements.

2. How did I find out in the First place?
i. Initially from people who claimed they knew (parents, church etc)
ii. Then by my own personal subjective experience
iii. Then by my scientific induction, deductions and logics
3. Difference between an unobservable and/or untestable immaterial god and an entity that does not exist?

i. Truth and Falsehood

4. How can a thinking, decision-making god make decisions if it existed OUTSIDE our natural world and is/was an eternal being not restricted by space-time?

The same way in which an intangible Computer Program (Codes) run our Computers and Robots. Note that a computer program (code) is immaterial (not made up of matter and energy)

XxSabrinaxX:

In the face of our ongoing discourse, why isn't this a [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche ]thought-terminating cliche[/url]?

Clearly someone wasn't paying attention in Logic class. Let us do a fallacy count:
1> God of the Gaps fallacy? Check!
2> Non-sequitur fallacy? Check!
3> Confirmation bias? Check!
4> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam? Check!

Need I go on? Need I say more? Need I keep stressing myself out arguing against an assertion that is Dead On Arrival (DOA) apparently unbeknownst to the proponents
I think you jump too soon to conclusions concerning the breaking of rules of logics. You have simply recited some memory verses.


If this "IMMATERIAL SOURCE" isn't the Origin or termination of "infinite regression" with respect to the origin of things, then what is it? (for since an infinite regression is impossible, one must certainly have a Primary Source of all things.)

XxSabrinaxX:


As for detecting god(s) and/or testing the god(s) hypothesis,

"No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-maker. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe."
-Re: My Argument For God's Existence by XxSabrinaxX(f): 10:55pm on Jan 22

Also, check out my atheist prayer thread where I, Martinez39 and budaatum discussed about reliable processes for establishing base reality.


An analogy is a perfect way of presenting or explaining a new phenomenon using already established knowledge. In that sense, it is perfectly logical and sensible.
1. Do you have an objection to the fact that the DNA is a library of codes?

Let me start here by saying that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation combined with non-sequiturs! A CODE is a variation of a particular language. DNA is a biological machine, the structure of which can be represented by A CODE. Our DNA evolved with a great deal of variance in our species, and even more so compared to our ancestors. Even if there was a designer, unless you completely discount evolution, and common descent in particular, the DNA and RNA of contemporary living things is an example of what unguided natural processes can produce, mistakes and all.

In short, your argument has no supporting evidence, because IF you understand and accept evolution, then DNA isn't evidence for a designer, just an example of what can happen naturally (more on this below). IF you don't accept evolution, then a quick scroll through all of the known genetic conditions and inherited diseases should make it obvious that the alleged Intelligent Designer doesn't live up to the title! There is so much "junk" DNA code that does absolutely nothing. Mutations happen with alarming frequency and the vast majority of them are either harmful or negligible. Is the Almighty First Cause / Source not finished or did he just f*ck up 6,000 years ago and hasn't gotten the formula right? Is he (a) Lazy OR (b)Plain Stupid?

I mean, retardation, cancer, amelia.... LOL, your god must really suck at coding!

TLDR; Computer code is a human construct and DNA is naturally occuring (False Analogy). There is no "code" in DNA. Like i said earlier, this is an equivocation fallacy. When the word "code" is used, it is not used with similar meaning as a morse code, a biblical code, or a secret code. DNA is chemical interactions. You assert that DNA is not naturally existing? Can you prove your assertion?


. Do you think given an unlimited number of trials (of throwing alphanumerics on the ground) with the 26 letters and numerals a computer code can write itself?

It's like what I said above: the creation of DNA information can be explained by nature viz the evolutionary process. Code sequences that favour survival tend to survive (a gain of useful information) and code sequences that hinder survival tend to vanish (a loss of misinformation) via mutations into new sequences and through random mixing of existing sequences at each new generation. Over many generations, useful information accumulates. Once again, this is IF you accept evolution. IF you don't, see above.

Also, information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement includes shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Of course, no one says science is perfect. And in fact science is extremely good and useful to humanity. Science itself is attempts to understand, quantify, describe and exploit observables in nature. Hence, science can only safely deal with matter, energy and logics and not things beyond the BB.
And a Christian can also be a Scientist! LOL

It seems you term "code" to mean "encryption". No!
"Code " is a synonym used to mean "computer programming/algorithms"! My use of the word code had always been consistent to mean exactly that: "computer programming/algorithm". I suspect that you have no experience with programming else you wouldn't have presented your case like this.

A Computer Program consist of Instructions acting on Data/constraints. The data could be an input or output data. And Programming could be done either mechanically or electronically.

Is the DNA not in everyway like a computer programming/code? Does it contain instructions? Does it act on Data?

You said:
You assert that DNA is not naturally existing? Can you prove your assertion?

I never said such! Except you can quote the place for my appropriate response.

@Bolded
And that's why I say show that it is possible to randomly generate the simplest computer code from every necessary alpha characters (given enough time for iteration). If this is not possible, it is meaningless to keep on asserting that nature can perform the same miracle. Don't forget that alphanumerics can randomly form words.




XxSabrinaxX:



Unfortunately, the fact that you seem yourself to be conscious suggests that you aren't the only one who could be conscious.
The question to ask is how can a collection of "unconscious" atoms suddenly acquire "consciousness"?

Is consciousness just about chemicals acting on other chemicals?

If we are to project backwards, we must arrive at the FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS in the universe: as Christians, we call Him the SOURCE.

Do you think you that cannot unravel the mystery of your own Consciousness can dissect that of the SOURCE?

You worship the brain as if it is the giver of Consciousness neglecting the software that controls the brain and make it function. It's simply like exalting the CPU and Memory of a computer without referencing the SOFTWARE that make it function.

I submit that Consciousness isn't about chemicals interacting with atoms BUT the SOFTWARE that is written by the SOURCE Himself.

If I altered the chemistry of your brain, your consciousness would change in a predictable manner. Alzheimer patients and people suffering dementia change both in consciousness and in brain structure. The same goes for meditation, "prayer", and many other practices and/or drugs that can lead one to having "religious" experiences. Consciousness and self awareness are emergent properties of the brain. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness.

Chemical reactions can produce molecules: Secondary School Biology / Chemistry

"Chemical reactions occur when chemical bonds between atoms are formed or broken. The substances that go into a chemical reaction are called the reactants, and the substances produced at the end of the reaction are known as the products. An arrow is drawn between reactants and products to indicate the direction of the chemical reaction, though a chemical reaction is not always a "one-way street", as we'll explore further for the next section. For example, the reaction for the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide,
(\text {H}_{2}H2
H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript) into water and oxygen can be written as:
2\text {H}_{2}2H2
2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}\text {(hydrogen peroxide)}O2
(hydrogen peroxide)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, h, y, d, r, o, g, e, n, space, p, e, r, o, x, i, d, e, right parenthesis\right arrow, right arrow 2\text {H}_{2}\text O\text {(water)}2H2
O(water)2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O, left parenthesis, w, a, t, e, r, right parenthesis +\text {O}_{2}\text {(oxygen)}O2
(oxygen)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, o, x, y, g, e, n, right parenthesis
In this example, hydrogen peroxide is our reactant, and it gets broken down into water and oxygen, our products. The atoms that started out in hydrogen peroxide molecules are re-arranged to form water molecules (\text {H}_{2}\text OH2
OH, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O) and oxygen molecules (\text O_2O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript)."



My argument had been that Consciousness is like an AI program written into living beings.

Your argument is like:
If you alter the wiring of a computer, many strange things will occur: and this is the bases by which you conclude that "proper functioning of a computer/robot is not Software related".

Consciousness isn't about chemicals: it is about the programming.

Can chemicals feel (pain or pleasure)?
Can chemicals choose between options ( volition)?

Until you can show that the last two questions are falsifiable, you got no case.

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 9:20am On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

When last did you read anything besides the bible?

Now let's try explaining consciousness with god:
1> How did God create the consciousness?
2> How is it "attached" to the person and the brain?
3> How does the body change consciousness if there isn't a physical connection?
4> If it's "spiritual", how does it interact with our reality?

I guess the most interesting question though, Mr. Shadeyinka, is that how hard could it possibly be for you to fathom that the fact of something's existence does not prove that it necessarily came into existence via a particular process? Tentatively, it's existence could simply be a necessity, a non-contigent fact, like the existence of existence is! Your unending assertion that consciousness springs up from either GOD or NOTHING is a false dichotomy fallacy.
The bitter pill of truth, which is obviously so painful for even you to swallow, is that even if today, you demonstrated successfully that a person remains conscious after brain death, you haven't demonstrated a god existing anymore than you have demonstrated the Flying Spaghetti Monster or my Blue Universe-creating Pixies!


It's either you are communicating with demons or you don't even believe yourself of what you've just written.
I'm not sure if I should be amused or impressed by this final comment of yours. It's quite fascinating that you actually have the capacity to reject assertions based on how ludicrous they may sound. The only question is, how will you ever know, hmm? Extraordinary claims will ALWAYS require extraordinary evidence. Pulling all sorts of assertions from your rear ("God iS ImMaTeRiAl!", "iNfInIte ReGrEsS iS iMpOsSiBlE!" etc) and flinging all and sundry onto the wall hoping they will stick without question or criticsm won't help you. I'm no stranger to these arguments. You do not bring anything unique or new to the table, you are just spouting catchphrases and words you hope will impress people. This has always been your M.O., Mr. Shadeyinka.

Anyways, Yahweh appeared to me again this time as a condom on my nightstand. He told to inform you that your arguments are piss poor and wrong as ever. He has asked me to tell you that this argument be ended. Personally, i'm already infinitely bored with all these presuppositional fantasy drivel that apologists keep pushing cause they read nothing other than the Buybull!

1. How did God create Consciousness?
I don't know. All I know is that it is His attribute and he imputed part of it to His creations. Just like humans impute part of their attributes on a Robot.

2. How is it "attached" to the person and the brain?

The same way a computer code is attached to a computer or an AI robot.

3. How does the body change consciousness if there isn't a physical connection?

I am not sure I understand this your question.

But let me ask you this question:
How is a computer code connected/attached to a microcontroller, or CPU or Computer?


Extraordinary Physical claims must ALWAYS require extraordinary Physical evidence.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 10:00am On Sep 26, 2019
LordReed:


You have done no such thing, you merely asserted that it is impossible. It just isn't something you can know in reality.

Who says what ever caused the BB must be a being and a male being for that matter?
Then you must answer this question: Is an infinite regression of cause and effect possible with respect to creation/nature?

God is gender neutral: we use HE rather than IT or HER just as we find it Logical to use SHE for a SHIP or HER for a NATION!

LordReed:

Repeating the analogy does not answer my question. Again, We can see the difference between a programmed functional robot and an unprogrammed functional robot. Is there anything analogous in the way consciousness works? Provide a clear example.
There is nothing like an unprogrammed robot. Every robot has a function. Any unprogrammed robot is at best a mannequin.

LordReed:

What it seems is you still have a Newtonian conception of gravity. You should update your knowledge of what gravity is.

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass .

The earliest instance of gravity in the Universe, possibly in the form of quantum gravity, supergravity or a gravitational singularity, along with ordinary space and time, developed during the Planck epoch (up to 10−43 seconds after the birth of the Universe), possibly from a primeval state, such as a false vacuum, quantum vacuum or virtual particle, in a currently unknown manner.
I asked you the question: Can gravity exist without mass?

Check your quote!

LordReed:

You seem to think low odds = impossible. Do you realise that the chance of getting exact combination of genes that produced you are very low but here you are.
No sir.
For alphanumerics to form a simplest code, it has to contain data and information.

Random Words may certainly form BUT it is impossible for information to be formed for an information requires an INTENT: this is only a function an intelligent mind can produce.



LordReed:


In what way is it a code? Define code.
DNA is a kind of code.
A "code" is a synonym for "computer code/algorithm".

It is a sequence of instruction acting on Data. The data may be for input or output. Is the DNA not like a library of computer codes?

LordReed:

You are jumping the gun. You need to show first how you know a prime mover exists and how you are certain of it's characteristics.

Where did I ever state that my job here is to persuade you of anything?
I have shown you that an infinite regression is impossible with respect to creation. If you state otherwise, its on you to prove it.

If you can't, then it means that an Uncaused First Cause exists and He's the Cause of the Universe.

You aren't here to pasuade me but you do try well in convincing the no so Scientifically inclined Christians.
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 11:21am On Sep 26, 2019
shadeyinka:

Then you must answer this question: Is an infinite regression of cause and effect possible with respect to creation/nature?

God is gender neutral: we use HE rather than IT or HER just as we find it Logical to use SHE for a SHIP or HER for a NATION!

How many times do I need to answer the question? Why does discussion need to be so tedious?

No, personal pronoun usage for non-humans has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with culture and tradition.


There is nothing like an unprogrammed robot. Every robot has a function. Any unprogrammed robot is at best a mannequin.

That is not true and you know it. Besides you have not answered the question.


I asked you the question: Can gravity exist without mass?

Check your quote!

You need to understand what gravity is or my previous answer will not make sense. Gravity is the curvature of space-time not an attracting force between masses. Let me illustrate, imagine a trampoline upon which a cannonball is placed. The weight of the cannonball deforms the trampoline surface. If you then rolled a tennis ball along the edges of the trampoline it will begin to roll towards the cannonball because of the deformation caused by the cannonball. This is how gravity effects work which is why the uneven masses of particles coalesce because there is a deformation of space-time. It is the same way galaxies and stars formed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A


No sir.
For alphanumerics to form a simplest code, it has to contain data and information.

Random Words may certainly form BUT it is impossible for information to be formed for an information requires an INTENT: this is only a function an intelligent mind can produce.

I don't understand what you are saying. If a random combination of words turns out to be meaningful are you saying you discard the meaning because it was arrived at by a random selection of alphanumeric characters?

Information does not always require intent. For example emissions from the sun contain information that let's know many things about the sun, it doesn't mean the sun has the intent to beam us information.




DNA is a kind of code.
A "code" is a synonym for "computer code/algorithm".

It is a sequence of instruction acting on Data. The data may be for input or output. Is the DNA not like a library of computer codes?

When something is described as being like some other thing does it mean they are the same?


I have shown you that an infinite regression is impossible with respect to creation. If you state otherwise, its on you to prove it.

If you can't, then it means that an Uncaused First Cause exists and He's the Cause of the Universe.

You aren't here to pasuade me but you do try well in convincing the no so Scientifically inclined Christians.

You keep saying you've shown, where did you show it?

That I don't have data for something does not prove another thing that has no data too.

I am about correct information and I think people should have it. If it convinces you all well and good, if it doesn't thats your prerogative.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply)

Happy International Day Of The Bible: Share Your Favorite Bible Quote / Lagos Church Organises Free Medical Check-up For All Her Members Today (PHOTOS) / Police Arrested Pastor Odumeje Over Alleged Charm Buried In Church Premises

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 884
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.