LordReed:


The same reason why natural process can result in a cave but can't result in a house, they are different types of processes.

So you believe that natural process can result in a LIVING and COMPLEX structure like human being but the same process cannot result in a NON LIVING and LESS COMPLEX structure like a house ?

Don't you think that a nonliving and less complex structure should be EASIER to create than living and complex structure given that the two structures were in the SAME CONDITION five billion years ago ?

Abdulgaffar22:


So you believe that natural process can result in a LIVING and COMPLEX structure like human being but the same process cannot result in a NON LIVING and LESS COMPLEX structure like a house ?

Don't you think that a nonliving and less complex structure should be EASIER to create than living and complex structure given that the two structures were in the SAME CONDITION five billion years ago ?

Complexity has nothing to do with it. There are no naturally occuring wheels yet it is one of the simplest technologies we have.

Abdulgaffar22:


Have you first agreed that something (either Universe itself or something outside the universe) that has no beginning must be intelligent before human being and aeroplane can exist ?

Chillax, its not LordReed. To the above, I agree. So proceed with your explanation.

LordReed:


Complexity has nothing to do with it. There are no naturally occuring wheels yet it is one of the simplest technologies we have.

If simplicity or complexity is not the determining factor, then what is the ACTUAL FACTOR that made it possible for natural process to create complex and living structure like human being but make it impossible for the same process to create less complex and non- living structure like a house ?

Blabbermouth:

Chillax, its not LordReed. To the above, I agree. So proceed with your explanation.

So this intelligent eternal something is inside the universe or outside the universe ?

Abdulgaffar22:


So this intelligent eternal something is inside the universe or outside the universe ?

Man!!!! Go straight, I know all these.
Omnipresent, the height and depth, within and beyond.
Continue with the answer.

Blabbermouth:

Man!!!! Go straight, I know all these.
Omnipresent, the height and depth, within and beyond.
Continue with the answer.

Then do you agree with Cs Lewis that says as follows ;

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God

Abdulgaffar22:


If simplicity or complexity is not the determining factor, then what is the ACTUAL FACTOR that made it possible for natural process to create complex and living structure but make it impossible for the same process to create less complex and non- living structure ?

Natural processes do not have goals, their outcomes are constrained by the physical laws and the environment. What this amounts to is the outcomes acquire a fitness to their environment and circumstances, occupying their own niche in the ecology. This means you will find outcomes of varying complexity distributed across the various ecologies and systems.

There are other factors like mutation and natural selection that influence the outcomes.

Abdulgaffar22:


Then do you agree with Cs Lewis that says as follows ;

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God

Agreed. The question is "why God?", why not " Gods".?

LordReed:


Natural processes do not have goals, their outcomes are constrained by the physical laws and the environment. What this amounts to is the outcomes acquire a fitness to their environment and circumstances, occupying their own niche in the ecology. This means you will find outcomes of varying complexity distributed across the various ecologies and systems.

There are other factors like mutation and natural selection that influence the outcomes.

All the factors you listed up there can only work if living structures were already in existence.
Therefore, they are not the ACTUAL FACTOR(S) that made it possible for the natural process to create living complex structures but made it impossible for the same process to create non-living simple structure like wheels you made mention of
So what is that ACTUAL FACTOR ?
If you're unable to find none, let me know.

Blabbermouth:

Agreed. The question is "why God?", why not " Gods".?

Occam's razor principle says;
"Entities should not be multiplied WITHOUT NECESSITY ; When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions"
Monotheism (one God) has fewer assumption than polytheism (many gods). Therefore, monotheism is more logical than polytheism.

Abdulgaffar22:


All the factors you listed up there can only work if living structures were already in existence.
Therefore, they are not the ACTUAL FACTOR(S) that made it possible for the natural process to create living complex structures but made it impossible for the same process to create non-living simple structure like wheels you made mention of
So what is that ACTUAL FACTOR ?
If you're unable to find none, let me know.

The physical laws and the environment were already in place before the first living things even existed.

Abdulgaffar22:


Occam's razor principle says;
"Entities should not be multiplied WITHOUT NECESSITY ; When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions"
Monotheism (one God) has fewer assumption than polytheism (many gods). Therefore, monotheism is more logical than polytheism.

I am sorry, this is not anywhere close to an answer.
I don't know Occam neither do you. On what basis does his principle stand?
You saying "fewer assumptions" have thus complicated everything.
To you, that "God" exists, is it an assumption?
If yes, We aren't having this discussion any longer.
If No, then Occam and his principle (which is more of an opinion or view) should find somewhere else to usurp.
We need something highly reasonable to say with conviction;
"There is only one God" or in arabic "LA illa Ila ALLAH"

LordReed:


The physical laws and the environment were already in place before the first living things even existed.

sweet!!!
Yet, they arent responsible for the first living thing's existence.
Yes or No?

LordReed:


There are other factors like mutation and natural selection that influence the outcomes.

Hahahaha.
Other possible possibilities as long as its not "God"

Blabbermouth:

I am sorry, this is not anywhere close to an answer.
I don't know Occam neither do you. On what basis does his principle stand?
You saying "fewer assumptions" have thus complicated everything.
To you, that "God" exists, is it an assumption?
If yes, We aren't having this discussion any longer.
If No, then Occam and his principle (which is more of an opinion or view) should find somewhere else to usurp.
We need something highly reasonable to say with conviction;
"There is only one God" or in arabic "LA illa Ila ALLAH"

Well, I am not here to defend Occam's razor.

There is another logical reason;

There is possibility of CONFLICT OF WILLS in polytheism while this is absent in monotheism.

Abdulgaffar22:


Well, I am not here to defend Occam's razor.

There is another logical reason;

There is possibility of CONFLICT OF WILLS in polytheism while this is absent in monotheism.

Better.
So we will have a ; one will, one person,one.God. You could think of them as though they were many,but the will is one and is of the mind, the mind is one and is of the spirit, the spirit is one and is of God. Just like, if you and I share the same mind, (the same human software) we are one (same person, same everything including thoughts, likes, dislikes, wishes, pains, pleasures, everything entirely), just that i decided to operate in two bodies.
REASONABLE.
How then do you prove that, "there is no conflict of will in the universe.
One god, :let me make living things, I will create goat.
god two: I will create my own living things too, I will create Fowl.
god 3: I will create the physical laws that operate on this your creations.
god 4: let me create space and time
god 5: I will create things that are lifeless.
god 6: I will watch from the stands, I will do nothing.
Think about it!!

LordReed:


The physical laws and the environment were already in place before the first living things even existed.

So physical law and the environment made it possible for the natural process to create the first living thing ?

But there is evidence to prove that the opposite is the case ; physical law and the environment would NEVER made it possible for the natural process to create the first living thing. See the reason below;


Natural law of entropy simply says things tend to become disorder when left to themselves. For example, dead cells tend to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that natural process want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials are no way different from dead cells because both are "dead" already.

In fact, dead cells are even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cells.

Now this is where I am going;

If natural law of entropy tends to cause the
DEAD CELLS TO DECAY AND DISINTEGRATE ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the NON LIVING MATERIALS TO BUILD UP GRADUALLY until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone jumping to the level of "living and self replicating cell" ?

@LordReed
From what is written above, it is very clear that natural process alone could not have created the first living thing ever existed. The natural process has to be guided by a capable intelligence to overcome the problem of decomposition and decaying process which dead organisms usually undergo.
The existence of capable intelligence necessitate the existence of capable intelligent being which many people "portrayed" as God.
Pls I want you to reconsider what Cs Lewis has said ;

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God"

Abdulgaffar22:
@LordReed
From what is written above, it is very clear that natural process alone could not have created the first living thing ever existed. The natural process has to be guided by a capable intelligence to overcome the problem of decomposition and decaying process which dead organisms usually undergo.
The existence of capable intelligence necessitate the existence of capable intelligent being which many people "portrayed" as God.
Pls I want you to reconsider what Cs Lewis has said ;

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God"

I asked our dear Alhaji LordReed the same question. I guess this is the point where he flees and use some Mumbo-Jumbo as his excuse.
That aside, you haven't answered my question, if there is none, let me know so I don't pressure you again.

Blabbermouth:

I asked our dear Alhaji LordReed the same question. I guess this is the point where he flees and use some Mumbo-Jumbo as his excuse.
That aside, you haven't answered my question, if there is none, let me know so I don't pressure you again.

You must dream a lot, even when typing on NL you have such vivid dreams.

Blabbermouth:

sweet!!!
Yet, they arent responsible for the first living thing's existence.
Yes or No?

We don't know how the first living things came to be. There are some hypothesis but no one is certain. What is certain is that life is/was shaped by the physical laws and the environment.

Abdulgaffar22:


So physical law and the environment made it possible for the natural process to create the first living thing ?

But there is evidence to prove that the opposite is the case ; physical law and the environment would NEVER made it possible for the natural process to create the first living thing. See the reason below;


Natural law of entropy simply says things tend to become disorder when left to themselves. For example, dead cells tend to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that natural process want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials are no way different from dead cells because both are "dead" already.

In fact, dead cells are even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cells.

Now this is where I am going;

If natural law of entropy tends to cause the
DEAD CELLS TO DECAY AND DISINTEGRATE ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the NON LIVING MATERIALS TO BUILD UP GRADUALLY until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone jumping to the level of "living and self replicating cell" ?

So now you've switched to the origins of life? You've moved from not distinguishing between natural and artificial to how did life arise?

Abdulgaffar22:
@LordReed
From what is written above, it is very clear that natural process alone could not have created the first living thing ever existed. The natural process has to be guided by a capable intelligence to overcome the problem of decomposition and decaying process which dead organisms usually undergo.
The existence of capable intelligence necessitate the existence of capable intelligent being which many people "portrayed" as God.
Pls I want you to reconsider what Cs Lewis has said ;

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God"

Nobody knows how life arose. Jumping from what we don't know to certainty about some intelligence is staggering arrogance.

Why people use this defense is beyond me. Are you not alive now experiencing life? It is so stupid to think because food and medicine are chemical products therefore you will not consume them to sustain your life and health. It is equally stupid to think that because you are a conglomeration of natural biological and chemical processes your existence is worthless. I do not need any god to give me a sense of worth or the ability to reason. If you do good for you, I don't.

LordReed:


We don't know how the first living things came to be. There are some hypothesis but no one is certain. What is certain is that life is/was shaped by the physical laws and the environment.

Not "we don't know" its "I don't know" for you.
Well lemme break the ice, I know and if ye have eyes, I will help you see.
Check this out, 5x+3=13 find X.
Very simple X=2 , why? Well for the expression to be equal to 13, the only value that can give that result is 2. One important thing is that, x=2 is unique, no other value when tested for X will ever yield 13.
Thus, in the same way we could disconnect from the universe and see things in a 360° angle, this way we could reason what our X is for the universe to be what it is. We could even further test if our result for X is unique. Because of the complexity, there is a limit to what we can uncover about X, but we would/might find enough.
Let's run this together, journey with me, who knows,who knows what our X could be, our X could be the universe itself, our X could be NOTHING, our X could be ANYTHING.

LordReed:


You must dream a lot, even when typing on NL you have such vivid dreams.

Dream? No, I just refuse to be blind.

Blabbermouth:

Dream? No, I just refuse to be blind.

What has the dream you wrote about me got to do with refusing blind?

Blabbermouth:

Not "we don't know" its "I don't know" for you.
Well lemme break the ice, I know and if ye have eyes, I will help you see.
Check this out, 5x+3=13 find X.
Very simple X=2 , why? Well for the expression to be equal to 13, the only value that can give that result is 2. One important thing is that, x=2 is unique, no other value when tested for X will ever yield 13.
Thus, in the same way we could disconnect from the universe and see things in a 360° angle, this way we could reason what our X is for the universe to be what it is. We could even further test if our result for X is unique. Because of the complexity, there is a limit to what we can uncover about X, but we would/might find enough.
Let's run this together, journey with me, who knows,who knows what our X could be, our X could be the universe itself, our X could be NOTHING, our X could be ANYTHING.

The universe is not something you can disconnect from so your imagination is irrelevant.

LordReed:


So now you've switched to the origins of life? You've moved from not distinguishing between natural and artificial to how did life arise?

It was our discussion that lead us to that point. Or have you forgotten what you wrote before I responded.
Let me quote you ;

"The physical laws and the environment were already in place before the first living things even existed"

Have you seen it ? You first made mention of "first living things".

LordReed:


Nobody knows how life arose. Jumping from what we don't know to certainty about some intelligence is staggering arrogance.

.

How did we get to know that an ordinary stone cannot be flying in the air by itself ?

Apart from the fact that we have never seen such a thing before, we also know that law of gravity would never permit such a thing.

Similarly, apart from the fact that we have never seen how non living thing became living through natural process, we also know that law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics), which caused many things to DECAY as time passes by, would never permit such a miraculous transformation to happen.

Even if we don't know the precise details of how life arose, we know that it was not through natural process. Yet since life began to exist, there can only be two options ; natural process or supernatural process.

Abdulgaffar22:


It was our discussion that lead us to that point. Or have you forgotten what you wrote before I responded.
Let me quote you ;

"The physical laws and the environment were already in place before the first living things even existed"

Have you seen it ? You first made mention of "first living things".

It was you who went there, you wrote: All the factors you listed up there can only work if living structures were already in existence.

Abdulgaffar22:


How did we get to know that an ordinary stone cannot be flying in the air by itself ?

Apart from the fact that we have never seen such a thing before, we also know that law of gravity would never permit such a thing.

Similarly, apart from the fact that we have never seen how non living thing became living through natural process, we also know that law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics), which caused many things to DECAY as time passes by, would never permit such a miraculous transformation to happen.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not prevent life from arising from non-living thing. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. This in no way gets you to assume life did not arise from natural processes.