₦airaland Forum

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
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"

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" ?

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.

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.

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:
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

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 ?

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 ?

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 ?

@ LordReed

Why do you think natural process can give rise to human being, but the same process cannot give rise to aeroplane ?

Blabbermouth:
I love the angle from which you see things. But, how do you ascertain if it is an intelligent designer/being and not intelligent designers and intelligent beings thus giving rise to many god-like being.?

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 ?

LordReed:
nature
/ˈneɪtʃə/

noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Continue arguing with yourself.

Okay do you agree that human being is the product of those natural entities and aeroplane is the product of human being ?

LordReed:
It was necessary to ask you the question in order to illustrate something you clearly understand but want to finagle into the position you are pushing.

The person in our analogy doesn't launch into a lengthy explanation because everyone understands the question being asked. He was one thing before now he is another there is no room for equivocation.

Similarly an aeroplane arises out of artificial processes, it does not matter that the executor itself is a product of nature. It is clearly understood that the aeroplane is not the product of nature, anything to the contrary is just an attempt to be contrary for contrary sake.

A professor was ordinary human being like others before he obtained his professorship. Now has he TRULY changed from human being simply because he became a professor ?

In 5 billion years ago, ONLY natural entities ( like matter, forces, space, time and natural processes) exist according to your belief. If human being later emerged from the SAME natural entities, are they not part of the original natural entities ? Of course, they are.
Now if human being has designed an aeroplane, then it is the same natural entities that has designed it. But you said no.

If your world view is true, then this is exactly what has happened in our present universe and yet you still deny it.

Let say our universe is a CLOSE container that nothing can enter through it or influence it from outside

One supposed observer look inside this container 5 billion years ago, he ONLY saw matter, forces, space, time and natural processes ; there is nothing like human being and aeroplane.

Now at this present time, the observer look inside the container again and he sees human being and aeroplane.

Pls who is the CREATOR of the human being and aeroplane from the thinking of this observer ? Of course, the creator should be the original natural entities he saw five billion years ago. But you said the observer is wrong !

LordReed:
Answer this question, if a person has renounced his Nigerian citizenship and taken up Canadian citizenship, what should he fill as nationality in a form?

But you supposed to answer my question first before asking me any question .

Well no problem let me answer your own.

Of course, he should fill the Canadian citizenship but his renouncement has not TRULY changed him from being a Nigerian to being a Canadian if he was TRULY born in Nigeria

@ LordReed



I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

LordReed:
Why do we need to differentiate between artificial and natural if everything is natural?

It is like you're asking;
Why do we need to differentiate between flour and wheat if everything is wheat ?

Though we differentiate the flour from the wheat. But this does not disprove the fact that flour ORIGINATES from wheat


Similarly, we differentiate artificial process from natural process. But this does not disprove the fact that artificial process ORIGINATES from natural process if and only if supernatural process does not exist just as you believe.

Therefore, it is quite right to say that an aeroplane which was created through an artificial process was really designed by pure natural process if your world view is really true. But you said no

LordReed:
I say no because without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. But go ahead and keep equivocating, I have said my piece. When people start arguing with themselves I usually just let them get on with it.

I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

LordReed:
What it just shows is you have a problem with definitions of artificial and natural, that's your problem not mine.

Yes, an aeroplane was designed by an ARTIFICIAL PROCESS. But what make this artificial process to be possible ; brain activities. Through what process do these brain activities emerged ? Natural process or supernatural process. According to your belief, it is natural process. Therefore, aeroplane was ULTIMATELY designed by natural process.

So I am not equivocating on what is natural process and artificial process. What you don't what to accept is the implication of your belief.

If your belief says that there is nothing that exist by supernatural process, then the artificial process that designed an aeroplane must be EVENTUALLY arose from natural process.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane was designed by pure natural process. But you said no.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane originate from pure natural process (if A=B and B=C then, A=C) . But you said no

LordReed:
You just admitted this is a trick question. If I say yes you will now say something else to counter any point I have made. Defeat indeed. LoL

Don't you know that if something is FALSE, it will never tally with the REALITY from any perspective you choose to analyse it. This is exactly the reason why your answer ( whether yes or no) will always will be wrong.

Suppose you said ; yes, natural process alone design an aeroplane, then you're saying indirectly that unguided natural process can carryout intelligent and conscious activities . This would imply that nature is an intelligent and conscious entity. Yet there is no any evidence for this assertion. So it is your own world view that is having problem. The question I asked is reasonable and sound. It can only be a trickery question for you; not for me.

LordReed:
What defeat? You are equivocating on what is a natural process and what is an artificial process and proclaiming victory. By your own admission now this is nothing but a trick question and you refuse to accept that capable agents are performing artificial processes. Well, I have nothing further to say.

Yes, an aeroplane was designed by an artificial process. But what make this artificial process to be possible ; brain activities. Through what process do these brain activities emerged ? Natural process or supernatural process. According to your belief, it is natural process. Therefore, aeroplane was ULTIMATELY designed by natural process.

So I am not equivocating on what is natural process and artificial process. What you don't what to accept is the implication of your belief.

If your belief says that there is nothing that exist by supernatural process, then the artificial process that designed an aeroplane must be EVENTUALLY arose from natural process.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane was designed by pure natural process. But you said no.

LordReed:
I keep saying it, your inability to absorb information just makes these conversations unnecessarily tedious. I have previously clearly delineated between what we hold as natural processes and what we hold as the works of capable agents. How is it a contradiction? If these capable agents were removed from the scene would any of their works arise naturally?

There is one important question you failed to put into consideration; through what PROCESS do brains and all other organs of these capable agents operate ? Natural process or supernatural process ?

According to your belief; it is through natural process. Therefore, if these capable agents designed an aeroplane, then the aeroplane has been designed through what process ? Natural process or supernatural process ? Of course, through natural process.

But my question goes thus ; given enough time, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? And you said NO.

This implies that your statement has CONTRADICTED your belief.

I know it is very difficult to accept defeat especially in the presence of many observers who are with us on this platform. But when you leave the platform, think very well you will see that my argument is true.

hakeem4:
well! believing that aliens created humans does not necessarily mean the lawyer recognizes them as gods.
except you want to use the monotheistic definition as god.

But is there any theological difference between what the lawyer pictured as "alien" and what the theists portrayed as "God" ? Pls tell us if there is.

Again, what actually prompted the lawyer in the first place to believe his Creator to be alien and not to be God ?

hakeem4:
well in my honest opinion there is no way i can successfully convince you about this topic as i am not an expert in the field.

This is not the issue of being an expert in a field. Honestly it is an issue of logical reasoning.

Listen very well; DNA contains a lot of information on how to construct different organs of human body like eyes, liver, kidney, heart, stomach etc. This construction has to follow each other in a sequential manner.
Therefore, all the different information for the construction of each organ has to be copied sequentially by RNA polymerase from the DNA template.

Let say for example, after the construction of the lungs the next organ to be constructed is the heart. Now this is my question; how did RNA polymerase manage to recognize the information for the construction of the heart out of a lot of information contains in the DNA? Remember, an ordinary enzyme like RNA polymerase has no intelligence whatsoever. So how did it manage to carry out this difficult task without being guided by any supernatural being ?

There is even another important question; after RNA polymerase copy the encoded information for the construction of the heart from the DNA template, how did stem cells manage to TRANSLATE this encoded information to create the actual shape and size of the heart in its right location ?

LordReed:
No.

Pls don't ever think that you have made a mistake by saying no. Even if your answer is yes, there is another greater problem awaiting your belief. All these facts prove that atheism can never be a true world view.

LordReed:
No.

You DISBELIEVED that given enough time, natural process alone can design an aeroplane.


But this is exactly what you BELIEVE by insisting that there is no any supernatural process. Let me explain it to you.

According to your belief;

1. Nature and natural processes is all that exist in the past before the existence of aeroplane.

2. Human brain that designed an aeroplane is also part of the same nature and therefore all brain activities must be as a result of natural processes

3. Hence nature (i:e human brain) and natural processes (i:e all brain activities) is all that exist at this present time when aeroplane is now in existence.

4. This implies that nature has designed an aeroplane by using natural process alone.

See how you have CONTRADICTED your self by saying initially that given enough time, natural process alone cannot design an aeroplane.

Honestly, believing that there is no any supernatural process is a self contradictory belief

LordReed:
Have you seen illusionists and prestidigitators put on a "magic" show before? Do you know how sleight of hand and pickpocket teams work? If you've never seen these up close, you can search out Darren Brown on YouTube. He does "magic" tricks and attempts to reveal something of the psychology behind the tricks. I promise you, you will enjoy the show and learn alot.

These are more plausible explanations than that a supernatural power was used to transform your mother's money into paper.

Let me just ask you a simple question; given enough time, can natural process ALONE design an aeroplane ?

LordReed:
I will believe you had an experience to which you attribute the source to be supernatural. We can discuss how you arrived at that conclusion if you care to.

If all the naira notes you put inside your pocket turn to equal and similar pieces of blank paper simply because you give out some part of the money to somebody, then can this very transformation be explained by natural or by supernatural process ?

I swear by God I have been arguing for; this happened to my mother some years back.

LordReed:
In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings we have found none.

If I narrate one supernatural event that happened before my eyes to you, would you believe me for the sake of my faith in God I have been arguing for since all this time ?

LordReed:
In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings WE HAVE FOUND NONE.

It is prejudice to assert that the things we do not yet understand are therefore the work of supernatural beings especially when none has been thus far discovered.

If you're yet to understand some natural processes, how could you have said they cannot be orchestrated by a super natural being ?

Again, what are the yardsticks or factors do you think we can use to distinguish natural processes from supernatural processes if at all we assume they exist ?

LordReed:
There 2 ways we have observed things come into existence:

1. By natural processes.

2. By the efforts of capable agents/beings. Capable agents/beings are defined as entities able to plan, devise and execute modifications to their environment as opposed to mere impulses and autonomic responses.

In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings we have found none.

It is prejudice to assert that the things we do not yet understand are therefore the work of supernatural beings especially when none has been thus far discovered.

Are you saying your first option ( natural processes) cannot be categorized into any of the three possible models I gave up there ?

LordReed:
I don't now therefore x, is called argument from ignorance.

From our experience as intelligent human being, we know very well that existence of anything can be explained using THREE possible models;

1. By necessity ( i:e something can exist without beginning)

2. By chance ( i:e something can exist by luck)

3. By intelligence ( i:e something can exist by deliberate planning )

But all the complex processes that exist in
living things began to exist. Therefore, we are left with second and third option.

So our "search for the truth" is not an open loop. It is a closed loop; it is either we choose the second option or third option.

It is a kind of prejudice that would make someone to insist that neither of the options are correct and yet not giving his own option.

LordReed:
I am quite comfortable saying I don't know and the fact is nobody knows including you with your bronze age god idea. What we do know is the systems proceed apace without the need for an apparent divine director aka naturally.

If it is neither the work of chance nor chemical reactions, then it is must be the work of intelligence . Do you have another option ?

But who is the owner of this intelligence ? Of course, this intelligence cannot be the possessor of itself !