₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Interdependence doesn't prove they didn't evolve. You obviously don't understand the evolutionary theory.

Interdependent systems are the systems that
are physiologically and anatomically linked together. For example, respiratory system is useless if there is no circulatory system to distribute the oxygenated blood through out the body. But both the circulatory and respiratory system is useless if there is no digestive system which would provide the necessary nutrients and then the required energy to maintain the activities of the two systems. Again these three systems require an excretory system through which the waste produced by their cells will exit the body. But these four systems also require to be controlled by the central nervous system. Again reproductive system must not be absent if all these systems were to continue to exist from generation to generation. But maturation of reproductive system also require the activities of the hormonal system. But what do you think is going to happen if the immune system is absent to protect all these systems from being attack by microbes.
See how one system require the existence of others. Now imagine all these systems to be coming into existence one after the other by gradual evolution over millions of years.

LordReed:
You have a fictional understanding of what mutation is. I would urge you read up on mutation and stop using a fictional definition of the word.

What is written below was extracted from Wikipedia. Read it yourself

Mutations result from errors during DNA replication (especially during meiosis) or other types of damage to DNA (such as may be caused by exposure to radiation or carcinogens), which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining[2]), or cause an error during other forms of repair,[3][4] or else may cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.[5][6][7] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

The genomes of RNA viruses are based on RNA rather than DNA. The RNA viral genome can be double-stranded (as in DNA) or single-stranded. In some of these viruses (such as the single-stranded human immunodeficiency virus) replication occurs quickly and there are no mechanisms to check the genome for accuracy. This error-prone process often results in mutations.

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.

LordReed:
Also you have to be suspicious of an almighty plumber who designed a body with 2 kidneys and one heart. If the almighty plumber was so concerned with redundancy for the purpose of staving off failure of an organ, why don't we get 2 hearts then?

It is not only heart that is single. Liver, pancrea and spleen are also single. So the absolute reason why God decided to make some organ to be dual and some others to be single is best known to him. But the very fact that all the systems in human body are INTERDEPENDENT with each other prove that they cannot be evolved gradually over millions of years

LordReed:
Do you understand the premise of evolutionary theory? That the more complex forms you see now arose from simpler ones? A theory that is backed up by the available evidence? Why would we believe in a supernatural plumber over the available evidence?

Since the offsprings of most animal species developed from the fertilization of the two sex cells ( i:e the sperm cell and the egg cell), then the only way through which a complex animal species can be evolved from simpler ones is by changing of DNA information in the nuclei of the two sex cells

But what can actually causes a DNA information in the nucleus of a cell to change ?

There are only two options ; it is either by a process of chance ( genetic mutations) or by intelligent intervention.

But If you think there is third option through which DNA information can undergo a change, then bring it to light.

Unfortunately, most genetic mutations are harmful rather than beneficial. Therefore, a mutating lower animal species transforming itself into higher one would have meet its destruction by great number of harmful mutations before the very few beneficial ones can be put in place . For this very reason, evolution is impossible.

Therefore, increasing complexity from simple life forms to higher life forms can be best explained by a concept of "common design" rather than "common descent" just like increasing complexity from simple vehicle (like bicycle) to higher vehicles (like aeroplane) is by common design and not by common descent.

JeromeBlack:
A human being is organic. Very different from an inorganic building

You could have made a very good point if
the physical composition of organic human being was not originally part of inorganic substances in the past.
There is no any theological difference between the two plumbing systems because their ultimate origin are inorganic substances. Therefore, if the existence of one require an intelligent and conscious maker, then the existence of the other also require an intelligent and conscious creator

JeromeBlack:
This same plumber argument was used to point out that someone must have been behind the rain and thunder. This was until we understood the water cycle.

This is not the issue of the gaps in scientific knowledge being used as evidence for God. It is a matter of logical comparison ; if physical law of nature or process of chance can never be used to explain the existence of a plumbing system installed in a building, then physical law of nature or process of chance can never also be used to explain the existence of a plumbing system installed in a body of human being.

The genitourinary system present in the body of a male human being consists of the following ;
1. a pair of kidney,
2. a pair of ureter,
3. urinary bladder,
4. internal and external sphincter,
5. urethra,
6. vas deferens,
7. ejaculatory duct and
8. semen producing apparatus (testes and the accessory glands).

The pair of kidney (which can be likened to two pumping machines) filter the waste from our blood and send it through a pair of long inlet pipes called ureters into a storage tank (i:e the urinary bladder) which has two taps at its inferior end. These two taps are called the internal and external sphincter. Another long outlet pipe (called the urethra) now runs from the inferior end of the bladder to the tip of the penis. It is through this outlet pipe that the urine exits the body.

Again, there is another pipe called the ejaculatory duct which enable another storage tube (i:e the vas deferens that contains the semen produced in the testes and the accessory glands) to link with the same urethra that carries the urine coming from the urinary bladder.

During the period of ejaculation, one of the two taps ( i:e the internal sphincter) at the inferior end of the urinary bladder is involuntarily closed. Therefore, despite the fact that urine and the semen flow out of the body through the same pipe (the urethra) that runs through the length of the penis, they do not mixed together; the semen cannot flow backward into the urinary bladder . This is because of the first tap (i:e the internal sphincter) which normally close during the time of ejaculation and this act of closure is not under our control.

But the second tap (i:e the external sphincter) which can be open and close under our control enable us to urinate at any time we feel the need to do so.

See the plumbing system installed in the human body:

The pumping machines (the two kidneys), the storage tank (the urinary bladder), the storage tube ( the vas deferens), the two taps ( the internal and external sphincters at the inferior end of the urinary bladder) and the four connecting pipes ( the two ureters, the urethra and the ejaculatory duct).

Yet some people have the mouth to proclaim as follows :
"there is no any sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God and all the interdependent systems in human body were gradually brought into existence by evolutionary process of chance (DNA mutations) accumulated slowly over millions of years"

But just take a look at how the pipe (i:e the ejaculatory duct) conveying the semen linked perfectly with the main outlet pipe ( i:e the urethral) carrying the urine . Yet the semen and the urine do not mixed together because of the two taps ( i:e the internal and the external sphincters) located exactly at the inferior end of the storage tank (i:e the urinary bladder).

How many processes of chance (DNA mutations) do you think would be needed to form those "two pipes ( i:e the ejaculatory duct and the urethral ) and to establish that perfect linkage between them ?

Again, how many processes of chance ( DNA mutations) do you think would be required before the "storage tank (i:e the urinary bladder)" can be made together with its inlet and outlet pipes ( i:e the ureters and the urethra) and before the "two taps( i:e the internal and external sphincter)" can be formed at their functional location ?

If DNA mutations are mostly destructive and rarely beneficial as agreed by all scientists, then if a very few number of beneficial mutations are opportune to be directed toward the construction of this genitourinary system, then very great number of destructive mutations must have directed toward the destruction of one or more of the other interdependent systems ( such as respiratory system cardiovascular system, nervous system, digestive system, etc) that make up a single human body.
This will automatically lead to the death of such a mutating species which is yet to become a full human being.

Therefore, it is completely illogical to believe that genitourinary system and all other complex systems present in a single human body were formed gradually by evolutionary process of chance (DNA mutations) accumulated slowly over millions of years. Co- existence of a very few beneficial mutations and many destructive mutations in a single body will never allow an evolutionary process of chance to perform such a miracle.

If the plumbing systems installed in our buildings cannot be created by gradual process of chance over millions of years but through deliberate planning in the mind of a human plumber, then the plumbing system installed in human body must also have been created by deliberate planning in the mind of a supernatural plumber which many people depicted as God .

How the presence of urogenital system in our body prove the existence of a supernatural plumber


The urogenital system present in the body of a male human being consists of ;
1. a pair of kidney,
2. a pair of ureter,
3. urinary bladder,
4. internal and external sphincter,
5. urethra,
6. vas deferens,
7. ejaculatory duct and
8. semen producing apparatus (testes and the accessory glands).

The pair of kidney (which can be likened to two pumping machines) filter the waste from our blood and send it through a pair of long pipe called ureters into a storage tank (i:e the urinary bladder) which has two taps at its inferior end. These two taps are called the internal and external sphincter. Another long pipe (called the urethra) now runs from the inferior end of the bladder to the tip of the penis. It is through this pipe that the urine exits the body.

Again, there is another pipe called the ejaculatory duct which enable another storage tube (i:e the vas deferens that contains the semen produced in the testes) to link with the same urethra that carries the urine coming from the urinary bladder.

During the period of ejaculation, one of the two taps ( i:e the internal sphincter) at the inferior end of the urinary bladder is involuntarily closed. Therefore, despite the fact that urine and the semen flow out of the body through the same pipe (the urethra) that runs through the length of the penis, they do not mixed together; only one can flow at a time. This is because the very tap (i:e the internal sphincter) which only close during the time of ejaculation is not under our control.

But the other tap (i:e the external sphincter) which can be open and close at our own free will enable us to urinate at any time we feel the need to do so.

See the plumbing system installed in the human body: the pumping machines (the two kidneys), the storage tank (the urinary bladder), the storage tube ( the vas deferens), the two taps ( the internal and external sphincters at the end of the urinary bladder) and the four connecting pipes ( the two ureters, the ejaculatory duct and the urethra).

Just take a look at how the pipe (i:e the ejaculatory duct) conveying the semen linked perfectly with the main pipe ( i:e the urethral) carrying the urine . Yet the semen and the urine do not mixed together because of the two taps ( i:e the internal and the external sphincters) located exactly at the inferior end of the storage tank (i:e the urinary bladder).

How many processes of chance (DNA mutations) do you think would be needed to form those "two pipes" and to establish that perfect linkage between them ?

Again, how many processes of chance ( DNA mutations) do you think would be required before the "storage tank" can be made and before the "two taps" can be formed at their functional location ?

If genetic mutations are mostly destructive and rarely beneficial as agreed by all scientists, then is it not the case that some parts of this very urogenital system already formed in the past would have been destroyed by the same process of chance mutations (that supposedly created them in the first place) before the other parts of the system would be put in place ?

Apart from the problem of chance mutations explained above, there is another problem awaiting the creation of this very urogenital system by evolutionary process. According to theory of evolution, a very complex system we are seeing today was once a simpler system in the past. In other words, a very complex system came to exist little by little over millions of years through slight modifications.

But this concept of gradual evolution can never work for this very pattern of urogenital system and other complex systems found in human body. This is because all the main parts of this system are physiologically and anatomically linked together. That is to say, the existence and positioning of one part require the existence and positioning of other parts.

For example, let us consider the following three cases;

1. A pumping machine cannot just stand alone without the connecting pipe being put in place. Similarly kidney cannot stand alone without being connected to the ureter. This implies that kidney and the ureter must came to exist at the same time

2. A storage tank without an inlet and outlet pipes (through which water will enter and exit the tank) is useless. Similarly, urinary bladder without the ureter through which the urine will enter the bladder and the urethra through which the urine will exit the bladder is also useless. Therefore, the urinary bladder, the ureter and the urethra must also came to exist at the same time.

3. A semen producing apparatus ( i:e testes and other accessory glands) cannot just evolve without the ejaculatory duct being linked perfectly with the urethra which runs through the length of penis. Otherwise, semen would not be able to flow out during the time of copulation. Hence, semen producing apparatus (testes and the accessory glands) and the ejaculatory duct that linked perfectly with the urethra must also came to exist at the same time.

See how simutaneous creation of the main parts of urogenital system found in human body completely nullify the theory of gradual evolution through slight modifications over millions of years.

These are the two great problems associated with creation of urogenital system by evolutionary process; problem of chance mutations and the problem of gradual evolution.

Of course, if the plumbing systems installed in our buildings cannot be created by random and gradual process of chance over millions of years but through deliberate planning in the mind of a human plumber, then is it not logical to believe that the plumbing system installed in our body must also have been created by deliberate planning in the mind of a supernatural plumber which many people depicted as God ?

We all know that it's necessary to construct a building in basic stages: Once the walls go up, then the roof can be put in place. But we cannot proceed to plastering the walls before installing the electrical wiring and the water pipes. So while the walls are being erected, it's necessary to leave "gaps" where the electrical wires and water pipes can later be placed.


Similarly, during the construction of baby'skull in the mother's womb, "a pair of symmetrical gaps" known as the eye sockets have to be left in the skull where the two eye balls can later be placed.

Furthermore, during the period of plastering of the skull with the skin, another "pair of symmetrical gaps" for the eye balls have to be left in the facial skin. These "gaps" are highly modified to the extent of forming what is known as eye lids which enable the two eyes to be open and close at free will.


But how exactly do all these "symmetrical gaps" managed to be formed ? Do they formed by chance or deliberately created through intelligent design ?


If the "gaps" left in the wall of a building for the installation of the electrical wires and the water pipes cannot be formed by chance but through intelligent design in the mind of an engineer, then why such similar "gaps" left in the skull and in the facial skin for the installation of the two eye balls would now be formed by chance ?

Of course, they also have to be created through intelligent design in the mind of a Creator !

The atheists may want to argue and proclaim that those "pair of gaps" in the skull and in the facial skin meant for the installation of the eye balls were already encoded in the DNA of the fertilized egg .

But who encoded this information on the DNA ?

Again, how did bone cells (that formed the eye sockets) and the skin cells (that formed the eye lids) manage to "read and interpret" this encoded information on the DNA ?
Are we to believe that this process of "reading and interpretation" came to exist by chance ?
Even if we assume that process of reading the DNA came to exist by chance, then is it logical to also believe that its interpretation also came to exist by chance ?

An engineer who want to read and interpret the building plan designed by an architect have to posses some reasonable amount of knowledge and experience. Therefore, are we to believe that the bone cells and the skin cells that read and interpret the encoded DNA information require for the construction of the eye sockets and the eye lids also posses some reasonable amount of knowledge and experience ?

Again, how do they managed to determine the size and the actual location of these "gaps" ?

Furthermore, how do they managed to make these "pair of gaps" to be symmetrical ?

In order for any structures to be symmetrically formed during embryonic developments, its cells need to move in synchrony with each other at the correct time.
But how did bone cells that formed the "two eye sockets" and the skin cells that formed the "two eye lids" for the installation of the "two eye balls" manage to achieve this synchronous movement ?

But despite all these unanswerable questions, the atheists still have the mouths to proclaim that human body was poorly designed and therefore it could not have been created by God.

But how do they arrived at this conclusion ? They reached this conclusion by using their intelligent brains. But is the brain not part of human body that was poorly designed according to their claim ? So how can they rely on such brains to arrive at the truth ?

Let us consider our urogenital system that was formed during embryonic development. This system is made up of ;
1. a pair of kidney,
2. a pair of ureter,
3. urinary bladder,
4. internal and external urethra sphincter,
5. urethra,
6. vas deferens and
7. ejaculatory duct

The pair of kidney (which can be likened to two pumping machines) filter the waste from our blood and send it through a pair of long pipe called ureters into a storage tank (i:e the urinary bladder) which has two taps at its end. These two taps are called the internal and external urethra sphincter. Another long pipe (called the urethra) now runs from the end of the bladder to the tip of the penis through which the urine exits the body.
Again, there is another contractile pipe called the ejaculatory duct which enable another storage tube (i:e the vas deferens that contains the semen) to link with the same urethra that carries the urine coming from the urinary bladder.
During the period of ejaculation, one of the two taps ( i:e the internal urethra sphincter) at the end of the urinary bladder is involuntarily closed. Therefore, despite the fact that urine and the semen flow out of the body through the same pipe (the urethra) that runs through the length of the penis, they do not mixed together; only one can flow at a time. One of the two taps (i:e the internal urethral sphincter) which only close during the time of ejaculation is not under our control. But the other tap (i:e the external urethral sphincter) which can be open and close under our control enable us to urinate at any time we feel the need to do so.

See the plumbing system installed in human body: the pumping machines (the two kidneys), the storage tank (the urinary bladder), the storage tube ( the vas deferens), the two taps ( the internal and external urethral sphincters) and the four connecting pipes ( the two ureters, the ejaculatory duct and the urethra).

If the plumbing system installed in a building cannot be created by chance but through deliberate planning in the mind of a human plumber then the plumbing system installed in our body must also have been created by deliberate planning in the mind of a supernatural plumber which many people described as God.

Scientific American, October 1999 confessed as follows;

"More generally, building a complex organism like a human being is like creating an intricate sculpture. Cell division forms the clay, whereas cell death sculpts the clay into the desired form. Consider human hands, which start out as paddlelike structures. Fingers develop in the paddles, but then the cells in the tissue between the fingers must die for a proper hand to form".

If we suddenly encounter a human sculpture made up of clay in a bush, are we going to say we don't know how it came to exist ? Of course, we know with confidence that it must have been made by a personal being having intelligence and consciousness.

But a real human being made up of living cells is more complex and wonderful than a human sculpture made up of clay. Therefore, if we would never believe that unconscious and unintelligent nature can create the human sculpture that we met in a bush irrespective of the years is going to take the nature, then is it not a betrayal of our conscience to believe that the same nature has created the real human being ?

While growth in the womb continues, an even more amazing event takes place.

When some cells continue to divide and differentiate, others kill themselves, thereby allowing certain organs to take shape. This is known as "programmed cell death" in embryology .

For example, during the development of the hands and feet, some cells die off according to a certain pattern in order to form the fingers and toes.

In fact, Scientific American, October 1999 confessed as follows;

"More generally, building a complex organism like a human being is like creating an intricate sculpture. Cell division forms the clay, whereas cell death sculpts the clay into the desired form. Consider human hands, which start out as paddlelike structures. Fingers develop in the paddles, but then the cells in the tissue between the fingers must die for a proper hand to form".


At this point, we are faced with another question: who wrote a genetic program that is so versatile to the extent of making some cells to sacrifice themselves in order to make some parts of human body to take their functional shapes ?

This genetic program is too complex and highly specific to have been created by chance. If chance cannot explain it, then it must be deliberately planned for. There is no third option.

The existence of deliberate planning implies the existence of a planner. But a planner can only be a "personal being" with intelligence and consciousness. It is this very personal being we portrayed as God.

By applying this genetic program, the cells bring into an existence a human person who has within himself millions of interrelated complex organic structures: a person who can hear, who can see, who can feel, who can think, who can make decisions, who can experience joy, who can appreciate beauty and who can study his own cells and DNA, and draw conclusions from his investigations.

But the important question is this: Who created this genetic program and implanted it in the cells?

In the first stages of embryonic development, the cells make exact copies of themselves. But if this multiplication of cells were not controlled, a human being would not be formed; rather, a large piece of flesh composed of identical cells would be the result.
But such is not the case. Identical stem cells later begin to DIFFERENTIATE. As a result of this DIFFERENTIATION, bones, smooth muscles, liver, lungs, in short, all the body's cells, tissues, organs and systems are formed.
Scientists have discovered that the genetic program which dictates the DIFFERENTIATION of the cells and their lodging in the appropriate place in the body is written in the DNA. But this raises the question: Who wrote this magnificent program so perfectly in this microscopic information bank hidden in the nucleus of cells? This genetic program could not have been formed by accumulated random mutations because most mutations are deleterious in nature rather than beneficial. And if the process of chance (i:e accumulated random mutations) cannot explain how this genetic program came to exist, then nothing other than intelligent design can explain it.

Despite the fact that the DNA of every cell contained an enormous amount of information relative to every detail of the human body, the cells in the embryo find and read only that information which pertains to their particular organ. Bone cells never try to form an eye or any other organ; the nerve cells do not interfere with the red blood cells. Each one knows very well where and how it will function. How do unconscious cells managed to accomplish this ?

Furthermore, who causes the cells to read this program written in the DNA and to apply it without error ? How is it that millions of different cells can find the information relevant to themselves in an immense information bank in the DNA and change their structure according to this information ?
For example, consider the cells which form the eyes: How can they know when the pupil is fully formed? How can they know how to structure the retina, the eye muscles, and the lens and how to give them their appropriate location, size and shape? How do they know at what point to stop these processes?

In fact, Hoimar von Ditfurth, A German evolutionist scientist, has this to say about the miraculous development that happens in the mother's womb:

"How a single egg cell divides to form so numerous DIFFERENTIATED cells, and the perfect natural communication and the cooperation between these cells top the events that amaze scientists".

If genetic program written in human DNA can only be explained by intelligent design just like our computer program, then who is the best candidate to occupy the seat of this intelligent design other than supernatural intelligent designer we depicted as God ?

We all know that it's necessary to construct a building in basic stages: Once the walls go up, then the roof can be put in place. But we cannot proceed to plastering the walls before installing the electrical wiring and the water pipes. So while the walls are being erected, it's necessary to leave "gaps" where the electrical wires and water pipes can later be placed.


Similarly, during the construction of baby'skull in the mother's womb, "a pair of symmetrical gaps" known as the eye sockets have to be left in the skull where the two eye balls can later be placed.

Furthermore, during the period of plastering of the skull with the skin, another "pair of symmetrical gaps" for the eye balls have to be left in the facial skin. These "gaps" are highly modified to the extent of forming what is known as eye lids which enable the two eyes to be open and close at free will.


But how exactly do all these "symmetrical gaps" managed to be formed ? Do they formed by chance or deliberately created through intelligent design ?


If the "gaps" left in the wall of a building for the installation of the electrical wires and the water pipes cannot be formed by chance but through intelligent design in the mind of an engineer, then why such similar "gaps" left in the skull and in the facial skin for the installation of the two eye balls would now be formed by chance ?

Of course, they also have to be created through intelligent design in the mind of a Creator !

The atheists may want to argue and proclaim that those "pair of gaps" in the skull and in the facial skin meant for the installation of the eye balls were already encoded in the DNA of the fertilized egg .

But who encoded this information on the DNA ?

Again, how did bone cells (that formed the eye sockets) and the skin cells (that formed the eye lids) manage to "read and interpret" this encoded information on the DNA ?
Are we to believe that this process of "reading and interpretation" came to exist by chance ?
Even if we assume that process of reading the DNA came to exist by chance, then is it logical to also believe that its interpretation also came to exist by chance ?

An engineer who want to read and interpret the building plan designed by an architect have to posses some reasonable amount of knowledge and experience. Therefore, are we to believe that the bone cells and the skin cells that read and interpret the encoded DNA information require for the construction of the eye sockets and the eye lids also posses some reasonable amount of knowledge and experience ?

Again, how do they managed to determine the size and the actual location of these "gaps" ?

Furthermore, how do they managed to make these "pair of gaps" to be symmetrical ?

In order for any structures to be symmetrically formed during embryonic developments, its cells need to move in synchrony with each other at the correct time.
But how did bone cells that formed the "two eye sockets" and the skin cells that formed the "two eye lids" for the installation of the "two eye balls" manage to achieve this synchronous movement ?

But despite all these unanswerable questions, the atheists still have the mouths to proclaim that human body was poorly designed and therefore it could not have been created by God.

But how do they arrived at this conclusion ? They reached this conclusion by using their intelligent brains. But is the brain not part of human body that was poorly designed according to their claim ? So how can they rely on such brains to arrive at the truth ?

See the self-defeating argument put forward by the atheists : an argument that undercut its own justification !

.

tintingz:
What cause the big bang is not known and we can't conclude it's God. Science suggest due to the hot density a.k.a high density of the singularity, it was forced to open up and expand which is called the big bang.

What causes the big bang explosion cannot be inside the singularity. The cause has to be external. If the cause is internal, it would have taken place trillion raise to power trillion, trillion trillion........... years EARLIER if the gravitational singularity is that very something which is eternal

tintingz:
Natural laws.

It seems you don't know what energy is, energy is what moves everything including every living things, energy is used for many thing.

# So energy that was BLIND later change itself miraculously to something that can SEE

# Energy that was DEAF later change itself miraculously to something that can HEAR

# Energy that was DUMB later change itself miraculously to something that can SPEAK over six thousand languages


# Energy that CANNOT MOVE VOLUNTARILY later change itself miraculously to something that CAN MOVE VOLUNTARILY AND CONTROLLABLY



# Energy that CANNOT THINK later change itself miraculously to something that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument.

# Energy that was UNCONSCIOUS later change itself miraculously to something with FULL CONSCIOUSNESS

# Energy that was NOT INTELLIGENT later change itself miraculously to something with FULL INTELLIGENCE

# Energy that KNEW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING later change itself miraculously to something that KNOW every aspect of mathematics, astronomy, engineering, medicine, botany, zoology, Geography etc.

# Energy that COMPLETELY LACK ANY SENSE OF MORALITY later change itself miraculously to something with FULL SENSE OF MORALITY

# Energy that CANNOT EXPERIENCE ANY EMOTIONAL FEELINGS later miraculously change itself to something that CAN EXPERIENCE FEELINGS like love, happiness, sadness etc



See ALL THE SERIES OF MIRACLES you believe to have taken place by CHANCE !

Yet you are mocking the people who believe that all these miracles are too marvellous and wonderful to be caused by a mere chance.

This is the high time I stopped arguing with you. You are free to believe anything you like. But one thing I know for sure; It is far more logical to believe in "God" as the creator of all those series of miracles than to believe that they were created by a "mere chance"

tintingz:
The big bang is just when the universe started expanding, there is still events before the big bang called gravitational singularity where the universe becomes infinite.

If you believe that it was gravitational singularity that is eternal, then what actually caused this singularity to suddenly expand and change from what it has always been for an infinite time ? Of course, for every change there must be a sufficient cause. If that "sufficient cause" was within the singularity, then why 13.8 billion years ago ? Why not before that time ?

tintingz:
Secondly, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it has always been existing, another reason the universe can be eternal.

If it was energy that is eternal, then what actually caused it to later change miraculously to something ;
that can see, that can hear, that can speak different languages, that can think logically, that can move voluntarily and controllably. Yet all these features are no where to be found in this energy. Don't you perceived that a GREAT MIRACLE has taken place ?

tintingz:
Thirdly, something cannot pop into existence from nothing, there must be pre-materials, another reason the universe can be infinite. Even if we assume God created the universe, God must use a material to create it, it cannot create it out of nothing.

But if God is not the creator of those pre-materials, there is no way He can have any power over them.

tintingz:
We cannot limit our assumptions on only God existence, there other assumptions like Aliens.

Whether God or Alien does not make any difference in as much as this Being is outside the universe and he is powerful enough to create human beings with all their amazing features.

tintingz:
I disagree,

1. The Universe went into series of changes as it is said to be expanding, it can as well be eternal

If the universe is expanding till today, then in the long past it has to be infinitesimal till extent that scientists has to declare that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. This simply shows that universe has a beginning and therefore it cannot be eternal.
If universe is not eternal, then God must be eternal since something must be eternal as we have already established in Premise 1.
But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist?
If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

tintingz:
2. There's an hypothesis of a multiple-universe where there are series of initial universe.

The idea of multiple-universe still remain as hypothesis. There is no any empirical evidence to support the idea. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove that universe is eternal.

tintingz:
Ok, continue.

This implies that it is either "the entire universe" is eternal or "any hypothetical being outside the universe (God)" is eternal .

Now how are we to decide which one is eternal ?
The best way is to look into the features of something that is eternal.

What are the features we can deduce logically about something that is eternal ?

1. Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning . Do you agree ?

2. And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing. Do you agree ?

3. And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be CHANGED MIRACULOUSLY, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has ALWAYS been for an infinite time.

For example, if something has always been a "CYLINDER " for an endless time (i:e trillion ^ trillion, trillion............. years ) , then it can never miraculously change itself ( or change by any other thing ) to "RHOMBUS" one day. Do you agree?



4. Therefore, anything that is eternal would not display any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics. Do you agree ?

tintingz:
So what exactly is your argument?

Of course something cannot pop into existence from nothing. Ex nihilo.

No third option so?

Let us take our discussion little by little

Now that you have agreed that something cannot pop into existence from absolutely nothing and you have also agreed that there is no third option to account for the something presently in our universe, then you have to agree that SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL WITHOUT ANY CAUSE. This is exactly what my premise 1 says.

Therefore, we don't have any problem again with premise 1.

Since we have both agreed that something must be eternal, then the next question is ; what is this very SOMETHING that is eternal ?

What are the possible options;
1. The entire Universe itself
2. Any hypothetical being outside the universe which many people depicted as God or Alien

Pls do you have any conceivable third option ? Pls answer this question before I proceed.

tintingz:
You have problem with the universe being independently existing without a cause but when it comes to God you suddenly become apologetic that something can exist without a cause. This a special pleading fallacy.

I don't have problem with the universe being existing without a cause just like I don't have problem with God being existing without a cause. This is the reason why I said in my Premise 1; it is either Universe is eternal or God is eternal (pls check it)

tintingz:
Can you provide evidence of something that exist without a cause? Give one empirical evidence.

The first case begs for evidence. You can't make a claim and can't provide evidence.

Provide just one evidence of something that exist without a cause.

The evidence is as follows;

1. Presently there is SOMETHING (i:e the universe)

2. This very SOMETHING must either (a) pop into existence from absolutely nothing i:e just BEGAN to exist without any cause OR (b) exist WITHOUT BEGINNING i:e always exist without any cause. Pls do you know about any conceivable THIRD option (c) ?

3. But option (a) is impossible because of the following reason;
"something popping into existence from nothing" has to undergo a CHANGE from non-existence into existence. Hence a CAUSE is required to trigger this change. But there is no any cause in an absolutely nothing. Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger this change. This is exactly the reason why it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

And we have NO WAY of falsifying an option (b) as we have done with option (a).

4. Therefore, the only option left to account for the existence of SOMETHING made mention in point number 1 is option (b) which says that something must exist without beginning i:e always exist without any cause. In other words, something must be eternal without any cause.

5. The only way for you to refute this evidence is to provide any conceivable THIRD option (c) made mention in point number 2 above.

tintingz:
Everything that moves, think must have an initial cause. It's called determinism. Freewill is an illusion.

You can't stand and suddenly start moving, something must trigger you to move either by your thoughts or by a force.

God cannot just start creating, his thoughts or a force makes him start creating except you agree he's frozen or non-existence.

What is the difference between the "free will" that you called an illusion and the "thought" you believed to trigger our movement?

tintingz:
So something can exist without a cause. Wow. All this for apologetic argument and pleading.

But I did not apply it only to God. I equally applied it to both God and universe (see the last part of premise 1 in my original post).

tintingz:
Here is from your premise:


https://www.nairaland.com/5369550/right-time-all-atheists-agnostics#81585918

"Change" is a property of "Something".


Later they will say atheists believe something can exist without a cause.

No cause(nothing) = Effect

Can you tell the difference between something that exist without a cause and something exist from nothing?

Change is not always a property of something; it could implies from non- existence to existence (see the 2nd case explained below)

FIRST CASE
"Something that exist without a cause" remain the same as it ever was. Therefore, it has NEVER undergone any change. Hence no cause is required to bring it into existence because it was not began to exist.


SECOND CASE
But "something popping into existence from nothing" has to undergo a CHANGE from non-existence into existence. Hence a CAUSE is required to trigger this change. But there is no any cause in an absolutely nothing. Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger this change. This is exactly the reason why it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

These are two different cases. We have proved the second case to be impossible. But there is no way we can falsify the first case.

This simply shows that SOMETHING we have presently in the universe came through the first case.

tintingz:
Whether it's part of him or later acquire it is irrelevant, God can talk, think, etc to do all this, something must trigger God to do so.

Yes what triggers God to do all these abilities is His "free will" just like our "free will" trigger us to talk, to think etc

First case ; something exist without a cause.

Second case; something pop into existence from nothing.

They are two different cases. First case is possible but the second case is impossible.

tintingz:
Are you not contradicting your premise, something must have a cause? So basically you are saying something can exist from nothing?

I am not contradicting my premises in any way. When did I say something must have a cause ? Pls show me.
I am only saying something cannot pop into existence from nothing . They are two different cases; For "something to exist without a cause" is totally different from "something popping into existence from nothing". But you think they are the same.

tintingz:
Secondly, you said something that talk, think, move etc must have a cause to change, does this also apply to God?

It does not apply to God because He did NOT LATER acquire all these abilities. They are part and parcel of Him. But human being ( being part of the universe) LATER acquire all these abilities. Therefore, a change has occurred. Hence a cause is required.

tintingz:
I just asked you a question.

Here is it again:

[i]Did God have a cause or creator? If no, is it possible something can exist without a cause?

No ! God or anything eternal does not have a cause . Yes it is possible for something to exist without a cause. But it is not possible for something to change without a cause.

tintingz:
Don't forget the logical argument in your premise, for something to exist and change it must have a cause.

I am saying it again it is possible for something to exist without a cause. But it is not possible for something to change without a cause

tintingz:
Circular reasoning fallacy, you're just beating round the bush.

Oga did God have a cause or creator? If no, is it possible something can exist without a cause?

Don't forget the logical argument in your premise, for something to exist and change it must have a cause.

Are you saying premise 1 is totally wrong ? I have given you logical argument to prove that premise 1 is true. Now give us your own argument to prove that it is false

Here is another irrefutable version of the argument

PREMISE 1; SOMETHING must be ETERNAL (i:e always exist and infinitely old)

Why ? See the logical argument explained below;

(a) For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.

(b) Popping of SOMETHING into existence from absolutely NOTHING is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".

(c) But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.

(d) Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger a change from absolutely nothing to something.

(e) Hence, popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is impossible.

Therefore, if there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.

This simply shows that something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.

So what is this very something that is eternal ?

There are only two options; the entire Universe itself (i:e the entire nature) OR any HYPOTHETICAL Being outside the entire Universe.

Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the entire Universe as God.

[ note; there is nothing wrong to introduce an "hypothetical being outside the universe" because we are dealing with possible and reasonable options. Calling this hypothetical being God or alien does not make any difference]



Of course it would not make sense to assume that both the entire Universe and God are eternal. So it is reasonable to assume that only one entity is eternal ( see Occam's razor principle)

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe (i:e the entire nature) that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?


PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not exhibit any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics.


Why ? See the logical argument explained below

(a) Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning

(b) And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing.

(c) And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be CHANGED MIRACULOUSLY, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has ALWAYS been for an endless time.

(d) Therefore, anything that is eternal would not display any great MIRACULOUS CHANGE in its characteristics.


PREMISE 3 ; But Universe (or nature) has undergone a very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE.


Why ? See the reason cited below

(a) In the long past, NO PART OF UNIVERSE ( matter, space, time, forces, energy or radiation ) can see, can hear, can speak any language, can think logically or formulate a rational argument, can move voluntarily and controllably

(b) But now SOME PART OF THE UNIVERSE (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think logically or formulate a rational argument, can move voluntarily and controllably.

(c) Therefore, Universe has undergone a very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of the very great MIRACULOUS CHANGE it has undergone.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of the great MIRACULOUS CHANGE it has undergone, then God must be eternal.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist?

If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

Here is another proof for God's existence;


Abiogenesis is the creation of the first living cell from non living materials through a natural process.


Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


As we can see from above, there is no way we can divorce the theory of abiogenesis from the theory of evolution because without abiogenesis, evolution cannot take place.


But abiogenesis is impossible because of the natural law of entropy.


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 nature 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" ?


Of course, a prevailing condition in one community (i:e natural law of entropy) which always prevent all secondary school student (i:e all dead cells) from furthering their education to a University ( i:e living and self replicating cell) would NEVER allow a student from the same community to now jump from primary school level (i:e non living materials) to the same University.


This is not the issue of the gaps in scientific knowledge being used as evidence for God. Honestly, it is a matter of logical reasoning if you really understand the simple English I wrote up there.


Even if intelligent and conscious humans can give life to the dead in the future, then this will ONLY show that INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS is required for the miracle of abiogenesis to take place. It would NEVER prove that unintelligent and unconscious nature has performed this miracle in the past.


Therefore, if abiogenesis is impossible in a natural world (as we have just proved), then natural evolution has NOTHING to start with. This is how the theory of natural evolution collapses right from its foundation!



Hence, if evolution is really true as the evolutionary scientists want to us believe, then it must be orchestrated by a supernatural being.

The only reasonable candidate to occupy the sit of this supernatural being is God. Therefore, God must exist.

Do you know that there are three major ways through which we can explain the existence of anything; 1. By necessity 2. By chance 3. By intelligent design. Pls do you agree ?

Gggg102:
Possessing freewill is exerting change, which will be impossible without a cause, using your logic. So an eternal entity can not have freewill.

As have been pointed out, your argument consists only of baseless assumptions that you mask as facts.

.

Since you have already accepted that it is impossible for something to pop into existence from absolutely nothing due to absence of cause to effect such a change, SOMETHING eternal must exist.

This very SOMETHING must posses some features. One of these features is "free will". He did not later acquire this feature. This feature is an intrinsic part of his nature. If the feature was later acquired by him, then we may be talking about the cause. But this is not the case.

Gggg102:
Going by your logic, an eternal something will not be able to exert any change since it does not experience change, therefore, your eternal something functions effectively as nothing.

Yes anything eternal would not exhibit any changing characteristics in its "essence" because there is no any external cause that can trigger such a change.

If such an eternal entity is impersonal being that lacks "free will" it would not be able to exert any change in anything all by itself just like any impersonal substance that lacks free will cannot trigger any change in anything all by itself.

But if such an eternal entity is a personal being that possess "free will" and "power", then such being can act as an external cause that will trigger the creation of another something (universe) from absolutely nothing. It is this very personal being with freewill and power that we call God.