₦airaland Forum

OkaiCorne:
I hope you are not also implying that committing suicide means doing the world a favor.

Things would always balance out themselves over time. The system in nature has put cycles of drought and abundance, pestilence and immunity e.t.c. to check the population growth of man.

Does terrorism translate to suicide? Suicide can never be effective when it comes to depopulation.

With the system, the world population keeps increasing daily, nothing is balancing out. With all the droughts and other tragedies. Population still grows.

shadeyinka:
Thank you for the lecture. Unfortunately, you preempted me by making assertions which I didn't make. Here is what I said!


The first was about entropy :
Entropy may be understood as a measure of disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy.
Before the big bang, could thermodynamic states exist?
Could macroscopic systems exist?

This is the meaning of no subject.


The second issue I raised was about conservation
of Energy

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.

You seem to assume that energy can spontaneously exist without mass. From Nuclear Energy, to electromagnetic, nuclear energy, show me a form of energy which exist in isolation without matter.


So, the four fundermental force of
Gravitation,
Electromagnetism,
the weak interaction, and
the strong interaction

Which of them exists independent of matter?

So, my argument is, did matter exist before the Big Bang? Note that Matter is matter whether massless or not.

I am glad you stated the law of conservation of energy and you defined entropy. Now, you are mixing it all up and I don't know why. It's either it's a deliberate action or you're being non-scientific.

Before I proceed, let me clear you on something. Anything that is MASSLESS is not matter. Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space.

That said and done, there are two laws of the conservation of energy, which follows themselves in terms of energy(1) and entropy(2).
I don't need to stress myself stating the laws, you already know them. Where you are getting it wrong is trying to bring entropy first before energy. Energy can exist without matter, a photon is not a matter but it has energy. Light energy is a basic example of this. However, Energy can give rise to matter. Energy can exist without mass, you can check it out or do your research if you don't believe me. I do not seem to think it, it is an empirical fact, except you don't know what a photon is.

You seem to have narrowed energy down to Nuclear and electromagnetic energy alone, despite the fact that you yourself stated the first law of conservation of energy. Nuclear and electromagnetic energies were necessary forms of energy when matter was formed, But light energy is independent of matter. You should know that. And these energies, the ones that depend on matter and the ones that don't, can be interconverted.


Entropy cannot be seen without matter. There must be a system, isolated or not before you measure entropy. As a matter of fact, entropy depends on energy. Simply put, entropy is a measure of energy and entropy is also a function of a state. Entropy SI unit is J/K

There's no need for the existence of entropy before the big bang. Simply put, prior to the big bang, entropy was either absent, equal to zero or considerably low and has no effects. And energy, on the other hand, has always existed and independent of matter.

In fact, in modern physics, on of the most troubling unsolved questions is that why does the universe have so much entropy now than the past?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

shadeyinka:
Another issue you didn't account for was TIME.
Could time have existed before the big bang? Certainly not. The reason is simple. Time need a reference point which couldn't have existed before the bang. So, how valid are the equations which have time constants or it's derivative.

There is nothing like time. Time was devised by man to measure and distinguish the difference between the past and the future.

If you had no clock, no wristwatch, and you're in a spaceship. You will not bother what the time is, would you?

An important pointer is this, if you were to call a relative in the USA now, let's assume the time in Nigeria is 8 pm, in the US the time would be 2 pm. But you would be talking in an instant with someone who is 6 hours behind your current time. If time existed in reality, your voice was supposed to travel to USA and get there when they are at 8 pm.

But the fact is that there is no time in space. It is our invention.

Lirqur:
Same way dear, He his very merciful that's why He His called Al Rahman, this is why he allows a lot to happen. Majority are being saved through their believe in his prophet Jesus/Isa (pbuh) and are still being saved. Jesus(pbuh) said he his the way the truth and the light, that is absolutely correct.

There's a lot that has being twisted that he allows, he wants humans to see how destructive Shaitan's plans are. On that very day we shall know who has been right all along. "Who is there that will intercede with him, save by his leave" Salaam, Allahu Akbar.

Keep deceiving yourself, sir.

shadeyinka:
Can there be entropy before the Big Bang?
Not possible because there is no subject in the first place.

Can one talk about conservation of energy without mass?
Not possible. Mass didn't exist before the Big Bang

Lol, this just showed you are not where you think you are at all.

Your assertions up there are very very wrong by all scientific standards.

Entropy and Energy do not depend on mass or matter. Which means we can talk about energy and entropy without matter.
Matter(something that has mass) is what possesses energy, energy does not possess mass. You need to understand these things.

This quote should explain everything and address the things you misunderstood about anything that has mass and its relationship with energy

In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound. More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually.

All the everyday objects that we can bump into, touch or squeeze are ultimately composed of atoms. This ordinary atomic matter is in turn made up of interacting subatomic particles—usually a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and a cloud of orbiting electrons. Typically, science considers these composite particles matter because they have both rest mass and volume. By contrast, massless particles, such as photons, are not considered matter, because they have neither rest mass nor volume. However, not all particles with rest mass have a classical volume, since fundamental particles such as quarks and leptons (sometimes equated with matter) are considered "point particles" with no effective size or volume. Nevertheless, quarks and leptons together make up "ordinary matter", and their interactions contribute to the effective volume of the composite particles that make up ordinary matter.

To cap it, the big bang theory explains the expansion of small massless photon-like particles(which possesses energy) which has been explained above to be different from matter.
The universe cooled and allowed matter to form FROM THESE MASSLESS PARTICLES and here we are. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY WITHOUT MASS & THERE CAN BE ENTROPY WITHOUT THE BIG BANG.

shadeyinka:
Physical laws like
Entropy
Conservation of Energy
Gas laws
Snell's law


Physical constants

etc etc

But the conservation of energy and the entropy postulations show that Energy is the beginning and not God. So how can such law give you such views?

shadeyinka:
Interestingly, my understanding of the laws of physics has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that Physical Laws had a beginning at the Big Bang.

The question then is, which laws were in operation BEFORE the bang?

Still unrepentant you see

Can you be particular about these laws, please?

OkaiCorne:
And yipee!!! today is my birthday...

Happy birthday to me...

HBD Boss. LLNP.

Mine is Dec 5.

frank317:
Ask for MATE bar... off park road on ur way to barraks. It used to be the best joint zaria... i bet u will have a good time.

Thanks bro, you used to stay in Zaria?

OkaiCorne:
There are scholars who argue in favor of terrorism? Are they crazy or what? Turning children into orphans makes the world a better place? Because some fool.s want to depopulate it?

I give up mehn... just when I thought I've heard it all, something new blows up my ear drums

I smell emotions.

It's good to want to turn the world into a good habitable place, but one of the processes of achieving that is to reduce overpopulation.

I don't support terrorism, but it is reducing the world's population. It is evil, it is really evil. I would just say let what will happen, happen.

But don't bring your emotions here, there are some matters emotions cannot solve.

OkaiCorne:
Read what I posted, I stated fear OR conviction. Not fear of conviction. Don't misunderstand me please.

Read what I posted again.

Back to the matter on ground.
Are you saying that over 6 billion people in the world are delusional, but you are right?

Are you saying that Albert Einstein who believed in the god of Baruc Spinoza was also delusional? But Stephen Dawkins that is a global leading atheist is undeluded and right?

What makes over 6 billion people that believes in the existence of a Creator delusional and wrong and that you are undeluded and right?

Actually, over 6 billion people in the world are delusional, and people like me are right.

In fact, almost all the people in the world do not have facts that the Gods they believe in exists. It's just a belief which is a delusion as far as there is no evidence to prove it.

Albert Einstein never believed in a God who created people in his own image, he believed in nature which is the basis of Spinozism. Have you read about the Spinoza God? Spinozism does not promote a life form as a God. It said God is a substance which is infinite, self-caused and eternal and equates it to nature.

Energy blends well with the idea of Spinozism especially where it said "God" has many modes. Energy has many modes too. Energy is similar to the Spinoza God. Which makes sense

According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature" Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata, that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."

OkaiCorne:
I'd rather judge people by the fruits they bear...not just their actions and words.

Anything that does not make this world a better place is a big fat NO for me!

LMAO at Shekau being a faithful servant of God...don't let the Muslims here descend on you ooo

You cannot argue if terrorism does not make the world a better place or not. I have scholars who argue for terrorism.

For one thing, it reduces the population of the world which many people believe is bad for our planet. Some powerful people dread overpopulation and they can sponsor individuals who can lead terror in order to reduce the population.

But then, it's just a postulation, no one knows for sure except those who are involved. But they sure have a strong backing, and the governments are involved. Because I don't understand why they can't destroy the terrorists terrorizing the world up till now.

OkaiCorne:
It could be fear or conviction...just as how you are convinced that Energy creates everything

And you know the funny part...they think you are delusional just as how you think they are also delusional

It's so funny I tell you

Please don't start twisting things. There's nothing like the fear of conviction.

Can someone be scared of the conviction he has or fear that people will convince him?

And it's nothing like my conviction in energy. I got here by thorough study and research which included series of lab works.

They could think I am deluded, but the definition of delusion itself fall back on them. I have evidence and they don't. And that's why I am not deluded and they are.

OkaiCorne:
This is very good...I like your journey, at least you can hold onto something you are ready to die for.

A blind faith is shallow and useless, I like to know why I am doing what I am doing, and that is why it is very difficult for me to change my mind once I am convinced on a particular matter.

I prefer a Christian who is ready to challenge everything he or she has been spoonfed with from birth...before choosing to believe what they believe. Those kind of people earn my respect...just like you.

I do not expect you to have all the answers to life, but at least you are ready to defend your position on Energy as the Creator...and I admire that.

On a side note, don't even think of including Shekau and his global cohorts into this, their own case is something else. Bringing forth destruction wherever they go...

Thank you.

Lol, but in the real sense of it, Shekau is the real Muslim in my own opinion. He is doing exactly what Allah and his bride Mohammed told their followers to do. These Muslims who are claiming peace are the opposite of Islam. Islam is about destruction and Shekau is doing good justice to that effect. So in my own humble opinion, he is a faithful servant of God.

OkaiCorne:
That's cool bro...I am also curious on those that were theists...became atheists for years and also reverted to being theists.
Their case is really intriguing and it's one of two things;

1) Either they are confused
2) Or they have found some convincing truth they are ready to die for. (not like the ajebutter theists that would wilt in the face of persecution)

There is something they call agnosticism. There are also some people who become atheists because they are angry with their God. These kinds of people go back to their gods when they calm down. They are typical prodigal sons.

But I became an atheist because of the knowledge I have not because I hate any deity or the religion.

So they are either confused or gone back to their faiths.

Fear is a factor here though.

OkaiCorne:
To arrive at an objective conclusion...it's better to see things from both sides of the coin. I might have a bias concluding with a theistic mindset alone.

I am not going to argue with your conclusion. I only need it to have a 360 degree view on the matter.

Thanks.

I was a theist all my life until 2009. I have the views already.

I was born an atheist just like everybody, went through indoctrinations and I dropped all I grew to know after a serious questioning and dissection of theism. I have a 360 degrees view already.

OkaiCorne:
Great!...we'll link up in December.

The book is a hard cover book. The title of the book is "Conspiracies of the Cross". By Timothy Paul Jones.

I need you to thrash out that book as an atheist. I want you to play the Devil's advocate (i.e. invalidate the author's conclusion from an atheistic stand point).

I'll also check online if an e-book version is available.

Thanks bro.

You want me to invalidate the book? I don't think you should be telling me what I should do. What I will do depends on what the books is talking about and the evidence provided in the book.

But why would you want me to invalidate the book?

OkaiCorne:
Now that the conclusion of JOB's story is in the equation...it suddenly becomes a fictional story. But you didn't mention this earlier when you were using this to attack the existence of God.

It's okay...I'd rather discuss my real life situation with you face to face (virtual or real) rather than a public forum.

By the way...there's a book I'd love you to read, I need you to critique the book as an Atheist. I'd prefer to have someone like you to counter the theistic author so I can have a balanced view. Hope you don't mind.

Lol, why would I use it to attack God's existence if it was not a fiction?

It has always been a fiction to me just like it God himself has been a fiction.

Do you think I believe a God exists but just don't want to believe in him? That wouldn't have made me an atheist. I don't believe a God exists, not that a God exists but I don't believe in him. I hope you get that? I'm not a Pagan, I am an Atheist.

No qualms, I'll be in Lagos in December, we can meet up then.

I don't mind, what's the name of the book? Is it hardcover or ebook?

OkaiCorne:
That means you are a unique Human being. All the disappointments you faced in life were dead ends with no light at the end of the tunnel.

You are a tough guy... I really can't comprehend that kind of dark reality with no hope. (no insults intended)

I have explained it.

Now I will again to make it clear. When I get disappointed, I accept it and cry over it. Then I rise and start again.

Now I have been disappointed and that has gone. Then I work towards a better result next time, and things work because I take a different approach. That is not disappointment turning to blessing. Disappointment is disappointment and blessing is a blessing. Simple

shadeyinka:
Interestingly Theism is not Anti Science.

I am a full blown unrepentant theist yet I am a scientist. Physics is my major.

There are some things that science will never ever comprehend and one of it is the laws that operated before the big bang.

I'm sure you still don't hold this opinion, or you do?

OkaiCorne:
Are you their advocate? why not go and query God instead of me?

Back to you, are there not disappointments in your life that eventually turned out to be a blessing in disguise in the end?
Please tell me NO

Believe me, I would have queried him if he exists. But he doesn't.

I told you NO. But I know you don't understand or don't believe and you don't have to believe really. But that's the truth. How?

How is that, I have come to the understanding that disappointment is a disappointment, and a blessing is a blessing.

A blessing doesn't turn into a disappointment. They are two different things. Grade F cannot turn to Grade A if you don't do anything to change it.

You can get a disappointment and relax, don't put any effort, I'll like to see how the situation will change.


But again, this is an unrelated comparison as usual. Job did not suffer a disappointment. He was put to suffering by the God he loved because the God wanted to prove a point to Satan. When everything was going well for Job.

But then, again and again, we are just discussing a fictional story, abeg bring real-life issues here and let's discuss.

OkaiCorne:
Back to point 3, let's forget about Job...there are disappointments you have faced in life which turned out to be a blessing in disguise...

yes or no?

It's not all about Job, what about the children who died? Who's speaking for them?

OkaiCorne:
Back to point 3, let's forget about Job...there are disappointments you have faced in life which turned out to be a blessing in disguise...

yes or no?

NO. And that's a sincere answer.

OkaiCorne:
1) Intelligence is in levels...you can score A in some courses and a C in other courses...it doesn't mean you're dumb.

2) All of the above

3) Can you create something better rather than criticize? do you know the purpose of what you think are flaws? I can see that you conveniently ignored the fact that JOB was blessed twice as much in the end

4) What exactly are you saying? I don't get your point

Buhari and APC found it easy to criticize Jonathan...but now that they are in power, we know the rest of the story...

1) You have started twisting things again. I said an intelligent student cannot score F. I didn't mention C and C is not F. In all ramifications, F is against all other grades. It's either you pass or you fail, whether it's even a D, it's still a pass.

2) It's never all of the above. It's energy against an eternal creator. Albert Einstein excluded. Except you're saying men are on the same level as your eternal creator.

3)Job was blessed after going through hardship, right? Were his children who died also blessed in their graves? You are the one who is ignoring the most annoying part of the fictional story rather than facing the truth. The story according to the bible was all about Job, but ridiculously, he didn't even die. It was the innocent children that died. Sometimes I just shake my head in disgust.
What would it have caused God to bullshit Satan and still bless Job more? His Ego I guess.

4) It's simple. It's obvious too that you don't understand the concept of Energy. That's what I am saying.

OkaiCorne:
First things first, let me address the bolded. For you to conclude that the Eternal Creator is imperfect...you need to operate on a level similar to that of the Eternal Creator. A baby cannot decide whether the Father is perfect or not.

1) The average human being or even Albert Einstein himself cannot guarantee you perfection..

2) The average human being or even Albert Einstein...

3) Only the Eternal Creator is in the best position to answer your question...or better still the religious theists can use the book of JOB to explain to you.

4) No question...no comment...

I don't need to operate in the level of your creator before I conclude that he is not perfect, it's very obvious. And that's on the assumption that he exists at all, albeit he doesn't.

1) This does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask you about humans or Albert Einstein. I asked something, come to think of it, an intelligent student cannot score F in his exams. Never.

2) Are we talking about Einstein or humans? Are they the eternal creator with intelligence+ consciousness+ energy? Why are you bulging?

3)Lol, of course, the universe is an epic failure of your creator too. Besides, the creator doesn't speak English so he cannot answer. Or maybe he is just dumb. And of course, the book of Job where the creator decided to punish the righteous and kill his innocent children just to prove a point to Satan? Oh well, I guess that explains it all.

4) You should have been saying no comment since. We wouldn't have dragged it this far since you know that the concept of Energy is not clear to you.

q


When I entered this thread I just dey see people dey type one one letters, na him I typed q.

Nairaland has turned to a platform where people justles for FTC. Nawa o

OkaiCorne:
Based on the bolded...even Intelligence + Consciousness + Energy does not guarantee you perfection. But at the very least it guarantees you a structure and pattern that energy alone cannot do.

At this juncture...It is very clear we are convinced in what we believe in, to the extent that we cannot say who is right or wrong (let the observers on thread judge though) . As long as there are positive results to show for it. That is what counts.

1) Give a scientific or reasonable evidence that something that has a mind and is creative cannot guarantee you anything.
2) Reasonably, something that has a mind that is intelligent and creative should always give you something creatively carved, and when it gives you something that is otherwise, then it has failed.
3)Can your creative eternal creator fail?
4)Energy on the other hand which does not have a mind but act randomly can give you something creative and uncreative. Because it is random.

If Energy+Consciousness+energy which you have claimed your eternal creator possess does not guarantee perfection, then it is wise to say your eternal creator is imperfect.

Yes, at this juncture, let the readers judge.

OkaiCorne:
Let's get something clear...I am not here to disprove Science.

I want to you consider other possibilities as well...like the rare mutation you spoke of earlier...

The rare mutation is still a function of Energy's unconsciousness.

Energy does not guarantee you anything.

Energy does not promise anything, it does not promise good nor bad, it doesn't care(unaware of our plights)

And it is evident in what we see around. But it is hard to understand for people who are not scientifically oriented and are not knowledgeable about the concept of energy.

I consider possibilities, but I don't consider magic. A black race cannot give birth to another race normally, except if there is a biracial history in their genetic pool. All these possibilities are still functions of Energy.

OkaiCorne:
If you care to read the article from the guardian UK


The black woman - with white parents

Sandra Laing was born black, but to white parents. It would have been strange anywhere - but in apartheid South Africa it was disastrous. Rory
Monday 17 March 2003 01.20 GMT
Long before science learned to meddle with genes, there was Sandra Laing. She entered the world in 1955, a beautiful baby by all accounts, who could be expected to grow up in a close-knit family amid mines of gold and forests of pine. At the first sight of Sandra no one, not the nurse, her mother, father or neighbours would admit the obvious. Nature had played a trick. Abraham and Sannie Laing were white, their parents, grandparents and great grandparents were white, yet their daughter was dark. By a biological quirk, the pigment of an unknown black ancestor had lain dormant for generations and manifested in Sandra. Genetic throwbacks were not unheard of but if there was ever a wrong place and wrong time for this phenomenon, it was apartheid South Africa.
Her life is an extraordinary tale of a search for identity in a system built on race and prejudice, where home, school, job and sex life was demarcated by skin colour. Born to a conservative Afrikaner family, Sandra's fate was to not be what she was supposed to be.

It has a happy ending, of sorts, and one which is scheduled to hit bookshops and cinemas now that Hollywood has caught wind of the story. The first biography is due out this year and a British production company has signed a deal with Miramax to make the film. Sandra Laing is about to become famous. Sitting in the back garden of her new house in Leachville, a maze of recently built estates fringing farmland east of Johannesburg, the bulky woman with the crew cut does not much resemble the svelte, toffee-coloured youngster who was photographed hugging a tall, white woman three decades ago. The psychological toll of her traumas has been immense, say friends, and Sandra, 47, is taciturn, the eye contact fleeting, the voice low. "I'm much happier with black people. I am, I was, very shy with white people. Even today I still think white people don't like black people because of the way they treated me." A mild way of putting things from someone who was expelled from school, mocked, abused, persecuted and told she was inferior, something less than fully human, because she lacked the pinkness expected of an Afrikaner descended from Dutch settlers. The nose and lips could be European but the skin is evidence of a liaison between a settler and native, perhaps as early as the 18th century.


You can read the rest here;
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/mar/17/features11.g2

South Africa? Lol, bro, you're very very funny ooo

I like what you italicized in your post and in it lies all the answers. Do you agree with me that you don't know science? Even if you don't it's obvious sir.

Let me explain the bolded in your post. They said, by a biological quirk, the pigment of an unknown black ancestor had lain for generations and manifested in Sandra.

This simply means Sandra has a black ancestor, a black family who lived and so she and her family members carried a black gene. So she is biracial and not black.


Like I said, you cannot disprove science, I will answer more if you have any mystery to bring. But I maintain, complete race A cannot bring forth complete race B.

But race AB can definitely bring forth race A and race B.

OkaiCorne:
Unless you want to hide under the guise of typing "Asians" alone. Here are examples of two white parents (not half-caste o) giving birth to blacks and vice-versa;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpblcdxKc28



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHnRRycl_D0

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/mar/17/features11.g2

To be sincere, sometimes you disappoint me bro. It's not an insult oo, but it is a disppointment and I hope you will see it in the post I am writing and the one to follow.

Your first video of whites giving birth to blacks is a hoax. People see things and make controversies out of them. Here is a reliable source where the husband said they adopted the embryos.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/21/my-wife-and-i-are-white-evangelicals-heres-why-we-chose-to-give-birth-to-black-triplets/?utm_term=.133a583edad9

As I have made the stroll from my wife’s hospital room to the NICU these past few days it has been hard to fathom the way that our family has been put together.

This past Sunday, my gorgeous wife – a white evangelical, like me — gave birth to our beautiful African-American triplet daughters whom we adopted as embryos. These sweet girls will hopefully soon be coming home to meet their 3-year-old African-American brother and 2-year-old biracial sister, both of whom we adopted as infants. The normalcy of this paragraph is something I have come to take for granted. Yet what seems to us to be the logical outcome of being pro-life is still something that to others often needs much explaining.


I am still researching the second video, I will post when I get the truth of it.

On the second one, the baby is not white(race) She is African. Did you watch the video at all?

The voice that explained the phenomenon after the video said, Nigerians have had white parents in history, and just like I said up there, if there are biracial history in their genetic pool then it is a possibility of mixed race and not a distinct race. Brother, two parents cannot be black race and their offspring will be a white race. It's not magic

And if it's not a biracial case, then it must be some kind of rare mutation, but then the baby is still a mutated black race baby.

All these, are still accounted for by Energy.

OkaiCorne:
Going by what I bolded...

1) Are you saying energy is solely responsible for the creation of cells? or energy just empowers cells?


2) I have seen an instance of two white parents giving birth to a black baby. Or do you want to counter me on this one too?
I can bring the evidence here for you ... let me see how you will deny this one.

1) Yes, solely responsible.

2) I am not talking about two fair complexioned black people giving birth to a dark-complexioned baby. I talking about two completely different races with no incident of biracial history in their genetic pool (Asians) giving birth to another race (African).

If you have proof, bring it here, I maintain it cannot happen.

OkaiCorne:
Why are you insulting me?

The part of your response I bolded, do I not also see you in that light? Two separate people came here to say the same thing about you...but am I not holding that against you especially now that we are through with the insulting stage (or so I thought).

If our discussion is no longer of importance to you...clearly tell me to leave your thread, after all you were the one that opened it, not me.

I thought we have gone beyond the stage of insults...

Insulting you? You think I am mad or something? Where's the insult in my post?

Is it because I said you don't think at all? I didn't mean it the way you interpreted it if you read the post well. I mean you don't think about my points at all before you respond to them. Like read and think about what I am trying to say.
We have gone past insulting, and I cannot go back even though you're compelling me to do so. I am not insulting you oo, never.

OkaiCorne:
I can give countless examples of how energy alone is insufficient to create things with order and pattern...or something conscious and unintelligent.

Let us take an average human being for example. When a Human being is asleep (not conscious)...is there anything he can create with the energy and Intellect in Him? CAPITAL ZERO.

If you can give me empirical examples, please go ahead and do so. But don't bring unscientific analogies and expect them to work. Like your artist and painting story. Science and art don't work the same way.

When a human being is asleep, is that the consciousness we are referring to here or is energy ever asleep? This is the problem I have been having with you from day one bro. You keep bringing unrelated examples. I explained the "unconsciousness of energy" to you quite well and you're relating it to sleep. That's not funny at all.

The unconsciousness of energy is that energy does not know itself as energy. It does not even know you, me nor the universe. It's not living, neither is it dead. It doesn't have a mind, a brain, it's just a physical property. How can such a property be conscious? We don't need to drag this further because you are never going to understand what energy is. Energy is not sleeping neither is it in a coma. Energy does not have a mind, how can it be conscious or even sleep at all?

OkaiCorne:
You also tried to counter my point of view by going into details of sexual reproduction that we all know...but you have ignored the fact that Parents are conscious and intelligent beings exerting energy in sexual intercourse which makes fertilization of the Ovum possible.

Don't focus on energy alone...Energy can not give you anything reasonable if Intellect and Consciousness is not involved...

You know sometimes I wonder why it has become so hard for you to see what is laying bare before you bro. Let me clear you on something.

I am not ignoring the facts that parents are conscious or anything, I am trying to show you the fact that energy is responsible and it acts randomly. I actually read and cogitate on your points before I respond. But I am sure you don't even read at all talk more of thinking about my points before you respond.

Truth is if our parents are conscious and intelligent beings, and they are coming together to reproduce their consciousness and intelligence, then they should always get it right all the time. They should always bring forth intelligent and conscious beings as offsprings.
You don't need intelligence to reproduce. It happens at all levels of life. Cells also reproduce asexually, and all are powered by this same Energy.

Or do you want to argue that cells are intelligent? Think bro, think. As a matter of fact, this is a typical comparison of Advanced and Basic levels.
The same energy responsible for binary fission in cells(basic) is the same responsible for sexual reproduction in humans(Advanced). You have to understand these basic things because without them you cannot understand the concept of Energy.

OkaiCorne:
And please don't make the mistake of swapping intellect for perfection... because Perfection is relative. If I give an analogy to explain this...you will say it is unrelated.

What do you mean by I should not mistake intellect for perfection?

When something is intelligent and the other is not, the intelligent is more perfect than the unintelligent automatically.

It's not by magic or any mystical powers, and we both know that intelligence(two parents) cannot give birth to unintelligent(offspring). Where will it come from?
Two Asians cannot give birth to a black baby, nothing can cause it.

And of course, your analogies are always unrelated.