₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
it originated from a mind.

what exactly originates from a mind?! you said all codes come from minds...
so since viruses code,do viruses have minds?
Do not avoid the question...

In fact these endogenous retroviruses can be rengineered some labs engage in research to be able modify the codes in such viruses.

This is true...we modify codes of viruses...so when a human manipulates a virus a mind is clearly involved...what happens when a virus codes host dna itself naturally...is a mind present in the virus?

Unfortunately I can't post links because its been a while since I've visited the requisite sites.

Understood....now kindly answer my question...do not evade it..
Afterall you made a positive claim that all codes come from minds and then I have presented you with a question that when a virus codes...does it have a mind?

AfricanApple:
that means its not their fault then that they walked away from god

predestination eliminates free-will...everything according to predestination is scripted...

UyiIredia:
DNA is both. It follows chemical laws and laws of information theory. And codes ALWAYS come from mind. Natural processes don't make codes which (like emotions) are independent of. natural laws.

since all codes come from a mind to you....when a complex endogenous retrovirus codes dna to make copies of itself....does it have a mind or is a mind involved?

UyiIredia:
Check up the genetic code article in Wikipedia. Your DNA has an actual code in every sense of the word. Using your argument Sumerian clay tablets or Egyptian hieroglyphs will be mere baked clay and paint respectively. Any physical thing can be used to make a code at least theoretically.

Apart from the fact that you're analogy of sumerian tablets as "mere baked clay" does not reflect my question to you i'll ask you this question....
Is dna a molecular code....abiding by the laws of chemistry or a code like a computer program obeying the various laws of information theory?
And is anything that could be said to be a code originate from a mind?

UyiIredia:
Come back when you are ready to address my argument you are taking me into a cul-de-sac.

No I am not...if chemicals are not codes but an arrangement could act like one...can you call them codes? or say they act like one?...if your eye is not a camera but acts like one....could you call your eye a camera?

UyiIredia:
No. But chemicals can be used as codes. For example, you will agree with me that inks in books are chemicals. Yet what is written in ink on a book is a code. Likewise the ARRANGEMENT of chemicals on the DNA helix is what codes for a particular protein. Just like an arrangement of letters codes for a thing.

Good...so if chemicals are not codes but an arrangement of them could be said to be like a code,could you still say an arrangement like the dna helix is a code...but rather biologically acts as one?
On to "intelligence"... do viruses have intelligence?

herald9:
Our belief is simple and easy to be understood.
We believe in the
existence of God, on purely rational grounds,
without any reliance on revealed religion or
religious authority or holy text.

WRONG! ...your belief is based on assumptions about the "god" concept.
It offers a backdoor to which a theist can answer why "god/gods" do not interact in reality..by claiming the "god" to have an indifferent position...

Because of this,
Deism is quite different from religions like
Judaism, Christianity and Islam .

It's difference is just tagging the "god" claim with an indifferent character...

The latter are
based on revelations from God to prophet(s)
who then taught it to humans.

No,they are based on the hand-picked claims of ancient men...claiming to have revelations from "god".

You can say a deistic view of God is simply a failure in
attempting to explain the unexplainable.

I wouldn't call it a failure...more like an excuse...to still hide "god" from detection...

This prompts the question: Are all atheists scientists?

No...but because atheism is a skeptical approach....seeking for knowledge is sought...and since science is the only known methodology of acquiring and error-checking knowledge...science is employed.

You guys seems to rely a lot on science... Even science doesn't have answers/solutions to most the world's pressing questions/problems

Science is simply put the acquisition of knowledge....to say one relies on science a lot would be to say one relies on breathing a lot...
You seem to think science is an entity on its own....which atheists look to...
science is merely a method to examine things and derive knowledge.
If science cannot answer a question/problem.. it admits ignorance on it..
Theology on the other hand, inserts an answer regardless of it being true or not...3000 years ago a theologian could claim that everything revolves around our planet... it would answer the question... but fail to test its accuracy...

Evolution is a flawed analogy... It has always been this way...
Once you guys find a better explanation maybe I'll spare atheism a second thought.

Explain how evolution is a "flawed analogy"...can a deist tell me why mammals can't have feathers?

Now you're wrong here...I told you we don't believe in 'other' supernatural forces aside that of creation.

And I acknowledged that, how did you come about the deduction of a "god" when according to deism... "god" only allegedly caused the universe...anything after came on its own...so the question is how do you know the difference between a non-existent "god" and a deistic one when both would have the same effects...

Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after
the French Revolution with: " God is the power
of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is
the subject acted upon. "

So if Thomas paine said so therefore its true? If he had said "shiva" instead "god" would it be true? or would you have still quoted him?
quotes serve as 0 proof for anything....they only address an opinion.

UyiIredia:
Yes. Both genomes and codes in computers are the same in principle their difference is in the details of how they work.

before I go on I would like to know first if chemicals are codes...

Asalimpo at the end of the day you'll be the one creating a thread that Muslims are flooding you with dislikes..
And likes never indicates logical accuracy... you have likes afterall,lol.

herald9:
The difference is we believe in a God..

To believe in something doesn't make it true....some people still believe the earth is flat...does their belief make it true?...people who believed zeus was responsible for storms...did their belief make it true?
What I want to know is how your idea of a "god" can be identified and proven...thousands of "god" and "gods" have been claimed since antiquity,what sets yours apart from the other unvalidated claims?

We can use that to explain how these natural phenomena came about... Unlike you guys who are just 'clueless'

It is good to admit ignorance than to swallow a claim as an answer to a question...
By the way,can you use "god" to explain and verify what darkmatter and darkenergy is?

Trying to a force evolution down our throat and using complicated ideologies to drive home your points in Which average minds cannot understand

who is forcing evolution down your throat?...if you don't accept evolution are you called a reprobate? if you do not accept evolution does that stop species from speciating?
Why is the acceptance of a theory even part of your argument?...is it because it pushes magical creation myths aside?

It saves us a lotta trouble bro!

imagine if the greatest minds of our century followed your simplistic view that everything natural can be answered by "god-did-it"...would there be knowledge on many things,namely vaccines?... won't there only be faith healers if indeed everyone believed as you do..
I ask this because,before germs were known about... people believed the simplistic unvalidated ideas of "bad blood,too much blood,the supernatural,sucubus and spirits"...it was the skeptical approach towards this belief that led to knowledge of germs and from there the creation of vaccines...

herald9:
Deism holds that God does not intervene with
the functioning of the natural world in any
way, allowing it to run according to the laws
of nature . For Deists, human beings can only
know God via reason and the observation of
nature, but not by revelation or
supernatural manifestations (such as
miracles)

what is the difference between a deistic "god" and one that doesn't exist?

UyiIredia:
No, the argument is titled 'argument from design'; what the argument actually is, is an inference to design from the facts that living things are coded and codes require intelligence to make.

Are you referring to the genome of living things as codes or sequences in computers and therefore the principles are the same?

asalimpo:
how dyu know there's no hell?
Just yapping.
There's spiritual fire, the kind dat doesnt burn out custom made for hell bound bodies.

how does tagging "supernatural" to anything make it credible... if I tag "supernatural" to a claim of unicorns...does it become real or true?

asalimpo:
your not an atheists-yet. You're a sympathiser.

you avoided his questions...

Billyonaire:
Wrong, the building block of every mass, is energy. When energy goes through the Higg's field it gains mass. That's why ofcourse why scientists nicknamed the Higg's Boson as God particle, a mockery of creation creature, to show that Higg's field materializes energy. There is no God but Energy.

I agree with 90% of what you are saying....the higgs boson has been verified and one can't hide "god" under "what makes mass?" anymore...though I am not aware of any "god",I approach the claim objectively...ready to change upon realization of a validated "god" claim...
This ofcourse doesn't mean one could say... "because x happens therefore y" or "because I dunno how x came about...it has to be y"

Dannyset:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 53:1

okay,anything else?

UyiIredia:
If this is your response I am SMH because it doesn't address the argument.

The argument is a claim that things are "designed" when a "designer" was never established.
Example....can you call a brandless bag of cement dangotes'?

UyiIredia:
I'll give a good proof of God no atheist on NL has satisfactorily rebutted. It is a proof of God from the design in life.

1) Living things are coded systems (ie they are built around codes in their DNA)
2) The major factor required in building coded systems is intelligence
3) Therefore we induce an intelligent Creator behind living things.

lol,you are yet to provide proof of a "designer" to know things are indeed "designed"....otherwise you are riding your own wagon here..
You can call things "designed" and "complex" all day long...

FrancisTony:
Pffft

You haven't copy and pasted before.

Didn't I prove the link?

serious accusations you are posing....if you can bring up a thread I created where what I discussed word for word were copy-pasted.... i'll deactivate my nairaland account.
Otherwise stop pasting dishonest fabrications to justify your disdain of atheism....how do you look at yourself based on the virtues you claim to uphold if in the end...it is redefining atheism to suit your belief that gives you sleep at night....by all means go on.

Francistony I dub thee the copy-paste lord

http://goodtothosewholovegod.weebly.com/13-flaws-of-atheism.html

such "flaws" were shown to be dishonest and false since 05'.

http://atheist-seeker..com.es/2005/07/theists-13-biggest-flawed.html?m=1

"What if you're wrong"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GScdUIYXglA&itct=CDMQpDAiEwi3oJXY6ujBAhWC1KoKHRs-AGQyC2M0LXZpZGVvcy11WhhVQ0xodFpxZGtqc2hncThUcXdJak1kQ1E%3D&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en

striktlymi:
What is a "god"? I said God not god! Don't ask what is "God" cause you know very well to whom I refer. A simple answer to the question would suffice. After all, I did answer your questions directly without pretending not to know what you are talking about.

changing the "g" in "god" to capital tells me nothing of what you are referring to... the word "god" is a vague term...because people address it differently and have different definitions..I have to know what a "god" is before I can make any statement about it...

okeke00......I really want to know why you are confused and what you are looking for..

asalimpo:
Op, wen next ur writg ur post, be careful not to lump christianity together with islam.
Or any other religion, theyre diametrically opposed. Do this and it shall b well presented.

Healthy scepticism = plain old doubt.

when does skepticism become unhealthy?

Faith is a gift of God.

First define what you call "god" and how I can detect it accurately.... and why such a thing can offer beliefs without evidence(if it is conscious and intelligent that is )...

It is not just believg immaterial things.

okay,can you give examples?

But usg d lesser definition of it being a belief in the immaterially unverifiable, one can still justify it.

asalimpo,I keep telling you to stop contradicting yourself...
if you have a belief in the "immaterially unverify-able",how do you justify it?
Perhaps you don't know that to justify something is to;

" to prove or show to be just, right,
or reasonable"

http://i.word.com/idictionary/justify

So by the definition how do we justify(prove or show to be right)what you have already termed as "immaterially unverify-able"?

Faith is necessary wen d subject is a novice in a particular field.

I'm pretty sure faith didn't land any intellectual field credibility....any field that is pragmatic does not rely on faith...you are free to give examples of fields where faith is the methodology...

Before knowg the how,he has to accept as true wat his teachers tell him.

If "he" has to accept what his teachers tell him,what room is there for questions? for example,how do you know 2+2=4? if its because you accepted it as true just because a "teacher" said it then sorry.. you had an indoctrination not an education...

In some fields it may take decades before the subject is intellectually prepared to question and know the "how".

And in the absense of answers and with untestable hypothesis... we admit ignorance and search for answers..

In cases where one is incapable of employg his physcal senses, he has to rely on and trust anoda's judgement. E.g if d subject is blind or deaf,disabled etc.

Correct....tools are employed and devised that try to error-check our senses....even still those tools are still open to skepticism and improvement....and when we've assessed the subject with our tools,senses( not viable for all phenomena),and cross-confirm that phenomena to various trials to determine the accuracy of it...it is then labelled a theory or law(if it passes) or considered true or real(in the case of your example)...and dismiss or consider not applicable if they fail...
philosophy I think is a field where notions whether pragmatic(working) or not are applied with passion...

The physcal senses are not infallible, therefore they cant b d ultimate guides.

correct again...

The eyes can b decieved thru optical illusions.
Etc

correct...

if there is somethg outside the range of d physcal senses,then,
there's no way one can verify them with d five senses.

correct...

One has to rely on d words of another who has knowledge of the immaterial world.

WRONG! ...because,you brought in a conclusion that even though you can't detect everything therefore someone else can... where did that deduction come from?...and if you can't detect an "immaterial world" what senses or what way did you get knowledge of it in the first place?

striktlymi:
To your question first...

Your use of "may" underpins the fact that you are unsure a creature like godzilla ever existed. This in turn demonstrates your inability to prove that theory for the now. If without solid evidence you hold strongly that view without the "may" then your view is based on faith.

Now, I will respond to the rest of your post with a question of my own: does God exist?

What is a "god"?

malvisguy212:
I AM MOSES.

Okay,you can call yourself whatever you want....its a free country..but if you ask me,moses is a fabled man in jewish mythology....calling yourself a jew makes me see you as a semitic wannabe..
If you feel you want to be a jew....convert to one...instead of posing as one.

striktlymi:
Now you got it mixed up.

The irrationality for both cases is in the fact that none of them can prove their case, thence the skteptic's view is backed up by pure, undiluted faith.

The skeptic has no view whatsoever,just a rejection of one... faith requires beliefs and beliefs with no evidence...
A skeptic can reject claims based on insufficient or lack of evidence....
If one has a view of aliens existing....if that view is based on solid demonstrate-able facts and can be addressed as plausible....then this view has been justified for alien life...
If he were to go the extra mile and mention qualities of a particular set of alien life....then he would have to present how he knew such specific things and if they are validate-able....
moreso nobody cares if one is skeptical of aliens,because it does not prompt your belief...aliens do not begin or cease to exist upon anyone's view...
If one makes the positive claim that aliens do not exist,then he would need to prove it...
Let me ask you a question.....is it faith if I hold a view that a creature like godzilla may have once existed and thus may be really an extinct dinosaur.

"god of the paradox"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jClyinERY&itct=CAYQpDAYCiITCLf8wvGT58ECFU14qgod_1sAuTIGcmVsbWZ1SKDZv7Wdne3a-AE%3D&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en

"Where you there?"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LW06dav7KA&itct=CBYQpDAYBCITCI-F6uyT58ECFYi6ywodsXkAKTIGcmVsbWZ1SPz5h9DBhZjRHQ%3D%3D&hl=en&gl=NG&client=mv-google

"You send yourself to hell"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJgLBoB_Pw&itct=CAwQpDAYCCITCOO_1-eS58ECFUQ4ywod4SkAcjIGcmVsbWZ1SPD9naefhcGgAw%3D%3D&client=mv-google&hl=en-GB&gl=NG

"The answer to everything"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0EEKfTnfvA&itct=CAYQpDAYCiITCPHt6I-S58ECFdWvywodqhYAfzIHcmVsYXRlZEjo7vac5unkrvwB&gl=NG&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google

The thing that "god" can't do


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F2TTmOdt2g&itct=CBYQpDAYBCITCIeXp4qS58ECFRUHywodaIMA5DIHcmVsYXRlZEi0sdrNg6KH0LMB&hl=en-GB&gl=NG&client=mv-google