₦airaland Forum

Kay 17: ^^
Deepsight, I think you are hold misconceptions about the big ban.g. The universe is said to have proceeded from a hot dense state -- a singularity. The cause of the Universe is this singularity

And it just proceeded, abracadabra! No?

And for how long that hot dense state had existed, we do not know. And why it did not "proceed" before then, or after then, but only then.

mazaje: I consider your definition of god to be lacking in substance on many fronts. . .

That's not a problem. We can talk through it.

God is oneness of infinity?. . .

I have explained in the past that this simply means that God is ONE and INFINITE.

You could think of it as being ONE compound being or element, which is eternal, and holds infinite potentials of existence.

Compound of self existent laws,

That the sum of all self-existent laws and realities is what God is.

sum of all time,

Eternity.

infinite mind?. . .

Carrying infinite potentials of existence.

plaetton: See how you sate this with much absoluteness.

God's perfection is different from human idea of perfection, god's morality is different from human idea of morality, god's time is different from human idea of rime, and on and on.
Bullshyt!

This is exactly my point. You are , like your fellow religious friends, making a great leap, an irrational leap by making an exception for your self-created god.
You are Josh are almost the same in this regard.
You cannot separate what you fantasize about from what is objectively real.

Can you not see your crossing over into magical thinking when you are walled in?

I cannot make any sense of what you have written here.

If a creator of the universe exists, I can't imagine how you would wish it to inhabit the same moral space that you inhabit, not to speak of the same time, or the same standards of perfection. That is illogical and bizzare, sir.

plaetton: Why must the default state be immutable?

Because if it is default, then it needs must be eternal in the past, and if it is eternal in the past it is then unchanging in character, thus immutable. It would be contradictory to speak of a default state eternal in the past which changes, for then it would not be a state eternal in the past, and therefore not default.

The fact that matter is mutable makes it the perfect default state.

As explained above, no.

Matter is always changing, change is the only constant in the universe.

Yes: in the expanding universe, but not in the default state pre univserse, no?

So, there has never been a state where the universe was static, even for a nanosecond.

As above.

But why do we go on this circular arguments when we all know that :

1. Energy is the only thing that exists.
2. Energy and matter are inter-convertible. Viola!
3. Therefore, Matter that makes up the universe is simply condensed energy.

The energy of this universe could not be all that exists, otherwise there would be no explanation for what trigger ignited the big b.ang. That trigger could not be the self same energy of this universe, which was supposedly encapsulated in a pre time singularity. That singularity would have required an impetus or trigger to expand, and that could only have come from without it, thus indicating that there is energy beyond this universe not of this universe.

Therefore, there are only two issues worth debating here:

1. If you disagree with 1,2, 3 or all
or ,
2. How did or how could self-existent energy come to exists?

It would not "come to exist" - it would be the constant inherent in the transcendent self-existent reality: God.

This is so simple, yet the problem with people like Deepsight is this little thingy of " Purpose".
His mind cannot get around this idea of impersonal and purposeless pulsating energy as being the source for everything.
He desperately needs purpose and order, a plan.

I would desperately hope that you need the same, otherwise I am sorry for you.

That is the problem why we have to invent such a laughable oxymoron as an uncaused creator who consciously created and directs the universe.

An uncaused universe is a worse oxymoron. The universe demonstrably had a beginning and thus a cause. And since it could not logically be its own cause, then it logically has a cause outside it: a cause transcending it.

plaetton: I am so surprised that a dogmatic position can hold one in so tight a hostage that it completely obscures ones deep reflections and one's deepsight.

How silly is it really to attack an accepted theory from a position of ignorance?

If you want a scientific debate about this, then arm yourself with scientific reasons why you reject the current scientific positions on this.
Stop this silly nonsense of ' of I reject this because I feel this or I feel that way. Insufficient knowledge is grounds to reject an idea.
Most people don't understand the compicated work of trying to explain aspects of evolution. Most people are very scared of even trying, for fear that they might see it's strong merits.
Yet everyone with a god comes i here with barely baked and even blank knowledge to loudly challenge what they don't understand, and may never understand.

Lol. You have said nothing bro.

School me up on the evolutionary basis for the existence of the se.xes.

And do yourself a favour and read the OP again.

rationalmind: Same thing applies to the puppy bro, even when the exact reason why the puppy immediately starts sucking its mothers bre.asts is unknown, it must have an evolutionary basis and can never be removed from it.

1. Genetic science, unlike evolutionary science is thoroughly firmed up and comprehensively proven.

2. Even taking evolution to be beyond cavil, the questions will still remain -

- at what point in the evolution of mammals would this trait have evolved?

- contrast this with the fact that mammals would have to have had this trait from inception to survive in the first place!

Logicboy03: who designed the brain if not your God? Aliens?

I assumed that you were saying that God indirectly designed the brain......

When I say God may not have directly created this or that, I simply mean that God is the ultimate creator, and so where God issues a reality in which elements issuing from God lead to the existence of other elements and ultimately to designed elements, then I would not say that God came down and personally designed that designed element.

I do not know for a fact if aliens exist; but considering the size of the universe I personally consider it very likely, and considering brevity of recorded human civilization as compared with the habitable age of the earth, I certainly think there is some huge fishy detail about our existence on this planet which is not disclosed to, or apparent to the generality of humanity.

[quote author=Ultimus ]It has already been proven that we came from nothing.[/quote]Please refer me to the proof, I am a village id.iot, so please don't be annoyed with me or irritated or angry. Just be kind and gentle and assist poor illiterate me, help point me to the proof and who proved it.

Thank you sir.

Logicboy03: @ bold, you just assert your opinions as fact?

Or is there a neuroscience journal that accepts od as the designer of the brain?

This guy is a joke

You cannot read. A man writes white and you read black.

plaetton: @Deepsight.
You are doing exactly what you just denied doing.
You are taking great leaps in magical thinking by making exceptions for your god.
So god's imperfections are *#$% ...?
What??
Can't you see yourself making all this up as you go?

I have no idea what you are on about. I have clarified for you what you seemed confused about, and I therefore cannot make any sense of what you are saying here.

In future discussions on the nature of God, be circumspect enough not to misquote me here, because I see you doing that. I have not stated anywhere here that God is not perfect. Indeed I cautioned you to the effect that the perfection of God would be very different from human conceptions of perfection.

And no, I am not making up anything as I go. If you had been on this forum from 2009 you would know that I am not saying anything I have not said before, extensively.

mazaje: It is very relevant, you keep shouting that some god designed the brain, you can not tell us what this god is,

I have told you what God is many times, Mazaje. I will remind you of a few of my many short descriptions:

- - - The Oneness of Infinity (remember that?)
- - - The Compound of Self-Existent Laws (remember that?)
- - - The Sum of all Infinite Time & Infinite Space (remember that?)
- - - The Infinite Mind (remember that?)

You are free to disagree with all of these descriptions, and even laugh at them (such as OoI) but you are not free to claim that I have not stated what God is. I have. In many ways.

where it resides,

This, I can never take seriously.

how it created the brain,when it did and where it created the brain yet you keep shouting that it created the brain. . .Can you see how silly you sound?

I do not know that God, the creator of the infinite Universes, directly created the human brain. I said that it shows hallmarks of design and I stand by that. I do not know that God was the direct designer. If you had been attentive, you would have seen me say this repeatedly and saved yourself the stress of making presumptions and leaps.

. . . .If you don't know something then stop saying or claiming to know it. . .Pretending to know what you don't is the life blood of all theist and religions. . .

There is much we don't know, but to take a look at the functions of the brain, and claim not to see that it is a product of advanced design beyond our furthest knowledge, is nothing but ignorance, dishonesty, foo.lishness, and even illiteracy.

It is VERY relevant, that is the only way we will know which god among the very many gods and goddesses that actually created assuming it was a god or goddess that created it . . .

I also cannot take this seriously, in light of my many explanations over the years regarding the issue of "which god".

In the cosmological debates between atheists and theists, there is only one God that should be at issue: that God said to be the Creator. Tribal or ethnic colorations or appellations are neither here nor there. The philosophical and cosmological construct of a causative creator is what should be discussed.

Whining on forever about myriad gods, is just petty and intellectually lazy and shallow, in my opinion.

This is the only way we will also know that it was created by a god and not as a result of natural selection over a long period of time as scientist have stated. . .

The very weak defence of scientists, when shown the grave improbability of the evolution of various systems (such as se.xual reproductive systems, for example) is to simply shout - "millions of years! It took millions of years!!"

This is actually a very weak and foo.lish revert, and it shows the deep ignorance of many so called scientists on this matter. There is no natural selection that can explain the existence of male as distinct from female, in the first place, just as an example. Not to speak of the full faculties of the brain.

mazaje: Plsss what is all this irritating grammer?. . . . .But seriously, what are you on about. . .STOP pointing at other things to show that your god exist. . .Just provide us with evidence of your god existing on its own already. . .How does your god exist, where does it exist, what are its attributes, how can we know that it is your god and not some other phenomena, how can we interact with it, does it interact with humans, how can it be known?. . . .Stop running round in circles, just show us that your god exist on its own period. . .I am sick and tired of all these rigmarole. . .Its always, ohhh see the stars, they are evidence for god, see the moon, its evidence for god, god loves you. . Ask how god loves humans and they start crying and chasing their long tails. . .

Mazaje, I have no response to you because I have long detailed all that you ask for, but more particularly because you are not keenly following the discussion and the points made:

Those points are -

1. I asserted for design (with the human brain as example and evidence thereof)

2. I made it very clear that this design is not necessarily design performed directly by the Creator God: I have stated this in several posts here but you are not following. This renders most of your ranting moot.

3. I have defined the God I discuss a zillion times over on this board, and you as a very old poster here are very well aware of that. In doing so I have avoided petty dispute about this or that tribal god, and have spoken always of that first cause of all existence as we know it - regardless of appellation or tribal attribution. Therefore wasting my time with cries of Vishnu and Zeus and Yahweh and Allah, will not cut it for me - erspecially as you are an old poster here who is very well acquainted with my arguments on same.

4. If you are looking for a photo shoot with this God, that I speak of, I am sorry I cannot help you. Deductive reasoning in all things however discloses the existence of a transcendent non material power responsible for cause. I have, as I said, made the relevant deductions and inductions in this regard, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I will care to repeat them to a newbie, here, but not to someone like you who has read tons of what I have to say on the matter since 2009 till date.

5. At all events, your post has conceded to a designed brain - - - >

Mazaje: The designed brain is not evidence for your god, it is evidence for a designed brain

- - - and that was what I sought to state. I therefore am in a position to rest my case as far as your intervention is concerned. You are free to call the designer whatever you please, including Odin or Olodumare, or even Obasanjo.

Same difference to me.

Kay 17: 1. Everything that begins has a cause

2. The Universe began, hence it has a cause.

That's settled, but where does God come in?

It's just the first step in addressing those who say that the universe needs no cause.

However, by way of deductive logic, the implications are:

1. The cause could not be matter or energy of the universe itself as nothing caused could be its own cause

2. The cause would be powerful, given the scale of universal energy and matter

3. The cause would pre exist the universe.

These simple baby steps in clear reasoning will disclose a transcendent, non material, powerful cause: key ingredients of the definition of God.

rationalmind: Goood. I so much like the bolded. Read it again and tell me why for example when there is probably no known cause for why the puppy starts sucking the breast of the mother after its born, you suddenly attribute it to a programmer.

Same thing is what we are saying, anytime there is also no known cause for stuffs like birth defects, you shouldn't hesitate to attribute it to the designer. See?

Read carefully. I said, and I reiterate: that even where the exact cause of a birth defect is not pin pointed: genetic ancestry must be part of it - and can never be removed from it because of what we know of genetics. The reverse would be to deny all genetic science.

In the same way, we can clearly adduce a program, a code, in the behavior of a newly delivered infant because such behavior is inconsistent with the well grounded fact that the infant knows nothing of the outside world prior to birth and even at birth: and even remains blind for a time after birth. This renders it clearly that the infant is hard wired, (coded, if you like, programmed, if you like) to take these immediate post birth actions.

As I said in my post above, you can debate what that code or program is, but you cannot debate that there is a code or program that leads to that consistent action.

Stating otherwise would be absurdity.

Lol, can I safely assume this is another way of saying there are conceivable purposes which I (deepsight) can't pinpoint?

You can safely assume that it is another way of saying that there are all manner of conceivable purposes.

Ok. Good you consider it just a possibility which of course might not be the case.

Sure.

rationalmind: Yes. It sounds ridiculous because its an argument from ignorance.

Oh no: think about it carefully. Which ever way it goes, you can never deny that that creature is programmed for that.

1. It is a barely conscious and still blind infant

2. It does not know of the existence of anything in the world it has just come into.

3. It yet uniformly and in all cases proceeds to search for the mamary glands and feed from them.

My friend, it is most illogical and irrational to say that it has not been programmed to do this.

You may debate what that "program" is; but you cannot deny that it has been hard wired in this way.

Your debate should be about what that program is: and not that there is not clearly a program that makes the infant uniformly do this.

Call the program evolution (which you should then prove), or call it whatever else you may. But you cannot deny the program.

rationalmind: It will perhaps interest you to know that 60% of all birth defects have no known cause. That is, a whopping 60% of birth defects cannot be traced as caused by any parental action occurring over the years or caused by cumulative genetic defects. Therefore, the argument of freewill coming into play is mute.

No known cause simply means that the exact cause has yet to be identified. However, the study of genetics gives us to understand that the features of the child derive from its genetic history. It is therefore impossible to divorce genetic history - no matter how far removed generationally - from such unexplained birth defects. Absolutely impossible. That would be to deny all genetic science.

I'm afraid this is strawman bro. You conceded the designer might have a purpose for designing a brain with tumour. The question is, what is the purpose of that brain tumour? I'll like you to show us the purpose. Or perhaps, the purpose of being born with a defective eye.

If the designer is a scientist, for example, he may need to observe such instances for his scientific purposes. But this is just an example. It is an example intended not to be taken literally but to show you that theoretically, there are conceivable purposes which may or may not be in the interest of the human individual or human society.

However you must at all events not lose sight of the point about human genetics: logically and scientifically it can NEVER be taken out of the equation.

Till we are sure and have evidence for that, I refuse to attribute anything to them.

Nor have I attributed anything to "them". I have only mentioned the possibility of the existence of designers who are not God, and who are not perfect.

rationalmind: I'm interested in the "how" most especially.

You had better leave the "how" alone for now, my friend. Merely the "how" of modern smart phones would be almost too much for most of us, so please, let us take a chill pill on that, and accept that we are far too ignorant to understand all bio-science as yet.

However, I should ask you if it is outlandish to you, to say that a creature that proceeds from a womb into the world, still blind, and having no prior experience outside the womb, immediately seeks and identifies the necessary source of sustenance - the mamary glands of its mother - - - > Does it sould ridiculous to you, that such is an obviously pre-programmed creature?

plaetton: Rubbish.
You are now doing what religious folks habitually do- Sneaking god out of tricky situations and then blaming man.

plaetton: Yup.
There is always an escape hatchet for god.
If it is not the devil today, tomorrow it is freewill.

rationalmind: what's surprising is seeing deepsight use that same line of argument.

When people like Josh use it, it is understandable. They most times can't think outside the box of christianity.

This is not true: For I said - >

- - ->

Deep Sight: Not at all: I have suggested to you that the designer may not be perfect, have I not? Now if I could inculpate the designer, why must I exculpate the human? Is it not a balanced view to point out that the wrongful living of humans could and in fact does also damage successive genetic human health?

So please do not misrepresent me. I in no way exculpated the designer only to inculpate the human just for the instance of defects only.

However you should note, for the sake of future discussion, that when I suggest that the designer is not perfect, understand carefully these two points:

1. Perfection of a transcendental God may not be what we humans conceive as perfection.

https://www.nairaland.com/411142/definition-divine-harmony-understanding-creation

2. The transcendental God I refer to may not be the direct creator of mankind or even of this world or universe.

rationalmind: Then you can start by telling us how the freewill of the parents resulted in the brain tumour of the child. As for people born blind, you can also tell us how the freewill of the parents or any other also caused it. Same goes for every other birth defect. Inability to do so renders your argument mute.

Again, presumptions and logical leaps. I did not mention, the parents, although of course parental carelessness can lead to birth defects.

However the simple answer to your question would be more global. If it is possible for parental actions to lead to birth defects in a baby, then you should also know that generations of cumulative genetic defects would logically follow where humanity is not perfect: and such defects would also logically appear in various new borns depending on their genetic ancestry.

The harder answer to your question is one that I cannot give you yet at this stage of our interaction. That is because it delves deeper into the nature and consequences of mankind's earthly existence and touches on matters such as karma, suffering and spiritual development, all of which I do not know your take on, and as such may be pre mature to discuss with you.

Your argument is not in anyway different from that of theists. When its good, praise the designer. When bad, blame freewill.

Not at all: I have suggested to you that the designer may not be perfect, have I not? Now if I could inculpate the designer, why must I exculpate the human? Is it not a balanced view to point out that the wrongful living of humans could and in fact does also damage successive genetic human health?

You can also start by telling us the purpose of a brain tumour and why it had to be there

It could be there for any number of logically unavoidable genetic reasons occasioned by ill health engendered by wrongful or unhealthy living practices anywhere within the ancestry of the affected new born.

It could also be there as a consequence of the harder reasons which I said I cannot yet discuss with you, at this level of our interaction. As I hinted though, those reasons have to do with Karma, the meaning and purpose of human life and suffering, and with spiritual development.

I'm afraid this is irrelevant

Well then in that case you obviously missed the implicit suggestion: namely that we could well be lab rat creations of intelligent life elsewhere - who are not perfect.

rationalmind: And when its proven to you that some of those problems they have are results of the inherent flaw in the "design" of the eye. What will you have to say?

You are at liberty to proceed to prove it - and any other defect you can find - just bear in mind that you may well be wasting your time if ->

(1) it is the intention of the designer to place that "defect" as part of its overall intention and design.

(2) the designer is not perfect

(3) wrongful results derive from damage and changes caused by the actions of free willed beings on their own development

mazaje: Ok, we agree that the brain was programed, can you provide evidence to show how many god/gods programmed it, when, where and how?. . .

I cannot see how any of these questions should be relevant, assuming that they could even be known.

The quantity of "gods" and the location of their laboratory, which is what you are asking for, as well as their biological technology manuals, are neither available, nor relevant to the points at issue.

Please stop giving puerile and s.illy posers.

mazaje: I don't know why deepsight FAILS to see how idiotic his examples are. . .Pls stop this nonsense deepsight!. . .

NO SIR, IT IS YOU WHO MUST STOP THIS ID.IOTIC NONSENSE FORTHWITH!

Any person who states that the human brain, as an example of design, is an id.iotic example, urgently needs to surrender his very id.iotic version of said brain, for removal and disposal.

rationalmind: Firstly, It won't be a poor argument because the device was designed either by humans prone to errors and mistakes or by machines prone to malfunction.

You see; the anti religious desperation of you fellows often leads to assumptions, presumptions and logical leaps.

1. Who told you anything here was directly designed by a perfect God?

2. Even if it was, who told you it is not open to misuse and damage by free willed beings?

3. Who told you that such "defects" could not also be purposeful?

That does not apply to your programmer whom is perfect without defects and can't make mistakes.

Secondly, a defective version of the device is a product of mistake. I hope ure not trying to say your brilliant programmer, capable of designing such a magnificent organ as the brain also makes mistakes.

When humans eventually complete planetary engineering and establish new worlds with cloned humans, the cloned humans will ask this same question, thinking perhaps that their makers had to have been perfect, in order to be their makers.

You are yet to commence any serious reasoning, my friend.

mazaje: I just hate this stupid line of reasoning deepsight is projecting. . . .Everything he doesn't know he just fills it with god, ask him for evidence and he starts speaking very long and irritating grammer. . .Lets take the human eyes for example. . .Your god designed the human eyes in such a way that images are formed at the back of the retina eh?. . .Hope your know that because of the way the eyes forms images, many people are naturally born with eye defect(Long/Short sightedness) because of the very poor way the eyes forms images at the back of the retina, hence many people the world over are born with natural eye defects and need correcting lenses to aid or correct that natural flaw. . .Why did your god design the eyes so poorly?. . .

The eye is a master-piece of creation, which evinces not just the design of a creator, but the existence of a person - a being - which being is that which requires the instrumentality of the eye and the brain to perceive its environment.

That humanity or other creatures have problems with sight is no basis for your comments above, as many varying factors are at play with respect to such, as you know very well.

mazaje: What people like Deepsight keep doing is attributing anything they do not know to this imaginary god figure they have created in their minds. . . . .God is just their your default position for "i don't know". . .

That may be your perception, but is by no means the reality.

When we advance the human brain as evidence of design, it is because it does in fact disclose staggering hallmarks of design which only stark illiterates would deny. The functionalities of the human brain far exceed the capacities of the most advanced super-computers, and you are well aware that the chances of its arising over time in the manner suggested by your self and evolutionists, are far poorer than a Boeing 747 being randomly formed by an explosion in a metal junk yard.

This is the stark reality of what the brain is: a super processor which is light years ahead of any conceivable human technology, and yet, in your laughable and most dim witted ignorance you dare sit back and state that it does not disclose evidence of design.

You are fooling yourself, old friend, no one else but your self.

Many years ago people did not even know that the brain is what controls all our thoughts they thought it was the heart, most of the writers of the bible for example though it was the heart that controlled out thought simply because when we are tensed or startled our hearts begins to race and beat faster, it has even form a part of our language, we use word like i reasoned with my heart and decided not to do it, i love you with all my heart, my heart is heavy with thoughts etc. . Now we know its our brain that does this,

This is one of the most foo.lish things I have ever read from you or on this forum. If you do not recognize the literary significance and context of "the heart" and you choose to make the pedantic and puerile point that these "thoughts" are rather of the brain, then I see no point in wasting any bandwith setting right such grievously foo.lish and puerile complaints.

to them earth quakes were as a result of god's anger etc. . Rainbow is the covenant btw their god and his people or the necklace of some goddess. . .Now we know that is it just a refraction of light against water droplets in the atmosphere. . .It has nothing to do with any god. . .

The existence of quaint old superstitions held by ancients is no basis for denying the existence of a Creator.

You were asked to provide evidence for god and you claimed that the brain as a designed organ is an evidence for your god, how idiotic an example can one bring forward?. . .

You are quite the id.iot if any one has to school you on the frankly impossible capacities and hallmarks of your brain.

i thought you said your god EXIST?. . .If your god exist on its own then PLSSSSSSSSSS provide evidence to show that it exist on its own independently. . .We are tired of all this rigmarole. . ..Pls deepsight tell what is your god? What are his attributes?. . .I want you to provide me and other atheist with specific objective evidence that shows that their god exist and how we can know him, feel him or experience him. . .Please I want you to provide a factual description of their god’s characteristics and abilities so that we can be sure that we(atheists) will know it when we see it, feel it, hear its voice or come in contact with it. You should try to be as specific as possible to avoid ambiguity. We need to be able to differentiate your god from other god's or other phenomena like evolution. So, for example, claiming that your god is the creator of the universe or that the universe all around is evidence for your god is not helpful in the least, because many have claimed that the universe all around us is evidence for their own god as well and that their god, gods or goddesses created the universe . . . Claiming that your god is supernatural or beyond the natural, observable universe is also not helpful. If your god is beyond the observable universe then how could you possibly have observed it to conclude that it is real? So again, please provide a factual description of your god’s specific characteristics and abilities that are objective and self evident. I am waiting. . .

I have done this for you and other older posters here ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I see no basis to think that your faculties of thought have improved in any way, and as such repeating them will amount to a waste of my time.

rationalmind: Programmed by who if I may ask?

I once read about a baby born with brain tumour. Was it that same thing that programmed it?

That also is so surprising, healthy parents with no brain problems, with no complications during pregnancy, produced a child with brain tumour

There is also one obvious answer, it was programmed.

You do realize what a poor argument it would be to state that a device is not programmed because you have seen defective versions of the same device?

Especially when neither you nor your neuroscientists have any other more plausible answer for that very simple poser.

rationalmind: If the brain of the puppy hadn't evolved to suck its mothers breasts as soon as its born, how else won't they had been extinct? It was necessary for their survival. Lol, I hope this isn't circular

I am happy you recognize how terribly circular - not to speak of escapist - that is.

Anyway, I can't tell you exactly how the brain does that, like I'm saying for the umpteenth time, I'm not a neuroscientist and I'm not into neuroscience.

People who are into it should be able to explain better.

Unfortunately they can't either!

Edit:. . . my friend an I watched my dog's new borns a few months ago and we still marvelled at this wonderful instinctual knowledge. I asked again, wow, how do they know what to do? He gave a very simple and yet obvious answer:

They have been programmed.

Logicboy03: Still doesnt invalidate my arguments.......

It does, on the bit about the cause requiring a cause.

I see I did not come back here.

@ LB: The cosmological argument does not state that anything that exists has a cause. It states that anything that begins to exist has a cause. That's your answer right there.

Reyginus: Don't you think that it has to exist first for it to be controlled?

Gbam.

rationalmind: I like Josh for one thing, you brag and gloat about ignorance.

There is nothing extra-sensory about intuition. Your definition b even said it is a sense of something not evident. The subconscious is also not evident and we know its controlled by the brain.

You have no point brah

How does a new born puppy know to seek out and suckle on its mother's breasts as soon as it is born. It's brain, which is a stranger in the world, and has never known of such a thing as a "breast" before, informs it to do this, hmmm? How exactly so, my friend? How does the brain of the puppy come about this wonderful clairvoyance?

In a prior thread about evolutionary questions, I had raised this as one of the significant posers against the Theory of Evolution. However I raised about 12 posers so this poser did not receive the attention I believe it merits.

I think it is absolutely cardinal and a most decisive point.

Evolution cannot explain the appearance of the sexes and is particularly dead on se.xual reproduction.

For thought -

The evolution of the mammary gland is difficult to explain; this is because mammary glands are typically required by mammals to feed their young. There are many theories on how mammary glands evolved, for example, it is believed that the mammary gland is a transformed sweat gland, more closely related to apocrine sweat glands. Since mammary glands do not fossilize well, supporting such theories with fossil evidence is difficult. Many of the current theories are based on comparisons between lines of living mammals – monotremes, marsupials and eutherians. One theory proposes that mammary glands evolved from glands that were used to keep the eggs of early mammals moist and free from infection (monotremes still lay eggs). Other theories suggest that early secretions were used directly by hatched young, or that the secretions were used by young to help them orient to their mothers.

Lactation is assumed to have developed long before the evolution of the mammary gland and mammals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland#Evolution

The evolution of se.xual reproduction is a major puzzle. The first fossilized evidence of se.xual reproduction in eukaryotes is from the Stenian period, about 1 to 1.2 billion years ago. There are two main processes during sexual reproduction in eukaryotes: meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; and fertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes. During meiosis, the chromosomes of each pair usually exchange genetic information to achieve homologous recombination. Evolutionary thought proposes several explanations for why sexual reproduction developed and why it is maintained. These reasons include fighting the accumulation of deleterious mutations, increasing rate of adaptation to changing environments (see the red queen hypothesis), dealing with competition (see the tangled bank hypothesis) or as an adaptation for repairing DNA damage and masking deleterious mutations. The maintenance of sexual reproduction has been explained by theories that work at several different levels of selection, though some of these models remain controversial. New models presented in recent years, however, suggest a basic advantage for sexual reproduction in slowly reproducing, complex organisms, exhibiting characteristics that depend on the specific environment that the given species inhabit, and the particular survival strategies that they employ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

I SAY - THAT - the evolution of sexuality in the appearance of the male and female forms and their sexually complimentary attributes particularly in the matter of reproduction, cannot be addressed by evolution, is a major flaw in the theory of evolution, and points to a code of existential forms which governs the appearance and existence of such forms as male and female.