₦airaland Forum

Daiquiri:
[img width=60 height=70]http://www.autonerdz.com/yabbfiles/Smilies/scratch-head02.gif[/img] Enjoy India?

globexl:
I do not deny intelligent design with absolute certainty. My position is that intelligent design does not address any fundamental questions in any real sense. That's why I think its a cop out.

Also, intelligent design is accepted from a purely human perspective. What we see as complex may turn out to be biological expressions of simple mathematical formulaes  embedded in laws of nature.

Yo never take into consideration the effect of 4.7 billion years of ceaseless interactions and mutatons.

Consigning it to an unknowable designer is lazy and is a negation of our responsibilty to seek and investigate. Its the same mindset that men or yesterday used to creat the thousands of deities worshipped throughout the ages.

I am more interested in probing intelligent design and the designer rather just accepting it as an article of faith.

globexl:
@ Deepsight:
I prefer your eloquence than articles and definitions from wiki. My discourse is with you and not wiki.
Some insect species have lifespans of a few days and some microscopic organisms live just a few hrs. If these species could think,I' m quite sure they would see their lives as purposeful and grand. Is it not possible that our lives and indeed our universe, could just reperesent a microsecond in yet another endless cycle of a grander pursposeless universe driven on its own ,without a designer or purpose ?
Think about it.

globexl:
@ Deepsight:
Why would you not consider that in the beginning, mindless and purposeless energy could have just reached a saturation point and the big b.ang was triggered. For example,certain violatile chemicals bow up when they reach a certain temperature or atmospheric threshold.
Why must there be an outside intelligent first cause? do you think everything in the universe serves a purpose? Do you think that all the several billion different known species of plants and animals all serve a purpose for their existence, or could they have arisen by random(uncaused) genetic accidents?
When cosmic particles ceaselessly interact over tens of billions of years,can you imagine the billions of tiny changes and random arrangements that ensue? Over more time, such tiny changes may show a pattern that might, in our limited vision, seem like  design and purpose. What we see an purpose driven design might just be one of the billions of minute changes that occur in the grander scheme of cosmic interactions. Our limited lifespan and scope does not allow us to see the universe in its full form. Our sun takes 250 million yrs to achieve its orbit around our galaxy system. Can you imagine all the changes our solar system can go through in that period of time?
To say hold firm in the belief that design and purpose is inherent in the universe pre-supposes that  there is uniformity in the universe, and ignores the obvious fact that the universe is actually choatic, just as it should.It is the inherent purposeless chaos that gives rise the  complexity and diversity of both the universe and to life on earth as we know it. What we see as symmetry and order might just be sensory illusons. How do you explain the fact that one of the moons of mars orbits in retrograde orbit, against what is normaly obtained with other moons? is there a purpose and design for that anomaly?

One can postulate or theorize that the universe has a design, designer and a purpose. That is normal.But to hold that view with the certainty that you do,is , in my view, dogmatic indeed.

The idea that if something exists, it must have a purpose and a designer is old  stale.
For example, a thunderstorm can start a whole chain of events that might at the end , seem purposeful by either an angry diety or a benevolent diety depending on its short and long term effects. Now, does a thunderstorm have to be ignited by an intelligent being?

KAG:
Really? Created by a being? Evidence needed.

P.S. Going out to enjoy the Indian Summer and enjoy the company of my better half. I'll try to get back on any comments as soon as time allows.

KAG:
I've never claimed that "complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities" have sprung into existence magically.

It's not a story. It's based on currently available data.

Yes. Comparatively, when some humans saw the disappearance of the sun, gut instinct and commonsense suggested that the gods were driving the sun from the sky. As it were, by diverse methods, depending on your culture, moving it from one part of the stationary earth (know, yet again, bygut instinct and common sense) to somewhere else.

Why?

Virtual particles and radioactive decay. Not unless your definition of material is different from the lexicon.

Why? By the way, to make by position clear, I haven't said the universe didn't have - for lack of a better word - a "precursor" (time, as we understand it, started within the universe). This should not be mistaken for having to constantly point out, though, that old syllogism that rests on the premise "everything has had a cause" is flawed. Heck, Hume pointed out the problem with the argument centuries ago.

globexl:
@Deepsight:
I always enjoy reading your posts.

I have noticed that you seem to have an almost dogmatic posture on this issue of first cause and uncaused cause.

We know that the universe is still expanding.How is that?
Its either the first cause is still creating or  nothings are still being turned into somethings through mysteries we don’t yet understand.

Scientific knowledge has advanced even much further in the area of astro physics than most of we ordinary folks could ever imagine.
From what I  have gathered so far, I can postulate that ,in time to come, 100yrs,200yrs or even 500yrs , we would have known enough about the other laws of the universe, changed our understanding of the broader laws of physics that would allow us to manipulate matter, space, and time as it suites us. In the contemplated eventuality, it just might be possible to create something from nothing or at least demonstrate how something can be created from nothing.

It may sound very far-fetched, but your mind would boggle if you consider some of  the theories being postulated and investigated. The universe might be far far different from our current understanding.

phxc:
Well I'm not saying that the universe being created is right since no one really knows. The universe created is only an assumption, a more believable assumption the the idea that it is not.

KAG:
Why? Why is the former more plausible than the former? Just curious, really.

Bear in mind, also, that many things that were deemed plausible and more believable based on gut instict, etc, have been shown to be wrong.

Or what, if anything, caused the universe? No?

jayriginal:
@Deep Sight, thank you very much for your response. It was wonderful insight into your way of thinking.
I'd like to discuss some of your responses further.

Its not the same God.

In general, the gods of the major religions are all creators and supernatural beings who intercede and break natural laws on behalf of their worshipers. Those gods are easy to dismiss generally.

Deep Sight, I know you can be very clear when you want to as you have shown before.
The question is simple. Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ? I want a yes or no answer after which you may expantiate.

I detect a reference to karma but the question is simple enough.

See this is another instance of religious terms hindering your expression. The reference to prayers, while I understand it as a spiritual expression, I feel it obscures the very depth you are trying to convey.

About this Karma thing, I think I'll have a bit to say about it at the end of the post.
As far as I know, if there was a God, this will and should be the only way to worship him. It is a very beautiful answer and I dont think anyone can fault it.
I do have a problem with it though, but only because it "seemingly" contradicts your answer on prayer. Do you care to shine a little light on the seeming discrepancy ?

You were quite emphatic about that. This is the answer that surprised me the most. I guess my follow up to that question is "what happens in the afterlife". Can you give a description of what obtains in the afterlife ? I guess I also have to ask you if you believe in reincarnation.

I still wish to refer to the afterlife question. What if the absolute atheist, is not such a person. Let us say, he is morally bankrupt and all the qualities many christians believe an atheist to be.

MyJoe:
Great thread! This is worth every of its bandwidth in gold.

@Deep Sight
In the light of your write-ups in this thread and our recent exchange where I sought to maintain that while the existence of God is both intuitive and logical enough for some, including me, I am not convinced that what is logical for one person may be for another, what do you think of the findings of this research?

jayriginal:
@Deep Sight, thank you for responding. Now that you have said that you are a Deist, I understand where you are coming from. You said I am agnostic. It may sound like that because I said "Im willing to bet that there is no God but I cant say for sure". I can clearly confirm to you that I am not agnostic. I'm uncertain that the most hardcore atheist can say bonafide that he is certain that there is no God.

You have stated that you are not religious. It seems to me however that you are even if slightly so. Your responses give that impression. I do believe though that you are not religious in the way most of the theists here are. I might have mentioned in this thread or some other that if there is a God, it probably is closer to the Deist concept than any. In the same vein, I mentioned that if there is a God, one thing Im certain of is that its clearly not the God of the bible.

Now Deep Sight, I need a clearer picture and I'll beg you to answer these questions. I know you said you are a deist, but its better we put this issue in the light. The reason is when an atheist argues with a theist and you jump to their aid, you are poles apart from the side you are defending and the other side.

The improbability of God refers to the religious God of whatever creed.

My questions are as follows
1) Do you believe in the God of the bible ?

2) If the answer above is no, do you believe in a similar entity (Allah, Buddha, etc) ?

3) Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ?

4) Does your concept of God answer prayers offered to him by mankind ?

5) Is there a prescribed mode of reaching/ speaking with him akin to worship ?

6) Is there an afterlife ?

7) What happens to people who dont believe in your concept of God ?

8| Do you believe the world was created like countless religious myths would have us believe ?

9) Where is the God now and how can we prove him ?

10) If he cant be proven, why not and wherein lies your certainty (or are you just guessing/hoping) ?

jayriginal:
@Deep Sight, I'm still waiting for your answer to the Deist/Theist question.

It occurs to me however that you seem to be against anything that says or purports to say that there is no God.

As KAG has said, you cannot point to the Universe as an argument for God.

It is a blindingly fallacious argument.

It prevents learning. In such a way, you fall victim to confirmation bias. If all mankind accepted the God theory, we would still be in the dark ages. We would be praying instead of going to physicians, we wouldn't know the world as it is now.

Science is still a long way from proving conclusively the origins of the universe (and may never be able to do so), but if we all just accept that "God did it" we will never learn.

Look at the stem cell research controversy, something that holds promise for mankind. It is strongly opposed by religious fervents. This is an example of how religion can hold back progress.

For me, I'm willing to bet that there is no God and never was, but I cannot say for sure.

What I can definitely say for sure is that if there is a God, its definitely not the God of the Bible. I'm sure of that. The Deist notion of God is the only probable likelihood of any such being existing.

If we admit of a God, we have to question who made it, and who made the maker of God and so on.

We don’t have a need for God anymore. If we do, we might as well stop learning and researching.

jayriginal:
Deep Sight, I'm surprised at your bile. First of all Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and his credentials and credibility are superior to yours (for now at least). That is not to say that you are unintelligent in anyway but to go around bashing him in such a manner is unworthy of you.

From some of your posts, I have been led to believe that you are a man of science (I may be mistaken). You are not wrong for holding contrary views (indeed it is healthy) but your manner of expression in this post leaves a lot to be desired.
I read the article from Dawkins and I didn't get any of the impressions you got. This may be partially due to the fact that I am not a man of science, but its also largely due to the fact that a lot of your rebuttals come from errors of logic and semantic misconstruction (whether deliberate or not).

As KAG pointed out Dawkins may not be the best Philosopher. You made a point somewhere

These are not quite rebuttals. Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers. If you read the article properly, you would have met this
Your post is filled with many instances of this, rebutting or seeming to rebut claims that weren't made.

I'd prefer a more robust debate. We can all learn more from it. KAG is a brilliant person and seems to be well versed science wise. It would seem that you are on the intelligent design spectrum. You can make your arguments and let viewers be the judge, though I suspect some creationists would take up arms here too.

There is an article I found and I started a thread on it. Its an article on intelligent design. It would be interesting to hear your comments.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-763915.0.html

KAG:
Don't be so arrogant as to presume you know anything about Dawkins. The problem, as I see it, is that many people on message boards are only aware of the Richard Dawkins as anti-religion wannabe "philosopher", not as the brilliant scientist he actually is. He's poor as a philosopher, but extremely erudite and insightful when it comes to biology and zoology.

There are some of what you've written with which I agree or don't think need addressing, so I've done some snipping.

Reading back on what Dawkins wrote, I think you misunderstood what he meant. He was strictly speaking about life as we know it. Which is why he was speaking solely, at the point you're critiquing, about "apparent purposefulness of the living world": Biosphere. At least that's how I interpreted it.

We've discussed it before, and we may have to agree to disagree, but you're wrong on basing the philosophy or science of why there's something on the argument of a "law" of cause and effect. Actually, thinking about it, maybe it's a problem of language, as one could argue that all effects have causes. However, not all phenomena necessarily need causes.

He's right.

What design elements are found in the human eye and brain? And why couldn't they have evolved? Are those supposed design elements also found in other animals? How so?

This may surprise you, but he's actually right when it comes to eyes - particularly in "less complicated" (to use a somewhat vague term) creatures. Also, Darwin goes on to give an idea of how an eye can emerge naturally in the same paragraph of that book of his.

jayriginal:
The Improbability of God

by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry MagazineVolume 18, Number 3.

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name.

The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive.

We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.


This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is specified in advance.

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance.

The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. [b]Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable.

nuclearboy:
. . . . imagine if Israel owned all the land in the middle east without borders, . .

. . . thus, they as it were, sold their birthright!

globexl:
@Deepsight:
Common sense , philosophical logic, faith: they are all in the same subjective realm. whose common sense and whose philosophical logic can we truly trust to discern reality. Is it Socrates, Aristotle, Plato or Pythogoras, not to mention the hundreds of other competing and contradicting philosopies? Is it the common sense of the fetish native doctor or the modern pulpit pimps?

Empirical logic speaks a universal language that all can understand, test and validate.

globexl:
@Deepsight:
What we call love is hard to define in real terms because we tend to confuse it with a whole lot of other emotional states. So to talk about love, lets talk about parental love or love between parent and offspring. I can make the argument that parental love is an evolutionary physiological trait. Over time, boilogical organisms developed a mechanism to keep track of and protect their DNA. All animal species show a tendency to nurture and protect their ofsprings. As higher mammals, we call it love. It is just a chemically induced sort of magnetic attraction to anyone carrying our own or similar DNA. Studies have shown that parents and offsprings who are seperated at birth will still exhibit an unexplainable affinity or attraction towards one another if they meet accidentaly even after many yrs or decades after seperation. So, love is in the genes. Its an evolotionary trait.

the human brain itself is a very complex mystery that we are still trying to fully understand. But just because it is very complex does not make it supernatural. Afterall, it has had several billion years to evolve to its present level of complexity.

As for sentience, I believe that as the electrical activity inside a living cell reaches or crosses a certain electromagnetic threshhold, the organism draws to itself some sort of cosmic energy equivalent to its frequency(soul??) and self-awareness ensues.

As we continue to increase the computing power of micrprocessors, in time to come we might be able to create computers that become self-aware.

I'm sure you have heard of fuzzy logic chips. These are micrporocessors that are designed to mimic human emotions. Today they are embedded in computers used for currency and equity trading where a lot of human emotions are involved.

The point I'm to to make is that in time, all the hitherto enigmas of conscoiusness and sentience may be explained in purely scientific terms.

Agostics have a core belief in a creator, and I dont.

If we must define god as the primordial first cause of all existence, then WE MUST OF NECESSITY also define the nature of god and what was before the first cause. Its very easy for you say its the uncause of the first cause or unmoved mover. Fancy words indeed.Those are just fancy cop-outs. They still dont mean much or explain anything. Its like trying to explain infinite space and infinite time. Where would be the starting point?

globexl:
I read today in the news that astromers have discovered a planet orbiting two suns: meaning that this planet would have perpetual daylight. Very interesting indeed. a few weeks ago I aslo read that the earth may have had two moons befoe a catastrophic collision chattered one of her moons eons ago. I personally suspect that from her size and orbital position, the earth may have had at least 4 moons in her infancy. I eagerly look forward to learning and discovering the many mysteries of our world and our place in the universe. This is what makes life worth living.

The things that are subjective will remain subjective. Perhaps in the several millenia to come, scientific inquiry my lead us to spiritual truths.

I have not come across any atheist that says there is no beginning or first cause(as u refer to).

The idea of a first cause is not the same as the idea of a creator god. If so, then we can easily hypothesize that in the beginning god, existing in the form of pure electromagnetic energy, exploded or imploded, causing the big slam ,and his debris, thereafter condensed to form matter, atoms and light(residual energy) which makes up the physical universe. We can go further by saying that the atoms got together to form compounds which over eons of time and under the right conditions, formed protein molecules( the precursors of biological life).

I can hold on to such beliefs and still have no belief in the existence of god. Would that be a contradiction?

Believing that there is no god is differenty from denying the existence of god. Dont you think so?

Denying the existence of god means that one is absolutely sure that there is no god. I am not in that camp.

Saying that I dont believe in god means that i am yet to see any RELIABLE proof or evidence, observable or subjective, pointing to it. That puts me in a safer place.

The scientific method(observation, experimentation and analysis) have proved itself far superior in understanding and dealing with human realities than faith or attachments to the subjective first cause or uncaused cause or unmoved mover.

harakiri:
It does if you make bogus claims you can't possibly prove. It does when you assume an imposed sense of superiority over others (who don't share your views) and you have no concrete evidence to back up what you believe in. It does when you turn up your nose on others who have lost faith in an indoctrination that was shoved down their throats since childhood and thus. . .you class them as being "fools" all because some book (which has hundreds of inconsistencies) says so. Is that so hard to grasp?

Godmouth:
One of the encounters I've had: this one was a scary one because of the magnitude of the power of the encounter. I knew this was Jesus because of the power and glory of God surrounding Him. In this vision (night time while asleep) I found myself in a room ( not my room where I sleep in my house here in London) it was actually the house where I lived as a child in Nigeria. While I was sleeping in this vision. Suddenly a man appeared in the room: the whole room was filled with a cloud of smoke and there was the power and glory of God emanating from around His presence. I opened my eyes and as I turned to see what was going on in the room: my whole body became so weak that I could not even move or speak: this was because the power and glory of God paralysed me. I really feel sorry for those who joke with God. This experience I had showed me how powerful God is. As I was lying there unable to move, suddenly my body began to lift up in the air, all by itself just right in front of the Him, I was lifted by the power of God up to about 5 feet in the air as I turned to looked at the being (Jesus) who was standing in front of me; I could not see His face because it was so bright and there was power and glory emanating from Him. Then my body began to go back down slowly until it reached my bed where I was lying: then I woke up. It was the most awesome experience I have had in my life.

God bless!

globexl:
My young daughter of 5yrs has started asking who created god. So far, she has gotten no satisfactory answers. I'm afraid that in her young mind, she might begin to doubt the existence of god. If she decides not to believe in god as a result, would you call that a bad or weak reason for embracing an atheistic viewpoint?

Does she need to write a philosophical or scientific thesis to justify her doubts?

Athiesm is not a philosophical proposition, therefore it does not need an elaborate defence or justification.

It is just simple Doubts or rejection of religious doctrine as it pertains to the origin of the universe.

Athiesm, speaking for myself , is not dogmatic . I simply prefer to begin with doubts and seek to arrive at certainties than to begin with certainties, arrive at doubts and then fight to defend my certainties.

I do agree that logic and intellect might not be the sole arbiter of our reality. As an athiest, I contemplate and intuit the possibility of a first cause or prime mover.

That is the problem with subjective phenomena: It is too fluid. It can take the shape of any vessel that it is poured into.

Actually, the idea of the first cause is the basis of most of the worlds religions. It is something that we have been trying to distance ourselves from and is not something that we should be embracing all over gain. Once you accept a first cause, then naturally you assign a personality to it, a name, human emotions, then a tale follows and its DEJA VU all over again.

Since The first cause or prime mover is arrived at by virtue of intuitive and philosophical comtemplation, it cannot form the basis of any universal theory on the origin of the universe.

We've been there and we've done that ,and still ,have not asnwered the even biger question of "what could have caused the first cause?"

PA1982:
I notice Deep Sight talks about anything rather than the OP!

You still don't get it.

No one has to justify their worldviews to you.

And I'm betting you've never read a word Nigeria's only Nobel laureate has written.

Beautifully written and worth reading.
Thanks for sharing and all the best to your 5 year old!

Wrong again.

Since when are you the judge of what is a proper response?

You don't want to stay on topic? No problem. Start a thread on the subject that interests you, rather than piggy-backing others!

The thread is about the commentary of the journalist.
Or have you forgotten the OP already?