₦airaland Forum

Again - a Micro Chip -

Needed an Intelligent Designer?

But this did not?

Which is more complex. Which is a greater intricate wonder. Which is more built for purpose?

So Guys - This needed a Designer -

But this needed a designer?

Which is more complex?

Chrisbenogor:
With all due respect philosophers tend to stick to language as it is more susceptible to being interpreted in different ways, if a mathematician from Khuvuki land is reading this thread and cannot not make out the English he would definitely see
0 + 0 = 0
Your whole argument on that thread hinges on this equation, like I said there by all mean say nothingness somethingness and all the shenanigans but leave mathematics out of it, statements that are reduced to mathematical models have to be tested and when yours is reduced then it shows how ridiculous what you are saying is.
Dear deep sight, keep your arguments on a grammatical level, that way we can go on and on and on and on and on talking about conjectures and meanings, but when you reduce it to mathematics, always realise that it is an exact science, you do not bandy around equations that are based on emotions, you state equations that can stand rigorous and serious testing.

What part of 0 + 0 = 0 is not exact mathematics? Why does the numeric figure 0 appear at all in the numeric sequence if it has no relevance?

Or is 0 + 0 = to anything else other than 0?

With respect, this is not an equation based on emotions, you go and fetch me a more correct answer to the question, then i can hear you.

@ Pastor - sorry about the digression. I will leave the thread to concentrate now. Chris, we can address these questions on the other thread.

Did not need a designer?

Chrisbenogor:
The mathematics of Deep Sights reasoning is spurious, let us stop enabling it.
Wirinet made an excellent post on the other thread, 0 + 0 = 0 says nothing, its is not a standard mathematical expression
0 + 1 = 1 can mean every and so many things,
like pastor pointed out
0 + 1 orange = 1 orange
0 + 1 God = 1 God
your argument is saying God is equal to God, why are we here?

I answered Wirinet on that: this is what i wrote -

Unfortunately it appears you have misunderstood the idea of the zero equation. It really is a statement of nothingness, which by that very nothingness implicitly makes the case for somethingness, an irremovable and necessary quantity which must exist in infinitude for anything at all to exist. The logical deduction for this remains the self evident truth within the zero equation that somethingness cannot come out of nothingness, and thus, only a pre-existent somethingness, could sire the universe as we know it.

So understand the following, Chris and don't jump to conclusions -

   1. The Zero equation simply shows the impossibility of nothingness, and is primarily a philosophical rather than mathematical equation.

   2. 0 + 1 = 1 should be understood in this light. The imputation being that to arrive at number 1, (or any quantity) you will need some other quantities however described. Dont miss the point, because i could just as easily have said: 0 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 or a million other ways i could have phrased it: the point would remain the same: that there must be a component (however described) in the coming into being of things that did not always exist.

So be careful and more thorough in understanding philosophical arguments, and do not limit yourself from contextual understandings of what is written.

Did not require a Designer?

Mazaje -

Regarding predicting the future, dont be a rascal, you know very well i am not referring to stock market analysts.

I mean dreams for example.

Some people regularly foresee in their dreams events that take place further on in future.

(This has been my personal experience for most of my life, and its a constant repetitive feature, such that i cannot dismiss it.)

Will you suggest -

  1. That it does not happen

  2. That even if it happens it is a physical affair?

Respond.

Below in blue is a quote from you on the on-going thread on Empirical Reasoning for Theism.

Can you deny that it infers strongly that you were arguing against the existence of God.

Please DeepSight, your post is hard to follow without an understanding of what you mean by intelligence.

Are you saying that where there is complexity there must be intelligence. When I unplug my kitchen sink the water runs down the plughole in a complex and intricate swirl of vortices. Does that make my Sink an intelligent being?

And as for 1 plus 1 equalling 2, that one is just impossible to agree or disagree without knowing what you mean by intelligence.

Quote from: Deep Sight on August 27, 2009, 03:44 PM

We established that the universe is something. We also established that no amalgamation of nothings can make a something. We therefore saw that something must have been involved in the coming into being of the universe. (0 + 1 = 1).



What something was involved in the coming into being of the something that brought the universe into being?

When 0 plus 1 equals 1 the both 1s are equivalent. If you use one 1 to represent the universe then how comes the other 1 is God. What you are saying is that
0 plus God = Universe

Therefore God = Universe
QED

I actually used the very elementary example of stone tools for a special reason: to show that even the most elementary designs normally infer intelligence.

However note that i did not posit that Design alone proves intelligence.

I said:

Design + Purpose verifies Intelligence. You may put it this way: When a specific Design is seen to be set up for a particular purpose which achieves a problem solving solution - this is evidence of mental activity.

Let's put the stone tools aside for a moment. The universe is vastly more complex than stone tools. Let's use something that is even vaguely as complex. Let's say a lap top computer. (Please note that Laptops do not have anything near the complexity of a human brain).

So you come across a lap top in a desert.

You conclude -

1. It shows specific and complex design

2. The design is directed at specific functional purposes

3. It was therefore made by an Intelligent Element

OR -

It popped out of thin air

OR -

There was an earthquake, and it appeared as a result

OR -

The fusion of forces in nature such as magnetism, electricity, etc created the laptop.


ANSWER ME TUDOR!!!!

mazaje:
I don't believe in evolution, I don't know how humans came about and I will not accept empty platitudes and meaningless conjectures that I know are false just to make me feel good(evolution and creationism). I believed in my Christian faith and was very interested in it. So interested in fact that I wanted to learn more, to really understand from a knowledge based and rational basis, not just accept empty platitudes as truth. Unfortunately, (or rather fortunately) the more I dug for understanding the more I found that my faith was empty of thought and reason(Thats why people are encourage to accept it purely based on faith even when the claims it makes make no sense at all). It was only a shaky structure of baseless platitude piled on baseless platitude. After many years of soul searching, religious research, and reasoning, I finally found what I know is the truth  and that is there are no gods, satan, witches etc, only desperate people clinging to the idea of gods to satisfy their need to be "taken care of" by some "higher authority", while looking for a scape goat to blame for their misfortunes(satan, devil, witches etc) that usually comes about as a result of their own greed, ignorance, stupidity, wickedness and selfishness. . . . . .

So you really discountenance completely the existence of all spirituality whatsoever (I'm not talking about God).

If you discountenance the existence of all spirituality, how do you explain the following phenomena -

   1. People who can predict the future

   2. People who describe in detail places they have never been to, or suddenly speak a foreign language

   3. Red Indians who can tell the location and condition of relatives by looking at the skies

   4. Indian monks who levitate, or are buried alive for weeks at a stretch and emerge alive

   5. People who undertake out-of-body experiences

   6. Telepathy

   7. Psycho-kinesis and Poltergeism

Aside from these, can you please indicate your ideas as to how life arose on this earth, since you accept neither creationism or evolution. Doubtless, as a thinking person, the question must trouble or at least interest you, and surely you must have some personal ideas as to how it arose, ? Care to share? Or just plain dislocated?

wirinet:
It is a pity i have been off Nairaland for a week (man cannot live by Nairaland alone), and i have missed this very interesting and cerebral thread. Well done to Deep Sight for the thread and to my able bothers, Pastor, Huxley, Toneyb, Tudor,Chrisbenogor , etc. you guys make me feel proud to be a Nigerian. Now let me add my own thought on the matter, i hope i am not taking you all back because i am joining the debate late.

Deep Sight, the major flaw in your argument is your equation is wrong, mathematically, logically and scientifically.
First there is nothing like 0 +0 = 0 in mathematics, in all my years of studying mathematics, i had never come across such equation. Because zero is used to represent absence of a quantity, so how can you add two quantities that is not present. When we try to divide 0 by a figure we get an indeterminate quantity.

Secondly zero does not mean absolute nothing, it only means the absent of a specific quantity we are dealing with. Because a space has zero amount of matter does not mean it has zero amount of all other physical quantities known to nature, like energy, gravity, magnetism, electric charge etc. And because of the interchangeability of matter and energy, a space with zero matter but with photons can change to a space with zero photons and matter instantly.

Then finally in there realm of quantum physics, quantities are not absolute but as a result of complex interactions and probabilities of energy and particles. Also note in the area of relativistic physics, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2 but depends on their speed relative to each other and to the observer.

Let me finish by adding that when you say zero, you will have to tell us zero what? As pastor says maths is abstractions but science does not allow abstraction like 0,1,2, etc without specifics.

Wirinet! You are most welcome! I have long awaited you on this thread.

Unfortunately it appears you have misunderstood the idea of the zero equation. It really is a statement of nothingness, which by that very nothingness implicitly makes the case for somethingness, an irremovable and necessary quantity which must exist in infinitude for anything at all to exist. The logical deduction for this remains the self evident truth within the zero equation that somethingness cannot come out of nothingness, an thus, only a pre-existent somethingness, could sire the universe as we know it.

With reference to your ideas on the relativity of numbers, without getting into an extended argument about that, i will restrict myself to stating that even if any other fugures may have a relative co-relation in different contexts, that certainly will not apply to the zero quantity - because by definition it means nothing. There is therefore nothing to co relate with and nothing to be relative to. Thus the zero we refer to is the only zero that can be seriously considered: absolute nothing. In this context, all the energies you referred to (magnetism, gravity, electricity, etc) do not qualify as zero because they are something. They are a force, even if invisible. In this regard, the zero equation still rings true: these forces could not have come out of nothing. Nor could they be eternal in the past given the fact that the universe has a finite begining. Thus something sparked them into existence.

I am very disturbed by the fact, as Prizm noted, that sometimes we begin to dwell on definitions which no honest discussants would bother to create a fuss about. Can it really be said that there is any uncertainty about the meaning of "nothingness" or "zero"?


Chrisbenegor ? ? ?

Pastor, e ku jo meta.

I have one question for you. I have always thought from your nickname "Pastor AIO" that you must be christian. But i have seen you on many threads arguing vociferously against the existence of God, or against churches.

Can you please clarify.

@ Poster: It is clear that you have very little sense.

Also that you have very little to do with your time.

I ASK YOU AGAIN - WAS MOSES A CHRISTIAN? WHAT ABOUT YOUR FOREFATHERS IN AFRICA, ALL DAMNED? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BILLIONS WHO HAVE DIED IN FAR FLUNG PARTS OF THE WORLD WITHOUT EVER HEARING OF CHRIST?

Are you alright?

Acts 10: 34 - 35: " I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

wHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THIS? ? ?

Adittionally, quite frankly once you accept the existence of a Prime Mover, you have ceded the debate: because we did not set out to prove the peculiar nature of the Prime Mover but its existence. We have also seen that it must perforce qualify as a being - even if in a broad context.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=315294.msg4497204#msg4497204 date=1252333003]Uh oh, this discussion is going down an all too familiar route.

Deepsight,
what you've been able to show is there should (according to you) be a first cause/prime mover/force for the universe. . . . Is that what you call god?
Is this force a 'being'?
What does this 'being' hope to acheive by creating the universe?
What does it want from us?
Can we experience this prime mover?[/quote]Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such. Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

@ Bizbooks -

Accepted.

Every nation gets stereotyped, that's only normal.

Would you sue any person for referring to any of the following:

1. An Italian Mafia Gangster

2. A Palestinian Suicide Bomber

3. A Liberian Blood Diamond Miner

4. A white South African Racist

5. A Colombian Drug Dealer

6. Saudi - Arabian Abuse of Womens Rights

7. A Nigerian Internet Scamist

Its only normal folks.

@ Poster: why are you determined to kill yourself on the basis of ancient Judaic and European Myths.

Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, etc are ALL irrelevant to your salvation.

If a man will love God, and love his fellow man, ALL is well with him.

I ask you: Do you regard all your ancestors as damned because they never heard about the Jewish Carpenter? ? ?

What about the billions of people world-wide who have lived and died without ever hearing of a man called Jesus? You believe they are all damned? ? ?

Get real. Humanity is wide, complex and diverse. There is no reason why we should all belong to the same culture, history or religion. That is simply impossible.

Note: Acts 10: 34 - 35: " I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

Capish?

huxley:
Supposing I grant to you that the God of your definition exists, BUT I contest that this God did not cause the universe - that this universe was caused by some other entity who by necessity also exists, but is not the God of your definition. So, in effect, the God you posit is on an eternal holiday, but the entity of my definition is a diligent creator busily in the habit of creating universes.

I contend that my proposition is equally valid, don't you agree?

No this is not tenable. For the simple reason that the GOD i have defined was defined with specific reference to being the Cause of the Universe, and all existence. That very causation, is the context for the proof of his existence. Thus this statement of yours is completely out of context.

So understand: since things exist, there is an irremovable quantity on the left side of the equation. Defining or describing it is not my business.

But let it suffice to state that it should not be surprising that that originating quantity needn't have a cause. I explained this when i spoke about numbers, for example. They needn't be caused.

Prizm, Huxley - many thanks for expatiating the issues.

However, lets try to keep the arguments simple, otherwise we shall be lost in a maze of extended and unnecessary philosophy.

Huxley - you need to understand this: what is sought to be proven IS NOT the mechanics of God, how he must interact with the universe, how he caused it, etc. If you understand this, you will have no need to ask questions such as: "How does he interact with the universe, can he move an object from point A to point B", ETC.

What is sought to be proven is that AN element exists which CAUSED the universe. That element is the element we seek to refer to as the FIRST MOVER, or if you like, GOD.

It seems to me that the significance of the equation i laid out in the beginning is entirely lost on everybody.

If we appreciate that 0 + 0 (or any amalgamation or configuration of zeros) will always = zero, we will immediately see the irrefutable logic in Prizm's Cosmological Argument: to wit: Once any quantity exists - it could not have come from zero.

I am surprised and somewhat amused that the participants on this thread have failed to see the deeper implicit truth embedded in this rationale about the existence of God: because embedded within that equation lies the very obvious fact that since things exist, there must perforce be on the left side of the equation an irremovable and permanent quantity. That's what makes it clear that the element, whatever it is, is eternal.

It is futile and entirely outside the point of this thread, to begin to ask - "How did God begin to exist" or "what caused God" for several reasons -

1. As Prizm pointed out - God is not said to have begun to exist, he is not said to have been caused

2. This is made clear within a deeper understanding of the zero equation

3. And most importantly, we are not out to give the rationale for his existence, or show the mechanics of his operations, but simply to show that PERFORCE, he (or "she", or "it" IS THERE.

@ Tudor - i would suggest that rather than sit back in the discussion, you begin to show us how these equations are disproven, or actively advance proof that GOD POSITIVELY does not exist.

Through the Cause and Effect argument we can prove there was a cause for existence.

But with no argument can we ever PROVE that GOD POSITIVELY DOES NOT EXIST.

Krayola:
Did numbers exist before we started counting? I thought we invented numbers . . .

So the sun was not 1 sun before we arrived on the earth simply because we were not there to count it?

And the galaxies & stars were not x billion galaxies and y billion stars simply becuase we were not there to count them? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Does it really make sense to think that physical things always were?

Is it not common observance and common knowledge that physical things come into being and dissipate? Even the stars, creatures, etc. Were you always here?

The only things that have always been exist in the world of forms and ideas.

E.g: numbers; energy, time, space, etc.

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=318761.msg4477184#msg4477184 date=1251999930]And reh reh reh reh reh reh reh. . . . .
Please. . . .keep your warped opinion to yourself.
Narrow mind or whatever you call it is not something even a goat can attach to me but it makes you less than a goat.
I get it. . . .now.[/quote]More insults, nice, very mature indeed.

Cheers!

@ Sauron: Those are people you - we all - should be proud of as Nigerians. Just like the Nobel Laureate we are just as surely proud of.

I repeat: tribalizing issues shows a desperately narrow mind.

Not going to argue on this cos looks like you trade insults for reasoning.

Peace.

@ Sauron, tribalizing issues shows a very narrow mind indeed. and while you talk about nobel laureates, that's very good, but that does not make chinua achebe or chinamanda adichie yorubas!

In other fields, am sure you know who the current MD of the world bank is - yep Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, doesn't really sound like a yoruba name does it? O and Phillip Emegwali, technology genius in the states?

I am not Ibo, but i feel its not really smart to tribalize issues, cos then you trivialize them!

Peace.

Mr Momodu is the same clown who wrote an article at the back of Thisday defending the RCCG purchase of a private jet for pastor [b]G[/b]reedy [b]O[/b]racle Adeboye.

You see, he is shallow, and has no integrity. The idiot even went so far as to ask: so what if the Pope flies Alitalia?

Aside that, he really is a very poor writer, gramatically and structurally.

@ eapgold: no pulling anybody down, am not interested in Ovation, i wish him well with that. My issue is with the article he wrote on the private jet issue.

No doubt energey is involved in the process. The big bang must have resulted from concentrated energy of some sort. However, energy alone could not have ordered the universe in its present form. The dynamics of life on earth for example lead me to believe that there is another, more crucial element that you are missing. Just looking at the Human Eye for example and its amazing engineering, or the instincts of animals such as those that participate in the great cross atlantic migrations, sea turtles and wildebeest lead me to believe there is something more than just energy.

"Let there be Light." That's energy no doubt.