₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
The nature of your your queries on every line is such that I may have to pass. Particularly the fact that you query why one says something cannot come from nothing leads me to believe that engaging you might be frustrating and pointless. Unless you can provide a strong reason for such a query I will have to leave it at this. I however thank you for your time. Good evening.

DeepSight:
In one line, organisms with traits or mutations that favour survival get to survive more preponderantly and pass down their genes, while organisms without such traits or mutations tend not to survive.

Natural selection does not explain many instinctive behavioural patterns. Can you tell me how it explains the homing bahaviour of salmon for example?

plaetton:
I never referred to scientific theories as facts.
They are the accepted scientific understanding , often incomplete, of natural phenomena.

DeepSight:
There are things in reality that transcend physics and are discerned more by advanced philosophy at the level of logic and by astral exposure at the level of the spiritual. But since we are at the level of logic here, let us leave the spiritual and only utilize philosophical arguments.

In this I will be brief, but can expand on it if you wish.

You pointed out the problem of an infinite regress. Absorb the following -

1. Something cannot come from nothing

2. Since something exists, then it came from something prior

3. Nothingness does not exist

4. Therefore somethngness always existed

5. Therefore we can infer the existence of a permanent and self existent something.

What could be that permanent and self-existent something?

We can start with elements of it - such as eternal time (eternity) and infinite space (infinty).

Evident fitness for purpose. When a complex system is so intricately set up as to render far too improbable or even impossible the thought that it had no element of mind behind it, and when it then is so set up as to be evidently fit for specific purpose, this strongly suggests design to every rational person.

One thing we need to do is to get rid of the idea that the very notion of design is somehow taboo.

Start with your brain.

By natural selection.

DeepSight:
To be clear I believe in evolution. However it has its limitations and not everything in nature can be explained by it. I firmly believe - nay, I know, that sexual reproduction cannot be explained by evolution.

Many instincts can be explained not just by evolution but even just by stimuli and reaction to stimuli. However there are many instinctive behavioural partterns which are either difficult or impossible to explain with evolution.

DeepSight:
A valid question and while I cannot account for it, it stands to reason to me that there exists an ultimate source of all things, and that is what I personally call God. It is not the Abrahamic version of God, it is not a person as understood in the anthropomorphic sense either. It is a transcendantal and ineffable element.

There are actually things in nature the complexity and specificity of which actually logically presuppose design. Its not a question of a God of the gaps argument - rather the question should rebound to those who claim that certain evidently designed things were not designed. There is an age old analogy about this, but I dont want to cite it. It has to do with a watch or a clock. Suffice to say that if you investigate the workings of a single cell within your body, not to speak of the staggering workings of the human brain - which far exceed the workings of the most complex computers, you will find that it is rational to presuposse that there is evidence of design in these things. You will find that it is that person who claims that there is no element of design who really has questions to answer.

Questioning evident gaps in the Theory of Evolution does not mean one does not understand it.
Observing evidence of design in nature also does not mean that one does not understand evolution.

I actualy believe in evolution but I dont believe it's all that accounts for life as we know it. In my view, it works side by side with many obvious elements of programming and design.

plaetton:
The enigma of the pyramids is where there is various shades of opinion.
Whilest everyone is entitled to an opinion, opinion based on evidence would always be a superior opinion.
For example, if humans built the pyramids, what can we look for to substantiate that ?
Can we scientifically pinpoint when exactly they were built? Were there available tools, workforce, food, mathematical and engineering know-how at such a period ?

If superior technological knowledge built the pyramids, then what clues should we be looking for ? Do we find such clues ?

These are the basis upon which one can put out a rational opinion on that enigma.

DeepSight:
[/quote][quote author=DeepSight post=135992397][color=#990000]

plaetton:
I agree to some extent.

But Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to TOE. It is not based on any testable science.
Is is just wishful thinking by people who cannot accept the absence of a Creator or designer in the scientific Theory Of Evolution.

DeepSight:
Intelligent Design is not the stupid retarded idea that many atheists or scientists try to make it out as. There is much in nature that strongly suggests design. I don't like the attitude of many that Intelligent Design is somehow the preserve of idiots or illiterates and is somehow taboo.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and some level of design and programming inherent in the world around us, I don't however believe that that design or programming is all encompassing or perfect or even necessarily made for good. Much of it in my sight is downright flawed, morbid, sadistic and barbaric.

I also don't believe that GOD, which I see as the source of all existence, directly created this world and I think it is far more likely that it is the work of vastly lesser beings. I also believe that our existence could be many possible things including a scientific experiment or even a source of cosmic entertainment.

triplechoice:
No. He only highlighted certain inexplicable phenomenon in nature and seeks to know the answer .

You think he's hinting at intelligent design because his argument seems similar to those of religious people who completely reject TOE.

DeepSight:
What tells newly born puppies to look for the breasts of a mother they have never seen and still cant see?
What tells new born turtles born on a beach to head to the sea once hatched?

Tell me.

On this thread, I intend to cite many examples of inexplicable instinct - inexplicable if the strict materialist random and evolutionary wordview holds true.

plaetton:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

How many people do not subscribe to the Gravitational Theory ?
Best way to register that one does not subscribe to the theory of Gravitation would be to test it and jump from a multi-storey building.

plaetton:
Let me give an example.
There is so much we are still trying to understand about our Sun. But from what we know so far, all the planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun ,albeit, with different orbital periods. We also know that our Sun is the source, regulator and sustainer of life in our planet.
Now, if I make the proposition that the Sun is our Heavenly Father and therefore our God( having all the attributes of god).
You may say that you do not subscribe to that characterization of the Sun as our Heavenly father God. You would say for either if 2 reasons: 1. Either the characterization of the Sun as our heavenly father and God offends your religious sensibilities, or 2. You have not been acquainted with the mechanisms through which the Sun control all planets as well sustaining life on Earth.

The point here being that you can subscribe or subscribe to a philosophical proposition. But you are not at liberty to subscribe or unsubscribe to a scientific theory , unless, you can duly refute that theory or come up with a scientifically superior theory.
You refute science with better science, not with feelings .

plaetton:
I also asked you if you ' subscribe ' to the Atomic theory or the Germ Theory or the Gravitational Theory.
Funny that no one tries to cast doubts on the Gravitational Theory, even though that particular theory is incomplete as well, with gapping holes.

plaetton:
It was not petty.
You and I know exactly what was meant there.

triplechoice:
I think it's you that's assuming that, maybe from past experience with religious people who have tried to discredit TOE or dismiss it in place of creation science ideas

He's not doing that here or linking it with atheism, but asking for explanation for some parts of it which he refer to has inexplicable.

plaetton:
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, to say that not all atheists SUBSCRIBE to TOE is laughable.
A scientific theory does not offer a SUBSCRIPTION service. It is not a membership service.

By the way, which scientific theories do you currently SUBSCRIBE to ?
The Gravitational Theory, The Germ Theory, The Atomic theory?
Do you think it's a pick and choose subscription service?
It is not.
These are deep and complex scientific ideas that the far majority of human population are hardly aware and have zero or very limited understanding.
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

triplechoice:
Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining their them.

DeepSight:
Well said but consciousness is another very difficult problem and I don't think it is right to say we know how it is spawned. It remains a mystery and this is why you have what is called "the hard problem of consciousness."



Wouldn't that be wonderful?

There are many things that are impossible with our current scientific knowledge which will become possible in future though.

One thing I personally believe is that everything that happens is recorded in literal video in the light around us.

This stands to scientific reason because light carries images and this is how we see, when those images come into contact with our eyes and get interpreted by our brains.

What is needed is the appropriate tool to download images from light and it will become possible to even view events from the past. If you think this is far fetched, consider that when you look at a star you are actually seeing an image from the very far past because it has taken that light millions of years to travel to you. In fact the star you are looking at may have actually ceased to exist.

Thus you never can tell, it may one day be possible to view memories like video.

DeepSight:
Well, on this thread I have cited the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction for example.

As to the topic of the thread I have cited the paucity of strong explanations for much instinctual behaviour.

This doesn't mean I am saying there aren't explanations. The generality of instinctual behaviour can be easily explained. However there are some patterns which are difficult to explain.

DeepSight:
I was giving an analogy. The point being that not everyone who queries current scientific understanding is saying "God did it."

It needn't be about either the ToE or the BB Theory.

DeepSight:
I hope you know even an atheist can point out problems with for example, the theory of evolution, without it being the case that he is trying to say "God did it."

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

Kaycee7:
Not just any YouTuber. One of the pioneers of the YouTube anime game and the greatest to ever do it. Put some respect on his name

FreeIgboho:
Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one.
Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long.
Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

FreeIgboho:
Of course he was. Very much so. And despite everything and all the obfuscation, his essence comes through intact!

LordReed:
I think I was prepared for whatever came out of it. Plus I was determined to follow through with the outcome, it just so happened that the outcome was atheism. I think in practice believers and atheists are not much different is just that believers can be persuaded into really terrible ideas more easily than atheists can.

FreeIgboho:
Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw
I've told him that "reality" itself is incoherent not only God

LordReed:
Not at all. It was liberating and refreshing like swimming after a good workout.