Red Hot Chili Peppers - Snow [Hey Oh]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0vM9iINl28&pp=ygUacmVkIGhvdCBjaGlsaSBwZXBwZXJzIHNub3c%3D

@CuteMike01

I really don't enjoy being the one to pour the sand in your proverbial garri here but while your article does bring up some interesting points, I find your whole categorization to be a bit limiting. For me, I think the best partner for any man or woman is someone who checks all of his/her boxes, not someone who fits into a neat little pre-packaged label. As a lady, I don't think it's wise to settle for a knock-off version of someone else's ideal man. I'd be more interested in finding someone who complements me, challenges me, and makes me the best version of myself. So there's that.

assholemods:
Only one 100 Naira condom could have prevented your miserable birth but I don't blame you rather I blame your irresponsible father. Asewo!

Funny you should say that, because whenever I read your posts, you sound exactly like someone I'd imagine regret would look like personified. Psychological projection is a nasty bitch. I also couldn't help but notice how you clumsily quoted me twice, and still couldn't format your response properly in the two posts, which further accentuates your retard, as well as how digitally illiterate you are. I'm curious, how do you sleep at night knowing that your singular brain cell is preventing you from ascending beyond the level of petty playground insults like "YoUr dADDy sHoULd hAve WOrn A ConDOmN!"?

finallybusy:
We'll never come to an agreement on the subject matter.

I'm okay with that. I think I've made my points and shown that there's actual value in teaching chess in schools, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on the importance of financial success.

finallybusy:
At the end of the day everyone judges the next person using their net worth.

True. But don't forget that well-rounded thinkers can achieve success beyond just a paycheck. 😉

assholemods:

It is your life that will be uneventful! I should engage in a discussion with a non entity and a riff raff dirty woman like you! Stupid bitch!
Enjoy your miserable and unfortunate life!

Bless your cotton socks, I thought you said you were done responding to me. You just couldn't help yourself, could you? I must have really struck a nerve and gotten your goat for you to escalate to blatant misogyny and fortune-telling. How very Christ-like of you.

It seems your God didn't grant you the vocabulary for a decent argument, but hey, at least you can easily channel your utter lack of basic manners. Enjoy your weekend, too... unless divine intervention rains down misery upon you first. 😂

assholemods:

Please bounce I am done with you! Have a nice weekend.

I'm not surprised you don't want to engage any further. Your invisible sky daddy should spank your bottom for making that ridiculous non-argument and running off, tail between legs. Enjoy your divinely uneventful weekend.

chiboyo:


So sorry I spilled the beans, the games are a very interesting watch nonetheless especially the last phase that had Fabiano, Hikaru, Ian and Gukesh battling for 1st place...
Not to forget how Alireza really underperformed (sorry for spilling another beans lol)

Alireza underperformed in the 2022 candidates as well, so not much surprise there. It's crazy because I read something online some time ago about Magnus Carlsen propping up Alireza as his only worthy foe. I'll cite the link if I can find it.

Meanwhile, are you on chess.com? And what's your rating (blitz and rapid)..

Yup, TheQueenIsBack22. Can't remember my rating though. It's been ages since I played. 😅

finallybusy:
What is Garry Kasparov’s net worth? Children should be taught real world survival skills. Chess na for who chop belleful.

Why does everything have to be about making money? Chess teaches critical thinking, planning skills, and problem-solving under pressure -- practical real world survival skills that will be valuable in nearly every field. Plus, it's just plain fun. 😁

jeromestarks:

Did you marry as a virgin?
Are you still together with the man who disvirgined you?

If your answer to the above questions is no, then you're a finished woman.

I just did a quick review of your profile, and I have to apologize for bothering you to have an actual discussion. Matters of national concern should be the least of your problems. I'm not here to engage in a battle of wits with someone who thinks virginity is a measure of a woman's worth. That's not a debate, that's a therapy session. And I'm not the therapist you desperately need. So please, go ahead and keep trolling. I'll be over here, thanking the cosmic overlords that I don't share your maladies, and that I'm not the one who's languishing in the Dark Ages.

TYCO77:
[color=#000099][/color]

Your narrative is right, but you can as well agree that when one take a close sight and have a deep meditation of lyrics of the old National Anthem it invokes the spirit of patriotism and brotherliness which is one of the essential substance nations need to get things right.

How laughably sentimental of you. It actually bothers me that some Nigerians can make such naive comments as the above. It's a total non sequitur to suggest that revising our national anthem is a sufficient solution to the current economic woes. You claim the old national anthem evokes a "spirit of patriotism and brotherliness" but somehow are too blind to realize that the current administration's policies (or lack thereof) are not exactly fostering this sense of brotherliness and patriotism you are alluding to. No amount of nostalgia can put food on the table or create jobs. It's time for substance over sentimentality!

jeromestarks:
They didn't change the anthem. They only went back to the original.

If you're not the one who disvirgined your wife, you will regret your marriage because she will definitely go back to fvck her ex and you will train his children. How will you suffer to pay the bride price of a woman who was fvcked with just two eggs and indomie?

The original anthem is better. Just like women, they're better in their original state. Do not breed with a second woman. Find an original (virgin) woman.

If this is supposed to be sarcasm, then I must admit you've got immense talent.

Noname - Boomboom (Ft. Ayoni)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHMpclh3n5s&pp=ygUPTm9uYW1lIGJvb21ib29t

Blood of Zeus (TV Series 2020-)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JAQh544RHE&pp=ygUWYmxvb2Qgb2YgemV1cyB0cmFpbGVyIA%3D%3D

A commoner living in ancient Greece, Heron discovers his true heritage as a son of Zeus, and his purpose: to save the world from a demonic army.

IMDb rating: 7.5/10

I personally don't have a dog in this fight. However, I can't help but feel that people are getting carried away here. Don't get me wrong: as a literature enthusiast, I'm a massive fan of Wole Soyinka, and have been familiar with his works since pretty much my entire childhood. I'm sure many people here are fans as well.

Naturally, political assertions made by esteemed and well respected public figures like Wole Soyinka carry a lot of weight, and I think this makes it very easy for people to fall prey to the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, instead of evaluating his arguments solely on their merit. That being said, let's properly examine Soyinka's reasoning. His argument for Obi's incompetence basically hinges on Obi's alleged inability to rein in his "Obidients". He accuses Obi of encouraging divisive behavior and fostering an environment where facts are manufactured. He directs his ire at the toxic online culture perpetuated by some Obidients, which he believes reflects poorly on Obi's leadership abilities. Now, while Soyinka's critique of online toxicity is completely valid, and I agree with it a hundred percent, I consider it to be a misplaced criticism and a variant of the ad hominem fallacy. Why? Because I still think it's essential to separate the candidate from their supporters' actions. Obi's leadership style and policies should be the primary focus, rather than ascribing guilt by association. Obi is his own person, and so is your average Obidient. As brilliant as Soyinka is, his logic here is a bit loose.

TLDR; If Soyinka wants to make a valid criticism of Obi's potential as President, he should be focusing on Obi's antecedents, not the actions of his followers.

budaatum:
Of course chess should be taught in Nigerian schools, after we learn to count with ludo.

Trying to sponsor a chess club in a school, but coordinating is tricky. Will persevere though.

Wow, that's really cool to hear. Wishing you luck!

chiboyo:


Gotham chess is a great chess content creator, he makes chess so much fun to watch!

Facts. I especially love how he narrates the chess games with the intricacy of a Sherlock thriller and the suspense of a Hitchcock masterpiece. It makes amateurs like me so mind blown all the time. I could watch him for hours. 😁

Meanwhile, you came late to the party o..

Gukesh surprisingly took the day, a major upset for perennial winners like Ian Nepo...

Ooof! There goes the suspense for me. I was going to tell you not to spoil the outcome but perhaps I exercised too much faith that you wouldn't spill the beans. 😂

In my review of the tournament so far, he's been quite solid, so I guess that's okay. I was rooting for Hikaru as well.

Poor Nepo.

assholemods:

There is no insult in my comment. Read to understand before commenting period!

Seriously? "Read better"? That's your defense?

Perhaps if your god spent less time taking credit for people's hardwork and more time teaching basic logic to his "people", we wouldn't be having this misunderstanding.

"Chess trains logical thinking. It teaches how to make decisions, trains memory, strengthens will power, motivates children to win, and teaches them how to deal with defeat. It’s the only school subject that can do all of this."

https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-che-should-be-required-in-us-schools-170413

What do you guys think?

chiboyo:
@uche40, are you following the candidates?

Who do you think would win?

I am rooting for Hikaru though

Hi, this is uche40.

I didn't start early but I'm currently watching the recaps on GothamChess YouTube channel.

Childish Gambino - Human Sacrifice


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFtDbLUaNPQ&pp=ygUgY2hpbGRpc2ggZ2FtYmlubyBodW1hbiBTYWNyaWZpY2U%3D

Ashirioluwa:


He is expressing his gratitude to everyone who have prayed for him.

It seems that you haven't seen or heard of anyone who underwent surgery at the best hospital with the best physicians, only to pass away during or after the procedure.

My friend, God alone is worthy of all praise.

So thanking the skilled surgeons who spent years honing their craft is out of the question? Did your god outsource creation?

assholemods:

When people read without comprehension this is the type of comment you get. A five year old will not make this type of comment after reading the post. What a shame!

Maybe you can actually point out the fallacy in his statements instead of slinging playground insults?

Looks interesting. I'll keep tabs on it.

haybhi1:
Hello, intelligentsia. Welcome back. How're doing, Jessie? Did you not stress out while away?

Intelligentsia? LOL. You give me too much credit.

I've been well, by the way. Just been preoccupied with work. Thanks for asking.

StillDtruth:


Which space?

A rock.hurtling through our space on earth has a cause, in all books and (you and i aint seen.a rock flying through the space outside the earth and even if it did, it would definitely have a cause because rocks dont fly on their own, hoing by our own experoence on earth!

You're right, a rock hurtling through our atmosphere has a cause, but that's not the kind of space I'm talking about. I'm talking about the vast expanse of the cosmos, where celestial bodies and galaxies dance to the tune of gravity and physics. The "space" where stars and planets form, and yes, even rocks can hurtle through the void. The bit about rocks flying on their own is irrelevant. The point here is this: in that vast cosmic space, what constitutes a "cause"? Is it still a simplistic, human-defined concept, or does it become something more complex, more nuanced, more...cosmic?

TenQ:

It is simple logic ma.
When we see an interdependent assembly of systems having a unified function, we thing that it was from an INTELLIGENT Mind.

Even something as small as a Pen cannot be other than by an intelligent mind irrespective of how we argue that it somehow evolved from the earth's basic elements.

I look with one eye at anyone who thinks that complex interdependent assembly of systems having a unified function, is not a proof of an intelligent mind.

The simplicity of your logic is almost charming, but unfortunately, it's still so very misguided. It also strikes me as intellectual laziness because your argument amounts to nothing beyond guesswork, if you're really being honest to yourself. We're still figuring out how the natural world works, and that's fine. But the fact that you think you can just hastily fill in the gaps with some spurious theory of a divine maker that you pulled out of your ass doesn't inspire a curious mind. It's just straight up complacency and resigned speculation on your part. And attributing human-like qualities (intelligence, mind) to an unknown entity is a fallacy of reification. We can't assume that the natural world operates according to human logic or design principles. Your argument from "interdependent assembly of systems" is a form of the "watchmaker analogy," which has been thoroughly debunked. Natural processes can give rise to complex systems through self-organization and evolution, as I mentioned earlier, or haven't you considered the possibility that the natural world operates according to its own principles and laws, without the need for a designer? It doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence vs unintelligence. That's a false dichotomy. And if you really think that everyone believes that the universe was created by an intelligent mind, then that's just a reflection of your own biases. It's not a logical conclusion. It's a classic case of "argumentum ad populum" -- assuming that because many people believe something, it must be true.

Abiogenesis may explain synthesis of basic Amino Acids but it doesn't explain the CODE written in the assembly called DNA.

Example:
Having infinite times to juggle several sets all the Alphanumeric English characters, can the resulting string of letters
1. Form a sentence like "The rain in Spain Falls mainly in the Plain"
2. How you you think the Receptor even understood "this English" and knows how to Read?


Do you concur that : The DNA code is NOTHING( random noise) if the Receptor cannot decode the meaning (instructions and data) of the code!

This is ridiculous. The synthesis of amino acids is relatively unimpressive if you juxtapose it to the real magic which happens when these building blocks start interacting, self-organizing, and evolving into more complex structures. Yes, the DNA code is a highly specific and organized sequence that contains instructions for life, but at the end of the day, it is still merely a product of these interactions -- a natural consequence of chemical and physical processes, so I'm afraid I can't share your curious fascination with it. Using letters and numbers to talk about all the possible combinations is far from a perfect proposition. Those jumbled letters might not form a sentence like "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain," but that's because it's a human language with set rules. DNA is a molecule that's been around for billions of years, specifically designed to store and pass on genetic information -- so your example doesn't even come close. As for the "receptor" you referred to, it is simply the cellular machinery that has co-evolved with DNA. It's a biochemical system that recognizes and interprets the chemical structure of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. There's no conscious understanding of English or any language involved, it's all based on chemistry.

TenQ:

Of course, a belief is not just a random selection of a position, it is usually a basis for which the decision is made.
1. No one Beleives that 1+4 is 5, we know that 1+4 is five because there is no other possibilities other than this answer.

2. No one can truly say, "I know that this Boy will be Alive by next year December" even if the Doctors just gave him a clean bill of health and the probability is exceptionally high

Ok. So what about scientific theories like gravity? We can't directly observe an invisible force pulling objects together, but the evidence is overwhelming. Countless experiments, from dropping apples to orbiting satellites, all point towards gravity's existence. It's a well-tested and highly predictive theory, even if we can't definitively "know" it in the same absolute way we know 1 + 4 = 5. This perfectly highlights the spectrum of knowledge in science. Facts, like basic mathematical equations, are generally considered irrefutable truths. Theories, on the other hand, are constantly evolving explanations for natural phenomena. They're built on mountains of evidence and tested predictions, but they're always open to revision if new data arises. It is true that we can't predict the future with certainty, so we can't "know" the boy in your second example will be alive next December, even with a decent health bill. But let's not pretend that ultimately, we wouldn't still base our decisions on medical diagnoses and statistical probabilities due to the confidence we have in them. I hope you can see how blurry the distinction gets. It's not a binary choice between absolute knowledge and blind belief.

It is based on probabilities from informed science.

Probabilities, not certainties. And "informed science" is just a fancy way of saying "educated guess".

You just successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: you actually have REASONS. Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

Wow. I mean, bless your heart for trying to spin that around. Did you miss the part where I argued for the absence of belief, not the existence of the opposite? Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all. Possessing reasons for disbelief doesn't equate to holding a belief itself. My reasons for disbelief in a deity stem from a lack of verifiable evidence, a world seemingly at odds with an all-powerful, benevolent being, and science offering a compelling narrative for the universe's existence. The absence of a belief in a creator doesn't equate to the presence of a belief in its non-existence. It's simply the state of not being convinced based on the available information. I appreciate the enthusiasm on your part but perhaps a quick reread of my post would be in order before you fall headlong into a pile of your own shit.

Based on the faulty assumption that the Creator of the Universe must be made of Matter and Energy.
Hypothetically, if the Creator exists and he made the Universe at about 13.8 billion years ago when there was no atom, do you think such a Creator will be made of atoms and you can "measure him" with the current laws of Physics and Chemistry?

A poor dodge. So you're saying the creator is somehow beyond the reach of our scientific tools because it's not made of matter and energy? I'll admit that's a convenient excuse, but it's not a serious argument. If your creator is beyond detection, how can you be so sure it exists in the first place? And if it's beyond our understanding, how can you attribute human-like qualities like creation and intention to it?

Another misconception: All-Good Deity: relative to who?
Tell me: When you pour a disinfectant into your toilet bowl and kill off 10 million bacteria struggling to find sustenance for themselves , are you EVIL?

You're missing the key difference here: intention. I take out the trash because I don't want my home to reek of horrible odours. The bacteria, bless their tiny hearts, were just trying to live their best single-celled life. Your all-powerful deity, on the other hand, is supposedly aware of all suffering and has the power to stop it. Yet, according to you, he chooses to let it happen. I hope you took notice of the operational terms I emboldened. Now I'll give you the floor to explain how that squares with the concept of an all-good being. I'm interested to hear your defense because frankly, this whole "bacteria cleansing" scenario you manufactured feels more like a flimsy attempt to deflect from valid criticisms. You're not making a theological argument here, as far as I can tell.

Based on the faulty assumption that Science has an answer for EVERYTHING!
Is this true?

It's a demonstrable fact that the quest for knowledge through scientific inquiry, though imperfect, surely surpasses blind faith in ancient myths.

Again:
I have shown you that JUST because you have reasons, you CANNOT Lack a Belief in the existence or inexistence of the Creator. You actually have a supporting argument to support your bias
You just successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: you actually have REASONS. Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

This ridiculousness has been addressed above. The only thing I've proven is that logic takes a two-step, not a victory lap.

Will you agree to the proposition that"
Every position of Belief is either FOR or AGAINST a position!

False. You're misapplying the law of the excluded middle. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that beliefs are not always binary or mutually exclusive. Many beliefs exist on a spectrum, like shades of gray, rather than absolute black or white and some of these beliefs might be orthogonal, unrelated, or even contradictory to others, defying a simple FOR/AGAINST dichotomy. It would be outrageous of you to flippantly disregard the context, experience, and nuances that influence many beliefs. Furthermore, some beliefs might be provisionally held, pending further inquiry or evidence, rather than being rigidly FOR or AGAINST. So the fact that you think that beliefs can somehow be neatly categorized into binary oppositions is just you demonstrating a staggering lack of understanding of the very thing you're attempting to analyze.

Apologies for the long wait. If I hadn't kept this tab open, I might have completely forgotten this thread.

TenQ:

You have a way of reading unintended meanings into simply stated facts.
I said:
Our Ignorance of the Tangibility of a Reality has nothing to do with its existence.
That is:
An Object's reality or tangibility is NOT determined by our knowledge of it.

This is just a simply stated fact and it is NOT saying that Things are REAL because we are in ignorance of it. I have not also inferred that "our understanding of it is irrelevant to its nature."

Please understand this: science doesn't deal with absolute, unknowable realities. It deals with EVIDENCE, with observations that help us understand the universe, and right now the evidence points towards a universe that functions perfectly well without a divine creator. So even if your statements may be technically true in a philosophical sense, they still don't come close to addressing the specific issue of a god's actual existence.

I laugh in Urhobo Language:
Atheists usually challenge Christians with the phrases such as
"Show us EVIDENCE......!"
or
"Extraordinary Claim require Extraordinary Evidence!"

I'm sorry, but demanding evidence for extraordinary claims isn't some atheist conspiracy, it's just basic logic.

All I am doing is to FORCE Atheists to say the kind of evidence that will be an objective proof to them.
Hence, I want Atheists to tell me
1. Exactly what they consider as REAL (Existence)
2. And the Question "Is every Existence Tangible?"
3. What is their Definition of Tangible.

"Force Atheists"? Now, I'm curious. Did you just open this thread to get people to indulge in your puerile "gotcha!" game, or do you have intentions of making honest inquiry? Some terms you are citing here are mostly irrelevant. Take "tangibility" for example. We deal with things like dark matter and radio waves, both very real but not exactly cuddle-material. Tangible is for textures. I'd rather focus on verifiable evidence. If you told me you could fly, I wouldn't demand a specific type of proof, I'd just ask you to, well, fly. Same principle applies here. Show me something mind-bending, universe-altering, and then maybe we can talk about "objective proof."

Without a CONCRETE and OBJECTIVELY Defined testable definition of a word like Tangible , every discussion will miss the Road.

This is why it seems I am "all too eager to pin all atheists down with definitions" LOL!

Since you want to play "define everything" so badly, then I guess we both need to define "concrete" and "objectively" too. Shouldn't be fuzzy at all, right?

But Mars is presently un-occupied by any intelligent life: would we conclude that "the device evolved form the Martian earth"?
I think it would be reasonable to conclude that it was brought to Mars by some intelligent creatures

Are we assuming Martians are nature's engineers now? Because unless this device builds furniture and writes haiku, I think "evolved" might be a bit of a stretch.

I was not defining consciousness. I was only stating that the minimum capabilities an Existence must have before it can be deemed as conscious. If you check, I also noted that these criteria are circular: Like saying for an object to be conscious, it must have some minimum level of consciousness.

It is easy to test each of the postulates!

Let's say we're exploring the building blocks of consciousness. I posit that testing your postulates might be easier said than done. How do we objectively measure a subjective experience like "feeling the environment"? And even if we could, wouldn't that just be measuring the physical processes behind it?

All I am saying is that Jessica.Rabbit cannot prove that I did not dream of eating Dinner with both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. QED!
Why?
It is my subjective EXPERIENCE and not yours.

Of course, only me can know is my report is TRUE or FALSE!

You may not believe me, but you have no way of objectively proving that my dream wasn't a true statement.

Subjective experiences like these dreams can be analyzed through a more objective lens. They could actually tell us something about you, your interests, and maybe even your anxieties. But to claim they represent some absolute truth, well, that's where things get a little dicey.

Therefore, I made it practical by asking IF you have any real EXAMPLE of an infinite regress of cause and effect.

You did not confirm my statement that:
The Law of Entropy forbids infinite Regress of Cause and Effect especially if you note that the Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago AND the Universe will not exist forever in a situation called "heat death" where entropy of the Universe will be maximum.

Better still, if the Entropy of the Universe is increasing, it proves that Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

You should be careful not to conflate thermodynamic entropy with casual chains. Increase in entropy only signifies a growing uniformity in energy distribution throughout time. It doesn't forbid infinite regress -- a completely philosophical (not physical) concept -- at all. Physics tells us about the behavior of the universe, but it doesn't dictate the rules of logic or metaphysics. The universe having a beginning doesn't inherently negate the possibility of an infinite regress in a logical sense; it just means our universe had a starting point in its current form. So, while the heat death might put a damper on future cosmic shenanigans, it doesn't logically preclude an infinite regress. It's like saying because the party ends at midnight, there couldn't have been an infinite number of songs on the playlist. The playlist's potential infinity isn't limited by the party's curfew.

Theories are explanations we give for the observable effects we see. I do not condemn it:. I am just saying that a theory is falsifiable with another better theory or law.

You're still dancing around the maypole of semantics here. The beauty of scientific theories is precisely their falsifiability. It's what makes science so dynamic and self-correcting. Unlike dogma, science welcomes challenges and revisions. It thrives on them. However, a theory being falsifiable doesn't make it flimsy or unreliable. It makes it robust. It's like building a bridge that can withstand earthquakes: it's designed to adapt and survive new data, not crumble at the first tremor of doubt. I should probably remind you as well that laws and theories in science play different roles. Laws describe the patterns we observe; theories explain why those patterns exist. Newton's law of universal gravitation tells us that objects attract with a force directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. But it was Einstein's theory of general relativity that explained the "why" by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. So, when you simply say a theory is an explanation for observable effects, you might be selling it short. It's the best explanation we have that fits all the current evidence. And if a new theory comes along that explains the evidence better, then huzzah! Science marches on, and our understanding deepens.

What I was saying in other words is: Even if no humans existed in the world, 1+3 will still be 4.
Mathematics exist regardless of whether we know it or not.

Without a conscious entity to perform the act of counting, does 1, 3 or 4 have any actual meaning? These are not just symbols but concepts that require a mind to define their relationships. In a universe devoid of consciousness, there would be no 1 apple plus 3 apples equals 4 apples because there would be no concept of "apple", let alone 1 or 4. To say that mathematics exists independently of us is to imbue these abstract concepts with a sort of mystical autonomy they simply do not possess.

Does LOGIC require humans to be TRUE?
This is the question.

Of course not! However, even the sturdiest instruction manual needs a machine to operate on. That's my point. Stop making me repeat myself please.

It has everything to do with it ma.
If the Universe will come to an End and entropy becomes maximum: will cause an effect still take place?
Of course the answer is NO!

Wrong. The law of entropy doesn't negate the concept of infinite regress; it merely describes the behavior of energy in a closed system. If we reach maximum entropy, we're talking about a state of equilibrium, not the cessation of all processes.

Of cause, I am not comparing humans and fishes: I am just stating that even animals understand (at their level cause and effect)

Fair enough. So, tell me, does your toaster understand cause and effect when it pops after sufficiently browning your bread? Or is it just divinely ordained toast?

I believe we've trashed this out!

Where? As far as I can tell, you're only retreating to the comfort of "...we've trashed this out!", which is pretty much the universal euphemism for "I've run out of arguments and logic, but I still want to sound profound!" in debates. But if you insist, then we can just agree to disagree, and I'll let the universe's weirdness and non-conformist nature have the final say.

My point is that Atoms and Molecule is the building blocks of any cell: at what point did they acquire data nad instructions.

They don't hold coding bootcamps for atoms, my dear. Their properties are fundamental, not programmed.

And what is your objective proof of this?

Why don't we start with the fact that the universe was around for about 9 billion years before Earth even formed, and humans only popped up in the last minute of the cosmic day. If we were the main event of the entire program, it seems the universe had quite a lot of time to kill, doesn't it? To be honest, while scientists are still working out the kinks in the theory that the universe creates itself, I personally think it's a far more plausible scenario than thinking a cosmic extraterrestrial with a penchant for humanoids decided to sprinkle a little stardust here and not on the other billion galaxies. Talk about playing favorites.

Exactly like someone saying emphatically
"The computer chip and all the hardware are products of the earth and therefore, it requires no intelligent being (computer engineers and programmers) to make it work"

LOL!

This comparison would only hold water if the computer chip had evolved from a primordial soup of silicon, and the hardware had assembled itself through natural selection. Unfortunately for you, that's not how computer chips are made.

You have just stated clearly that an INTELLIGENT mind is behind the functions of the computer up to the Windows 10.

Perhaps. But it does nothing for your argument.

Aemmyjah:


You want to compare a rock in space to the universe
Who or what made that 'rock'?

The rock's existence doesn't necessitate a 'who' or 'what'; it's a product of natural processes, like planetary formation. Similarly, the universe's existence might not require a 'who' or 'what' either.

TenQ:

There is a difference between knowing and Believing
Knowing:
1. We dont Believe that 1+5=6 because we can 100% verify that this is the outcome of our position remain static even if you go to the moon or mars to do it.
2. We don't Believe that Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the president of Nigeria. It is among the things we know with 100% certainty.
Believing:
We hold a position of Belief and not knowledge anytime our position has an iota of uncertainty.

But 1+5=6 is a mathematical fact, verifiable through empirical evidence and logical reasoning! It's not a belief, but a knowledge claim based on objective evidence. The distinction between knowing and believing is not as clear-cut as you suggest. Beliefs can be informed by evidence and reasoning, just like knowledge claims. In fact, many scientific theories, like evolution or gravity, are considered knowledge claims, yet they are open to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges. Moreover, the notion that beliefs are only held when there's uncertainty is misguided. Beliefs can be held with varying degrees of confidence, and they can be based on a range of factors, including evidence, experience, and values. It's not a binary choice between knowledge and belief. Your argument also implies that beliefs are inherently uncertain, while knowledge claims are not. However, even scientific knowledge claims are subject to some degree of uncertainty, as they are based on current evidence and understanding.

All these are still Beliefs: because the outcome even though may be plausible (based on some insider information) is not solely under the control of anyone.

I see. So, economic forecasts are like prayers -- you hope for the best, but ultimately, it's out of your hands! Except instead of a divine plan, it's just a bunch of humans making stuff up and hoping for the best. Got it!

Can you state your three best reasons for disbelieving in any Deity as the Creator?

Easy.

(1) Despite extensive searches, no credible evidence directly supports the existence of a deity.

(2) If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity existed, it's unclear why suffering, injustice, and evil persist.

(3) Science and reason adequately explain the world's workings without requiring a supernatural creator.

There you go!

TenQ:

And from a purely logical point of view, Christians look at the Universe and look at the multiple interdependent systems (especially on the earth) and come to a conclusion: This is a Product of an Intelligent Designer. And because the Interdependent systems are so huge and complex, we say that the intelligent Designer is Alien to this Universe.

Life on earth seems not to be purely an accident because of the statistical improbabilities that stack up for the creation of LIFE. Everything from Carbon Cycle, Water Cycle, Energy Cycle, Reproduction, Intelligence, Intuition etc tell us that this is not chaos ordering itself ( note: All these cycles need Energy to propergate)

This is misguided reasoning at best. I fail to understand how it makes any lick of sense for you to equate human-designed objects to the natural world. The pen, a product of human intelligence, has a clear purpose and function, whereas the universe and its components don't have an inherent "purpose" or "design" in the same way. You're imposing human-centric thinking onto the natural world in what I can only term a textbook display of short-sightedness. Plus, science has shown us that systems can arise from natural processes, like evolution and self-organization. The carbon cycle, water cycle, and energy cycle are all explicable through scientific inquiry, without invoking a designer. The origin of life on Earth is a complex problem, but that doesn't mean we need to default to a supernatural explanation. Science has made significant progress in understanding abiogenesis, and while there's still much to uncover, it's not a justification for inserting a divine creator. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that statistical improbability is simply insufficient as evidence for a designer?

Using the term "alien" to describe the supposed designer is a clever rhetorical device, but it's a euphemism for "we don't understand it, so God did it." That's not a logical conclusion; it's a cop-out.

Evolution starts with one big FLAW: It starts with LIFE already existing and then EVOLVING from one state into another.
The Question truly is
1. If the DNA contains information (data and instructions), given all the letters of the alphabet that can be juggled up in an infinite number of times, can we expect to see a sentence like
"THE RAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY IN THE PLAIN!"
2. Even if we assume the above is a possibility (given the infinite amount of time), the problem that occurs now is "How will the Information Above be Decoded"!? Without Intelligence from the Receptor, the phrase "THE RAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY IN THE PLAIN!" is just another random set of meaningless sequence of characters.
That is: If the Target of the sequence of code does not UNDERSTAND English and the English Alphanumeric characters, the phrase even though is a valid statement will be Gibberish



Is Snowflakes a kind of system? What is its function?
Yes, it is beautiful, but for what purpose?
The Snowflakes is not different from a meteorite moving in space!

Every System has a Purpose or Function!

Evolution doesn't start with the assumption that life already exists. I don't know where you got that from. It explains how life arose from non-living matter through abiogenesis. The scientific consensus is clear: life emerged around 3.5 billion years ago, and evolution has been shaping its diversity ever since. As for the DNA information argument, you're only just comparing apples and oranges. DNA is not a human language; it's a molecular code that operates according to its own rules. The sequence of nucleotides determines the genetic information, not human comprehension. The decoding process occurs through cellular machinery, like ribosomes and transcription factors, which don't require "intelligence" or understanding of human language. Snowflakes play a crucial role in Earth's water cycle and weather patterns, and their intricate patterns arise from the natural process of crystallization, not a designed purpose. Comparing snowflakes to meteorites is a false equivalence because one is a natural, terrestrial phenomenon, while the other is an extraterrestrial object. Your assertion that every system has a purpose or function is a teleological assumption, not a scientific fact. Systems can arise from natural processes without a predetermined purpose. The human eye, for example, evolved to detect light and perceive the environment, but it didn't have a "purpose" before its emergence.