₦airaland Forum

finofaya:
I think obtaining proof of God is more than an issue of shedding a physical body. It borders on the more fundamental issue of how we understand things. Can you think of a way by which we can (attempt to) know things other than the method we currently use?

Finofaya, God doesn't owe you anything. I wonder what image of God you have in your head. Cursing, or refusing to believe in his existence doesn't move or change him in any way. He still remains God, and he works with those who believe. Simple.

Imagine you're God Almighty who created all things and transcends all, would you be bothered if some people refused to believe in you? I don't think so. You'd do things your way, and have mercy on whomever you choose to have mercy on, and kill whomever you choose to kill. Because you're God. Some Idio.ts think God is threatened by their disbelief. Quite foolish if you ask me.

davien:
Before I address this first post, I'll need to point out that the term of "randomness" in the context you want me to vouch for or be demonstrated, is vague and/or arbitrary...this leaves room for goal-post shifting.

But I'll draw an example you should be familiar with.

Consider a simple system of ideal gases(more specifically,the molecules zipping around in a random/brownian motion), when the particles randomly collide with one another, they transfer kinetic energy across the system(thereby the temperature),and since the average kinetic energy is determined by the speed of the collisions, then work is highly dependent on increasing those random collisions..

As a living breathing being you use such a system when you use oxygen to digest food,and other metabolic processes, which allows you to grow and build more structure to your body(which can be thought of as an "orderly" anabolic process)

No. As a living organism, I use protein carriers and enzymes and other modalities to harness this random kinetic energy present in matter into the useful anabolic processes I carry out. Random energy can never be any use to me unless my body system harnesses it into orderly useful work. Your analogy is not an example of randomness birthing ordered processes. It is an example of modalities ordering random energy to carry out useful work.

davien: This isn't true...

Potential energy is the energy that is contained in a body and has the potential for work,an example are batteries on your phone that possess a set amount of energy and potential for work.

Think a little farther. The presence of potential energy is useless without its utilization in an orderly system for the production of kinetic work. So potential energy of itself is useless. The Sun is a giant ball of billions of joules of potential energy, and it is only when this energy is ordered in the photosynthetic process that anabolism of glucose occurs.

davien: Again your tautology here is purely vague, and begs the question of what potential energy you consider to be random.

My point is that potential energy cannot yield any useful thing at random. It must be utilized in an orderly process to yield useful work. This is what we recognize even unknowingly in nature, and this is what makes phenomena predictable and scrutable in science. Randomness can yield nothing good of itself.

davien: @bolded,please provide the external influence you think purposefully or has intent of any kind in configuring atoms the way they are.....

Sorry, I wasn't astute with the bolded. What I meant to communicate was that atoms don't organize to form davien or bacteria or flies due to random processes, as nothing useful(especially davien) can arise from random movements of nature.

plaetton:
Are you that ret.arded?
Seriously.

I didn't make up the laws of mathematics. Any preschooler is aware of, and can demonstrate the simple laws of mathematics.

Don't be a foolish i'diot. Does demonstration and awareness of laws and principles guiding the universe make those laws self-existent? When asked where the laws guiding the reactions of the universe possibly came from you conveniently pull up self-existence from your inner cantus. You might as well start touting the universe is self-existence also.

Stop bringing us to baseline bickering and quarrelling and address the weighty issues that you conveniently dodge in favor of I'diot clichés and name calling.

[quote author=joshthefirst]So what are you saying then, that there is no such thing as chaos or randomness? As everything happens under the influence of natural laws?...] I noticed you dodged this in favor of being childish. Answer these questions.

plaetton:
The laws of mathematics are self-existent.
Isn't that simple and obvious enough?

Hypocrisy. So the laws of mathematics are self-existent and you have no problems with that but a self-existent entity is not feasible for you.

dalaman:
...To claim that nature acts only in an orderly fashion is to lie and to not know what you are talking about.

This is not my claim.

plaetton:
You still do not get it.
Every phenomena in nature tend to appear random and chaotic until we recognise the natural laws underpinning such processes.

So what are you saying then, that there is no such thing as chaos or randomness? As everything happens under the influence of natural laws? Be careful what you say Plaetton. You might find yourself in a difficult bind.

plaetton: Likewise, your phantom creator could not ever have created anything or processes without following the laws of mathematics.

Therefore, the laws of mathematics should supersede the creative potential of your creator.

But if you choose to make an exception for your phantom creator, then you must make same exception for every process in the universe as well.

You're jumping hurdles man. First, how did the laws of mathematics come about? Who defined these laws?

dalaman:
Empirical observation? Can we create a supernova in the lab and experiment with it? Based on observation as of the result of the surrounding elements that are emitted as a result of a supernova and the composition of stellar nurseries it has been theorized that the expanding shock waves from supernova explosions sometimes triggers the formation of new stars and sometimes it results in the formation of black holes.

This is too far fetched an example, not to talk of the fact that the actual occurrence has never or can never be observed.

dalaman: There is no order there but simple process, what is the order in cell malignant mutation if cellular process is in order? Is cell mutation not a disorder? Acceleration due to gravity is a process and not an order because it decreases as you fly out of the earth into space. What is the regulating mechanism behind congenital diseases? What about compulsive abortions? My sister in law has had 5 miscarriages, the doctors say that the fetus is seen by her body as hostile cells and automatically destroyed by her immune system for some other women that suffer her fate there is an incompatibility between the blood types of the mother and unborn child that makes life impossible . Where is the order is that? What about droughts, Volcanic eruptions, mudslides, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, acid rain, heat weaves, winter storms, diseases pestilence and epidemics? Which order are they following? There is nothing like order these are just processes.

Calm down. Processes can either be in order or not in order. Every example I gave is a an orderly process. The presence of auto-immune diseases and such cannot lead us to deny order and orderly processes in our universe. Like Plaetton has said, Processes follow laws. Any processes that escapes the natural order that laws provide results in harm and chaos.


Let's get back to base. The scientific method in itself, was born as a result of our ability to recognize and realize that processes follow particular orders and laws. How can you advocate randomness and chaos as a scientist then?

plaetton:
It never ceases to amaze me how consistent you are in always using your second statements to contradict your first statements.

So, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a GREAT SYSTEM for studying, examining and classifing evidence in our PHYSICAL world, and therefore the BEDROCK of all modern scientific ACHIEVEMENTS, except,.... the scientific theories of evolution and common descent?

Lolol.

yes except common descent and Darwinian evolution. Because the very scientists that herald the scientific method ignore the illogical contradiction of these theories

plaetton:
Joshthefirst,
Every random force, every random particle in universe obeys the laws of mathematics.
Every process in the universe follows and acts according to the laws of mathematics.

The presence of laws mean processes are guided under the cover of these laws. Any process that breaks away for the cover and guideline of universal laws and laid down processes and order becomes either useless or harmful. So randomness cannot yield any feasible thing.

plaetton: The particles and forces in the universe are not naturally imbued with order, rather, they configure themselves and act according to laws of mathematics.

Ludicrous. particles and forces don't configure themselves and act. Look at what your thinking has become in an effort to trick your mind out of design. You now talk of particles configuring themselves and forces aligning themselves. smh. You contradict yourself, and the bolded statement can be an evidence of a mastermind behind the universe.

plaetton: In this case, all the particles and forces in the universe are pregnant with infinite probablities and possibilities.
Under the right mathematical thresholds, STUFF HAPPENS.

These mathematical thresholds are what we call processes, depending from which vantage point in space and time we are observing them.

You contradict yourself again. If particles can only act under mathematical laws and thresholds, then there are no infinite probabilities and possibilities, apart from the probabilities allowed within the thresholds defined by these laws. As I have pointed out, any occurrence outside these thresholds is either useless, or even harmful. Your admittance of the presence of laws governing nature has destroyed any argument you might put up for self-organization and randomness that are the bedrock of your beliefs.


Now, lets move on to my next question: How did these laws you talk of come about?

plaetton:
Exactly on point, but I doubt if he would think deep enough to get it.
.
.
.
So, it's all a matter of perspective, conscious perspective.

I wonder why for ridiculous propositions, I have to "think" very deep. Maybe it's just to look for far fetched excuses for the obvious in my mind eh?

Processes are in order. Show me the foreign random perspective in the revolution of the earth, or the water cycle.

davien:
Yes, it does stem from a belief that the universe can be understood by a set of naturalistic laws which appear "ordered", but ever since discoveries about the microscopic world and quantum physics(and many more observations) it's now common to see and demonstrate that random physical interactions can be responsible for ordered aspects of the things observed.

So give practical examples of random physical interactions that are responsible for ordered aspects of things observed, not far strung out theoretical nonsense. I have given examples, give yours. Show me how you think randomness can birth ordered processes. Not just ordered processes, but processes that tend to an increase in organization and efficiency of energetic processes.

davien: But the dilemma here isn't even the notion of randomness but what degree of it is truly useless, because a vacuum might be considered a disorderly body but in reality contain a set vacuum energy that is still useful or has capacity for work.

Potential energy and potential capacity to do work is not useful energy. No process that results in an increase in organization has ever resulted from any random process of potential energy. But ordered processes.(under the guideline of mathematical laws as plaetton put it).

davien: The fallacy here is one of misused probability,what aspect of things possible can there be an infinite number of odds against it?... what're the odds that the set of atoms in the exact same configuration and place in time would make up a person called davien?

Impossible odds. That even further supports my stance. Atoms, moving around in nature don't configure themselves without external purposeful influence and force. That, or I don't understand your statement.

I admit I've learned to a lot from arguments and conversations in this section. My talks here have actually strengthened my faith and made me have more reasons to believe in God. This section has also given me ideas and made me more open to creating measures of awareness and evangelism.

dalaman:
Which order are you talking about? We have observed chaos and random explosion give birth to systems, like a supernova giving birth to solar systems.

Please show where an empirical observation has been made of a supernova giving birth to a solar system then.(This in itself is still arguable).

Order is in uniform acceleration due to gravity, transcription, translation, cellular processes and regulating mechanisms, electric conductivity and molecular structure. Order screams at us from almost everywhere, while your only example is an unobservable supposedly historical hypothesis.

Please go and build up your argument and come back if you want lets talk seriously.

The scientific method is a great tool for examining and studying empirical evidence in our physical world. It is the very bedrock of the advancement in this modern age.

But it is also said to have birthed such contradictions as the theory of evolution and common descent and other notions that propose an origin of all that we see in the universe (including order!!!) from complete randomness...

I have a few questions (or maybe just a few things to point out) to plaetton and his evangelistic cohorts. Do you realize the scientific method and process and even the foundation of experimentation is as a result of man's belief that natural things and processes and structures have and follow a set order? If you do, how have you managed to blackmail your common sense into accepting disorder and randomness and the basis of all that exists, including your very organized self?

Please answer my questions directly and precisely.




cc: plaetton, muskeeto, thehomer, davien, kay17

plaetton:
FundamentLly innate?

You've got to be kidding, right?
That makes no sense, and cannot ever be true.

Your innate darwinian impulses cannot allow you to be innately moral.

Morality evolves along with the social evolution or social order of the community or society.

Morality as in a conscious sense of right and wrong is innate. What you call Darwinian impulses don't nullify the innate grasp of right and wrong that we have, whether we are predisposed to go the selfish way or not.

plaetton:
Whether atheists, theists, religious or irreligious, people are usually tethered to, and hardly ever rise above the moral thresholds of their environment.

Therefore, for example, a Country known for corruption will most likely have corrupt atheists, theists, religious or irreligious,corrupt pastors and priests.

Religious beliefs are often a veil, not the definer of a person's moral thresholds.

I remind everyone that spanish christian explorers mercilesslly genocided native South Americans for the purpose of gifting them with the love of Jesus.

And that christian slave merchants read bible surmons and sang hymnals while slaves were languising and dying in the lower decks of their slaveship "The good ship Jesus".

So, morality is environmental, not religious.

Morality is neither environmental nor religious. It may be affected by either, but it is fundamentally innate.

davien:
Yes it is..

don't be foolish davien.

de·sign
dəˈzīn/
noun
noun: design; plural noun: designs

1.
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model
"a design for the offices"
the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing.
"good design can help the reader understand complicated information"
an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
"pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
synonyms: pattern, motif, device; More
style, composition, makeup, layout, construction, shape, form
"tableware with a gold design"
2.
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective, object, goal, end, target; More
hope, desire, wish, dream, aspiration, ambition
"his design of reaching the top"

note the bolded. contrast is secondary in design recognition. you don't need to contrast an unmade bed with a made one before,ypu realize the made one is in order. Stop using useless 'secondaries' to justify your denial of truth.

thehomer:
It looks like you've now developed the interesting inability to understand the implications of what you say. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how exactly would you say it arose?



I know humans design computer programs. Are you saying that DNA arose by natural means? The mad argument I see here is the assertion that DNA somehow requires some supernatural entity.



Because you're confusing your subjective experience and limited knowledge for some sort of cosmic order, direction, arrangement, precision and efficiency.

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me?

The only assertion I have made is that DNA is designed. Simple.
And I have asked you to tell me why you deny its design, but you've only been trying to distract me with talk about supernaturalism.
Please stick to the subject at hand, or just admit you have no reason to deny obvious design.

thehomer:
Computer programs are very different things from natural processes like DNA molecules and the formation of the grand canyon.



Well it works well enough given the diversity of life currently available and the multiple extinction events that have happened. DNA is a natural part of other natural entities.



What is the obvious design? Stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny natural events.



You don't want to believe in any thing that doesn't lead to your God. You deny natural processes due to your dogmatism and unreasonableness. You say it is your God that has done it all. Well how do you know DNA arose by supernatural intervention?

dalaman:
Please can anybody here show us exactly how the DNA was formed using supernatural intervention?

See why I'm saying? I'm not denying natural events or claiming supernaturalism yet. Neither was davidylan. Can you people read and understand or have you become too warped to understand issues without seeing everything as a threatening referral to the supernatural?

Computer programs are designed by entities. I recognize design in natural processes, you deny design. Dogmatically. This is a quite futile argument, because its like arguing with a mad man.

How can I be recognizing order, direction, arrangement, precision, and efficiency in a particular complex system and one will run up to me and start calling me unreasonable, trying to claim it all came up by random processes without any evidence?

thehomer:
Which molecules would you say are not designed? Do you have any evidence for the creator you have in mind?

When you see a computer program like microsoft word, you immediately understand and realize that it is a design of a creator. The same thing applies for various processes, events, phenomena and the unity and co-direction of forces we see in the universe, especially DNA.

thehomer: Well that isn't actually true. Evolution is a non-directional natural phenomenon.

Yes. And as I said, It cannot be the origin(note origin) of efficient, workable and sustainable devices, especially a device like DNA.

thehomer: Unfortunate man who is unable to demonstrate the core assumption of ignorant supernaturalism.

This is like expecting someone to teach common sense. Forget about "supernaturalism", acknowledge very obvious design first and stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny transcendence.
But you won't.
Because you don't want to believe in any thing that might lead to God, you deny order and choose to be hypocritically blind to direction and sense. Look at how you have ended up. Claiming DNA came about through random processes of evolution. You have become the epitome of dogmatism, and unreasonableness.

thehomer:
DNA is a natural molecule. It arose from other molecules. No my position is that DNA is a product of natural events. Why? Well for a reson similar to why the grand canyon was formed. I see no reason why I have to impose a human purpose on a natural process.

From what and why did your God evolve? Essentially, your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of your God.

DNA is a natural molecule that arose from design by a genius creator. A common template coding for everything physical life. Reproducing itself, Even correcting itself. Genius. Working and Efficient Genius is not a product of chaotic substandard randomized non-directional natural events. Unfortunate man who refuses to think outside the narrow box of idi.ot naturalism.

plaetton:
Ahhh !
So refreshing.
Fresh air.
You make me so proud of having a mind, of seeing the universe beyond my closet space.
I pity those who do not.

Seriously, you never cease to amaze...

plaetton:
Thank you.

My dear Joshthefirst, kindly allow us to focus on the important issues here.
If you feel that you, Africans, have not been culturally genocided, then kindly share your points,..and please, without the religious mumbo jumbo.

This thread is ultimately about religion. So technically, I'm not derailing.

No worries. I'm laying off.

dalaman:
You are a christian only because you were born into the religion and indoctrinated into its theology. If you were born to a Hindu family in India and went through the same systematic indoctrination you would have been talking about the truth of Hinduism. You know no truth, you know know what you have been indoctrinated with.

Wrong.

You remain an atheist either because you've rejected the truth or you have never come across the truth before(which is quite doubtful). Everyone, irrespective of the borders of religion or culture have been or will be exposed to truth, and it matters what they do with it. We have all been indoctrinated, we have all chosen to base our thinking and mindset on some particular form of knowledge. You'll be foolish to think indoctrination is completely involuntary. So indoctrination doesn't really count. Its what one has been indoctrinated with that matters.

hahn:
My POV: Atheism is the non belief of a god or supremem being. Babies come to this world without a knowledge of god or anything else for that matter and as they grow their parents, society etc tell them lies about a god blah blah blah

Kindly explain your pov

Your point of view is wrong, because it is illogical. Especially your definition of atheism. If you adhere to that definition then you have no grounds to say that God does not exist. If you simply lack belief in God then you shouldn't have any opinion or point of view about him, especially about his existence.

Let me define atheism for you: It is the adamant stance that God does not exist.

And babies, as they grow, must be taught, we must come in contact with some form of knowledge or another. What matters is if that knowledge is truth or a lie.
I was taught the inherent and powerful supported truth of the existence of a God, and the way to strike a relationship with him. And you currently believe in a lie.

wiegraf:
We don suffer

You don suffer. You think you're on the higher tier of knowledge looking down at the mindless drones below. But you're not. You're in an ignorant pit. Deceived terribly and steep in the darkness of your selected ignorance.

hahn:
Actually, atheism is natural. Everyone is born without the belief of a god until someone starts lying to them

Atheism is cultural actually. You had a belief in God until you were lied to.

We're all taught different things, but we come in contact with the truth at some points in our lives.

plaetton:
Lol.
You forgot to answer the other question.
Did you or did you not take medical treatmdnts or medications for the malaria and the other ailments ?
Yes or no?

Of course not.

And don't be an idi.ot like the poster above. I know when a sickness runs its course.

plaetton:
What did god heal you of?
And swear you didn't take any medications or medical help.

Many other healings have happened since then. I don't swear. I've been healed, and I've seen people healed. I've had an abscess shrink down and disappear. I've had malaria and its symptoms fizzle off me. I've had streptococcal infections disappear. And I've seen people with cancer healed. If you think I'm playing when I say I believe in The Healing power of a very existent God then you remain ignorant.

I might indulge in arguments here, but believe me, endless arguments and the puerile philosophies you use to justify your pretentious unbelief have nothing to do with reality.

KoloOyinbo:
You have a point here?

If God could be PROVEN there would be no Atheists and no Agnostics. Nor would be be saved by FAITH.

Like I said, you know little of Christianity.

And unfortunately you do not even know what the Christian faith is.

Evolution(macroevolution) is only a foolish proof less historical concept that we rationally reject. There is nothing to bring up against a person's foolish interpretation of historical data.

DProDG:
This does not address the question of the 'design flaws'. Physiological advantages over what exactly? The fluid for examples causes distortions in vision as Evilbrain1 mentioned. An 'intelligent designer' could have come up with something more 'intelligent' than that.

Physiological advantage over a "verted" retina. Like what? A design is presented as the best case scenario for a particular environment t and you stand there saying it should've been made better without presenting your better alternative. The brain makes up for the refractive distortions.

Wow, a notorious Creation website as a source? Not to mention the article(yes I actually bothered reading it) did not address the poor designs but rather, basically explained how they worked and said they were okay.

Also, Jerry Bergman? Really? Have you seen his credentials?

If thats what you got from reading the article then you need to learn comprehension. Don't blame it on me.