₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Did the designer also design the many occular diseases, or, as you and your ilk are more likely to say, is Adams sin responsible for occular diseases, the far majority of which are genetic?

That has no part to play in the primary discussion. First you must accept the fact of design in the universe before we go into design flaws and why they are here and what we can do about them.

A computer with a virus is still a computer that was designed, inspite of the virus now damaging its system

Kay17:
But God has a mind, and the ability to be omnipotent is not incidental to a mind, therefore we have deduced two parts: the mind and the will.

A mind has a will. A will is not a different component from the mind. Who told you God has a mind? Do you now believe in God?

davien:
It does, it posits a major design flaw that increases impairment..

Your very statement contradicts you. A design flaw indicates a design in the first place. By pointing out a design flaw you indirectly concede a design. Try again.

EvilBrain1:
^^^Why did god put our retinas in backwards causing blind spots, glaucoma and other problems? It's not like he couldn't create them facing the correct way, octopuses (octopi?) have retinas facing the right way and see much better than us.

And why our eyes filled with liquid causing all sorts of distortion and refraction problems when the light passes from air to water? Why are fish able to see so much better than us with very similar eyes? It's almost as if our eyes were originally built to function underwater.

Strange.

N.B. Joshthefirst, you better watch all 13 episodes of Cosmos like I said. I'm going to cure you of this religion nonsense if its the last thing I do. Nigeria doesn't need any more doctors that don't know how to think.

This is old news. The "inverted" design of the retina presents VARIOUS advantages physiologically, one of which is ensuring adequate contact of the photoreceptors with bslood and nutrients. Bring octopuses to a terrestrial environment and check if they would still see better than us or interpret photo data faster than us.

And our eyes are filled with fluid because the eyeball would collapse if they weren't.

It'll do you well to educate yourself on the subject. In your own words; knowledge is power.

Here's a simple and effective link.
http://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/

Notice I didn't insult you indirectly in replying your questions even though they are stuupid and ill-thought out, and even though you should know the answers as you are a medical professional. No one should be arguing against design after studying basic anatomy.

Don't worry about me. I'll be a great doctor. I'm very smart, and I think very well, unlike some others who simply have faith in what people told them happened millions of years ago.

davien:
Joshthefirst of what use are floaters if the eye was "intelligently designed"...when they only cause problems?

Unfortunately the presence of floaters do not negate the intricate design system of the eye

Kay17:
@Joshthefirst

To you, isn't the fact God always existed a conclusion? If it is so, how was the conclusion made?

It was made based on accounts you would reject or argue away.

davien:
So does "god" have a gender?

No. Of course he doesn't.

davien:
why is "god" a "he" If it's not a component of parts?

He is only a "he" because we choose to refer to I'm in that way

Idrismusty97:
Theists wants us to simply believe that "Something can't come from nothing", except god... Lol

And they mock the scientists Big-Bang theory...I rather put my hope on people working on finding the cause, not some bearded spongebobs with story books. lol

God is not "something". He always existed. He is not a component of various parts. So the question of the OP is meaningless.

EvilBrain1:
No.

I've yet to encounter anything in nature that can't be explained through natural processes. All the examples creationists give are either strawmen (eg the self-assembling 747) or have been clearly shown to have evolved with no need for a designer (e.g. the human eye). There is no scientific basis for believing in a creator because there is no evidence of one. And there is no philosophical basis it because assuming one exists is solving a problem by creating a bigger one.

Intelligent design is not an explanation. All it does is push the problem down the road by making up a magical creator which it then makes no attempt to explain.

The principle of parsimony states that you should make as few assumptions as possible when forming hypotheses. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is always the correct one. And god is not a simple explanation, it is a huge assumption with essentially zero empirical evidence to back it up. Google Occam's Razor.

Please state clearly and consisely where such a beautiful design as the human eye has been clearly shown to have evolved with no designer. I expect consise and testable empirical data.

I say that there is insurmountable evidence of design and purpose and sustenance in our observable world, enough to not just imply, but teach the nature of a creator. Recognizing a hand behind creation is not solving a problem by creating a bigger one. It is a very simple (too simple for you to admit of course) explanation and observation we make, and have always made.

Intelligent design simply recognizes the logical and factual truth of order and design and sustenance in the universe and makes a simple and logical conclusion of personality behind it all. No magic involved.

You and your folk on the other hand string out far-fetched models based on illogical, outrageous, impossible and hypocritical historical opinions. So far, NONE of the notions of macroevolution and other what-nots have proven true or even logical. You can prove me wrong by showing how the human eye has "clearly been shown to have evolved without the need for any designer".

EvilBrain1:
@Joshthefirst

Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdiCYTK160

Do you believe in intelligent design?

EvilBrain1:
@Joshthefirst

Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdiCYTK160

I did. And unfortunately, it poorly captures my point of view or does anything about my position. Its made of a lot of assumptions(funny huh).

johnydon22:
Nope this answer is very contradicting.. first you stated he created all life in the bolded and all life surely must include plasmodium.. then you turn around and say he didn't created killers or pathogens as in the second bolded (after saying he created everything)…

Why not just say once and for all, did he create everything (including the bad things).or did he not create everything.. Stop going in contradicting circles..

Or maybe you can choose to be reasonable and quietly read and understand my post. I'm not going to start explaining sentences to you again.

EvilBrain1:
@OP

Look, [url=wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam]the Kalam argument has been thoroughly debunked on multiple levels[/url]. First, it starts with a faulty premise ("all things that begin to exist have a cause." Says who?). It conflates concepts that are totally different: The universe didn't begin to exist in the same way planets, trees and pencils do. Planets, trees and pencils are rearrangements of previously existing stuff, which is not neccesarily true of the universe. It makes conclusions that dont follow from the logic: why does the cause have to be personal? And even if it is, why just one? Why not 2, or 10? Why not a race of powerful suprradimensional space aliens? And why do they have to be timeless and unchanging? Why can't they have their own time? Is it even possible for a timeless being to create anything? How does it see and learn and react to things without changing, without time?

Of course even of Kalam was airtight (its not) it still wouldnt matter because all it is is proof by logic. Religious apologists like to think that they can prove god exists simply by constructing a fancy argument, which is simply not true. Theory is not enough, you need to be able to demonstrate your god via observation or experiment. Otherwise its just like arguing about who would win in a fight, Voltron or Optimus Prime. No matter who wins, the conclusion is ultimately meaningless until you can show that both of them exist in the real world.

Any argument that cannot be settled by experiment is not worth discussing - Newton's flaming laser sword.

Thanks for derailing my thread.

Kay17:
Where ARE THEY?!

I am one. A livinwitness of the healing power of God. But of course you don't believe me.

plaetton:
Why did God create the Malaria parasite that kills millions of children each year?

What part does the Malaria parasite play in the intelligent design?

And, of course, how does Jesus save anyone, children especially, from the ravages of the Malaria parasite?

Kay17 is right, God is responsible for all life. But the bi me says life has been corrupted because of imperfection and sin. God didn't create killers or pathogens. He created everything good. But under the original failure of mans management creation has been corrupted.

I'm very sure this answers your question completely.

plaetton:
Joshthefirst, where are you?

I'm Sorry. I've been very busy for some time now.

SeverusSnape:
Is that so?... GEJ all the way!

It seems Buhari has more support in Nairaland only because the majority of nairalanders live in the southwest and favor APC. In reality, GEJ has plenty of support too. I believe he'll win this election.

davien:
why? and how does this logically follow?

Volition is the only reason that can account for something like our universe existing.

davien:
You do realise that infinite energy equals infinite entropy/disorder right?

Not in this instance. Here I purport a personality behind energy.

ooman:
what is energy?

Energy is the ability to do work. Potential.

undercat:
Yes, something currently exists. However, everything could also not have existed. That's what I mean when I say nothingness is a possibility.

And I say that the fact that something currently exists throws away the possibility of nothingness. The fact that something currently exists shows that something always existed, because nothing cannot create something.

undercat: The "ancient energy" you call God. I'm merely trying to show you that it could just as well not be "God".

OK.

undercat: I thing you are just repeating yourself here, that eternity=personality.

OK. Let's take things one by one. I say the source is personal, because only volition can cause our universe to be birthed from eternity.

undercat: I'm trying to say that spacetime can be eternal. That would invalidate the argument.

But Space-time has been shown to have a physical origin. So it cannot be eternal.

undercat: I couldn't understand you here. Could you explain a bit?

I mean you have to show the creator of this universe is not timeless and spaceless before you can say the creator might have been created, as a timeless and spaceless creator is uncreated.

undercat: Perhaps the singularity is inherently unstable. Perhaps this universe is one of the possible states of the singularity. These are options.

This universe has an origin. Hence it is not a transition of state.

Kay17:
Infinity can be in relation of numbers or any quantity. By in this circumstance, it is being used in relation to time. Hope you get me?

And in this instance The Source is said to be timeless in relation to time. Unchanging.

ooman:
Infinity qualifies something, not itself.

A thing may be said to exist for infinity, but infinity cannot be said to exist for infinity.

Infinity is abstract, nonexistent when nothing exists.

So infinity by itself is nothing.

Else you'd be holding the block view of time, which is pathetic.

Sorry, but no one ever claims the source is abstract. Let me put forward at least one parameter to qualify the uncaused cause: Energy. The Personality of origin possesses infinite energy. Omnipotence.(wrt our universe of course).

ooman:
straight on point. Its nothing.

care to explain?

Kay17:
A timeless world of infinity is a contradiction. Infinity in relation to time is endless flow of time, it suggests the eternal presence of time. Whilst timeless is the total absence of time. Please try a keen understanding of both.



See . . When it does not conform to your preordained proofs for God's existence, you discard it. You cherrypick.

Sorry. But this is gibberish. What do you mean infinity in relation to time. I'm talking of sans time. This seems like sophistry to me. You say timeless infinity is a contradiction and support that by saying there is an infinite flowmof time in infinity?

Kay17:
The dilemma of a cul de sac as experienced with horizontal time is negated with imaginary time. Imaginary time is often compared with a sphere, unlike a line with two ends; spheres do not have that limitation. So a multiverse does not need an absolute beginning.

A timeless world in my mind, is a still one. It is a world without motions. Including the motion of creation.

A timeless world of infinity does account for everything we know and see, outside of imaginary concepts.

Kay17:
The dilemma of a cul de sac as experienced with horizontal time is negated with imaginary time. Imaginary time is often compared with a sphere, unlike a line with two ends; spheres do not have that limitation. So a multiverse does not need an absolute beginning.

A timeless world in my mind, is a still one. It is a world without motions. Including the motion of creation.

What about the fact of our universe's expansion? How does that merge with the cyclic imaginary time concept?

Remember imaginary time is an imaginary concept that has no bearing with reality. Essentially, it is an excuse of imagination.

Peterken05:
Yh, life started from bacteria, you can't understand it, you know why?

1. Because you have another story that contradicts it.

Its good you know itsa story. They're all stories.

Peterken05: Just because we live for a short period of time to see these things happen doesn't mean it isn't happening. For example, you look at the clouds, you just look at it, you don't see anything happen right?.
If you do the time lapse of a cloud, you would know that they are not just standing there staring.

We eventually observe the movement of clouds and the rotation of the earth. They are observed. We observe adaptation in our labs. We've even observed speciation. But we cannot observe primordial bacteria turning into reptiles and then into primates. Do you know why? Its because we can't go back in time. Its history. Its a STORY as you have said. An opinion of history. So it is not fact. How can you state it as fact that life started from bacteria then go on to call it a story?

Kay17:
And I have mentioned that it is the beginning of horizontal time...

Note that horizontal time is the only time that we experience and know of. Some parameters of vertical time can be said to "not be time" at all...infinity ie. Events occuring in infinity...

Kay17:
And I have mentioned that it is the beginning of horizontal time. Also, cosmologists have fitted a multiverse alongside with the Big Ban.g.

This doesn't change anything, as the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. The fact of the universe's expansion makes it to definitely have a previous space-time origin. Irrespective of its nature or shape.

Kay17:
How then did you find a timeless cause leading to the beginning of the Universe?! You are the only individual in the world, able to conceive of a timeless point separated from another point in time.

Maybe you should go back once more and read the parameters of the argument. Remember I wasn't the one who put it forward. The beginning of the universe is the beginning of space and time. Therefore its cause is sans space and time.