₦airaland Forum

^^

Then there lies the possibility that the DNA has always been this way since the beginning till the eND!!

Perfect midground

Gombs: Still waiting for my answers


*thinking out loud
Coded information is always the product of
an intelligent mind: At the centre of every
biological organism is a vast amount of
encoded information called DNA
(approximately the equivalent of 1.5 gig of
digital information in one DNA strand). Nothing
lives without that information and things go
terribly wrong when that information is
damaged. When we consider the full extent of
human knowledge, the only process that we
have ever observed in which vast amounts of
encoded information are assembled and
stored is through the agency of living minds.
Therefore, to assert that DNA is Mother
Nature’s fortunate little accidental child is laughable. The nature of the DNA is always and without
exception the product of an intelligent mind.

*thinking out loud

Atheist pls, can you all explain the DNA? How it came about? Who stored those data in them? Big bang theory, evolution or wharreva method you cn conjure cnt explain it

That intelligent mind that thought it all up and built it, how sophisticated wld such a mind be?! And do you think that mind suddenly appeared?!

THINK!

tobechi20: Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that Godexists. They say they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method.

Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God. Let me show you why.


First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.


Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence - that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.



Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendentGod who exists outside of, and independent of, the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for his existence.
Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake

At least we can throw out Thomas Aquinas argument.

aManFromMars: And love has nothing to do with being human?

What does love really mean?! Either a desertion/negligence of one's needs for that of others. Implicit in it is a lack of selfworth OR disguised attempt to possess any other.

Olaadegbu is such a liar! A great one too. He is so good that he has deceived himself!

What is a Sin?! A sin is definitely far from an absolute truth. Sins are an invention limited to a particular culture -- the Jews. They are castles built on fear and dwell only in the mind like a child's.

However Olaadegbu self deception blocks his sight from realizing Sins are inconsequential to the outsiders of his lies (or religion). Atheists, agnostics don't have the christian guilt ridden complex. Freethinkers freely provide meaning to their existence as against mentally chained Christians who are bound to the subjective meanings of life suitable for just one man.

What is Sin?! The Christian answer is a cacophony of contradictory tones. The Christian (meaning all the Christian denominations) lacks the integrity of a single thought/voice, of a single conscience!

It is not Olaadegbu's place to claim self righteousness, Ola is dirty, he is a piece of rag (as the Bible admits), not worthy of value, destined for a self created "Hell". A freethinker is strongwilled, value creative, free from man made guilty, and ready to inherit the earth.

I don't understand people"s obsession with love. Love your neighbour, love your wife, love your church, love your family, Love peace, there isn't a single species out there that has survived drunk on love! Humans aint an exception.

We atheists still feel trapped in Christianity and its pretensions. There is nothing wrong with simply being human.

Reyginus: Can morality prescribe an unnatural way to live?

Yes morality often does, for example Christian repression of sexuality, marriage, self denial of sex.

^^
MOrality prescribes the way to live, "naturalism" describes.

^^ hmmm another psychoanalyst

EVEN that!

italo: It was a simple "yes or no" question that you are incapable of answering honestly.

It doesnt call for an epistle.

this is the third time I'm repeating myself! All moral views are equal!

Uyi Iredia: And so my subscription of God to space. God being conscious & sufficiently intelligent and omnipotent to effect creation ex nihilo. That's where Lord Babs stops, I expect you to.

Yet Nothing has no contents, no creativity, no consciousness, no intelligence, is null

Uyi Iredia: There is an inherent contradiction in the concept and word 'nothing'. That it can be concieved and it is materially represented. If nothing truly exists it couldn't even be thought of. We know this given unconsciousness when we have no concept of anything whatever: given that 'nothing' is conceived and symbolized it is, in contradiction, treated as something which it is.

True, however this "Nothing" is empty, unproductive given that though it might be something, yet it has nothing. For Nothing to be creative, it must have the potential of being productive

Reyginus: I thought you once considered Naturalism to be the governing factor of morality. Does this follow naturalism?

Morality is about "ought to" behaviour, "Naturalism" is about "is" behaviour, therefore "Naturalism" doesn't lead to morality.

@Uyi Iredia

I'm surprised you took Space as Nothing, and a further puzzle is you owed most of existence to Space-Nothing. This begs the question "Can something come out of Nothing?'

Anthropomorphic arguments are merely "self confessions"

^^ the question was not a simple one, rather a loaded rhetorical question laden with weight of your narrow views. My argument is hingged on the fact that neither of you's view is superior to the other, which leads to the questuon, of what relevance is your question/rhetorical question to my moral views, if it is not intended to juxtapose it to some universal morals?!

italo: Would you have these same sentiments if your daughter or mother were sleeping with horse...and dating it...and got pregnant by it?

You excellently capped my argument!

Your narrow moral views cannot avoid begging the question!

nnofaith: 18 pages and they still cant prove god exists!

God can create square circle by omnipotence

Square circles are impossible

Hence God is impossibly existent.

Uyi Iredia: Free-will isn't an illusion. I agree free-will isn't absolute but I disagree it is illusory. We can choose and we do BUT within pre-defined constraints, which happen to be a function of free-will.

The problem is, free will stands in opposition to determinism, by chopping off the arms of free will, you as a consequence create determinism. Besides there are constraints of culture, genetic makeup which do not actively lay before the doer while he makes his actions.

Through your narrow inconsistent moral prism, you'd find bestiality morally wrong.

But I'd say Castaldo's moral views are neither superior nor inferior to yours.

^^

Pls point out the immorality in it

Uyi Iredia: Ergo, evolution fails and I need not say how critical it is to the question.

Kay 17: 1. An intelligent computer can not create itself nor its intelligence.

2. An intelligent man can't create iself

Thus intelligent beings are incapable of self creation.

1. A well ordered world necessitates an intelligent creator and negates blind Nature

2. A well ordered world reflects the well ordered mind of the intelligent creator

3. Hence the well ordered mind demands a creator

4. An intelligent being cannot create itself

^^^
I'd assume you are indulging in "pseudoscientific reasoning", hence you are unable to escape your ignorance.

No offence to you.

1. An intelligent computer can not create itself nor its intelligence.

2. An intelligent man can't create iself

Thus intelligent beings are incapable of self creation.

@italo

Ok. Good. You can see God.

Before we can suggest God exists, God is foremost a Creator, and we must be created. The most popular theist argument is, our Universe is well ordered, and such intricate order can not result from blind Nature, nor the Universe arises as a cause to itself.

You follow?

Thank you logicboy, donroxy never substantiates his bases, he simply arrives with them (ill contemplated biases) "there are souls and spirits"

We are expected to nod and swallow donroxy's prejudices with docile approach of a lamb, and he would build entire castles and cities in the air!

The comparism with computer systems is premature, without an adequate explanation of what a soul is. And that's a huge gap to be covered in the minds of the audience.

italo: You could say so...even though some scientists would tell you that you dont really exist so there is really no math or logic.

Some scientists say...

In spite of what "some" scientists say, the reality is glaring. So far we have accepted our existence, and that of logic/mathematics.

Now to the validity of our senses. By accepting truths as independent from us, we impliedly accept an objective world, which we are part of. Our senses access raw naked data, but our perception interprets these data in form of an inductive experience.

And how we get to use our perceptions correctly creates Science.

But how do we know God exists?!

God can ONLY exist as a Creator, right?

@donroxy

If an order world demands that in the alphabetical order, B comes after A, and C after B; how do we predict in a pseudoscientific world? How do we know B comes after A or that Z is the last letter on the alphabets?!

CodeHouse: @ MR wiegraf...guess you have resolved to insults but I will shy away from doing just that in order not to forget why we are here..Im currently not on my PC, would have sent you these quotes where Albert Einstein mrntioned GOD with respect to GOD d creator of the universe..bros you are just another person in denial of GOD..as regards my ID CodeHouse..it has something to do with my passion to write codes as a programa...but dat is not why we are here, is it? You are just in the habit of copy n pasting someone elses research work, I wonder why it is difficult to believe in GOD..and mind you 'BIG Grama' is short for 'BIG Grammar'..Bros just relax understanding GOD is not as difficult as you think..only believe is that too much to ask? If you were born an Atheist, it would be a diff issue entirely but no one is born an atheist, following the concept of Tabula Rasa, it is pertinent to say that you just learned to be an Atheist, but knowing that GOD exists is an awareness..

If God is the creator of the universe, then who is the creator of his mind? Alos note that humans show great intelligence in writing computer programmes which (in ID parlance) suggest man is created!

@italo

Continuation;

Now we are faced with identifying what's true beliefs from false one, it becomes obvious there are self evident truths like your existence, laws of thought/logic, mathematical truths.

Agree?

italo: One man's "reality" is another man's "illusion."

So who defines reality?

Atheists?

I will let you know what deteremines reality/truth, you have to follow me keenly.

1. We can't make sense out of contradictions within a context, we can't accept a yes is the same as a no within the same context.

2. By following the above, all beliefs cannot be true, because contradictory beliefs are necessarily false.

3. Hence we must accept the reality of truths.

Any objections?

wiegraf: http://nrich.maths.org/1434

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Triangles_%28spherical_geometry%29.jpg/350px-Triangles_%28spherical_geometry%29.jpg

Welcome to non-euclidian geometry. How many more before riemann et al are qualified to become saints?

You must now believe in miracles, btw..

He meant an angle of more than 180 degrEes