₦airaland Forum

SNCOQ3:
For the 'bolded', an eye is not an 'appearance of design'; It is a design; so is a fish, cat, termite....etc.

You manage to miss the fact that my argument implies design is governed by physical laws which in itself is design too.
In order words, the forces of nature interact the way they are designed to. If the physical laws loses balance, the universe will be destroyed. Balance, like symmetry is an intrinsic attribute of design.

Where there is coherent design, there is a who behind it. This fact is yet to be disproved; therefore:

He(Logos) is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Col 1:17

MrAnony1:
I have read and reread your answer. It seems to me that while you agree that the physical laws governing the universe show enough structural complexity to suggest design, your argument is that for us to properly assume design we must first explain what design constraints these physical laws are based upon since our designs are based on these physical laws.

Have I represented your position accurately? Please correct me if I haven't or if I've overlooked anything.

KingEbukasBlog:
Am not sure you really understand the true purpose of science or religion . Christians understand both and its clearly evident on this thread .
And please can you show me through science how

1. Something came from nothing without a cause and begat everything

2 How life came from inorganic matter (non living )

... or wait... isn't that "magic"? ... never mind

SNCOQ3:
Just like a watchmaker:
He makes his watch self-regulate - Physical laws
He made the watch; he is not the watch - Transcendence
He rewinds or changes the battery, and fixes the watch when necessary - Immanence

https://www.after8media.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/feature-3.jpg


That is why we don't have to 'transcend' common sense to know physical laws exist.


It takes more than a cursory observation to classify it a law.


the 'bolded' is a word salad for DESIGN.
To rephrase you word: "...but we understand that there is design in the manner things are run in the Universe"

You have solidly affirm design.


Any evidence that we adapted to regularity? That we transited from a chaotic mindset(yaba left) to a 'regular' mindset that can sense order?

You're free to question 'regularity' with your sanity. You can try it for 2 weeks... All na scientific experiment, no wan go stop you.

https://smatterist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/serbian-asylum-04.jpg


What you are describing is Design and Engineering.
Physical laws is not an imposition on design but a part of what constitute the environment. The other part is space-time.
The environment and all things in it is called the Universe- A grand design; Therefore physical laws is part of the grand design.


That is: the mango tree in front of my house- a product of 'nature' and my house- a product of man are governed by physical laws.
Then what?
We Christians believe that man's creative power is subject to the supremacy of God creative power. Isn't that in agreement with your assertion in 'bold'?


It does not require reverse engineering to come to a commonsensical conclusion; It takes a sane mind to do so.
a well design structure- complex or simple is a product of an intelligent mind. Any proof to the contrary?


My imagination is independent of physical laws. But I must consider physical laws to create an object useful in a physical world.

A game programmer can create his own virtual world, name it Mongos with Mongal Laws. Their is no gravity nor friction in mongos. Mongals are intelligent 'creatures' without legs, they teleport.

Relatively, Anthills are magnificent skyscrapers with cooling systems that puts our modern skyscrapers to shame.
They are built by termites- Ants with well-organized social structure. They gather food during the good days and store for the raining days.

Kay17, Do termites also exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe? Or is it in-built or both?


That is not entirely correct.
Engineering is basically about manipulating physical laws to serve a specific purpose. Alignment is just one aspect of manipulation: when I want rain water in my barrel, I make an object to redirect the water not align with the water.
Their are also vibration, contraction, expansion, attraction, repulsion, compression, diversion ... on and on.

To selectively select 'align' is reductionism. A futile attempt to use an aspect of something to explain the whole.


What should be consistent with your argument so far is: "In another way, the Universe is a platform designed for human designs".


Nonsense. This is a violation of the Law of Action and Reaction.

Ecological concerns like acid rain aside, how does your argument prove an alternative to the fact that order/design can only proceed from an intelligent mind?


Spaghetti analysis. Spaghetti conclusion.
Pass me a plate of salad.

https://popularblogsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/healthy-salad.jpg

What is your speculation?

timonski:
What one has to go through to deny existence of the Almighty Creator. SMDH!

MrAnony1:
Good. (do you recall my first post on this thread?)

A. Since you admit that the universe apparently shows design and hence suggests the existence of a designer but isn't really designed. Then essentially you are saying that design is the obvious observation about the universe though this observation is not accurate.
The burden of proof therefore lies on you as you will now have to give us actual reasons to reject what is so apparent to us.

So what reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you?

B. You hold that this apparent design suggests intelligence in any other sense than in the literal sense. What other senses specifically do you mean? Can you give examples to help us understand?

KingSango:
Sango is Christ.

The Alaafin of Oyo is the living Sango. If you are Yoruba it is your duty to better your kingdom, support the Alaafin, your Oba, your Elders and change Africa for the better.

MrAnony1:
Ok so...

1. You admit that there is complexity in the universe.
2. You admit that it seems designed and so suggests a designer
3. You deny that this apparent design suggests intelligence in a literal sense but may may be true in any other sense.

Have I accurately represented what you said?

davidylan:
your support or lack thereof is not important. Either you have evidence or not, which you dont have. Not interested in empty speculation precisely to fit a preconceived idea. I have not "argued for it", i have simply said exactly what the science behind the big bang has said all along. Nothing new... the argument is from your side. Primodial soup was not my idea... it came from the very scientists you venerate... perhaps you can argue with them as to why their original idea of a chaotic pre-universe is completely wrong.

davidylan:
This statement attempts to indicate that we have concrete proof that the universe existed in an ordered fashion. That is quite false... infact the whole premise of evolution is that it all occurred via random mutations and that we evolved to what we are today because those random mutations that conferred evolutionary/survival advantages were retained while those that did not died off. Its funny how on one hand, atheists argue for an uncoordinated, random process of biological evolution YET claim that the universe started out as an ordered system (completely going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics by the way)... with no evidence. I asked very clearly... how did the physical laws that you say make the big bang "predictable" start? Where they always in existence? Rather than answer clearly, you resort of course to the tired waffling.

UyiIredia:
That's simply the way it is by definition.

UyiIredia:
You have a habit of avoiding the substance of my posts. I recall my deleted '6 Months Of Atheism' thread where you danced around my request of a natural process making codes.

Some inventions were stumbled on by chance (eg popsicles), some were done conscious effort (eg the light bulb) and some elements of both (eg X-ray machines).

UyiIredia:
That's simply the way it is by definition.

UyiIredia:
That's simply the way it is by definition.

UyiIredia:
That's simply the way it is by definition.

UyiIredia:
Yes. Case in point. The light bulb was invented before the wave-particle duality nature of light was understood and before there was a quantum theory explaining how hot metals emitted electromagnetic waves. Another example is the bicycle, the physics of what keeps it balanced while moving is still a mystery. There are more than several examples of things which were invented before scientists explained the laws behind them.

UyiIredia:
@ Kay17: Why did you repost what I'd already replied to ? Causality has no causal power but a cause always refers to an object with a causal power eg humans, clouds etc.

UyiIredia:
This doesn't make sense. It is as absurd as it gets when you stubbornly assert causation to physical laws which are descriptions that lack that quality.

Kay17:
Another example is causality itself. Why do we expect an effect to come after the cause, why not the effect before the cause. Yet it would be ridiculous to say causality has a causal power. I would define physical laws as the language through which the Universe expresses herself.

davidylan:
The problem is you have no argument and you're just going around in endless circles. I asked you how you knew that the big bang was not chaotic but ordered. What physical laws where in existence at that time? What brought those physical laws into existence? Magic?

How then was the DNA created? where biological laws also in existence at that time or was the creation of DNA simply dependent on the same magical physical laws you talk about?

Those are the simple questions... its ok to say you dont know...

davidylan:
You make a lot of bombastic statements on the big bang... either you have evidence or you simply just believe... by faith?

davidylan:
I think you're confused. My position has been simple - how did random chaos design the DNA? You've been going round in incoherent circles ever since.

UyiIredia:
It isn't. The inference to creation rests on two arguments.

1) The argument against the ability of natural processes to make living systems: This is based on the constraints of natural processes as observed. Coecervates, volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, sunlight and other ABIOTIC natural factors can effect mountains and naturally-occuring chemical compounds etc. They can't effect the sort of compounds seen in living things given the high risk of cross-reactions, lack of availability of starting materials etc. This is the problem of synthesis and it is evidenced by the virtual lack of biochemicals outside of living things. Furthermore, assuming biochemicals existed these natural factors lack the foresight to organize such materials into a living system. Natural factors that supposedly made life would just as quickly kill it and not resurrect it. This is the problem of organization and it is evidenced by the billions of corpses natural factors ONLY degrade and never repair.

2) The observation that intelligent agency is crucial to making systems analagous to living things and understanding them: Indeed the intelligent agency we refer to are humans. However, we isolate intelligence since it is this human property sine qua non to man's ability to make devices and understand living systems. Being human isn't enough babies are humans and so are mentally-disadvantaged persons. It is through intelligence we can make things like Velcro, pumping machines, computers, pulleys etc that are comparable to organs and systems in livings like the heart, brain etc. It is also through intelligence we can understand the systems in such living things and treat them when they are sick, modify them (as in GM foods) and incorporate some of their traits in systems we design. From this we infer a similar intelligent being created us.

As you can see, the first argument is a negative one against abiogenesis, and by extension, evolution. If creationists only used the first argument to assert that there was a God it would be an argument from ignorance. But as it is the second argument is a positive one for design or creation if you will.

This is a poor argument. Natural processes also affect man-made machines, do they make them ? To be specific, I'll need you to show natural processes that can, at least in theory, make a DNA. The evidence would be stronger if they've been observed making it, but at least we'll have a good start. A basis to discuss to plausibility of natural processes making life.

davidylan:
Ok but you just believe by faith no?

UyiIredia:
The universe doesn't express itself through any language. That's just a figment of your imagination. While physical laws do describe the natural world, they are not the natural world and as such don't exist on their own. Even supposing that by physical laws you meant the physical world, your earlier statement would be circular. It would amount to nothing more than saying the universe is ordered because of the physical world.

It's bad when I have to explain your position to you, but as it is, it would have been better for you to have said that order in the universe is self-existent and uncaused.

davidylan:
This is like listening to Sarah Palin make a speech. meaningless word salad...

If life is encoded by DNA then we conclude that the DNA writer is programmed via DNA-like codes... and the writer is life? Is this the definition of circular logic or what? and you call an allusion to the spiritual vague? hilarious.

davidylan:
Not only does it not make any sense... what predictable course did it take? who predicted it? How could you predict it BEFORE it happened or are you "predicting" by virtue of hindsight? In that case how can that be "predictable"? In essence, you dont know, you're guessing... all in blind faith of course.

davidylan:
So how did they appear?

davidylan:
Which suggests it was formed by natural events?

davidylan:
So by that i assume you think the preuniverse was ordered and the big bang was not a random event?

davidylan:
and those physical laws just appeared by chance right? What's the difference between believing God and believing chance? They are both one and the same - based on blind faith.

UyiIredia:
Physical laws are statements by humans to describe how the universe works. As such, they have no causal power, they are simply statements that describe the universe. Note that sometimes the term 'natural laws' is used instead of 'physical laws'.