₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
God. Absent God and I don't think there would be life and certainly not consciousness. One can't reduce, explain or understand consciousness in solely material terms. To explain or understand consciousness you have to be conscious and intelligent.

I am not surprised at your response because it has always been your position but God himself is conscious

UyiIredia:
I didn't miss any point. undercat denied my statement that consciousness is immaterial. I agree the brain is the source of consciousness but I don't believe the brain alone explains it.

I forgot to address the above. So what else is involved? Consciousness?!

davidylan:
Well what does it posit then? You seem to waffle from position to position based on the particular thread you're on. Are you saying that the big bang created an ordered universe?

An ordered Universe is such because of physical laws. Physical laws create the predictability and determinacy of the Universe. In their absence the Universe would fall into absolute chaos. And the fact that language uses "laws" to describe these forces, does not mean they are similar to human laws which are createable or created.

davidylan:
I'm not sure you understood my point at all... infact i think it just went over your head. We were talking about the fact that the basis for the big bang itself is that life started in a state of random chaos... the question is how did random chaos come up with such a fine-tuned system of codes like the DNA? No one is asking you to describe the big bang... if you cant answer the questions then say so rather than all these useless pretense.

But again I repeat, the Big Bang is not chaos nor was the preuniverse. And neither is the Big Bang a direct cause of Life. And neither can you thread any implications of chaos to the origin of life. Hence the bolded is a moot point. You set up a cascade of assumptions nobody agreed to, and presented them up as my position.

davidylan:
Not really... infact not at all. You're basing your "substantial effect" on pure phenotype alone... i.e. skin color, facial features. But you forget that there are literally millions of other processes that take place under the skin facade that are no different from that of your neighbor. Your cells act exactly alike, your blood is the same color, your cells respire through mitochondria... etc.

But undesigned changes in a designed DNA ought to produce undesigned effects, aren't they?

davidylan:
Well what does it posit then? You seem to waffle from position to position based on the particular thread you're on. Are you saying that the big bang created an ordered universe?

Are you expecting me to spit out the entire big bang theory here or what?! This has already been overdone. Why act like you are just hearing the big bang for the first time

UyiIredia:
The illogicality of an infinite regress isn't proof against God. The issue of an uncaused complex designer would only be a problem if God was physical, He isn't. That said, we can't have a one-way discussion where only I defend my position, YOU TOO must defend your position that unguided natural processes resulted in life, a position that lacks any evidence whatsoever.

Perfect! I just wanted you to see my view for a second and I'm glad you did. Of course it is unfair to have a single sided debate.

The origins of life are much of speculation and hardly of facts. So I do not sell facts of the Universe or life itself. Neither am I willing to buy such facts. I'm more comfortable drawing the lines.

davidylan:
Actually the difference is a meagre 0.001% or less... infact we share a remarkable 60% of our DNA with a cob of maize... funny. Seems you really dont know what you're talking about.

Yet a .001 per cent change in a delicate encryption such the DNA has a substantial effect, wouldn't you agree?

davidylan:
i didnt make the assumption... the big bang theory did. You seem confused.

I don't think the Big Bang theory posited a chaotic preuniverse. A infintely dense singularity is not the same as chaos.

UyiIredia:
You are also being unreasonable in your judgement of the designer argument. No one conveniently excludes God. I have already stated that the illogicality of an infinite regress necessitates an uncaused cause, it makes nonsense of the idea that there must be a designer's designer infinitely.
Furthermore, God is not physical like the complex things we are considering and thus cannot be held to such a standard.

I will ordinarily accept the illogicality of an infinite regress as a proof against God. Nonetheless, I want you to acknowledge the problem of a complex designer without a cause. If you acknowledge that, then we can move on to the issue whether God being non-physical, can not be complex.

davidylan:
Do you have evidence it has changed? From what to what? Lets discuss...

My DNA is obviously different from yours and similarly this present generation's DNA is different from their parents. And their parents' is different from their grandparents and so and so forth.

davidylan:
But you have faith that random chaos was capable of creating DNA instead... the irony is rich here.

I never said the DNA emerged from pure chaos, you made that assumption Nature exists in a pool of chaos. The cause of the life and likewise DNA is unknown. That is the fact available to us, any other thing said is speculation.

Heavenly102:
thats why Solomon said seek understanding, the scriptures ought to be intellectually dissected, else mumu Gospel will prevail

Unlike what many say, God makes sense, not uncertainty and confusion

You did not answer the question

@davidlyan

Do you think the DNA has remained exactly the same of the millions of years it has been present?

But has the religion evolved to the needs of modern times?

davidylan:
I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

But you have Faith that an intelligence is capable of creating the DNA and other similar codes?

UyiIredia:
The belief that consciousness is material is false. Consciousness is defined as a state
of [b]awareness of one's thoughts and surroundings, that awareness isn't material. Consciousness also has no physical properties (eg mass or speed).[/b]

The 'who designed the designer' rhetoric is mistaken. Both atheists and theists agree that an infinite regress of causes is illogical and impossible. Therefore a chain of events MUST recede to a factor that is, by necessity, uncaused. In the case of design in living things that factor may be God (who theists believe is uncaused) or non-living natural processes (that atheists believe are uncaused).

@ the bolded, you keep missing the point, which is the cause/source of consciousness being material not that consciousness itself is material. If the brain is the source of the consciousness and we can provide that 'messing around with the brain' alters consciousness therefore we have indications that the brain being a material entity is the source of consciousness.

'Who designed the designer' is important because the general principle upon which your argument is built is that complexities by themselves necessarily indicate a prior cause. So if the designer himself is found to be sort form of complexity like intelligence, then you are bound by your general principle. If you find it convenient to jettison the general principle at this stage, we can as well jettison it at any stage.

DaBullIT:
His story shows how confused he is

Christian background,

Chinese Education

Conversion to Islam

Some reasonable people see that as multicultural diversity

johnydon22:
It is not my definition of morality but rather that is the global definition of the concept of morality, am sure defining biology may differ in presentations but the meaning this presentations depicts remains constant.

Again bear in mind that SIN (a religious notion) bears a different definition with the concept of morality.

So whoever gives a different representation of the concept of morality that goes contrary to the global concept, i think it should be clear enough whose definition is subjective to him..

Anyway can you tender another definition of moral concept that goes opposite to the definition above?

where is this definition sourced from?

johnydon22:
[b]I think your question is socially acceptable characters not morality. . .

Morality: Are actions or events that decreases individual human suffering and improves societal well being, freedom, equality and justice.

So moral actions remains constant bearing to the scope of this definition.

A socially accepted action are actions that are regarded as acceptable in a given culture or society or religion.
And socially accepted actions are subjective concepts that varies from place to place, culture to culture and religion to religion.

To give you a detailed example of socially accepted actions and morality. .
In the medieval ages, something regarded as the dark ages when Christianity ruled all of europe. it was a socially accepted action to burn, behead and kill heretics. To that age it was acceptable but going by the meaning of morality those actions were not anything near moral.…and these action phased out of socially acceptable action as the time went by which is why nobody has the right to do it now.

So at this age, moral concept of the world remains the same but the socially accepted actions (which in some cases still bears no weight on a morality) varies and is subjective.

So answering your question i would say "The socially accepted actions of the 19th century is drastically different from that of today's world being the 21st century[/b]

What if this meaning of morality, is not a meaning which everyone shares with you; would I be justified to say it is your own morality?

UyiIredia:
I think we should end the discussion here. Your questions avoid my point and are another invitation to back-and-forth statements that lead nowhere.

It is better we go to the roots of your arguments. Otherwise we will keep missing each other on the way and keep going back and forth.

Again I repeat, you believe that intelligence is the necessary cause of all complexities (including the Universe). The natural question I'd ask is, is it in all cases. And you would as usual say yes. In reply, the particular experience you have humans of exercising their intelligence, is not the same as a universal experience. Therefore the conclusions you can make out of it, is at best inductive.

UyiIredia:
I didn't disagree with it, in fact, THC affects human consciousness.

So what was the gist of the dead body if not to derail the discussion?

UyiIredia:
Your bias blinds you. Nature made bacteria, it wasn't enough, it made fishes and reptiles while making plants, but that wasn't enough, it had to make mammals and humans with their minds. Meanwhile, a simple cup can nature not make. I don't think you see how much assumptions your position requires.

Consciousness is a property of humans, not the materials of which the humans are made of. You are making a fallacy of composition where you assume the parts have the property of the whole.

Why must intelligence be responsible for the beginning of the Universe?!

UyiIredia:
Typical evasion. So, of all the points I made it was only that you responded to.

Uyi, I don't get what you are getting at. Alcohol and drugs have an effect on human consciousness when such consciousness is present. This statement, you disagreed to. But dragging a dead body along, without consciousness does not disprove how drugs and alcohol affect the human consciousness. EXCEPT you think I'm trying to say drugs creates consciousness WHICH will be very ridiculous.

@johnydon22

The morality that existed in the 19th century and now, are they the same?

UyiIredia:
Within the context, of a cell codons represent amino acids and the action of starting and stopping the making of amino acids. The rule which governs how codons represent amino acids and start and stop isn't dependent on natural law.




Natural processes lack the ability to make such things. In fact, we have no single instance of natural processes making codes. But we know humans make codes and we know they need intelligence to do so, hence the inference to a Creator God.




I think these are diversionary tactics. THC in a dead body won't affect any consciousness. It needs a conscious being to affect consciousness. I stated the problem consciousness poses for materialists. Answer it.

Don't you think there is no consciousness left in the dead body for it to have an effect?

UyiIredia:
You agree that natural processes can't make less complex coins and cars. Yet somehow it can make trees which are far more complex. Assuming for a moment that the universe could have existed without God I wouldn't expect living things to exist, since natural events lack the know-how, and consciousness would most surely not exist since it is not a property of matter, in fact we can't understand it in strictly material terms.

Uyi, your assumption is too convenient and unconvincing especially when I am already arguing that despite Nature's apparent intelligence, Nature has arrived at this point. We did not witness God planting trees and etc, so stop acting like we saw God do that' I am not going to follow your assumption that intelligence is fundamental in the beginning of the Universe. Which You have zero proof for but endless assumptions which I do not subscribe to.

Now to consciousness as a property of matter. Consciousness is self awareness of a subject of itself. he fact you being an entity that occurs space, isn't it an innate property of a human to be self aware?! Assuming consciousness is not a property of humans (matter) then what is it a property of:? Uyi you are really attracted to absurd positions.

That said, not every examples of codes are in nature. Morse codes and programming languages for instance, are artificial not natural. One could say codes are naturally occuring as things found in the context of the natural world around us but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the natural factors and activities that existed before life began had the ability to result in life and its genetic code (without God's divine hand).

This is the part you ignore the genetic code and 'talk' in long stretches about codes being languages etc. But the genetic code is natural and naturally occurring. Then you take us back to your fundamental assumption -- intelligence. BUT where you there when the genetic code was written?! And you assume how life arose.

A honest and proper look at the problem would show that this is impossible. The first thing to be kept in mind is that nature lacks foresight or will and so will not favor any event that could lead to a living thing or precursor. The next thing that precludes this is the problem of synthesis and organization, which are the making of materials used in lifeforms and the correct arrangement of such materials into an organism. Consciousness, simply deals the coupe de grace because it is absurd that material activities (in a brain) will effect a mind. Material activities, specifically chemical reactions are limited to physical effects such as the making of a new object and a release of energy. So why would a conscious mind exist ?

Isn't the consciousness similar to sight? The images and shapes that constitute sight are not pari material, hence the eye (being a physical entity) does not produce sight

MrAnony1:
Interesting. You seem to be saying that nature is capable of more creating more complex design than human beings? Yet you don't seem to think that nature possesses intelligence. How so?

This is a tricky question because I cannot deny the complexity in the Universe and at the same time, complexity and design seem to go together but 'design' does suggest a respective 'designer' alongside complexity. Is nature literally intelligent? no. But in any other sense yes.

johnydon22:
lol.... I hate homosexuality cus i was born straight, i love girls so much....




Count yourself lucky that you were born straight.
but bros the only way for you to live longer is to leave others alone to live their life the way they want.
what exactly is your business with people and what they do with themselves.

live your life and stop paying mind to others after all they are not doing it with you...


There is no race, colour, class, religion, sexual orientation, no system, no nothing that makes us better than anyone else. we are all deserving of love

This is Christian morality you are espousing. We atheists, at least as secularists ought to throw off the yoke of Christian morality. Love is the vaguest term and necessarily coupled with hatred. Everybody does not deserve love, to say otherwise is hypocritical. If everyone is loved, then who is hated?! And don't try to pin same sex marriage to love. Love is not even necessary for marriage.

Fash20:
They said they want to build a nation but they are building it on hate,propaganda and discrimination. I wish you the best though.

It is can also be called Nationalism.

gensteejay:
All right, Mr. non-linear thinker. My view on the issue still remains the same: same sex marriage is abhorrent.

This is why dialogues break down. Some people like you are incapable of communicating their differences. Very soon, same sex decriminalization will be a legitimate discussion in Nigeria and all you can say is, it is abhorrent.

johnydon22:
again its not an ailment.......


I don't see why you shouldn't give two adults that consents right to do so after all nobody is restricting your own right to have sex. .

its like saying you are not supposed to give short people rights to contest for election because it can be corrected.

Assuming this could be corrected. Assumingg