₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
You still are yet to bring an example of a natural process making a code. I'm too willing to bet that any 'example' you bring will be false. You've tried previously with snowflakes and crystals which is preposterous.

As I said earlier you preemptly defined 'codes'.

A proper definition would describe a code not make metaphysical leaps about the cause.

UyiIredia:
I have one. Natural processes lack consciousness and lack the capacity to produce it. It is okay to assume God is behind consciousness. That's the only other option.

The other option is observe Nature, and watch/observe how DNAs and other 'codes' evolve. Again, you preemptly define 'codes' especially when we are disputing the cause.

UyiIredia:
Facts such as random mutations NEVER building a new protein except in evolutionary fairy tales. And the fact that natural processes don't build systems with a code. Having a code is ALWAYS indicative of purpose which natural processes lack. Not to mention the fact that NS is grossly overhyped in what it can do which is at most conserve a trait. It doesn't make anything

Again, you have refused to admit a natural process must be the immediate cause.

UyiIredia:
The source of purpose. God is no convenient remote cause. I'm not eager to restate or bring any new proof to someone who remains wilfully ignorant to the point of ignoring facts. Truth and causality are immaterial. They are products of a consciousness that is in essence immaterial and find immediate cause in God. BTW immediate causes rest on final causes.

But you do not have the data nor empirical facts to make that tie between God and consciousness. You merely tie up consciousness with an unknown. Again final causes are remote.

sinequanon:
The problem here is that ToE postulates small steps that build more complex outcomes.

What we have here is a behaviour (seagull running on the spot) and its reward (a worm).

But the link between the reward and the action appears to be very subtle, both because it is sporadic (worm may not appear) and deferred (worm typically would appear only after several minutes).

As this running on the spot behaviour seems to have no other function, how did the seagull come to anticipate such a seemingly remote reward, without using logic?

How can you break the behaviour down into small evolutionary steps of immediate reward, leading to the final complex behaviour?

I still owe this to intelligence. A seagull could have noticed the effect of running the ground and seeing the worms storm out. The seagull was capable of making the connection and repeat time and time again. This rightly reminds me of a Skinner experiment with pigeons and superstitions.

Again, the use of intelligence applies not only to this scenario but others, like communication, group hunts etc.

Diffdeef:
You might have noticed that most terrorists are mostly Muslims. That means that, per capita, the group that produces the most terrorists is Muslims. Why is this the case? It boils down to differences in tradition. The cultures where Islam is dominant have traditions that promote terrorism where other cultures have different traditions that don’t do that. I’ll discuss these traditions in detail.

Traditions are ideas that are commonly known among the vast majority of a culture. People learn these traditions generation after generation. In some cultures the traditions change quickly – we call these dynamic societies – while in other cultures, their traditions don't change quickly – we call these static societies.


Criticism Differentiates between these 2 types of societies, dynamic societies have this tradition of criticism that promotes error correction while static societies don’t. Our knowledge is not perfect. And it’s the imperfections that cause human suffering. In order to lessen our suffering, we must improve our knowledge. And the only way to improve our knowledge is to discover our mistaken ideas (using criticism) and to correct those mistakes (using creativity and more criticism).



Now getting back to Muslims and terrorism, Islamic societies are static societies. These societies have not yet adopted the tradition of criticism. They see criticism as something bad and so criticism is frowned upon. Questioning your parents is bad. Questioning Allah is bad. This is what causes their knowledge to be static – it halts the evolution of knowledge.

Ironically, the Quran explicitly states that it will not be changed. That Allah is protecting it from man-made changes. So it doesn’t evolve. And Muslims claim this as their proof that Islam is right and all other religions are wrong. But knowledge evolution is good, because it corrects mistakes. So, other religions like Christianity have evolved, which means that their knowledge has improved, namely their morality.


This raises the question, how will terrorism stop? Well we need an agent of change, one that will change Islamic cultures everywhere. That agent of change will play a role in their societies adopting a tradition of criticism. I don’t know how this will happen. I don’t know what things must fall into place for this to happen. What I do know is that by adopting a tradition of criticism, a society will enter a golden age, its own Enlightenment. And if it can sustain its tradition of criticism, then it will continue to be a dynamic society indefinitely.

What is terrorism?! The neighbour with the gun is a terrorist for the mere fact that he inspires fear and awe with it.

UyiIredia:
And indeed, God is the source of purpose of all kinds. I don't use elaborate reasons to show God exists. My intuition, clear facts and some common sense. But atheists lack intuition, ignore facts and twist common sense. BTW lot of facts are taken on faith. I doubt you have seen someone's DNA. Yet you take it as a fact on faith.

What is material is that God is a possible source of purpose, which is what satisfies them.

And I have endlessly stressed to you and other theists, that we ought to concern ourselves with the immediate cause. if you are worried about the nature and source of the DNA, then look for the immediate cause. If you are worried about the beginning of the Universe, search for the immediate cause. For me, God is a convenient remote cause which is abstractly metaphysical. It is crazy. Whereas, you and other theists like deepsight - attach your individual frailties to your search for truth. You need a purpose Uyi not a God.

UyiIredia:
God isn't absent. The existence of God is factual. However I have learnt that atheism isn't based on facts but poor thinking.

Uyi Iredia,

Most of the people interviewed are simple folks. They are not equipped as you are, with the elaborate theological devices and philosophies you have. The existence of God must have been justified in the simplest possible manner - the purpose provider for their existence. For most of them, simple faith suffices. Regardless of the stretch between faith and facts.

italo:
You started out by suggesting Religion served to suppress what is true and good...and that Atheists dont engage in "killing crusades"...I then showed you how the Catholic Church practically built Science, indeed Western Civilization...and how Atheists are the worst mass murderers in history...with overwhelming, universally known evidence. If you have evidence that any of the points in my quotes in untrue, provide it.
1. Stop lying. Bruno wasn't condemned for advancing Copernican System. He was tried for Heresy and the likes. Even your wiki quote proves you false.

2. [b]The Inquisition was an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions. Heresy was a capital offense against the state. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.

When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

As Wikipedia states, Bruno was found guilty of many charges of heresy and the proper sentence for the time was meted out. The Church was there to make sure he received a fair trial.[/b]
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110209102919AAlkPTL
These people were killed by CIVIL AUTHORITIES who had no affiliation to my religion, which is Catholicism.

But compare that small number to how many the ATHEIST CIVIL AUTHORITIES have killed to advance your Atheist religion. Tens of millions!

And what good has your religion brought the world? Bondage, destruction and death!

If his motives during the crusades are questionable, how can he be trusted to write honestly on the crusades.

Also, the conduct of the troops don't make the idea of the crusades bad, just like the conduct of Allied troops dont make the fight against Hitler bad. Think well, for once.

Italo,

So you admit the Church did execute individuals for heresy, thereby making itself available as a means by the secular authorities, right?

italo:
Stop the revisionism of history.

Religion, at least Catholicism never stopped those men from pursuing truth. In fact, it helped them do so.

Catholicism invented, sponsored and nourished science...and many other human disciplines. In short, Catholicism built the western civilization you now hold so dear and benefit from.

The crusades were a good thing...to defend people being raped, plundered and killed by Muslims, just like ISIS is doing now.

Atheists have held 'killing crusades' countless times in history. E.g Soviet Union Atheist govt killed millions in an attempt to stamp out religion. Albanian Atheist govt did same. China and North Korea continue to do same now.

The Catholic church punished and imprisoned Galileo, and worse off, apologized for the act. Neither were the Crusades as dignifying as you claim they were. The Muslims were in control of the area for a good while, prior to the Crusades. And yes, the atheist Soviet Union committed atrocities along with Communist China and Albania.

Image123:
Not giving your life to Christ especially when you could have shows your pride and decision to go to hell literally. You miss out on the power to live the life of a child of God. A life that enjoys victory and power over sin and its influence. You miss out from a possible eternity with God and instead settle for a possible eternity in damnation.
A mentor gives guidance, training and advice to a less experienced and often younger person. That is what Ingersoll and co are to you. You copy and paste their thinking and ideas.

How would anybody come to conclusions that only idiots are absolutely sure of salvation, or that the more brain you have the less your chance is? What makes you think that believers are not expressing their real opinion?

How did you get into such a position? What if another's position differs from yours, what makes your position superior? Are you moral?

When are you going to follow these words of yours? Does it haunt you yet that you do not know the God of Heaven?

Can I conclude that with what you have written above, that Love is insufficient to warrant a person like the good Samaritian Heaven without having Jesus as one's master and saviour?

sinequanon:
When it rains, earthworms tend to surface from underground.

Creatures, like seagulls take advantage of this by "running on the spot", their feet mimicking the pitter-patter of rain. This encourages earthworms to the surface, on which they feed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcJstUfD88

The question is, using The Theory of Evolution, explain how the seagulls developed this ability.

More info about "worm charming"...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_charming

Seagulls wait for the right conditions to do their dance.

These are the kind of observations that happen around you regularly that can help you assess the Theory of Evolution more critically.

(Wait for some illogical so-and-so to read a conclusion into the OP.)

Predators are naturally smart. In my opinion, it can be accounted for intelligence. The seagulls have the ability to manipulate their environment and especially where there are rewards, the trait is useful and valuable enough to be passed on to the subsequent generations.

sinequanon:
Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

It is not unexpected that atheism is centred around the non existence of deities and in the Western dominated world - God. That is what atheism is, the denial of the existence of deities and God. There is an element of truth in every theory that excludes the mention of God. To me, it is true to a certain degree.

Considering your grievance against the theory of natural selection, it is perfectly natural for atheists and all anti supernaturalists to be convinced by the theory. The theory is not perfect but probably the most revolutionary scientific theory after Galileo's heliocentric model of our solar system. It clashes perfectly with religions, that is what atheists like.

Now to your question, the question is a prospective one. And one that should be answered prospectively. Biodiversity is the hallmark of evolution, and we (not me exactly) come across thousands of species with their own uniqueness. It is possible there are species probably in the bottom of the ocean with infrared visions. Or in the future, more species will have them. Even more, alien species could have them and might have them.

Most of the interviewees could not wrap their minds around the possible absence of a Creator, a purpose provider. God to them does not only satisfy the existence of the universe, but more importantly their own existences. So if God becomes absent, their lives become meaningless.

honourhim:
Really? Bible is a Jewish book of history yet it influenced the British and the Americans who brought Christianity to us. It influenced Rome, Europe and some other countries so numerous to mention. including some of the now islamic nations to the point of winning billions of souls over the years and building thousands of churches across the nations of the world. "Jewish history and mythology" book indeed.
Even the quran recognized Jesus as a prophet of God.

So these countries were so so mumu to the extent that the Jews were so smart to have influenced them with their history and mythology? Bro pls tell that to the small boys and girls who will believe you.

Again some of you atheists claim that the Jews dont know Jesus yet you are here calling the bible Jewish book of history and mythology. The Jews dont know Jesus yet monuments are built on historic sites of the bible in their country and millions of christians go on pilgrimage there on yearly basis.






Bible is not an evidence to you because you are an atheist or whatever. But to the billions of Christians out there, bible is proven and is trusted.

How possibly could the Bible writers have know the origins of human language without relying on folklore and oral sources. That is an important hurdle you have to scale, you have to prove that the Bible which is a secondary source, was able to access a reliable primary source of information.

This is the equivalent of asking atheists to admit omniscience. It is an unrealistic proposition. The beginning of the Universe is largely a mystery. An enduring question.

italo:
In a sense, they can.

I thought you would show why Atheism cannot be considered a religion. But you didn't.

What a magnanimous duty you place in my hands! That duty is best achieved by showing how overgeneralized your standard for religion is.

DeepSight:
I don't see any sentiments or even any arguments I propounded in what I said there: you are simply completely at liberty to believe whatever suits you. If the idea of God is a conundrum - as it always will be - just be good to your fellow-man, however you may conceive and believe that. Be good to yourself also. I hope that is not too "sentimental" for you.

Because you earlier suggested one needs to feel grateful and accountable for his existence. And such feelings of gratitude necessitates an authority -- God. That was what I understood by you post.

sinequanon:
You are repeating yourself and confusing the problem of isolation of a system with objective vs subjective description of the system. They are two different things. QM has not discarded the assumption of objectivity at all. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Not just a matter of disagreement, but there are areas even in objectivity you don't seem to accede to.

sinequanon:
But you are confusing assumption with "fact".

Your statements about "the perfect world", "true picture", separating phenomenon from observer to postulate "the independent observer" and the "nature or behaviour of a phenomenon in itself" are all contingent on your ASSUMPTION of an objectivity.

The confusion is evident here..

Science, not me, makes the assumption of objectivity and as you have nicely put out -- the perfect world, a true picture separate from the observer contingent on objectivity. This assumption is whats shaky and even discarded in QM.

You are trying to call your assumption "the true picture" and then use that label to justify the assumption.

I could just as easily slap the label "the true picture" on the assumption that the world is subjective, and that similarities in experience cannot be abstracted into independent "observables". For example, "everything is in the mind" and we should be studying similarities of mind.

This is why I say we should be very careful with words. If you are not careful, they can introduce assumptions and bias based on your gut feel, without you realizing it. In this case, you called something "true" because it is the philosophy you "feel" to be true. But then you employed the word it in a logical sense because of the depth of that feeling.

I am not arguing nor justifying Science's assumptions, I was only pointing out the assumptions Science makes which conflict with results from QM. I'm not saying the world is objective nor subjective, I am only saying Science assumes the world is objective.

Same as above. Science is defining what it calls "true" through its own assumptions.

You cannot simultaneously elevate the meaning of the word "true" (as you are using it) to mean some universal standard outside of science, which validates science relative to other philosophies.



Because I was using the scientific paradigm. That doesn't mean accepting it.

Science abstracts observations by making a leap of faith from a multitude of subjective experiences to what it calls a "true" objective fact.

But even where science accepts that the observer is not independent (e.g two slit experiment), this does not imply subjectivity. It is only relativity (not in the Einsteinian sense.)

Are you conceding that Science did assume the observer is independent?

Again, I think you are confusing assumption and fact -- in this case actual environment and model (classical/non-classical).

Determinism is also contingent to objectivity.

For QM, Science has had to adjust its assumptions.

@italo

To be truthful, your definition of religion is too broad and broad enough to cover "centralized atheism or state atheism" however it covers ideologies. It can cover the Nazis and the Communists as well as the Democrats, Social Liberals and PDP/APC. Worse you didn't even mention the type of beliefs necessary to form a religion. And in any case, can political beliefs form religions?

sinequanon:
Measurement is interference.

The whole point is that there is no totally independent observer, but in QM the known measurement techniques are so obtrusive relative to the phenomena being investigated that they cannot usually be modeled in an error margin. (The quantum Zeno conjecture seems to suggest a counterexample.)

But in the perfect world there is no observer bias or interference. Don't mix the facts with the assumptions. To common sense, there is no point of trying ascertain the nature/behaviour of a phenomenon when I believe I cannot capture the true picture due to my observation interference. But Science believes it can capture the true picture of phenomena, and a consequence of that belief is the assumption of the "independent observer". The fact that you accept objectivity precludes you from opposing the 'independent observer'.

Besides you have mentioned yourself an error margin. Why would an error margin be contemplated if it is accepted that there is no "independent observer".

Determinism remains an assumption in ANY statistical system, classical or otherwise.

This is not unique to quantum physics.

What the QM physicists are debating is not whether they must discard determinism (they won't, even if it means believing in infinite universes containing men with green beards), but whether they must reject classical objects for modeling matter. i.e does matter consist of "things" which are nothing like what we are familiar with in everyday life (like beads and water waves).

Determinism is seeming possible in a certain, fixed and predictable environment, it is counterproductive for you to claim that in an uncertain environment as QM, determinism is possible. It is a contradiction.

OLAADEGBU:
It's not a dilemma it's called the Holy Trinity. Jesus is really God, the Second Person in the Godhead.

Then Jesus must be a part of God

OLAADEGBU:
I have conclusively given the evidence that the universe was created and created by God:

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

I asked if all designed entities must have a designer as an immediate cause? Which is it?

sinequanon:
I can't make sense of your first sentence.

An error free experiment is obviously one which reduces all interference the observer would have had with the phenomena. The fact that the observer occasionally comes in the way is considered an error. And in the absence of all interference the phenomena is deemed to be independent from the observer.

And so? Non-classical interpretations of how matter is modeled can still have a deterministic basis.

Reaching a conclusion that classical interpretations cannot be deterministic does not imply that no interpretation is deterministic. They will look for a non-classical description that is deterministic. The multiverse theory, for example, involves non-classical objects.

Yet the determinism remains an assumption because there is no way to know exactly the phenomenon will act the same way it did in the past, in the future. While in quantum physics (since that's the topic we are restricted for the while), determinism as found in classical interpretations have been largely abandoned in place for Uncertainty principle, Indeterminism and Complementarity views which are non deterministic. Of course determinism is still used in other fields of science, but it is largely stripped off in quantum physics.

sinequanon:
This isn't contrary to fixed laws. Nor does "random" even imply the outcome is indeterminate. All it is saying is that the mechanism of the decay are of no importance to the current experiment.

What is important in this experiment is the collapse of the wave function, which is dependent on the measurement (observation mechanism)

1. The entire experiment was supposed to be a mockery, nonetheless it is important to stress the unpredictability of a particle (phenomenon) which is well comfortable in quantum physics, does not apparently accommodate the scientific assumption that all phenomena are predictable. Schrodinger's tries to show also the unpredictability of the quantum on the macro level.

This is nothing special. Measuring devices interfere with experiments. It happens to become particularly critical in QM.

No, the perfect experiment is designed to be independent from the behaviour of the phenomena. I said the phenomena interacts/responds with the observer.

The question of inherent indeterminacy relates not to laws, but to their interpretation!

They are saying that you cannot give a classical interpretation to the quantum system if the indeterminacy hypotheses (and they are still hypotheses) are accepted.

As I mentioned earlier, they had to throw out the then "classical" idea of a particle as a bead, when it showed wavelike behaviour.

Now, all combinations of particle-like and wavelike duality do not appear to easily account for some observations.

The result does not challenge the basic assumptions of science, but the description of matter. The classical description is being challenged.

3. The classical interpretations were based on deterministic assumptions. the classical interpretation had an expectation on how matter was to behave. There is what matter is and what we perceive of matter. We make the assumptions not matter.

sinequanon:
I take it that you don't really understand.

Let me explain it, as I see it.

At one time, matter was considered to consist of smooth paste, sitting in an ether of nothingness. This model progressed to an atomic model of hard indivisible beads, then to waves and then to quantum particles. By this time, scientists had accepted that matter was none of the above, and that models were separate from the reality, to be used to predict the reality within a domain of applicability.

Probability arises, not essentially in the context of causality, but in the context of measurement, according to latest models. The observable is considered to exist in EVERY state AT ONCE, but collapses into one state (an eigenstate) upon measurement. And that is where the probability comes in. It is not causality of the state of the observable, but interference of the measuring system to which probability is attached.

The Schródinger Cat "thought experiment" argues, using a chain reaction, that an observable existing in EVERY state AT ONCE is not confined to tiny particles. You can construct an experiment in which the same must logically follow for a large object, like a cat.

If you read up on the "quantum Zeno effect", you will see that it postulates that quantum measurements will be predictable if taken sufficiently rapidly so as to prevent the wave function of the system from representing too much external noise.

The implications thereof are:

1. The trigger for the experiment was the random decay of a radioactive particle and observation of same are contrary to 'fixed' laws we are familiar with.

2. The suggestion that the observer is not independent of the phenomena; in other words, the phenomena responds to the observer

3. Quantum indeterminacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy which I managed to stumble on. These are radical departures from conventional science and our commonsense.

OLAADEGBU:
The conclusion of that evidence gave the answer you are looking for. (See Genesis 1:1).

1. Who created? ————— God

2. What was created? —— All things

3. How was it created? — By His Power

4. When was it created? — In the beginning

5. How long did it take to Create? — 6 days

This does not answer it.

sinequanon:
You don't understand that much about quantum physics do you.
You are claiming that science accepts that quantum physics may not be governed by such laws.
Give an example in quantum physics where evidence can violate 2.

Kay17:
Probabilistic causes. Thanks for cheering my ignorance too.

sinequanon:
Give an example of a probabilistic cause in quantum mechanics.

Kay17:
The Schrodinger cat example.

sinequanon:
Do you really understand what that is about?

Mr, stop this merrygoround and state your case.

sinequanon:
Give an example of a probabilistic cause in quantum mechanics.

The Schrodinger cat example.

sinequanon:
You don't understand that much about quantum physics do you.

You are claiming that science accepts that quantum physics may not be governed by such laws.

Give an example in quantum physics where evidence can violate 2.

Probabilistic causes. Thanks for cheering my ignorance too.

sinequanon:
Stop being dishonest with yourself.

I simply asked you to be explicit. If you disagree with ANY of the following, say so, and stop beating about the bush.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

Now, stop fooling yourself that your reticence to address the issue is anything but slavish and religious adherence to dogma and reluctance to scrutinize your beliefs and faith.

I agree with 1. only the remainder are false.

Quantum physics is an example of a field of science that challenges science's fundamental assumptions.