thehomer:
No appearing designed doesn't mean it was actually designed.

Yes it true that appearing to be designed doesn't prove it is actually designed. However since you have given us no alternate explanation, we have no reason not to go with how things appear i.e. assume they are designed until proven otherwise.

Your burden of proof is to show that the theory of evolution is actually wrong. The theory of evolution explains that. As I've said before, I'm not going to give free biology lessons online to anonymous strangers. There are books and articles on the theory of evolution available.

Evasion number 5: Trying to shift the burden of proof? It is you who needs to show us a reason to deny the apparent design that we observe.
Secondly, merely claiming that the theory of evolution explains your position means nothing if you cannot actually show how it does. Seeing as you are unwilling to explain your position, you have not met your burden of proof and so we haven't been presented with any reason for us to reject design which by your own admission is obvious to us as observers.
Thirdly, judging by how you keep throwing the word "evolution" about without actually explaining what you mean, I am beginning to suspect that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hope to hide this fact by making empty audacious statements. Are you afraid that your ignorance will become exposed?

Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. Please explain to me how humans came to exist using your own point of view. You now say even showing you evidence of evolution doesn't count because it is evolution in action. What a joke.

Evasion number 6: Trying to shift the burden of proof again?
You are a funny character. It was you who said that living things look designed. How exactly does showing a transition from one designed object to another designed object disprove design? What you need to show in order to prove your point is a non-living thing that doesn't look designed transform into a living thing that looks designed via a mindless process.

Once you have done this, then I am more than happy to explain to you how I think human beings came to exist. But first of all, meet your burden of proof.....or can't you?

thehomer:


Sure I was. Go through his comment history and expose my fear by linking to the relevant thread.

This very thread will do just fine. Let those who read it judge for themselves.

thehomer:

This is the sort of dishonesty and moaning I've come to expect from people in your position. Was my response inaccurate? Was davidylan actually correct? The fact that I laced my response with insults when I'm insulted shouldn't be a cause for concern. Since you wish to paint yourself as a neutral third party, why don't you address the substance of my statement? You can drag davidylan back to actually show my errors rather than you continuing down the ignorant path he began.

.....so we are now dishonest and moaning. Well the thread is here for all to read and judge for themselves. I don't expect you to admit your own fear publicly.

Also feel free to highlight which line in davidylan's post was insulting to you so as to warrant the insults in your reply

Also, since you want us to examine the "substance" of your claim, can you provide any evidence for your claim there? Specifically this one:

thehomer:
The brain doesn't multiply rapidly. Neither do the heart and lungs. The cellular machinery like the ion pumps and cell membrane would still work for a while if all your DNA magically disappeared instantaneously.

thehomer:
And your response shows the self delusion that you people like.

Yet you conveniently omitted that part in your response. Why are you so shamelessly dishonest?

Does "fast to an extent" mean slow or something else? Why are you so ignorant? Why is it hard for you to accurately represent facts of the matter? Do you think you are literally your DNA?

It means "fast to an extent" and yes I am quite literally my DNA. Why were you so dishonest in your exchange with Uyi? What stopped you from properly representing him the first time? Calling me ignorant hasn't masked the fact that your dishonesty had to be called out.

thehomer:
That is how fossils explain evolution. Do you know what a transition is?

Perhaps I don't know what a transition is. Please what is a transition and how exactly can we tell its occurrence from looking at fossils? i.e. what should we look out for in the fossils that will inform us that a transition has occurred?

thehomer:


No I'm saying there's no reason to think that nothingness was ever the case.

Evasion number 4: If you think that nothingness was never the case then it is either the universe was caused to exist or it has always existed. So now please answer my question. Was the Universe caused to exist? If so, what properties would a thing capable of causing the universe have? . . .or do you think that the universe has always existed?

Do you think nothingness was ever the case? If so, how can something come from nothing?

I think the universe was brought into existence. Since evidently we both agree that something can only come from something, which means we both agree that there must be a first uncaused cause. What properties do you think that this first cause has?

thehomer:


Is this a serious question or are you actually ignorant?

Evasion number 3: Maybe I am ignorant but it is definitely a serious question: What exactly does DNA actually do in cells?

thehomer:
By the process of evolution.

Evasion number 1:
You have not answered my question. Merely name-dropping the word "evolution" does nothing to explain how it being a purposeless process can create purposeful objects. So please answer the question: How exactly does a purposeless process (i.e. evolution) create purposeful objects?

Now how does this fact lead to your God?

What fact are you talking about? Are you referring to the "evolution" that you are yet to explain as “fact”?

Please make your argument.

Information must necessarily have meaning therefore in order to create it, one must first conceptualize it and then output it. Conceptualization is something that only minds can do. Since computers do not have minds, therefore they cannot conceptualize, therefore they cannot create meaning, therefore they cannot create information. They can only receive data, arrange it based on certain mechanistic settings and then output the rearranged data without creating any meaning whatsoever. This rearranged data may now be read as information by a mindful being capable of creating meaning. To say that a computer is creating information is to say that the computer understands the meaning of the information that it is outputing. This clearly isn't the case.

Now your turn: Can you make your argument as to why you think that computers - having no minds - can create information?

By more independent, it would be less predictable.

A faulty GPS is less predictable. Does a faulty GPS have a mind?

Enough for it to be less predictable.

Evasion number 2: Again you haven't answered my question.

What is the computing power in terms of the processing speed (in hertz) and memory (in bytes) of a mindful GPS device?

The output is information. Well the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning. The GPS purpose is to get you to your destination.

I see. So you are saying that the GPS acts intentionally yet doesn't have a mind?

Actually my reason is that minds don't exist without physical structures. So, unless you can show me a mind without a physical structure, you're still wrong.

I asked you what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information? Your answer is that minds have physical structures. This has nothing to do with the question I asked but since it is your answer: Please explain exactly how a mind with a physical structure shows that other things apart from minds can create information.

Experimental psychology shows that minds develop as brains develop.

It is not enough to make the claim. How exactly does experimental psychology show this?

I see that it is red herring season again.

Irrelevant question #1.

Where are these minds that are functioning through a physical brain?

How exactly does a non-physical object have a physical location? How exactly does location affect whether or not something is functioning through another?
Where are these minds of yours that are developing with a physical brain?

Irrelevant question #2.

How do they pick a brain to interact with?

How exactly does method of picking change whether something is functioning through another?
How do your minds pick which brain to develop with?

Irrelevant question #3.

Can they switch brains?

How exactly does ability or inability to switch tools change whether something is being used as a tool or not?
Can your minds switch brains and develop somewhere else?

Irrelevant question #4.

Where do they go when a person dies?

How exactly does whether or not something can leave another change whether it is using the other as a tool?
Where do your minds go when a person dies?

Irrelevant question #5.

Are there multiple minds or just one mind split into multiple bodies?

How exactly does whether a thing has multiple users or whether multiple users use one thing change the fact that there is a user/used relationship?
Are there multiple minds or just one mind developing with multiple brains?

Seriously your questions have nothing to do with the premises being discussed. I too will have nothing to do with them.

The fact remains that DNA is an actual molecule that interacts with other molecules.

I have never denied this. Now do you deny that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction?

A website is very different from a biological organism.

Yes but still they are very analogous in the sense that both DNA and the computer code are specific arrangements of objects such that they contain information that is capable of effecting changes in the organism they are defining. Do you affirm or deny this?

Ah yes. The classic distinction without a difference. As I've said before and will say again, you are not your literally DNA.

As I've said before and will say again, you are quite literally your DNA

This is more rubbish. Unless "quite literally" means the opposite of literally, then you're still saying rubbish. You are not literally or "quite literally" your DNA. DNA is a physical molecule interacting with other physical molecules. DNA is not some conscious entity "instructing" cells, those terms are shorthand for the entirely mechanistic process by which DNA works.

The information in your DNA is specifically instructing your cells. Do you deny this? You are welcome to explain in very specific terms this “mechanistic process” by which DNA works if you think I am using the word "instructing" inaccurately.

It has everything to do with it e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

Another empty assertion. What has where God came from got to do with whether or not you were mindfully created?

Each time you say the information defines me.

The information that defines you is the information in your DNA as encoded by the specific arrangements of your nucleotide bonds, so are you saying that the information in your DNA is a human conception and hence doesn't actually exist objectively?

This is why I said before that you don't know how to have a conversation. When you said I should assume he had a body, that implied you were happy to go along with that premise.

Liar. This shows the emptiness of your position. Judging by how much you are fighting to cling unto this red herring of yours. I never said that God has a body neither did I ever show any willingness to follow your red herring. What I said is that you can assume God has a body if you like, it will still have nothing to do with our discussion which is whether or not you are mindfully created. Why are you so desperate to avoid the actual discussion? Do I really scare you that much?

So many irrelevant diversions.

You mean like the lies, evasions, red herrings and petty semantic games you've been throwing about? Yeah, there are indeed so many irrelevant diversions.

You asked for what God revealing himself to me would look like I answered here and followed you down this trail. Now can you answer the question I asked there? Can your God do these things?

Answered here. Unless your claim is that revelation (in the manner you have described) is the only basis for believing in a thing's existence then it it is irrelevant to ask whether God can or cannot do that. So are you saying that such revelation is the basis for believing in a thing's existence?

Where you accepted it for the sake of argument.

I never did. Rather I pointed out your red herring and now I point out your lie.

This is irrelevant. Your God has revealed himself to people who didn't seek him so he should have been able to reveal himself to me whether or not I sought him. Just ask him to reveal himself to me.

This is not irrelevant. In fact it casts doubts on your sincerity especially since you are the one demanding proof. Do you seriously want to know whether God exists or not or do you only want to argue about it?

thehomer:

No I don't since they've been shaped by millions of years of evolution and have helped my ancestors survive so it isn't surprising. How exactly does this lead to your God?

So you are saying that millions of years of undirected events managed to specifically create objects such that they have purposes. Basically, you are claiming here that purposeful objects have resulted through no purpose. How exactly does that work, Please explain, how exactly does a purposeless process create purposeful objects?

Yes they do.

No they don't.

It would have more computing power and more independent than a GPS device.

I don't understand, what exactly does it mean for the GPS to be more independent? Also, can you tell us exactly what this computing power is in terms of the processing speed and storage capacity? You don't have to be exact. Just give us an estimate to help us understand so that we can know what a mindful GPS is when we see one.

You didn't answer my question. Is the output from a GPS device information?

Yes it is but that is not the same thing as saying that the GPS creates information. My printer outputs information too. Would you say that my printer creates information? To say that the GPS creates information is to say that the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning i.e. the GPS or my printer would have to be a purposeful things in order to actually create information.

You're wrong on that too. There can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with my patterns of thought than yours. Yours doesn't become more probable simply because you've made an empty assertion.

Actually it is you who is wrong here considering what my claim actually is. Which is that minds are the only things that can create information. It is not an empty assertion as you cannot deny that minds create information, you can only dispute it by suggesting that other things that are not minds can create information. Where you are fail to produce something else other than mind that creates information (and you have failed so far), then we have absolutely no reason to believe you but my position remains probable.
Anyway, since you claim that there can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with your position, maybe you should present them to us for consideration.
So what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information?

Because minds arise and develop as the brain develops. What do you mean when you say minds function through a physical brain

How exactly does this show that minds arise from brains? What if it is the case that as a brain develops, that minds have a better tool to work with? (which by the way is what I mean by non-physical minds functioning through a physical brain)
Remember that you said that minds are non-physical so how do you know that the mind (which you cannot physically observe) is developing and not just that the brain brain is developing. Aren't you merely assuming the point you are supposed to prove by claiming that a brain development equals a mind development?

If you weren't confused, you won't have even formed such a ridiculous notion.

Actually, I was never confused about what you were saying. The fact remains that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction which is our way of representing it.

Why aren't the physical laws an acceptable answer? After all, the arrangement of the molecule is determined by those laws and they explain the structures at the molecular level.

This assertion is misleading. While it is true that physical laws act on everything physical, they do not determine information or the sort of specificity and precision we find in DNA. To say that is like saying that it is physical laws that determined this website Nairaland.com. While it is true that physical laws acted on Seun's keyboard as he typed out the code, they were not the determining factor of what the code is judging by it's specificity and precision. So NO, physical laws are not an acceptable answer here.

Wow. Looks like your problem currently lies with the use of language. A definition of an object is about that object. e.g the definition of a ball is about a ball. That is how you're confused.

Looks like your problem is in understanding how language is used. I meant "Information that defines you" in the sense that the information determined what you eventually became i.e. how your body is and how it functions. "information about you" doesn't play this sort of determining/causal role. But then being the dishonest fellow that you are it is understandable that you would try to use that strawman in order to shift away from the actual argument while pretending not to understand what is actually being said.

davidylan? Suffice? You must be joking. Your problem is with the language and the word "literally". Please look it up. Here's one source. Please tell me if you think your usage makes sense.

Except that the phrase I actually used is "quite literally". Uyi has pointed this out but I noticed that you keep trying hard to misrepresent him as well. It is clear to everyone observing that you are being disingenuous.

I am suspecting that all this brouhaha over the meaning of the words is because you hope to avoid dealing with the fact that the information in your DNA defines you. By specifically instructing your cells on how your form and function ought to be.

It has everything to do with it given the topic at hand. e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

Merely asserting that it has everything to do with what I am discussing doesn't make it true. So once again, what exactly does God having a body or not have to do with our discussion on whether or not you are mindfully created?

You've not made a logical argument and I've shown you that you were wrong and explained that you have assertion the wrong way around. You've not shown how the human conception come before the actual physical objects.

Please show where I claimed that the human conception came before the physical objects.

Where you said we should assume he has a body.

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

I see, so today is the day of boldfaced lying.

Here is exactly what I said

MrAnony1:

Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

Please highlight exactly where I said that WE should assume that God has a body.

No. Again what is wrong with you? Do you really have such a poor understanding of simple statements? I asked for your God to reveal himself to me the way my friends have if he wants me to believe he exists. This has no bearing on other human beings since I already know that other human beings exist but not your God. Especially given your acceptance of him having a physical body. Sheesh.

So how do you know that other humans that have not revealed themselves to you exist? You can't claim that you have no reason to believe God exists because he hasn't revealed himself to you and at the same time, you have reason to believe that other human beings who haven't revealed themselves to you exist. What are these reasons for believing in the existence unrevealed human beings that an unrevealed God does not share?

Secondly, please stop lying and show where I said that God has a body.

EDIT: By the way, have you ever sincerely sought God and didn't find him? And if you have, how exactly did you go about seeking him?

thehomer:

Appetite is a desire to eat. What exactly is your point besides definitions of words?

But it was you who said that hunger is different from appetite yet both are a desire to eat. I want clarity and your contradictions are not helping.

Let me quote you:

thehomer:
Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat. You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

thehomer:

Appetite is different from hunger and can sometimes be due to hunger. Looks like you're the one making this confusion in your attempt to be pedantic.

So please can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

Why exclude hunger pangs? That is an acceptable physical property and should be enough for you to make your point if you have one. So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Now the evasions have begun. Do I also scare you like davidylan does?

Let me remind you what you said in case you have forgotten:

thehomer:
Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat. You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

And here you reveal the fact that you're unable to actually think things through and it looks like I'll have to make you think things through. Hunger pangs are physical contractions. Contractions have the physical property of changes in length. Unless you're saying hunger pangs aren't a physical property or that length isn't a physical property, then you're simply demonstrating that inability of working through clearly stated propositions.

Yes I am saying that hunger pangs are not a physical property while you on the other hand, claim that they are a physical property and also have a length. So how aren't you saying that physical properties can have physical properties? Or is it that you don't actually understand what you are saying?

Please explain with some examples.

The physical effects of water include dissolving, soaking, diluting etc. A physical property of water is it's boiling point. The physical effect of fire include burning and melting, the physical properties of fire include temperature and colour. One describes what matter does while the other describes how matter is. Do you get the distinction now?

Oh your God. Hunger pangs describe the contractions the stomach undergoes under certain conditions. Unless you don't think the stomach is matter, then you're very confused. Please tell me, is the stomach matter? Do hunger pangs describe the stomach under those conditions?

You seem to be finding it difficult maintaining a consistent strand of thought or maybe you are just trying to shift the goal posts. You never described hunger pangs as the physical properties of the stomach but as the physical properties of hunger. So the question is not whether the stomach is matter but whether hunger is matter. Is hunger matter?

What exactly do you mean by you know you're hungry the same way I know my mind? Can you rephrase that? Also, what is the point of putting (according to me)? Don't you agree that the mind is non-physical? Do you mean that hunger pangs are an effect of the mind not the physical body?

I said I know hunger the same way you know your mind (as they are both non-physical). Do you know your mind exists? How do you know that? Your answer to that question is similar to how I know my hunger exists.

thehomer:


You're still the one who is ignorant.

Why should death occur within a few seconds? Do you know what DNA actually does in cells?

Please educate us, what does DNA actually do in cells?

thehomer:


Are you this stupid, are you drunk or are you merely pretending to be this dense? I said you would die but it won't be instantaneous. It won't be as rapid as if you've been decapitated you stupid buffoon. The brain doesn't multiply rapidly. Neither do the heart and lungs. The cellular machinery like the ion pumps and cell membrane would still work for a while if all your DNA magically disappeared instantaneously.

Seriously just where and for how long did you study biology? Or did those chemicals permanently damage your brain?

davidylan:


that's virtually impossible. Ion pumps and the cell membrane are proteins that are constantly in flux - how do they work for hours if your DNA vanished? The ion pumps require ATP to function... if you have no DNA, your mitochondria cant function... if mitochondria cant function, you have no ATP... so i ask, outside of passive channels which require no ATP, how does an ion PUMP work? Liposomes are an example of vesicles with bilayer cell membranes - they have no DNA or other cellular organelles to speak off and would be the most relevant example of a cell without DNA. You should note that a liposome has ZERO function other than as a vehicle for drug delivery.

Perhaps you should do a bit more thinking and less wasteful, immature blustering. You've been caught lying and basically have to use bravado to cover.

The bolded most accurately describes thehomer.

We also didn't fail to notice that he had to lace his response with personal insults in a failed attempt to make himself sound knowledgeable.

Dear thehomer, you should know by now that calling someone an idiot does nothing to make your argument valid. Your fear is beginning to show.

thehomer:


I ran from davidylan? Please sing his praises. Sure he has superior knowledge. If you have the time, you can ask him about our previous encounters of just scroll through our history together. You can resurrect those topics if you like or ask him to resurrect just the ones where he revealed my fear and his superior knowledge.


You've literally made me laugh out loud in my house.

Yet you were the one evading him. Pretending to laugh doesn't hide your fear

thehomer:

Living things appear designed because they evolved. You won't see the fact of evolution because you're tied to your creationism. Natural processes like geothermal energy and carbon fixation? Simply look at the literature about the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

I see, so you admit that living things actually appear designed (which makes it apparent that living things have a designer). But while we hold that they appear designed because they are designed, you argue that they aren't actually designed rather they evolved (an undirected process) to look as if they were designed.

The burden of proof now lies upon you because you are urging us to reject what is apparent to us (you included) in favour of an explanation that isn't readily obvious. So please explain to us how a purposeless process can create purposeful things.

Please explain to us how a human being and a bacterium for example both evolved. Mind you, your explanation must describe how they evolved (without design) from a non-living thing to a living thing. Showing me a living thing to evolving to another living thing will not count as both already fall within the apparently designed category.

KingEbukasBlog:
Because something cant come from nothing

thehomer:
Who says nothing was ever the state of things?

So you admit that something created the universe. Does this thing have physical properties? If so, what properties what are they? . . . .or are you saying that the universe has always existed?

thehomer:

I'll tell you. Fossils show that there were different species living in earlier times and that current species weren't present in those times. The fossils are some samples of the "transitional forms" we've found. How would you explain fossils? You didn't answer that question.

You didn't answer his question. He wanted to know how fossils explain evolution but all your answer shows is that there were once some animals which are now dead. It doesn't explain in any way how the dead animal progressed to currently living ones. Your claim that these fossils are transitional is a baseless one as you haven't actually shown a transition.

UyiIredia:

Because 'quite literally' means they aren't literally the same but are only literally similar to an extent.

The bolded is the part in Uyi's response that thehomer is just about to conveniently miss in order to help his lie along.

thehomer:

Oh your God. What is wrong with you people? "Quite literally" means not literally but only literally? I think it is too early. I guess quite fast means not fast but only fast.

Actually "quite fast" means "fast to an extent". Why are you so dishonest? Why is it so hard for you to accurately represent what your opponent is saying?

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?

Kay17:


Yeah

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?

wiegraf:


You calling me a liar is arguably worse than joagbaje calling me a bridge salesman

My claim:



here's the post: https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/14#17153528

(This current thread is basically part 2 of that one. Again one wonders if the op is amnesic. That thread is probably funnier tho'. One of my favorites)



Oya tell me what is responsible for the increase in brain size of those drivers. Bonus points: do it without resorting to a convulted jumble of words which amounts to 'spirit'. No merry-go-rounds please. Thanks. (Uyi in that thread seems to think telekinesis is somehow involved....)

Anyhow, I repeat



is either a dishonest, ill thought attempt at subterfuge, ie cheap sophism, or a case of your not knowing the implications of your garbage, just as is the case with the above. I personally warrant the former option. It's quite silly and I do wonder how you expect to get away with it.

Wait first, you even make this statement just now



So wtf where you on about??



And, again, this isn't even the full story in any manner at all. Your case also clearly involves the postulation that this "Mind"-thingie, in DS' words, is capable of existing wholly on its own without any material base, and it being responsible for this universe. This has always been the case.

I dey lie??


There's more, but frankly can't be bothered...




......

Why do you still continue to lie?

You said that I claimed that taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams.

I'll ask you again. Please show where I made that claim?

thehomer:


You should compose a song about davidylan's victories.

But truth be told, you ran from davidylan. Are you afraid of him because he has superior knowledge in the field you are discussing?

thehomer:

Appetite is different from hunger and can sometimes be due to hunger. Looks like you're the one making this confusion in your attempt to be pedantic.

But it was you who defined hunger as the perception of the desire to feed. How then do you define appetite?

Hunger pangs are the physical sensations. That is why they're called hunger pangs.

But it was you who claimed that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs. So please tell us what other physical properties of hunger inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

How is what I said confused? Is anything that I said there actually incorrect? Or are you once again demonstrating your own personal failure of thinking things through?

It was you who claimed that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and length is in-turn a physical property of hunger pangs. Please kindly explain how a physical property can also have a physical property or are you just christening "physical property" on anything you like in order to help your argument along?

I said an effect can also be a property. Unless you're saying an effect can never be a property, then you've not countered what I said.

And I said; Not in the physical sense, it can't. Physical properties and physical effects are two very different things.

How is it not a physical property?

Because it doesn't describe matter

Since hunger has no physical properties according to you, how do you know when you're feeling hungry? How do you explain the hunger pangs that people feel when they're hungry?

I know I am hungry the same way you know your mind even though your mind is not physical (according to you). And yes, hunger pangs are an effect of hunger just like how your non-physical mind can propel your physical body to act.

thehomer:

You'll have to be clearer. Saying something functions according to its purpose is uselessly vague. Crystals are specifically formed and function according to their purpose. Please can you tell me what my purpose is?

While I may not know what your purpose is, I know that the purpose of your eye is sight, the purpose of your brain is to think, the purpose of your legs are for walking e.t.c....all of them are complex and specifically arranged in order to perform those functions. Do you deny this?

Yes computers present information.

Question is do they create information?

What sort of explanation are you looking for when there are numerous examples all around you? A GPS device uses data to create navigation information for you to use. Or isn't the output from GPS devices information?

I see, so according to you, the GPS actually creates information yet you don't think it has a mind. Why do you think this? What would a GPS that has a mind look like?

Your claim doesn't stand even if I'm unable to show you're wrong because that is making an argument from ignorance. But as I've shown above with the example, you're wrong.

Yes it is true, your inability to prove me wrong does not prove right however it gives us no reason to believe your position but leaves mine probable.

Minds are not physical but they arise from the physical brain.

I see. How do you know that they arise from a physical brain as opposed to functioning through a physical brain?

No that isn't what I'm saying and what is wrong with you? How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said? How on earth can a human abstraction be what makes cells function?

It seems your amnesia has set in again. My claim was that the DNA carries information that instructs the cells on how to function, your reply was that the information I was referring to was only a human abstraction of the molecule. Hence the question. If anything is wrong with anyone here, it is you. The question is justified. I am happy that you now realize that the information exists and functions apart from the human abstraction used in describing it.

Neither. It is the physical arrangement of the molecules and the physical laws that all these molecules follow.

Well since the physical laws are a constant and apply to every other physical thing in the universe, latching them onto your answer doesn't help you at all. I'd say it is really the specific arrangement of the molecule that is effective in the form and functioning of all living organisms, wouldn't you agree?

How is what I said a strawman? You really need to learn not to simply name drop fallacies but to actually explain how what I said is a fallacy. Secondly, you say you're not talking about "information about me", but my DNA which you say is information that defines me. Isn't that the height of confusion?

It is not confusion at all. It is a strawman fallacy because while I was talking about "information that defines you", you rephrased it as "information about you" and argued against that instead. Secondly, you will need to explain this "confusion" you keep throwing about. How exactly am I confused?

I am not quite literally my DNA. My DNA cannot type on a computer. This sort of absurd statement really baffles me. Are you confused about what words mean or are you confused about how to use words?

Lol, you are only being disingenuous here. I think davidylan's calling you out on this should suffice.

No it is not besides the point. It is a crucial point. How exactly is the question about God having a body a red-herring? Again, don't just name fallacies, but explain how I've committed them.

What exactly does God having a body or not have to do with whether you were mindfully created or not?

You keep asserting that information defines me despite the fact that I've told you that you have things the wrong way around.

And I have also told you that you are wrong. Now can we go back to actual logical arguments or would you rather we just call each other wrong and call it a day?

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

So you have started lying again. Please show me where I said that God has a body.

Then I'll tell you. They grew up with me, I saw them, touched them, spoke with them and they knew each other. Can your God do these things with me?

Are you saying then that there are no good reasons to believe that persons who did not grow up with you, you never spoke to, and never touched exist? Is revelation (in the sense that you described) the basis for existence?

wiegraf:

no it hasn't. certainly not always. abi do you want me to dig up posts where you made certain harebrained assertions? eg, where you claim our friends, the taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams as opposed to, you know, their brain size increasing in that area as a result of their using that part of their brains more? similar to muscle mass increase from regular exercise? or have you forgotten?

You are lying. Please show where I made this claim.

actually, this very op has repeatedly asserted 'mind' exists without matter. he makes the claim, and very boldly in the op, that the material 'cannot explain consciousness', something you no doubt support. no?

Yes matter cannot explain consciousness

considering this, how ai would exist without spirit power escapes me. mayhaps you can clarify? if spirit power is not necessary, then what is the point of the soul? why the requirement that mind be responsible for the creation of the material if mind itself requires the material?

AI can only exists if an intelligent mind creates it as shown by your link. It wasn't matter that explained it, it was purposeful minds capable of creating.

or, are you suggesting that these scientists are going to piss all over known natural laws and create a.....spirit?

Have they created a spirit?

or what? are you going to assert there are different types of 'mind'? based on what? an a$$pull? after you're shown working ai you're going to claim there's another sort of intelligence that works using...magic?

Strawman, I never said anything about magic

also, since when where you quoting me again, oh great creator of the merry go round?

Since now, oh little man who can't express a coherent thought.

davien:
He was not speaking on scientific points because ID doesn't have any....i've asked all day for one and all you've told me is that "human DNA can be held in a pin prick- therefore designed

You are a dishonest liar. Please show us where Davidylan made that argument.

thehomer:

It is relevant because you're trying to make arguments for your God's existence. Lots of things fall into the category of information if you're going to be using things as distinct as language and the genetic code.

Not in this instance, I wasn't, rather I was specifically correcting you for wrongly accusing Uyi of committing a category error. And yes Language and the genetic code fall right into the same category.

I know what it is. It is a very broad concept.

meh

Granite gives you information about the temperatures that were once in the environment where it was originally located, the earth gives you information about its contents, microprocessors give you information about its speed, designs and what not.

So are you saying that the earth, granite and microprocessors all fall under the information category? If you do, then why did you accuse Uyi of committing a category error since both human language and the genetic code give information?

Secondly, is there anything that doesn't fall under this category of information as you have defined it using granite, the earth and microprocessors? If so please name them

Just for the sake of clarity, this was the definition you gave for information.
Wikipedia:Things that are or can be known about a given topic; communicable knowledge of something. [from 14th c.]

Looks like you actually lack comprehension and as usual, you're failing to be evasive. Please if you have answered this question, simply provide a link to your answer. Here's the question again. Would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature? I'll tell you what I meant by the word non-material when you've answered my question.

You are confused see here. You forget that our conversation runs along multiple lines. You accuse me of being evasive for not answering a question that you didn't ask on this line (which I have answered on the line of discourse in which it was asked by the way). It is an unfair accusation but I will forgive you for it, as multiple lines of discourse can confuse a person (case in point you here).

Let me remind you of what this line of conversation is.
See the following in sequential order:
1(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35242107)
2(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35242960)
3(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35243900)
4(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35244592)
5(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35248095)


Now that's by the way. See that I have answered your question here (https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35246414) - note that I had already answered before you accused me of evading it.

It is your turn to answer mine: What do you mean by the word "non-material"?

thehomer:

You're saying that I exist and I'm made up of certain physical structures. This isn't new. Tell me something new. The fact that you used many words doesn't impress me.

Wrong. It is funny to watch you try so hard to avoid what I am saying. . .What I am saying is that not only are you made up of certain physical structures, those physical structures have purposes and are specifically formed the way they are in order to function according to their purposes. Do you deny this?

Information has to be for instruction and creating meaning. Got it.

Good

No. Computers can also generate information but I won't say they currently have minds.

Are you saying that computers don't merely create data rather they create purposefully instructive meaning? Because that's what it means to create information (as you admitted in your comment above).

...So if you are really saying that computers generate information in the true sense of the word, then please explain to us how they do not have minds even though they create information (in the true sense). If not, then my claim still stands that only mindful entities can create information

I didn't say minds were physical but that they have a physical basis.

Ok, so are minds physical or non-physical? And if you think that they are physical, then what are their physical properties?

This is actually incorrect. Lots of the arrangements of DNA won't have an effect on the body form. Lots of mutations are neutral. There is a lot of randomness when it comes to the arrangement of DNA. Certain parts are more conserved than others. Secondly, the information you're referring to is the human abstraction of the physical molecule.

I see, so are you saying that an abstraction of a physical molecule (NOT the actual information encoded in the molecule by the specific arrangement of the nucleobases) is what instructs your cells on how to form your body?

And this is where your confusion is clear. Take a look at the definition you presented as information. You said it is the arrangement of data for instruction and creating meaning. These are all abstractions. DNA is a physical molecule that humans have been able to represent in an abstract manner.

Again, is it the abstract manner humans have represented it that instructs your cells or is it the information represented by the specific arrangement of nucleobases in your DNA that instructs your cells on your body's form and function? Which is it?

Wrong again. Information doesn't define me. Information is secondary to the physical structures of the DNA and the environment. The information about me comes after my actual presence. This is why I said you have your relationship backwards.

Strawman. I wasn't talking about "information about you". The specific arrangement that defines your DNA structure is information. . .and yes it defines you. You quite literally are your DNA.

That wasn't what I asked. Is God a mind floating around without a body? If you think he is, please can you show me a mind without a body?

Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

This is a different question. You're asking me for a good reason to believe in your God. Well one good reason to believe in him would be if he were to reveal himself to me just as my friends have revealed themselves to me.

I don't know how your friends have revealed themselves to you and I don't want to assume. So, what will God revealing himself to you look like?

thehomer:

Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat.

Wrong. I can want to eat without being hungry. You are confusing appetite with hunger.

You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

I see. So what physical properties inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

Actually, one of the components of pain is the transmission of those signals carried by the nerves. Different nerves give different perceptions of pain. Hunger pangs have properties of length since contractions involve a change in length.

So your physical properties also have physical properties too. You are confused

An effect can also be a property.

Not in the physical sense. Physical properties and physical effects are clearly distinct from each other

Hunger pangs.

Wrong. That is not a physical property

I asked whether or not it has a physical nature. Should I take this as you saying that hunger has no physical nature?

You may....provided you understand it to mean that hunger has no physical properties.

Kay17:


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.

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?

thehomer:

Strict sense of which word? Who says hunger pangs aren't measurable? You should have tried to look this up. In fact there's a Wikipedia article on it. You should have looked it up. Hunger is the subjective sensation. Hunger pangs are the physical contractions felt in the stomach.

My mistake, I got the definitions wrong. . . .But then, in that case, what you are really saying is that hunger is actually the feeling of the contractions hence hunger would be how stomach contractions are described and not the other way round.
It's a bit like saying that one of the properties of pain are electric impulses running from the nerve endings to the brain and back. You cannot describe a full physical event as the property of a thing. At best it is an effect NOT a property. Physical properties are things like length, temperature, weight e.t.c.

Your response isn't clever at all. It is nothing like the rock thing joy is more nebulous. We can use something clearer like sexual attraction. One physical property in men would be an erection. One is a subjective non-material component, the other is a material component.

Once again, you are confusing an effect with a property. Sexual attraction can cause an erection. An erection is not a property of sexual attraction rather it is an effect. There is a causal relationship. Secondly impotent men can feel sexual attraction without erections.

Looks to me like you've simply revealed that you've not thought things through and that is why you're confused and have conflated the subjective sensation of hunger with the physical manifestation of hunger pangs.

Yes I was wrong with how I used the definitions but you still haven't told us a physical property of hunger.

Since you think you're right, would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature?

Hunger is non-material and therefore, it has no physical properties.

thehomer:
The fact that I exist means that I exist. This isn't new.

That reply is unrelated to what I said.
I said that you are a specified complex arrangement of components such that you can perform specific functions and this is because specified information carried by your dna instructs the development and functioning of all the components that combine to form you.

What is the actual definition you're using?

Information is the specific and organized arrangement of data for the purpose of instruction and creating meaning.

Okay.

Good, so you admit that only mind can create information.

Minds develop within a physical substrate and they're affected by the physical realm so this premise is questionable.

Can you list some physical properties of minds that you know of?

What do you mean by "specified"?

By specified, I mean that the information carried by your dna is not random rather it relays very specific instructions so as to form your physical body precisely the way it is. If this information were to be changed in any way by rearranging the molecules, the resultant person would have a different body form.

You mean that information is an abstraction generated by minds based on what they observe in nature. Information does not "define" my functioning or other aspects of nature, the relationship is the other way round. Nature is what determines the information we generate.

No sir, information defines your form and function as any alteration in the information contained in your dna will result in a totally different you.

What is this evidence that I was mindfully created? Is it simply the fact that I exist? I can tell you that I exist but this minfully created business is questionable.

The fact that information defines you and information can only be created mindfully shows that you are indeed mindfully created.

What exactly is God and how does God creep in? Is God simply a mind that is floating around without a body?

I have already told you what God is: The ultimate creator of all things that exist.

A good reason for not believing in your God is like the good reason we have for not believing in faeries. i.e the reasons for believing in faeries are as good as the reasons for believing in your God.

You keep evading my question. What would a good reason for believing in God look like? How do you know that such a reason doesn't exist if you don't have any idea of what such a reason ought to look like?

thehomer:

What is the comparison you're making that leads to your God?

I never claimed that the comparison leads to God. My point was that both human language and the genetic code fall into the category of information. So how is this your question supposed to be relevant to the point I was making?

After all, the Pythagorean theorem and Newton's law of universal gravitation are also information.

Yes they too fall into the category of information. Seems you know what information is after all.

Granite actually can be considered as both matter and information so can the other things I listed. Whether or not it is non-material is to me a minor issue.

How so? Please define what you think information is and explain how granite, the earth and microprocessors fit.

And the poor evasions begin. I asked you a direct question. You can answer and then ask me your question. Please give your answer then ask your question. After all, my question would help reveal your confusion.

Nonsense, do you also lack comprehension? I actually did point out in my answer that one is material and the other isn't. You are the one here who has been talking about non-material things yet you pretend not to know the distinction between information which is non-material and matter. So please what did you mean by the phrase "non-material"?

thehomer:


Please explain how they are comparable in this instance and how that leads to your God. Do objects like the earth, granite and microprocessors also fall under the category of information and thus also become comparable?

I have already told you how they are both comparable. Human language and genetic codes are both information. And no, objects such as the earth, granite and microprocessors do not fall under the category of information rather they fall under the category of matter.

The above statement is another example of confusion. Assume that I lack this ability that you think is so important. Please can you make the distinction between them?

How am I the one confused when you are the one who can't tell that objects like granite are matter and not non-material information?

Seeing as you were the same guy who earlier argued about hunger being non-material. What do you think "non-material" means?

thehomer:


Well nature isn't the sort of thing that has the property of intelligence attributed to it. Trying to do that is to make a category mistake.

Yet he has pointed to more complex design in nature. What intelligence then is creating these more complex and superior designs? Or perhaps you don't think that the superiority of a design indicates the superiority of the authoring intelligence?