₦airaland Forum

thehomer:
What evidence are you referring to?

The fact that there exists complex specified information carried by dna that instructs the development and functioning of thehomer (who is a complex specific arrangement of components such that they can perform specific functions)

1. Information is by definition specific and organized for a purpose.
2. Information is the creation of minds. Nothing that lacks a mind can create information
3. Minds are non-material and therefore have no physical properties.
4. The functioning and organization of nature and thehomer are complex and specified.
5. Therefore since information exists in nature and defines the functioning of thehomer as well as other aspects of nature, we have evidence that ultimately you were mindfully created. i.e. God created you.

A good reason for not believing in your God is the fact that there is no good reason to believe he is out there.

Again, what would a good reason look like?

thehomer:
Hunger pangs.

Lol no, hunger pangs are not a physical property of hunger in the strict sense of the word because they do not describe hunger in any objectively/independently measurable way. Rather they are synonymous. i.e. both hunger and hunger pangs are defined as discomfort/pain in the abdomen caused by a lack of food.

What you did wasn't very clever. It is rather like saying that the physical property of a rock is that it is rocky....or that the physical property of joy is elation.

Physical properties are by definition properties of matter and since hunger is not matter (according to you) it cannot have physical properties. To say that something is non-material yet has physical properties demonstrates that you are ignorant of the meaning of the terms you are using.

You were wrong there.

Please point out the contradiction.

Done

UyiIredia:
Why not ? I think it does. I think one must go further because no natural process at the moment is capable of even making a coin and is certainly incapable of making a code.

Kay17:
I agree with you that no coin nor a car nor a ship has naturally occurred but you deliberately ignoring trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas; which are more superior and complex to a coin.

Here is a bind you are in. Every example you have of a code is in nature, and you would be laying a contradictory foundation that the code found in nature is not naturally occurring. And then build on this foundation your proof that such code is made by a divine intelligence.

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?

thehomer:
It follows laws of chemical bonding i.e covalent and hydrogen bonding among others. Now what is the name of the thing that isn't physical? Do you agree that the table is a human abstraction?

Uyi Iredia:

This is you mistaking the genetic code for the chemicals through which it is implemented. The chemicals follow the laws of chemical bonding. But you don't show how the genetic code (codon-amino acid relationship) is specified by chemical bonding.

Don't you think it will be silly if I said human language follows laws of wave propagation because of how words are conveyed through air ? Is understanding the laws of waves
sufficient to understand human speech ? Is understanding the laws of chemical bonding sufficient to explain the genetic code ?

thehomer:

What do you mean? The code table is a human abstraction. That relationship is specified by chemical bonding. Look it up. That is why gene translation works the way it does.

Human language is a different type of thing from the genetic code. You're making a category error in trying to compare them both

No, thehomer. You are wrong. Human language and the genetic code are the same type of thing as they both fall under the category of information. Therefore they are very comparable.

It is either you truly lack the ability to distinguish between information and matter or you are merely pretending to do so.

wiegraf:
here, image 'dreamed up' by the 'neural' network

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/6/18/1434625766484/be8093f0-3cfd-4aa0-a7cb-7cba9abeeb2f-2060x1236.jpeg

more here
www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/18/google-image-recognition-neural-network-androids-dream-electric-sheep

look familiar?

mayhap when ai is created our friends will claim the machines have souls...

Yes and our point is and has always been that consciousness or intelligence of any sort cannot be created by random undesigned natural events. An intelligent mind must necessarily be involved.

The fact that that the creation of AI (if it eventually happens) will be and could only have been a result of the work of an intelligent mind makes the case for a Creator stronger and the case for an origin from random undesigned events much more unlikely.

@Uyi Iredia. I must say that I have enjoyed your exchange with thehomer so far. I think your points have been made however I doubt thehomer will stop giving incoherent replies.

It seems to me that he has acknowledged the points of the argument but he is going to keep pretending not to understand you and trying to retort with answers and questions designed to blunt the argument rather than enhance the discussion.

For instance even when faced with an obvious contradiction and corrected severally he keeps repeating "what contradiction?" pretending not to understand in the hope of wearying you and furthermore blunting the force of the initial point by excessive repetition.

thehomer:
No I can't see it you fool. Please explain what the contradiction is.

Since to you there is no contradiction when you claim that hunger is immaterial and yet has a physical nature. Can you please tell us some of the physical properties of immaterial hunger.

thehomer:
Is it really? Which God and what feature of this God is obvious to you that should also be obvious to me?

God is the ultimate creator of the universe. The fact that the universe shows evidence of design makes it obvious that the universe has a creator. Uyi has done quite a good job highlighting some of them.

Then you've not been paying attention. The fact that there's no good reason to believe your God is out there is a very good reason to doubt his existence.

This seems to me to be quite a dubious claim since you seem to be basing the existence of God on whether you think the reasons are good enough to your subjective mind which even you have no way of knowing if it is working properly and feeding you correct information.

...or perhaps you really mean to say that there are no objectively good reasons to believe in God. In which case you will have to tell us what you think a good reason will look like.

Coming from someone who is unable to present and defend his reasons for believing in the particular God he believes in is just ridiculous. It is also wearisome trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't know how to speak about whether or not something is obvious.

For you to claim even before hearing my case that I am unable to defend my reasons for believing in God shows me that you are already close-minded to whatever it is that I want to say and hence continued conversation with you is futile.

Kay17:
Mranony,

Right now, I am very eager to see how you intend to establish God's existence which to you, is as obvious as reality.

I am not trying to "establish" God's existence. My claim is that God is as obvious as reality. However, reality is something which you don't seem to properly understand what it means and I am trying to help you grasp it (though it seems that you don't even want to grasp it either).

In your endeavor in doing so, you have talked about making logical deductions from unnamed premises in order to prove the mind and God. Now I ask what are these premises?! The premises cannot be information from the mind, the mind you are trying to prove with the deductions!

Unnamed premises you say? I thought I clearly stated the premise. Anyway, if you know of any other thing that is capable of authoring information apart from a mind, you are more than welcome to share.

In respect to the five senses which all (most) of humanity has, I have already stated my position. The senses are limited to our reality and they are not conclusive of what reality holds for us. I mentioned an ultimate reality which is possible and can be beyond our senses. Since humans are capable of introspection, we can find a rational capacity within ourselves. Is that a mind? Maybe. Does that exist in other humans? I can assume so because of my empathetic capacity. Just the same way, I assume a beggar or a wounded person is in pain, a pain I can not but due to empathy, I can imagine it.

I asked you if your mind is real but judging from this your long-winded answer, it appears that you don't even know if you have a mind or not.

Lady, I have had this sort of conversations with you for so long so I can tell when dishonesty comes in. The reason you are reluctant to answer is because you want to define reality as subject to the five senses and then proceed to claim that God is outside the detection of the five senses and therefore cannot be said to be obviously real.

It was for this reason that you tried so hard to argue that the ultimate reality is an alternate undetectable reality even after you had been clearly shown that that is not how it is defined. Knowing the truth you insisted on arguing for a lie.

My presentation of your mind (and I know you have a mind because you are reading and comprehending this message) to you makes it difficult for you to define reality based only on what can be tested by your five physical senses because you have no way of testing your mind with your five senses and yet you cannot deny its reality because to do so would be to deny your own very existence. Once again knowing the truth, you choose not to readily embrace it.

There was a time in the past when I would have been happy to entertain these sorts of pussyfooting around in prolonged dances of wit but these days I have less time and as a result, less patience.

So my friend, since you will not answer whether or not something as obvious to you as your mind is real, I too will not continue to engage you.

Good night madam.

Kay17:
Deductions from what premise?!

The premise is that information such as is the category in which your very question falls is produced by a mind

So you think God is beyond the five and associated senses of the human, right?!

I didn't say that, rather I said that reality is not limited to what you can detect with your five physical senses. Do you agree or do you disagree?

And I asked you a question which you have tried to dodge away from i.e. Seeing that you cannot detect your mind with any of your five physical senses. Is your mind real?

Please answer my question. Thank you.

Kay17:
If detectable by our senses, yes.

Not necessarily, the material/physical is not the only aspect of reality that exists and hence sticking to strict empiricism (i.e. trusting only your five physical senses) doesn't give you a wholesome understanding of reality.

For instance, I know that your mind exists in reality not because I have empirically tested it with any of my 5 senses but because I have made logical deductions.

....Or is it the case that your mind does not really exist?

Kay17:
Hence you can subject God to be proven by empirical evidence?!

Can everything in reality be proven by empirical evidence?

Kay17:
OO.KK I agree.

Back to the original question, how is God perceived?

The same way reality is perceived. Uyi provides some good examples in his OP

UyiIredia:
Many atheists have presented reasons to doubt God's existence

Valid reasons?

Kay17:
Because I have already justified with the limitation of our senses. But you don't seem satisfied solely because the dictionary meaning of ultimate reality does not include imperceptibility.

I see. So you insist on using a wrong definition of the term.

Haven't I tried?! Since you don't find my arguments convincing, you can as well prove otherwise.

No you haven't tried. I have nothing to prove. I have already done the best I can for you which is to point you to the correct meaning of the terms. If you insist on defining it wrongly and then expecting me to "disprove" your wrong definition then I really can't help you.

You are welcome to have the last word.

Kay17:
Properties like??

Absolute imperceptibility

If you think it is easily perceivable how do you perceive it?

Don't try to shift your burden of proof. You are the one claiming that the true nature of things (ultimate reality) is necessarily imperceptible to us. How do you know this?

DeepSight:
Thumbs up. We are getting somewhere. But Plaetton and Wiegraff know this elementary fact Watson.

Lol Sherlock, our dear Watson is new here. He'll soon come to realize with time that those two are not arguing in the hope of actually learning anything or even reaching a logical conclusion.

Kay17:
With the obvious exception of the ultimate reality. Virtual reality for example is rooted in our reality hence we can perceive it, but the ultimate reality if it exists is not rooted is ours because ours will be subsumed in it. Yet both are alternate realities. Ours is an alternate reality as well. Again, I repeat, our senses are founded, rooted and justified within our reality hence we cannot reach out beyond it. Even if we did, we will doubt it.

You are confusing many things my friend. Let me see if I can help you

1. The ultimate reality by definition is the absolute nature of all things i.e. things as they really are.

2. It may or may not be an alternate reality.

3. There is nothing is it's definition that suggests that it cannot be known with our senses.

The fallacy you are committing with your argument is petito principe. You have assumed that the ultimate reality has certain properties in order to argue that it has same assumed properties. Circular reasoning.

Kay17:
Yes it does not mean I cannot detect other alternate realities. It can go either ways.

Good. So you admit that detecting other realities is not an impossibility.

I believe i have already answered why the ultimate reality is unreachable and impossible to access by our senses, mainly because our senses are rooted and justified in our reality.

No you haven't. You are still merely assuming that the ultimate reality is impossible to perceive. This is odd seeing that it contradicts your previous assertion above which is that it is not impossible to detect other realities with the same senses.

And mirages further prove this point. Mirages although defined as illusions are still experiences which our senses are subjected to.

No they don't. Experiencing an illusion does not prove that you cannot experience reality.

Kay17:
The fact I can detect a virtual reality as an alternate reality does not mean I can detect all other alternate realities.

Neither does it mean that you cannot detect all other alternate realities.

Note that my discussions on alternate realities are speculative. If there is an ultimate reality different from our immediate reality, it is impossible to detect such with our senses because the justification for our senses is grounded in this reality.

You haven't given any sufficient reason to justify this claim. How do you know that it is impossible to detect the ultimate reality with your senses when you have clearly shown that it is not impossible to detect other realities with your senses?

Therefore if I see a mirage, it is likely a fantasy rather than a separate reality.

A mirage is by definition an illusion and hence is unlike anything that can be classified as a reality.

Kay17:
Between our reality and the ultimate reality is a chasm of illusion.

Really, how so?

We could find out at the end of the day that our reality was just an illusion.

Maybe. Maybe not

Hence the ultimate reality is still an alternate reality even though our own reality is rooted in it. Just as virtual realities despite being rooted in our reality are alternate. Do you get it?

I get what you are saying, but this doesn't necessarily make the ultimate reality beyond our perception just like how we can perceive both virtual reality and our physical reality.

Why is the ultimate reality necessarily beyond perception. Because our senses, empirical devices and reason cannot be justified by any other foundation other than themselves. 'How am I sure I see a stone or a building' there is just no way our senses can penetrate beyond our reality even if there is an ultimate reality.

Notice that you are now doubting the very reality you experience in order to help you doubt God. Hence confirming what I said earlier:

"The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself...."

https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/6#34509734

cyrexx:
Hmmmm. Interesting.

Hi Cyrexx

DeepSight:
Hit me up straight away.

Check your facebook

Kay17:
Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality and form etc. In the case of the divine, it is said to be of an alternate reality. Hence by metaphysics, I didn't mean our reality but the ultimate reality.

My question, is how do you find this ultimate reality obvious when you do not have the senses nor the experience to capture it?

1. Your reality (if it is indeed real) is part of the ultimate reality and not something other than it.

2. You are confusing ultimate reality with alternate reality, they don't mean the same thing.

3. Alternate realities like your dream reality and computer generated virtual realities are just as perceivable as your physical reality. So what makes you think that the ultimate reality/an alternate reality is necessarily beyond perception?

DeepSight:
My dear brother. You have no idea how delighted I am to see you here again. How have you been?
You are truly wise beyond your years, you are a lesson to much older men, you are a beauty of God, and a truly special mind.

Brother, you flatter me. How have you been? I've been back in Nigeria for sometime now, perhaps we could meet up at some point. Hopefully sooner rather than later. I think I've still got your number.

plaetton:
Anony1, Deepsight.
Circular arguments make me dizzy.
Lets try something different.
Anony1, you used the word God at least 6 times in your post above.
Now, pls kindly substitute the word God with the word Toothfairy, and lets see how similar, different, Truer, wiser or otherwise your most brilliant post appears to Deepsight.
Pls try it.
You get my gist?
Thank you .

Well, God and the toothfairy are not at all in the same category. To suggest such a substitution demonstrates that you lack any understanding of God as a concept at the very least.

plaetton:
BOO HOO.

You contradict yourself sir.
You are on record on this very forum, as stating that it believing in God and in the bible is a matter of faith, and that this is what you have :Faith.

Kindly Google the definition of faith.

When faith interfaces with reality, the consequences have often been dissasterous.

That is why we are having this argument.

Well you are wrong. The fact that I have faith in the ability of the chair I am sitting on to carry me does not make the chair or it's ability to carry me any less real.

It seems to me that in addition to your demonstrated lack of understanding of God, you equally demonstrate a lack an understanding of what faith means.

Anyway, the reason I engaged with you in the first place was because I had hoped you would give me reasons for your position as Uyi gave reasons for his. You failed to do this and hence our brief exchange comes to an end.

Kay17:
Reality beyond our experience and our capability.

That is not what metaphysical means. So again and for the last time, what question exactly are you asking me?

Kay17:
MrAnony1, HOW DO YOU FIND A METAPHYSICAL BEING?!

I don't understand your question. The very nature of being is metaphysical. What exactly are you asking me?

plaetton:
Lol.
Here you come again.

The issue here, Anony1, in case you have quickly forgotten, is Doubting gods existence, not proving it.

This statement doesn't make any sense at all. Unless the reason you doubt God's existence is NOT because you can't find proof acceptable to you. If not, then they are the exactly the same issue.

All my four points, added together, provide great DOUBTS about the existence of what is supposed to have been a self-evident, omnipresent, omnipotent and all- pervasive entity that affects every single entity and activity in the universe.
Do you understand that point?

I do. Do you?

We don't debate the existence of gravity, x-rays and gamma rays even though we cant see, hear, and neither see them in microscopes nor telescopes . Do we?
I wonder why.

I see, so the same things that provide "great doubts" for you when it comes to the existence of God now suddenly don't provide any doubts at all for the existence of gamma rays, x-rays, gravity e.t.c. I wonder why.

We can debate whether quarks, tachions, anti-matter, dark-matter, glueons and higgs-boson particles really exists or are just theoretical extrapolations. We can use all sorts of instrumentations to search and test for these, and even if dont capture or isolate these evasive enigmatic subatomic particles, we can see and measure their footprints, trails, or residues.
Can the same be said of god.?

Yes the same can be said for God. And these "footprints" have been pointed out by Uyi in the OP. So why do you still doubt?

So far, you haven't given me any reason to doubt God. It seems to me that judging from all the other things you believe in without doubt, you don't have any reason to doubt God either but are merely suppressing your belief in God.

plaetton:
Reasons to doubt god's existence?

1. Never been seen with a naked eye.

Are all things that exist seen?

2. Never been heard from.

Are all things that exist heard from?

3. Never been seen in a microscope nor a telescope.

Are all things that exist seen in a microscope?

4. Never observed or measured any gravitational perturbations in any planetary body that can be attributable to a supernatural entity.

Do all things that exist give off gravitational perturbations in planets?

If your answer is yes to all of the above then I will provide you with things that don't meet your criteria which you must deny their existence

If your answer on the other hand is no for any of them, then you haven't provided me with sufficient reason to deny God's existence.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Dear Uyi,

The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself. Interestingly what I have never heard are reason's to doubt God's existence. It is wearisome to argue with people who have no reasons for their positions but would rather argue for the sake of arguing and not for the sake of arriving at truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG8oMnsmQQM