₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: Oh...cool! At least there would be less conflicts there and a bit of 'sanity'.

what does this mean?

striktlymi: Lol!!!

It has little to do with what I say actually...whatever God say is wrong, is definitely wrong in my books...

Hmmm...yes, I agree that the act in itself does not cause physical harm to those who engage in it but considering that I believe in the metaphysical...the damage done to ones spirit is immense...

The reason why I see at all is because God is in my life...if I subtract him from my life, then I will be in total darkness...

The reason why you think you see now is because you never saw. A blind man cannot miss the sight of beauty, he never experienced it. You never miss reason and logic because you never gave it a chance. You think you see, but you are indeed blind. For if you see, you'd know that physical actions shouldn't damage the spiritual even if spirits exist.

is the spirit dependent on the body or the body on the spirit. The spiritual position is always contradictory. If the body is dependent on the spirit, then no matter what the body does, the spirit remains clean.

striktlymi: See this man!

Where you go hide?

Homosexuality in itself is wrong, though I don't expect you to see this since you are having a hard time believing in any deity...

Homosexuals are not necessarily evil people...the fact that I consider the act to be an anormaly does not in any way suggests that those who practice it are evil.

Though some homosexuals can be evil just like some heterosexuals can also be evil...

I 've been checking out Programming section..

Homosexuality is wrong because of what? Because you said so? And am supposed to take that for old time's sake?? I doubt that.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or evil in it, the act itself hurts no one and gives pleasure to its lovers, so which one be your own?

Subtract God from your life and you will see clearly.

multiplatform app with java? holla me pelapps@gmx.com

^^^life would be hard without phonegap.

I take it you know to partition your hdd. just format and reload windows.

^^^homosexuality is not evil.

if the homosexuals cant make heaven, no one can.

its a pity god didn't write to us in any african language, perhaps he doesn't recognize africans. So much for our christians.

saintvc: I neva knew logic boy was dis JOBLESS

about right.

@LB, sori.

Java or Python and am in.

Anyone here use MobileFx studio 7? I need some info about it.

God is the programmer, the Devil is the bug

musKeeto: Wetin you dey find here?

C++ is a good option, considering you already know Java..

you pursue me reach here? na wa o

I have been thinking about that too, just wanted thoughts on it.

Thanks.

I thought myself everything I know in python.

Go to school for the certificate (so that you can get work), but plan to teach yourself programming.

Also, dont learn only one language, learn at least 2.

So I have been using Python, Java and they've been really good, I want to add one more language. I want the C family.
Which is best? C, C# or C++?

Do this:
windowskey+r, type cmd

from cmd:
type:
net user administrator /active:yes

you should get this reply:
The command completed successfully
Then logoff
Log in again using administrator account and reinstall.
If the quit message pops up again:
you are on your own

Uyi Iredia: I see ! Eat this while you understand:


"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. The understanding can
intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only
through their unison can knowledge arise."

Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

When next we cross paths, come prepared with what Kant meant by that statement.

Simple. He meant a single neuron does not make a brain. I have told you this before.

99% of your problem is not knowing how to differentiate between abstracts and reality.

I shall leave you in your delusions. Only you can help yourself, when you are ready to face reality.

Uyi Iredia: Epic fail ! Since what could be said of God could be said of Evolution.

The difference is that God is said to be intelligent, evolution isn't. This is the reason am an atheist, the fact that there is no intelligent design in nature.

Proffdada: ooman fae,ces

better than your gold.

Mr Troll: I am your pain-in-the-butt.

Nope you are not. Identify yourself.

Uyi Iredia: Precisely. Because this meaning of 'empirical' itself has never been empirically observed. It is just assumed. Since you want to play the materialist bring 'empirical' for observation.

You definitely have a problem with hermeneutic words.

Uyi Iredia: In case you don't know observation and experimentation involve mentations, they aren't concrete objects, they are abstracts. Put simply no one has empirically verified 'observation and experiment'. If you state otherwise, you are playing the idealist, because 'observation and experiments' are IMMATERIAL concepts people intuit.

You live in your own world. A pathetically delusive world.

Uyi Iredia: What can be asserted as without empirical backing can be dismissed without empirical backing. Bring 'evolution' for empirical verification. All you can do is point to physical objects and INFER evolution.

What satisfies your requirement of being called 'empirical'

Uyi Iredia: I said God always existed by replying that 'nothing' caused God. Read my initial response. There's no reason for me to accept your posit only Nature exists when Nature itself begs a cause while YOU dismiss my posit of God because you think it demands a cause.

My argument is that nature can cause and continue itself because it goes from simple to complex. God cannot cause himself because he goes from complex to making simple stuff, like a universe. Note that the universe must be simple, compared to the God who made it, if a God made it.

Uyi Iredia: SMH. Don't embarass yourself with your ignorance. Google panentheism and get what it MEANS. Pantheism is what you described NOT panentheism.

OK

Wikipedia: Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God" is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[1]

In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[1] like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[2][3] Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to paradoxical transcendent Divine Panentheism, through intellectual articulation of inner dimensions of Kabbalah, with the populist emphasis on the panentheistic Divine immanence in everything and deeds of kindness.

My previous input

Ooman: You do know that panentheism posits that whatever is behind nature is God. It does not posit that this God is a conscious God who could die for the sins of man. Panentheism is more explained thus: Natural processes in their whole is God. This position is more like the atheistic position when you subtract the word 'God' from it. The atheist posit that natural processes is sufficient to make nature.

So what exactly do you have problems with?

Uyi Iredia: I see. Yet you forget you also SUBTLY personify energy and matter by stating they ultimately made conscious and intelligent beings via evolution, not to mention their apparent creativity. Fool yourself, not me.

I dont just state that, its the only thing observable in nature.

Uyi Iredia: Nothing. It applies to God as much as it applies to your precious, unconscious energy, yet you believe energy is the lynchpin of reality. I state this 'energy' is conscious and intelligent and you differ based on what. Now to level the playing field, answer the question: What really is energy ?

Energy is everything there is.

Based on do what do you posit that energy is conscious?

Uyi Iredia: Simplicity is an immaterial concept. Stop fooling yourself. I've been pretty consistent in saying God is an immaterial mind that perforce effected the material world.

The theory of an immaterial being making material stuff is the dumbest theory an intelligent being could put forward. No single observation supports such, not even in the computer world.

Tell me how a software could exist or produce hardware without a pre-existing hardware. Its a total impossibility.

Uyi Iredia: No, you are. You state talk of caused as if it physically exists. It doesn't. It is a concept applied to things that physically exist.

Only in your dreamland are you right.

Uyi Iredia: How can an immaterial cause act on an object ? What is the thing that acts on the object ? Do tell.

Causes are not immaterial. If you throw a ball, you are the cause of the ball's motion. Are you immaterial?

Immaterial cannot act on material, this is exactly my position. An immaterial God cannot therefore make nature.

Here, you contradict and destroy your own argument

Uyi Iredia: So if causes depend on pre-existing objects what caused the universe. Of course, the universe can't come from nothing. Note that I'm taking the entire universe as an object.

A stuff of irreducible simplicity.

Uyi Iredia: Assumed not observed. If it is observed show me the physical objects 'cause' and 'effect'. I tire of you pointing to physical objects and wanting me to infer cause and effect.

You are the proof you seek. You exist, so you are a cause and was caused.

Uyi Iredia: Spoken like the quintessential atheist. Read 'Atheism or Theism' by Chapman Cohen. His argument in the chapter titled 'Argument from causality' is similar to yours. Cause begs the question, not answer the question, for the simple fact that cause is not empirically verifiable. God is inferred from Nature and observed as Nature.

God is inferred from necessity. An intelligent controller of nature cannot be ascribed to nature by those who have really studied it. Solomon, Darwin all dropped God after their study of nature. So did I.

Uyi Iredia: So how do we explain consciousness ? Just to clarify, Is consciousness material or not ? IOW can you show me an material thing called 'consciousness' ?

Your question in bold is irksome. Look into yourself and tell me what you see. A dumb unconscious combination of matter?

Consciousness is material, if not, brain injury wouldn't cause lack of consciousness or madness.

Uyi Iredia: Stop the bait-and-switch. The answer FOR NOW is "I don't know." I ain't taking promissory checks, not especially when you refuse my 'currency notes' to show God exists.

Consciousness does not just pop into existence from absolute nothing. Your position is illogical.

Uyi Iredia: So chemical processes are creators. This is the personification you were talking of earlier. It seems we have a knack for confuting ourselves. Since a God can't be conscious by your assertion, I assert consciousness couldn't have evolved from non-consciousness.

But we exist, so conscious did evolved. If your God is conscious, where is he? What makes him up? How was he made up?

Uyi Iredia: Said who ? You ! Present the so-called evidence.

for what?

Uyi Iredia: Then your stance is baseless as I insinuated earlier.

I have no stance concerning the source of energy. I am therefore baseless.

Uyi Iredia: How do you know it goes on forever ? You did not actually undertake this cycle forever and yet you claim it must go on forever. The same could be said of gravity. What is behind it and what is behind that thing ad infinitum.

Well its simple. Whats behind attraction of opposite charges? Their different concentration of energy. Read more on quarks, will you.

But when we talk of a mind in nature, then we must talk of what's behind it ad infinitum.

Uyi Iredia: And God has limited himself by creating this universe out of all possible universes it could make. Now if this $hit was dressed up string theory some one's boner may be bobbing up and down by now.

I mean limited by the laws of nature.

Uyi Iredia: I have. You haven't. That's why you can say $hit like 'Evolution is observed' or 'I went to the market' or 'Atheistic materialim is true' without noting the NECESSARY contradictions involved.

Your live in your own world of delusion. This I have come to understand.

Uyi Iredia: Observation doesn't exist. If it does, show me. I may accept a picture of observation. Energy doesn't exist, it isn't observed, if it does, like Hume I request, 'show me the impression'.

what is observation to you?

Mr Troll: are you smoking something? Who told you I'm a theist? ooman you cannot reason correctly. That I know. Logic? You propose logic? Nah, I'll pass. Like I said, who said anything about me being a theist?

so what are you? A deist?

davidylan: to call the Urey-miller experiment logical and "natural"... now you know those who truly know their onions and those who simply copy-paste what they read from talk-origins. There is really no point discussing with people like this.

These guys' experiment really threatened your bible. Dont worry, calm down, its not perfect yet.

The time comes when the bible shall fill the incinerator.

davidylan: notice also how the atheist spends most of his time simply insulting the intelligence of the OP and any other person who opposes his opinion (often masquerading as scientific "fact" rather than answering the questions with thoughtfulness and a modicum of intelligent reasoning.

Olodo. The OP itself is forged in insult.

Birds of same feather, blind leaders of the blind always fall into deep abyss of delusions.

People speak for a conscious god like priest speak for rocks they've deified.

Pathetic

Mr Troll: Final score: 1-1, Nobody win.

Edits.

Except reason and logic betrays you.

By reason and logic, the atheistic position is satisfied and has one more point than the theistic position.

Mr Troll: Now, that position is quite a naïve one because heck! This same argument has been used over the ages in explaining fire, snow, thunder, rainbow, storms, mountains etc and for theists to still be propounding this here notion of 'GOD OF THE GAPS' arguments is quite foolish if I may say so myself (although I used it some time ago against ooman[before I knew he was a dunce!] to good effect), and the atheists gladly make them look silly when they start spewing that crap. So I say damn you theists! If that's all you have then you have no arguments.

Who is the dunce here? You, whose position is based on assumptions or me, whose position is based on observation.

You know, you theist have a very simple work to do compared to atheists. You propose a conscious God, all you need to do is to call him down. Simple.

We propose randomness, and this we have shown the world.

JesusisLord85: Mystery Babylon the great

Mystery Babylon is an ancient fairy tale

Deep Sight: Please check this out.

https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

We'll chat later.

PS; No bullying intended, just soft soft yabbis

Read your link.

If you want to worship the oneness of nature as God, that is your business. But you cannot say that there is a separate conscious entity out there who made the universe and is separate from it.

Note that my stuff of irreducible simplicity is inseparable from the universe, for if it makes up the universe, then its inside the universe.

A conscious being outside the universe is a total impossibility.

Deep Sight: God is indeed rather said to be the irreducible simple and permanent self existent: I do not know whence you derive your idea of a complex God from: it certainly follows no known philosophical construct.

By the bolded, I understand you do not know the theory of the existence of God. God is said to be much more complex than the most complex things known to man, the brain and the universe. For if God made the universe, then he must be much more complex than it.

Such complexity is what I debate against. Such complexity cannot pop into existence from nothing, or self arrange from the stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything.

Perhaps now, you will understand how illogical the theistic and deistic state of mind is.

Deep Sight: Understand: God is the eternal sum of self-existent laws of reality, which could not be otherwise.

If this is solely your definition of God, if a self existing, conscious God, separate from nature is not part of your definition of God, then I have no problems with you. What I call natural processes is what you call God, and that is not my business.

Deep Sight: The atheistic worldview is illogical, contradictory, meaningless, thoughtless, shallow, da.ft, inane, insane, puerile, contradictory, nonsensical, delusional, self-denying, sense-defying, in short: vacant gibberish fit only for swine playing in a rubbish heap.

Do you intend to bully me by this? Note that you saying this does nothing but re-enforces stup.id ideas into your deluded mind.

Deep Sight: I don't have the time now bro, i'm off to a meeting: start your studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

I dont exactly have the day off too, so keep your agenda to yourself.

Why dont you start your philosophical studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between things that are possible and things that are thought to be necessarily possible.

Uyi Iredia: This 'process' can't be empirically verified. The concept of this type of 'process' termed 'evolution' is applied to mere instances or groups of physical objects like humans, apes, an E.coli bacteria, a Tiktaalik, mammals etc. The groups or instances of physical objects can be verified. The 'process' which is a concept has NEVER been verified. My arguments involves an understanding of abstract and concrete nouns. All abstract nouns (as far as I know) are assumed, NEVER empirically verified. All concrete nouns (with the exceptionnof extremely minute sub-atomic particles, as far as I know) are subject to empirical verification. To know that you understand the concept, answer the question: Are 'reason' and 'throwing' abstract nouns or a concrete nouns ?

Are you deliberately forgetting the meaning of 'empirical' or are you just being deliberately annoying? In case you dont know, empirical means "based on observation and experiment" according to Encarta and Oxford dictionaries. Evolution as a process, satisfies the requirement of being referred to as empirical. The only place this theory continues to lack is the point where it fails to experimentally produce life from non-life. Note that its theoretical position as to the origin of life is mathematically and logically supported. The theistic position of creation of life by a intelligent God is disproved by the imperfection of life itself.

Uyi Iredia: Nothing. Or maybe, I should say I don't know.

You know, what is not healthy is not to assert that things come into existence by natural processes, what is not healthy is to assert that a complex conscious God could pop into existence from 'Nothing' while refusing to accept nature could come from natural processes.

Uyi Iredia: I don't think God too petty to bother over appelations. Theists certainly, not God.

More like panentheism, which was Spinoza's true position AND NOT pantheism.

You do know that panentheism posits that whatever is behind nature is God. It does not posit that this God is a conscious God who could die for the sins of man. Panentheism is more explained thus: Natural processes in their whole is God. This position is more like the atheistic position when you subtract the word 'God' from it. The atheist posit that natural processes is sufficient to make nature.

Uyi Iredia: Apart from God, and less likely computers, what thing without a brain has a mind ? Do tell.

Its called personification. Its a figure of speech. Such things do not necessarily exist. Because one may confuse what you meant with personification, I issued the warning.

Uyi Iredia: To the extent 'energy' is a word coined to describe the behaviour of matter, it can be created or destroyed. Before the word 'energy' it never existed, only the things which energy refers to eg light, chemicals, nucleus etc. If a thing eg a chair, a house, a human, a car must be created to exist what exempts energy from that observation ? Do tell.

Well, from this logic, what exempts a creator, God, from being created? You have quickly forgotten that this question is the reason for this thread.

Now to answer your question, if anything exist at all, then what makes it up must predate. Tracing this down, we will arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity. What exists at this point must exist forever, and what exists at this point of irreducible simplicity is too simple to be a conscious complex God. This is why God cannot exist.

Uyi Iredia: Have they been empirically verified ? If not, I must not assume with you they are common sense. If you are willing to agree cause and effect are immaterial, intangible, and are concepts made by conscious and intelligent beings, then I will forge ahead with you.

Well by this, I can conclude you are confused by the theory of cause and effect. Cause is what acts on an object, effect is the action the object performs. There is no cause and effect without a pre-existing object (God could not therefore make the universe from nothing), therefore, the theory of cause and effect is not immaterial, but material.

Uyi Iredia: Agreed. They are assumed.

Not assumed, observed.

Uyi Iredia: Hold on a minute ! You are not thinking. I repeat, 'you are not thinking'. Observation is an immaterial apprehension of what physical objects (or natural if you will) are. Example: You throw a stone in a river and you see ripples. These events, in themselves, don't scream 'the stone CAUSED ripples'. No. As a matter of fact, if you think they do end this argument, for my point would be lost on you. The apprehended CAUSALITY (or relation) of the thrown stone to the EFFECTED ripples is what is immaterial and intelligent.

There you are, still confused by the theory of cause and effect. Anything that is observable must be caused. Therefore, if you have observed anything, then you may trace its cause. This is why observation is important in telling the sources of things in nature and nature itself. Our observation does not favor the existence of a God.

Uyi Iredia: I see. Lucky for me you are in no position to make me unfit. Feel free to imagine me unfit, it's all nuerons jumping around in your brain.

No need to be angry.

Uyi Iredia: Yet energy and mind are concepts discussed by conscious and intelligent people, not stones, electrons, stars, sand, air etc. If energy can't have consciousness, consciousness couldn't possibly exist. Since you state otherwise, state how consciousness arose from non-conscious energy. Prediction: ooman will either dismiss my request (obviously or subtly) or refer to matter from energy and special plead that evolution did it without giving us details.

Perhaps you didnt get me, let me paraphrase. Energy by itself, in its pure form, cannot have consciousness. Therefore, God could not be conscious.

Uyi Iredia: The bolded contradicts the underlined for by stating you don't know, you've obscured the question of energy's source, yet demand the same (reworded as cause instead of source) of God.

Your use of "contradicts" is not appropriate in this context. You assume that I have taken "I dont know" as an answer for the source of energy. Perhaps the fault is from me, perhaps I should have said "I do not know NOW". Complete knowledge about energy is what every evolutionary astronomer seek to find out.

What I debate about God is the impossibility of his consciousness. God is not conscious and so anything from stone to the chemical processes may be referred to as God, since Gods are creators, and chemical processes too are creators. This would be correct.

But to claim that there is such a being as a conscious God who could die for the sins of man is irresponsible.

Uyi Iredia: Because you say so.

Because there is no evidence for such.

Uyi Iredia: You've practically said that by saying you don't know its cause. Another atheist, thehomer, was less tactful. He simply asserted energy exists.

Refer above. I should have said "I dont know NOW". The search continues.

Uyi Iredia: Funny, because I know it enough to know energy like God is the asylum of ignorance. A term coined to describe the behaviour of matter. An apole fell to the ground and someone said 'gravity does it' how 'because of attraction'. One wonders that this same gravity is defined as attraction and when I asked for what caused this gravity (which is attraction) scientists say 'attraction did it' and inquisitive kinds like me must keep shut because they said so. Arrant nonsense ! Present energy (not matter o! Energy) for empirical verification.

I do not get this. Do you assume a mind to gravity? And do you assume that this mind does not have a mind behind it, and a mind behind that? The cycle continues forever. There is no answer when God comes into the question of origin.

Uyi Iredia: Agreed. And I ask what makes salt salty and water wet ? I know you may want to assert they are salty by the very fact (or properties). More importantly who or what KNOWS that salt os salty and water wet ?

All conscious minds do. You do know that most animals deliberately move towards a salt source for the sake of eating salt, right? Its all by awareness. A fish does not experience wetness, but it experiences dryness out of water, so a fish does not know wetness, but dryness. Its all based on how we experience things. And Gods cannot be excluded from this requirement. We cannot therefore have a perfect, nerver ending conscious God. If Gods exist, then they must be limited too.

Uyi Iredia: @ bolded: Good. Just help me tell that oaf called wiegraf. When I insinuated the bolded by stating brain in itself isn't intelligent, he differed. Now coding as observed, involves coders. In fact H2O doesn't code for the property it (H20) is the property that begs for an explanation.

You may need to consult Wiegraf to clear what he meant. I may also argue that individual cells are conscious. Chlamydonomas, for instance, would move away from UV light to less bright light. That is a very simple form of consciousness. Note that my use of "Are brain cells aware of their consciousness and intelligence? No" means that there is no consciousness without ALL parts of the brain fully functional. Individual neuron does not make a brain, but combination of such - perhaps saying it like that would make you understand

Uyi Iredia: They don't. You simply depend on my understanding of the concept 'make', 'attraction' and 'repulsion'. I AM NOT giving you that luxury. Now state how we go from inferred but physical charges to attraction and repulsion. Prediction: You will cast aspersions whilst stating that no one denies attraction or repulsion. You are BOUND to forget that 'attraction' and 'repulsion' have never been verified. They are abstracts assumed and applied to many objects.

Perhaps you need to revise the meaning of the word "abstract" and "empirical".

Whatever is observed exists, there is no abstract here. God is not observed, neither is perfection or intelligent control in nature. Therefore, God does not exist.

Deep Sight: Well the bold shows that you have no idea what you are discussing. You need to go back and take time to read, study, meditate, cogitate, reflect and understand elementary concepts.

This is because it has not occurred to you that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist, since things may not arise from nothingness.

That you say nothingness is eternal, is another cringe-worthy and sad contradiction.

Deepsight without insight, and with a disappointing level of common sense. When will your cerebral hemisphere signal to your neocortex that the "beginning" of a thing may not necessarily be the source of that thing, but the process that acted on it and changed it into something more tangible, like a universe.

My argument is simple. There is no mind except consciousness, consciousness does not just pop into existence. If God is alive, then life must predate God. Life itself IS NOT AN IRREDUCIBLE UNIT. Therefore, any God that exists must be made up by some sort of stuff.

Tracing down this stuff, we must truly arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity, where this stuff that makes all things up cannot be further divided. At this point of irreducible simplicity, there must exist this thing that exist eternally, from which everything else formed and into which everything disintegrates.

Note that my use of what you bolded in my previous reply DID NOT include this stuff of irreducible simplicity because my argument is that this stuff is too simple to be a God.

My argument is this: what are the chances that a complex conscious God, great enough to be greater than the universe and to make a universe, can pop into existence from this stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything?

The chances are 0. The theistic and deistic position becomes destroyed.

The atheistic position and the evolutionary view, however, becomes totally supported by the fact that change is constant in nature. Change experienced by this stuff of irreducible simplicity must therefore cause a b.ang and there, you have a universe, and a mind to debate it - us.

Uyi Iredia: Time to play the idealist

'compulsion', 'proof', 'observation', 'mind', 'success', and 'evolution' are all mental constructs. You can NEVER point them out because by DEFINITION they are all mental constructs, they can never be EMPIRICALLY PERCIEVED. As proof, I'll note that you can never point to a physical object as any of the mentioned mental constructs. You can only say that physical objects EXHIBIT these mental constructs eg a chair or falling apple is observed, an organism evolves, fossils or anatomical similarities prove evolution.

I see you have problems understanding English language. Except for empiricism, there would be nothing called 'evolution'. Evolution is the name given to a process which is visible in nature. You observe objects, then you define them. We observed evolution, then we defined it. Is this enough proof of the objectivism of evolution? Its only simple common sense, you know!

Uyi Iredia: When spirit and body compromise

Taking this to the God idea, God perforce (telekinetically if you wish) made matter, and is revealed in the material world. To the extent theists believe in a personal God with certain jealousies, affinities and wishes, they understand Her, to the extent deists believe in a God quite devoid of religious embellishments, they understand Him, to the extent atheists believe in a non-existent God and the material world, they understand It.

If God made matter, what/who made God?

Other theists may be angry because of your use of 'Her' to refer to their God, use 'He' instead next time.

I dont exactly get you. Are you indirectly expressing pantheism or do you also believe in the Gaia hypothesis.

Note that the Gaia hypothesis is not an atheistic idea.

Uyi Iredia: Replying ooman's million dollar question

The answer is Nothing. You must ask a cause of 'Mind' because you are contingent on matter. You note that all minds are products of brains. You must ignore the cause of 'Energy' because you believe that science has PROVEN energy isn't created or destroyed. You must ignore the fact that it is not empirically verified, it is inferred from what has been verified. Cause and effect are not physically observed, they are mental concepts that are toyed with as one pleases.

All 'conscious minds' would do for the bold. Have you not read about objectifying matter? Things other than brains can be said to have minds.

Have you created energy? Can you destroy it?

YES, yes, cause and effect are simple common sense. No one is denying that. But if you have observed nature enough, you would have discovered that all causes of natural effects are random and are NOT intelligent or intelligently controlled. Your lack of knowledge of this simple fact advertises your ignorance of natural processes, making you unfit to debate this matter.

Uyi Iredia: Pre-cognizing the inanities of thehomer

You will insist that mind must have a cause whilst ignoring that energy doesn't have a cause.

Again, insincerely perceived. All real minds are conscious, energy is not and energy alone, in itself cannot have consciousness.

Am not obscuring away the question of the source of energy, but the sincere answer is that I do not know. But what I do know is that every other available evidence speaks against consciousness of pure energy, a form which we may call God cannot therefore exist.

Uyi Iredia: You will insist that energy need not have a cause because of scientific observations, as if one observes can never be created or destroyed, when such observers are created and destroyed.

Do not take me for a theist, am not, so dont assume I will tell you energy does not have a cause. What I can tell you about the existence of energy is that, though we do not know it fully enough, we know it enough to know its not a complex God.

Uyi Iredia: You will ignore the fact that ideas necessarily exist and demand their physical instances eg a pink unicorn able to birth baby pink unicorns to prove the idea that pink unicorns exist. You will like mr whargarbl insist that intelligence must be expressed through matter, you then state that the evolved brain and its activities constitute intelligence. You are BOUND by your position to continually ignore the chasm between neural activities involving electrons and the meaning (the consciousness and intelligence). Put in other words, you must continually forget that the activities in your brain don't answer the question of intelligence, they beg the question, for the simple fact that each component lacks intelligence and are constrained in their actions despite (not because of) physical forces (eg tornadoes, sunlight, ocean waves, thunder, methane, ammonia, hydrothermal vents, phospholipids etc involve physical forces have no compulsion to make a brain yet they perforce via MUTATION and SELECTION evolved one). You are bound to dismiss all I've written as meaningless if you disagree with it or to nit-pick on points such as ideas existing.

Is sodium chloride aware of its saltiness? Yet its salty. Is water away of its wetness? Yet it makes wet. Are brain cells aware of their consciousness and intelligence? No, but they code for intelligence and consciousness same way NaCl and H2O code for their properties without being away of it.

Magnets are bipolar, north pole will always attract south pole, leaving a neutral point. Negative charge will always attract positive charge (and vice versa), leaving a neutral point. Now tell me, is the north pole of a magnet aware of its charge? If no, why does it attract the south pole? Are negative charges conscious of their negativity? Why do they move towards the positive?

Now, my questions above answer your questions. Just as no other force is needed to make opposite charges attract or repel, except for the charges themselves, no other force is required to make nature, except for nature itself.

Deep Sight: O no, that is not theistic thought. Theistic thought is that anything that is finite and has a beginning, requires a cause. Eternal things do not have a beginning and as such cannot be "made."

Or the theistic school of thought is that "let us make ourselves a God, who will transcend creation, and who we can believe created everything". The theistic school of thought is based on assumptions and wishes without any shred of mathematical or biological evidence to support 0.1% of their beliefs.

The deist is also forced to accept this insanity, for he has no other option, being a deist.

Only nothing is eternal, and 'nothing' does not have consciousness. Therefore, if any man believe in a God, he believes in 'nothing', if any man believes in 'nothing', he can also believe 'anything'. Stuffs like spirits, angels, demons and fairies.

And by maths and logic, based on simple common sense, a man with at least a functioning brain (therefore, common sense, which is obviously not common), however empty, should know that everything there is must have a beginning. And a man with a functioning eye sight would know that nothing lasts forever.

The theistic school of thought therefore shows reasoning ability less than that of a chimpanzee.

Deep Sight: A five year old will also know that between two people or two options, there may be the worse, but there is no such thing as "worst."

This hair-splitting and ad hominem can't save you from this state of deep-fall you have thrown yourself.