1000WaysToLive:
Yes, those are the questions. On the one hand, you claim that complex things require a designer- an intelligence.

On the other, you claim that complex things like ant hills and bee hives -do not- require a designer, an intelligence.

Which one of those two assholes has it right?


Just as I wonder which of you two assholes that tell us gods moral code is subjective...and that tell us gods moral code is objective..has it right.

At some point, you have to pick a lane, I'm afraid.


You think one or the other contradictory thing which you've said - and I don't think there's any point in continuing until you can decide for yourself which one it is..in this, and other, contexts.


Or, I can remain silent, and allow you to continue to make a fool of yourself. Never got resolution on that one.

You waste my time with your incoherency!

I'm asking you what -you- think, lol. Do I..in fact, have a FREEWILL?

If so, not only is gods moral code not objective - according to you, it is also unbinding, and not a law (objective or otherwise) to me...a man - also according to you.

So, yet again, which of you two assholes has it right?

And by the way, I'm surprised you even know what the word "coherent" means because you have been anything but coherent thus far...

TenQ:

So you have only conscience but no freewill?

1000WaysToLive:
Yes, those are the questions. On the one hand, you claim that complex things require a designer- an intelligence.

On the other, you claim that complex things like ant hills and bee hives -do not- require a designer, an intelligence.

Which one of those two assholes has it right?


Just as I wonder which of you two assholes that tell us gods moral code is subjective...and that tell us gods moral code is objective..has it right.

At some point, you have to pick a lane, I'm afraid.


You think one or the other contradictory thing which you've said - and I don't think there's any point in continuing until you can decide for yourself which one it is..in this, and other, contexts.


Or, I can remain silent, and allow you to continue to make a fool of yourself. Never got resolution on that one.

A well reasoned argument. Well done

TenQ:

You should have directed your venom to your fellow atheist who made the claims!

See what Atheism is morphing you into in RED!

No, my dear. You are making the god and intelligent design claim.

Please list the science book you have read. Specifically books written by evolutionary biologists and accredited anthropologists.

chryssanthe:


No, my dear. You are making the god and intelligent design claim.

Please list the science book you have read. Specifically books written by evolutionary biologists and accredited anthropologists.

Proud Armedonia!
LOL!

TenQ:

Complexity is relative my dear: I'm surprised you didn't know that!

In my experience, when an apologist talks about complexity they will make sure to never tell atheists how to measure it, or even what dimensions such a measurement would have!
You people always try to be clever by half!

Without that information you clowns are free to claim that X is more complex than Y when their arguments require this, then say Y is more complex then X when that is required.
Thats why you shamelessly dodged my first question about complex design!

You tried to divert to complex SYSTEMS, as if the problem is not the same on every level. Components make a design. Designs make subsystems, subsystems make systems, systems make higher level systems.
On every level its the same problem for you: If "stuff seems to work together" how do you know it was design and didnt work according to the laws of Physics?
Thats by the way sha.

The second BS argument you people love to smuggle in: Its either DESIGN or ACCIDENT.
NO ONE is arguing something is an accident! We are arguing its "according to the laws of physics". Water falling down from the sky and filling an (proverbial) empty puddle is not an accident, its the result of gravity (amongst others) at work.

TenQ:

Ands are NOT intelligent!
Bees are NOT intelligent !!
Governments are not intelligent!!!

Which school did you attend please, maybe I should transfer my studentship. They are doing a good job with you.

Khai:
Wannabe Atheist reasoning at its best!

Thanks for agreeing with me.
i’m not sure what an "And Hill" would be, (are "ands" related to ants ?) but maybe your school can tell you about what an And Hill is.
Unfortunately for you , you clearly are wasting your tuition money at whichever theology school you chose to waste it at .
they failed to teach you the very basics,
which you are missing in every post . I feel sorry for you.
Ant hills are COMPLEX SYSTEMS (as bee hives are) which (as you say) have no intelligent designers .
Let me know if you need any help with other interpretations of plain English .

midnight378:


Thanks for agreeing with me.
i’m not sure what an "And Hill" would be, (are "ands" related to ants ?) but maybe your school can tell you about what an And Hill is.
Unfortunately for you , you clearly are wasting your tuition money at whichever theology school you chose to waste it at .
they failed to teach you the very basics,
which you are missing in every post . I feel sorry for you.
Ant hills are COMPLEX SYSTEMS (as bee hives are) which (as you say) have no intelligent designers .
Let me know if you need any help with other interpretations of plain English .

Another atheist concur
Ants are not intelligent
Bees are not intelligent

Case closed!
Nothing else to say!

chryssanthe:


In my experience, when an apologist talks about complexity they will make sure to never tell atheists how to measure it, or even what dimensions such a measurement would have!
You people always try to be clever by half!

Without that information you clowns are free to claim that X is more complex than Y when their arguments require this, then say Y is more complex then X when that is required.
Thats why you shamelessly dodged my first question about complex design!

You tried to divert to complex SYSTEMS, as if the problem is not the same on every level. Components make a design. Designs make subsystems, subsystems make systems, systems make higher level systems.
On every level its the same problem for you: If "stuff seems to work together" how do you know it was design and didnt work according to the laws of Physics?
Thats by the way sha.

The second BS argument you people love to smuggle in: Its either DESIGN or ACCIDENT.
NO ONE is arguing something is an accident! We are arguing its "according to the laws of physics". Water falling down from the sky and filling an (proverbial) empty puddle is not an accident, its the result of gravity (amongst others) at work.

Is your argument that complexity is not relative!?

TenQ:

Complexity is relative my dear: I'm surprised you didn't know that!

Fail.
So your standard is meaningless.

TenQ:

Most Atheists like you are powered by the same unclean spirit, so your uncouth nature is not surprising.

See how he is changing goalpost all about ; the trashing of a drowning man.

I can see you've demonstrated mastery and brilliance in in the sciences, morality, theology and
on philosophy.
It's so evident: I wish to come and learn from you!

LOL!!

Tell us what an "And Hill" is and how complex it is .
then post your complexity scale and tell us how (exactly) complex something needs to be for it to require a designer .
Be very specific . either answer this very specifically or you'll be booted out of my school.
my tuition is free . How much are you paying for the crap your bullshit school teaches ?

how is it your fake god(s) let the people of Puerto Rico suffer, and many die without intervention ?
he did nothing to help . How many innocent infants died yesterday of cancer and starvation, and your fake gods did nothing ?
be sure and tell your fake gods thanks for nothing.
Your (fake) gods are worthless pieces of shit.
Yet you believe in them.
How delusional can you get ? Dullard

TenQ:

Does the DNA contain data?
Does the DNA contain information?
Does the DNA contain instructions?

If you don't understand the above, where does the information regarding the color of your eyes, hair type and color, etc located. In your spleen!? LOL!

Even though no where have I said the DNA is a code in this thread, but it is.

Intact if you know anything about OOP in computer science you will understand why it is a strong PARALLEL between computer code and the DNA.

No, DNA is NOT a library nor a code and if you think this you have zero scienctific understanding of what you're talking about.
You're trying to argue that "X is too unlikely to have happened therefore therefore goddiddit." Here again, in both the "library" and "code" cases, you're using an analogy to prove something and completely failing because that's not how science works. You MUST use evidence NOT analogy or speculation.

DNA and RNA evolved over billions of years and science can trace it's progression from it's simplest forms to the more complex. It did not spring up fully intact and fully formed.
If you had read my previous post (you seem to skip over my posts all the time or conveniently ignore them) scientists have had antique, simple RNA spontaneously form from the environment and chemicals known to exist in very large quantities during early earth. RNA copies itself.

Yet RNA and DNA did not just get one single chance to form from non living chemistry. It had many billions of chances (perhaps trillions of chances) to form over billions of years.
It was not just a random single chance that did it. It was randomness PLUS natural selection plus enormous amounts of time.

If I rolled some dice 2000 times and all of them came up with the number 7 you would be very skeptical.
But if I rolled the dice 2000 times and the dice came up with the number 7 about 110 times and I set those aside, then returned to the dice and rolled it another 2000 times and got another, say 130 number 7's and set those aside and continued rolling the remaining dice another 2000 times and kept setting aside all the number 7's I get aside, what I'm doing is natural selection plus randomness.
DNA and evolution requires BOTH natural selection and randomness.

Your thinking is that all 2000 dice were rolled at one time and everyone of them come up with the number 7. Since that is impossible you're invoking a god.

You are also dismissing all the junk DNA and mutations, many of which are harmful,
So your god is either too stupid or powerless to fix these problems or your god simply does not exist.

midnight378:


highly complex systems have been observed to have evolved, (and replicated) with no designer .
Many highly complex systems, (for example human bodies and their components) have been shown to be very poorly designed .....
Yet another field of your ignorance.

Thank you!

Simplicity is the Hallmark of (good) design.
As someone in the engineering field I am struggling with this every single day!

Tenq is a classic example of being so ignorant, he does not realize how ignorant he is. Worse, he demonstrated unwillingness to learn after he had been corrected about objective/subjective morals.

Tenq is more than ignorant, he is willfully ignorant.

TenQ:

Can you please show the Evidence to prove that conscience EVOLVED and from what?

LOL
No one has to show you that .
"Conscience" is nothing but "learned behaviors", (which as you were told yesterday even by all the major religious groups, is "formed" by environment) and you have no evidence there is anything called "conscience" other than learned behaviors and learned standards .
Can you please take Anthropology 101 and actually learn the BASICS of how cultures teach their children about what are proper behaviors for their members. Can you also describe for us what allowed your god-given consciences to permit child sacrifice in the many cultures that practiced it .
You're not really this stupid are you ?

TenQ:

All you needed to do was to falsify my argument and not resort to whether it is an ATHEISTIC or theological argument.

When you see a Complex System carrying data and instructions, would you assume it randomly and spontaneously came to existence OR THAT an intelligent being must have made it?

It is a simple Question!



Why wouldn't you think a Crab or Fish did the writing?
Why would you ascribe such writings to be from a highly intelligent being (human) and not a dog?

The ball in your court!

It is a simple question with a complicated answer, since it depends on the system in question. Some of such systems are man-made, so they are indeed intelligently designed. Others come about through evolution, not chance. Still others come about through self-organization, not chance. Those are alternatives to intelligent design. In no case is "random chance" among the correct answers. So you have proposed a false dichotomy since you apparently don't understand how either evolution or self-organization work. You likely haven't even heard of biosemiotics, as one way matter can self-organize. The way you stated your question is leading, which is why you think "intelligent design" is the only correct answer.

TenQ:

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

Um, no. If I decide to take my morality from Tunde down the street, that doesn't suddenly make my morality objective. Neither does taking my morality from God. And no, the morality of the government is NOT objective in the sense you are using it.

TenQ:

Except your argument is that it is possible to unravel God as defined by Christians with science.

When have I ever claimed that?

TenQ:

Cool down and learn!

Logic is a step above experience and experiments.

Logic is very simple
If A>B (Postulate 1)
and
If B>C (Postulate 2)
THEN
A>C (Conclusion)

Assuming, of course, standard propositional logic. I also assume you want to include the quantifier calculus in the designation of 'logic'. But, are you aware of the alternatives to standard, classical logic? How about paraconsistent logic? How about three or four valued logic? How about logic that does not include the law of excluded middle?

TenQ:

From the knowledge, we have are the postulates surrounding infinite regress false?

Until they are PROVEN FALSE, the CONCLUSION is TRUE

Which postulates are those?

TenQ:

You can't beat logic: only if the postulates are wrong can the conclusion be invalidated

Show logically or scientifically that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?


Time, Space, Matter and all the laws of Physics occured simultaneously at/after big bang.
You know the implication!?

It means that however we try Scientifically, we cannot probe beyond (before) the big bang.

Maybe, maybe not. With quantum gravity, there is a strong possibility that the classical singlarity is smoothed out and that time and the universe existed prior to the beginning of the current expansion phase.

TenQ:


The Uncaused First cause must of course be beyond (before/ the big bang) meaning that He cannot be subject either to the laws of physics nor be of material/matter origin.

The Uncaused First cause is an ENIGMA!

Once again, you seem to assume there is only ONE uncaused cause. Can you prove this? Under quantum mechanics, it actually seems that there are many uncaused casues that happen all the time WITHIN our universe. So that rather invalidates your argument on that score.

TenQ:

What I know for certain is that the Universe came into being 13.8billion years ago. Before that time ALL paws of Physics and Chemistry including Times, Space and Matter did NOT exist.

No, you do NOT know this. At this point, NOBODY knows this.

TenQ:
If the gravitational singularity was eternal, it would have been a CONSTANT. If it was a constant, it would still remain a constant till today EXCEPT it is perturbed by an external force (that is strange to the present forces in physics and chemistry).

For the singularity in standard Big Bang cosmology, it simply makes no sense to talk about it being 'eternal' or not. In fact, it isn't a thing: it is a description of the fact that in that theory time cannot be extended prior to a certain point. So, in particular, even talking about 'before' is invalid.

TenQ:

Whatever moved the gravitational singularity to inflate is EXTERNAL to it and not the kind of force we know in Physics and Chemistry.

Once again, this only betrays your lack of understanding of what the theory actually says. There was no time prior to the singularity. That is what it means to be the type of singuarity seen at the BB.

TenQ:

You as an Atheist deny this all together, me as a Christian call the primary mover my God. What then is your problem about that

Well, among other things, it assumes something not in evidence; it attributes properties to that thing that would only make sense after the universe exists; it talks about 'before' in a context where it is inappropriate; and it talks about causality in a context where it doesn't apply. I would also add on the previous point that. ''X is what I call God" is a form of fallacy of definition. It's basically both overly broad and specific. I could just as easily say "God is a breakfast made of flour, milk and eggs batter cooked in a pan" and thus declare that I'm a "God eater". Defining "God" as some sort of metaphysical or even physical phenomenon is very different than how "God" has been used and is used in society to describe a magical loosely anthropomorphic creature with supernatural power and authority of immense magnitude.

TenQ:


DNA is now evolution!?

It's the basis of evolution, yes. You really are uneducated.

The question I asked you which you've been dodging is:

Whenever you see a complex system or meaningful interaction of data and instructions, do you assume it happened by accident or that a non-intelligent source made it?

I've already answered this question a couple of times, which shows how poor your reading comprehension is.

TenQ:

A System is the hallmark of intelligent design.

It seems you are trying to make us laugh. So for example, the multitude of systems with a star and multiple planets orbiting? No intelligence required.

TenQ:

DNA is now evolution!?

You must have mixed me up with someone as I did not use your examples for anything nor did you even present any credible examples!

DNA is a library of DATA and INSTRUCTIONS for the growing, building, maintenance and sustenance of cells in an organism. It is an example of a Complex System.

The question I asked you which you've been dodging is:

Whenever you see a complex system or meaningful interaction of data and instructions, do you assume it happened by accident or that a non-intelligent source made it?

When I see DNA, I see a product of natural forces and natural laws as applied to the chemicals that existed on the early Earth. That is NOT a 'random coincidence'. But it also does not involve an intelligent agent. As to whether 'nothing created everything', that very much depends on what you mean by 'nothing' and 'created'. If 'nothing' means a state of the universe where there are no particles, no space, and no time, then possibly, with qualifications below. If by 'nothing' you really mean 'nothing at all', then no. I don't believe this version of 'nothing' can exist. The term 'created' is also value-laden. Do I think that a state of the universe in which there were no particles, no space,and no time decayed into a state in which those existed? Quite possibly. Do I think it is meaningful to talk about the 'cause of the universe'? Almost certainly NOT. All causality we have ever seen has been inside of the universe. It also all involves time, which is an aspect of the universe. So I simply don't think it is meaningful to talk about the cause of the universe.

Would it matter what anyone's argument actually was if you couldn't do simple logic, and was bad at words as well?

You need to start over, lol.

TenQ:

Is your argument that complexity is not relative!?

TenQ:


You fall my hands again big time.

Water molecules now a system!?

Do you understand what you are even writing?

The whirlpool is the system, you dolt. The molecules are the components.

Let me ask you, what is the function of the water system (for every system has a purpose)?
To help you;
A House is a very SIMPLISTIC system!
It has a roof to protect against sun and rain
It has windows for visibility and ventilation .
It has doors for security
It may have specialised compartments as sleeping rooms, kitchen, latest rooms etc

What is the function of "water system"?

Function implies purpose. What if there is no purpose? Does it stop being a system? What is the solar system has no purpose? Does it now become the Solar Grouping instead because it is no longer systematic? You really are straining to sneak your premise in here without demonstrating it.

What if life has no purpose? That's the thought that terrifies you, and that's why you cling to a Bronze Age mythology.

I've ignored the rest of your post because you're thick and tiresome.

TenQ:

You should have directed your venom to your fellow atheist who made the claims!

See what Atheism is morphing you into in RED!

Nobody made the claim that the environment was intelligent if so please point out who and in which post. What has been said though is that environmental pressure isn't "random" or "chance". I don't understand your objection nor the validity of most of the point you have attempted to make so far.

1) Your prime mover argument is ridiculous and fallacious in various manner.

2) Your argument against the modern synthesis of evolution theory is ill informed.

3) Your "complex system is sign of intelligent design" is ruined by your inability to define what makes a system "complex" and a coherent manner.

4) Your God definition both murky and largely a "ad hoc" definition.

5) Your understanding of the Big Bang theory bizarre.

I think it would be time to gather back your thoughts and make another longer post detailing your position and the responses to the critique you have received so far. You are losing yourself and your own position in a myriad of quibbles that serves more to shield your ego after many, many critiques than to explain and present your position in a cogent manner. Sometime stepping back and reassessing is the right move.

TenQ:

Do you need to accept anything!?
No!

As it doesn't change the truth.

It isn't exactly the truth if there's no evidence to show for it.

TenQ:

Complexity is relative my dear: I'm surprised you didn't know that!

And there is a system for which the complexity is such that the probability that it is designed is close to zero. If you take a second system that is relatively more complex than that, and a third, and a fourth, and so on, how do you determine when the probability that the last system was designed is greater than 20%?

You don't get around the measurement problem by saying it's relative, because that simply replaces the question of "how complex" it is with the question of "how much more complex" it is. So answer the question of the measurement problem and quit simply trying to avoid the responsibility for supporting your points that you voluntarily accepted when you made your claims. How do you determine that a system is complex enough that it more likely than not required a designer?

TenQ:

Can you please quote Prof. Don Lincoln where he says space, time and matter "evolved independently"...LOL!

I'll take that it that you cannot quote any authority that supports your argument. I'm not going to quote Prof. Don Lincoln saying "evolved independently" as that hasn't been claimed. Can you even keep to the thing being discussed?

You have nothing to support your claims and so you attempt to divert the discussion to something unrelated. Do you have any support for your position at all? Be honest.

TenQ:


Are you underestimating our medical knowledge to make copulations between man and animals safe?

No, the health aspect of it is largely irrelevant. What part of "training up future rapists on animals is bad!" did you miss? OK, kudos for not having monkey-pox infested rapists, but that's largely a secondary consideration when you could simply not have rapists.

TenQ:


Your only alternative then is to conclude that infinite regress of cause and effect is the reality (even though the law of entropy is grossly violated).

False dichotomy. Seeing that you have arrived at two irrational outcomes I conclude that the reasoning that you have employed is faulty and neither is true.

TenQ:

I didn't ask you what the cause of causality is:

You asked if there was an "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" [caps yours]. This has the same meaning.

Shit like this is why I rarely get involved with religious nitwits.

TenQ:

It still doesn't dawn on you that these are SYSTEMS and as such could not be a product of random collection of atoms!?

What tract did you get this imbecility from? No organism is the product of "random collection of atoms". Go look up what complexity actually means, when not used as a buzz word by apologists, and how you measure it. Then brush up on self-organizing systems and emergent behaviours.

TenQ:


Why didn't you respond to my questions?

I'd wager he didn't because they are the sort of questions that we point to when some naive fool trots out the "There are no stupid questions" aphorism.

TenQ:


When you see a house, you don't assume it built itself
When you see a helicopter, you don't assume metals just randomly glued themselves together
When you see a computer, you doesn't ever thing itself assembled itself.

All these are systems any one can say the function of their components.

Is a lump of granite a complex system? By what measure?