undercat:


The existence of an immaterial thing does not require explanation? What if I said the star is immaterial?

You can't say that, by definition, stars are material.

undercat:

Perhaps my point is a bit abstract. I'm sure you've heard someone say that "god" is not a concept that has any meaning. If they are correct, then you can not be said to imagine what "god" is. I'm making a similar point here. If you believe that God exists, and he is necessary for the world you are in to exist, then you cannot mean anything when you speak of a world without God, and you can't imagine it either.

For example, if you try to give properties to your godless world, the only properties you can give it are ones which you have already seen in the world with God, and since you can't have those properties if you don't have God, those properties cannot be given to a godless world. Properties include things like fundamental particles, waves, fields, etc. If you cannot give any properties you know of to a godless world, what then do you imagine a godless world will look like?

This is a jumble of words in defense of something stup*d. Again, you can imagine a godless world without believing in it.

undercat:

I don't agree. I can't say what the explanation will end up being, but there have been attempts in that direction with examples like the integrated information theory and the electromagnetic theory of consciousness.

The belief that consciousness is material is false. Consciousness is defined as a state
of awareness of one's thoughts and surroundings, that awareness isn't material. Consciousness also has no physical properties (eg mass or speed).

undercat:

I don't understand what you mean by evidence.

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Now state the evidence that shows that non-life effected life.

undercat:
The argument from design is okay. It's very easy to attack though, since it's quite obvious that accepting that there is design inevitably leads to the designer. One simply has ask what is meant by design. The argument also leaves you with the big question of who designed the designer, which makes it unsatisfactory for atheists who typically want as many answers as possible.

The 'who designed the designer' rhetoric is mistaken. Both atheists and theists agree that an infinite regress of causes is illogical and impossible. Therefore a chain of events MUST recede to a factor that is, by necessity, uncaused. In the case of design in living things that factor may be God (who theists believe is uncaused) or non-living natural processes (that atheists believe are uncaused).

UyiIredia:


I'll simply end things here. You are simply too ignorant, stubborn, deceptive and evasive.

Please just run along with your ignorant self. I answered your questions but you ran from many of mine. This is what happens when you try to make an argument based on your own ignorance. Learn some biology if you want to make an argument using biology.

davidylan:


The problem is that you have not provided actual evidence that the codons you mention just occurred out of thin air.

They're not supposed to occur out of thin air. Do you have evidence for your God?

thehomer:


Please just run along with your ignorant self. I answered your questions but you ran from many of mine. This is what happens when you try to make an argument based on your own ignorance. Learn some biology if you want to make an argument using biology.

Thats what I always tell them.
You should know your subject first, before You argue for or against it.

He repeatedly uses faith to argue biology, then half-baked biology to argue for faith.
What a folly.

thehomer:


They're not supposed to occur out of thin air. Do you have evidence for your God?

Of course... but i'll wait for you to provide evidence for DNA appearing out of complete chaos.

UyiIredia:
You can't say that, by definition, stars are material.

Yes, but not the creator star.

This is a jumble of words in defense of something stup*d. Again, you can imagine a godless world without believing in it.

You don't even understand the first thing. I didn't say you can't imagine a world you don't believe in. What I said is that we can't speak meaningfully of a world without God if this world is actually from God. It's fine if you don't get it, anyway.

The belief that consciousness is material is false. Consciousness is defined as a state
of awareness of one's thoughts and surroundings, that awareness isn't material. Consciousness also has no physical properties (eg mass or speed).

You cannot lay your hand on consciousness, but that is not what materialism is about. It suffices that consciousness can be explained materially. Not every thing in a physical theory has to be a particle with mass or momentum. What makes a thing physical is that it can fit within a the physical or material explanatory framework, where it can be measured and predictions can theoretically be made off it. For example we have in the materialistic framework things like heat or time which you would consider material, even though neither is a particle nor can any be said to have mass or momentum.

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Now state the evidence that shows that non-life effected life.

I don't know if you're asking me to demonstrate abiogenesis or if you just want me to state why I think life came from non life. I can only answer the latter and as I said earlier, any information we have which shows that there wasn't always life will rule out the eternity of life. The only sort of life we know did not always exist. If it did not come from non life, then it is eternal. It did not always exist, so it is not eternal.

The 'who designed the designer' rhetoric is mistaken. Both atheists and theists agree that an infinite regress of causes is illogical and impossible. Therefore a chain of events MUST recede to a factor that is, by necessity, uncaused. In the case of design in living things that factor may be God (who theists believe is uncaused) or non-living natural processes (that atheists believe are uncaused).

It follows from the argument. Complexity requires design, design requires a designer, the universe is complex, it was designed, the universe has a designer. The universe and its designer are even more complex than the universe alone. They must have been designed too. The universe and it's designer have a designer. ad nauseum.

If you don't want that refuctio you have to stop claiming that things were designed since design always requires a designer.

undercat:



You don't even understand the first thing. I didn't say you can't imagine a world you don't believe in. What I said is that we can't speak meaningfully of a world without God if this world is actually from God. It's fine if you don't get it, anyway.

You didn't need to. You said this . . .

"If you believe that God exists, and he is necessary for the
world you are in to exist, then you cannot mean anything
when you speak of a world without God, and you can't
imagine it either."

. . . which is stup*d. You can actually imagine a world without God even though you believe in God.

undercat:

You cannot lay your hand on consciousness, but that is not what materialism is about. It suffices that consciousness can be explained materially. Not every thing in a physical theory has to be a particle with mass or momentum. What makes a thing physical is that it can fit within a the physical or material explanatory framework, where it can be measured and predictions can theoretically be made off it. For example we have in the materialistic framework things like heat or time which you would consider material, even though neither is a particle nor can any be said to have mass or momentum.

Heat and time aren't material, they are conceptual and this is more obvious for time. Your point here is entirely absurd. Explaining something in physical terms doesn't make it physical, that could make immaterial abstracts like justice or beauty physical.

undercat:

I don't know if you're asking me to demonstrate abiogenesis or if you just want me to state why I think life came from non life. I can only answer the latter and as I said earlier, any information we have which shows that there wasn't always life will rule out the eternity of life. The only sort of life we know did not always exist. If it did not come from non life, then it is eternal. It did not always exist, so it is not eternal.

You haven't presented any evidence. It should be clear that I want you to state the evidence for abiogenesis.

undercat:

It follows from the argument. Complexity requires design, design requires a designer, the universe is complex, it was designed, the universe has a designer. The universe and its designer are even more complex than the universe alone. They must have been designed too. The universe and it's designer have a designer. ad nauseum.

If you don't want that refuctio you have to stop claiming that things were designed since design always requires a designer.

Is an infinite regress of causes logical ?

UyiIredia:
You didn't need to. You said this . . .

"If you believe that God exists, and he is necessary for the
world you are in to exist, then you cannot mean anything
when you speak of a world without God, and you can't
imagine it either."

. . . which is stup*d. You can actually imagine a world without God even though you believe in God.

Can you mean anything by speaking of a married bachelor or imagine what one is? If you think you can, you are imagining the wrong thing. That is the sort of point I am making.

Heat and time aren't material, they are conceptual and this is more obvious for time. Your point here is entirely absurd. Explaining something in physical terms doesn't make it physical, that could make immaterial abstracts like justice or beauty physical.

You must have a personal definition of absurd. Heat and time are physical quantities, just like energy. Physical terms means in terms of a physical explanatory framework, i.e. physics. How do you propose to explain justice in that manner?

If consciousness is a physical property of the particles and structure that make up the brain, you shouldn't expect it to have its own mass and what not.

You haven't presented any evidence. It should be clear that I want you to state the evidence for abiogenesis.

That is all the evidence I have.

Is an infinite regress of causes logical ?

I don't know. I think it's very messy, but I'm yet to see any sound disproof of it. My instinct is that it is illogical. Because it is possibly illogical, the question of who designed the designer is an attempt to show that the argument from design possibly leads to absurdity.

plaetton:


Thats what I always tell them.
You should know your subject first, before You argue for or against it.

He repeatedly uses faith to argue biology, then half-baked biology to argue for faith.
What a folly.

They tend to approach biology with the belief that their fairy tales first must be true. The belief that ignorance is a virtue is very prevalent and when the errors are being pointed out, they just huff and run.

davidylan:


Of course... but i'll wait for you to provide evidence for DNA appearing out of complete chaos.

DNA is not supposed to appear out of complete chaos. Looks like you'll be waiting for quite a while.

undercat:


Can you mean anything by speaking of a married bachelor or imagine what one is? If you think you can, you are imagining the wrong thing. That is the sort of point I am making.

A married bachelor is self-contradictory, a world without God isn't. Again, it is stup*d to say one can't imagine a world without God if one doesn't believe in it.

undercat:

You must have a personal definition of absurd. Heat and time are physical quantities, just like energy. Physical terms means in terms of a physical explanatory framework, i.e. physics. How do you propose to explain justice in that manner?



If consciousness is a physical property of the particles and structure that make up the brain, you shouldn't expect it to have its own mass and what not.

Heat and time aren't physical. Consciousness is also not physical. If you can't state the physical properties of consciousness, you have no reason to assert it's physical.

undercat:

That is all the evidence I have.

Then your position that life arose naturally isn't evidence-based.

undercat:

I don't know. I think it's very messy, but I'm yet to see any sound disproof of it. My instinct is that it is illogical. Because it is possibly illogical, the question of who designed the designer is an attempt to show that the argument from design possibly leads to absurdity.

If an infinite regress of causes is illogical then you can't presume all designers must have been designed. By necessity, one designer must not have been designed and that would be God.

thehomer:


Please just run along with your ignorant self. I answered your questions but you ran from many of mine. This is what happens when you try to make an argument based on your own ignorance. Learn some biology if you want to make an argument using biology.

You are very, very foolish. I answered each and everyone of your questions and objections. You are the one ignorant of biology, genetics in particular. I quoted a statement from Wikipedia showing that codons represent amino acids and you denied it. I didn't run. I ended the discussion since you were adamant in denying basic genetics.

UyiIredia:
A married bachelor is self-contradictory, a world without God isn't. Again, it is stup*d to say one can't imagine a world without God if one doesn't believe in it.

For the last time, a belief that God made this world is not compatible with the idea of a world without God having the same features.

Heat and time aren't physical. Consciousness is also not physical. If you can't state the physical properties of consciousness, you have no reason to assert it's physical.

It's like you were not even listening.

Then your position that life arose naturally isn't evidence-based.

Make of it what you will.

If an infinite regress of causes is illogical then you can't presume all designers must have been designed. By necessity, one designer must not have been designed and that would be God.

If an infinite regress is illogical, then the argument from design leads to an absurdity. It is not for you to change assumptions based on what the outcome of your argument will be.

undercat:


For the last time, a belief that God made this world is not compatible with the idea of a world without God having the same features.

Wrong. Again, it is stup*d to say one can't imagine a
world without God if one doesn't believe in it.

undercat:

It's like you were not even listening.

How so ? You are the one who couldn't state the physical properties of consciousness and yet believe it isn't physical.

undercat:

Make of it what you will.

It isn't what I will. If you are ignorant of any evidence supporting abiogenesis, then your belief that life arose naturally isn't evidence-based. It's the fact.

undercat:

If an infinite regress is illogical, then the argument from design leads to an absurdity. It is not for you to change assumptions based on what the outcome of your argument will be.

The argument from design doesn't lead to an infinite regress. It presumes an uncaused designer God.

UyiIredia:


You are very, very foolish. I answered each and everyone of your questions and objections. You are the one ignorant of biology, genetics in particular. I quoted a statement from Wikipedia showing that codons represent amino acids and you denied it. I didn't run. I ended the discussion since you were adamant in denying basic genetics.

You stupid fool go to sleep. Your ignorance is well documented. You quoted a statement you didn't understand and based on that made a profoundly stupid argument. The depth of stupidity you presented is what made me tell you several times to first try to learn something about biology before you try to make arguments based on it or against it. As a dummkopf you really really need to educate yourself before you even try to bring up biology.

thehomer:


DNA is not supposed to appear out of complete chaos. Looks like you'll be waiting for quite a while.

Well from what and why did DNA evolve? Essentially your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of DNA...

davidylan:


Well from what and why did DNA evolve? Essentially your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of DNA...

DNA is a natural molecule. It arose from other molecules. No my position is that DNA is a product of natural events. Why? Well for a reson similar to why the grand canyon was formed. I see no reason why I have to impose a human purpose on a natural process.

From what and why did your God evolve? Essentially, your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of your God.

thehomer:


You stupid fool go to sleep. Your ignorance is well documented. You quoted a statement you didn't understand and based on that made a profoundly stupid argument. The depth of stupidity you presented is what made me tell you several times to first try to learn something about biology before you try to make arguments based on it or against it. As a dummkopf you really really need to educate yourself before you even try to bring up biology.

You were the one who denied the statement, no one misunderstood it. The only fool here too full of himself is you. Go and learn about codes, your ignorance about the concept is appalling.

thehomer:


DNA is a natural molecule. It arose from other molecules. No my position is that DNA is a product of natural events. Why? Well for a reson similar to why the grand canyon was formed. I see no reason why I have to impose a human purpose on a natural process.

From what and why did your God evolve? Essentially, your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of your God.

I'm not sure I understand your point. DNS is a natural molecule that evolved from what exactly? To compare DNS to the Grand Canyon is quite dishonest. The Grand Canyon is a physical entity, DNS is the very basis of life and is so intricately designed, it cannot be seen with the naked eye and yet the smallest error can result in devastating disease or even no life at all. So care to euchre us on why DNS evolved? You keep asking me about God yet cannot prove your own point of view.

UyiIredia:


You were the one who denied the statement, no one misunderstood it. The only fool here too full of himself is you. Go and learn about codes, your ignorance about the concept is appalling.

You stupid boy. I know enough about codes to be able make appropriate distinctions. You misunderstood what you were trying to present. Your ignorant rambling is a side effect of that foolishness. Take the time to learn some biology. It will do you some good.

davidylan:


I'm not sure I understand your point. DNS is a natural molecule that evolved from what exactly?

DNA is derived from other molecules.

davidylan:

To compare DNS to the Grand Canyon is quite dishonest. The Grand Canyon is a physical entity, DNS is the very basis of life and is so intricately designed, it cannot be seen with the naked eye and yet the smallest error can result in devastating disease or even no life at all.

DNA is also a physical molecule. The Grand Canyon is also intricate. Whether or not it is visible with the naked eye isn't what makes something important. The sun can be seen with the naked eye and and certain small deviations can also result in catastrophic events. Don't forget that most mutations in DNA are neutral.

davidylan:

So care to euchre us on why DNS evolved?

I see no reason why I have to impose a human reason on a natural process.

davidylan:

You keep asking me about God yet cannot prove your own point of view.

Whether or not I can prove my point doesn't absolve you from actually defending your own claims. I answered your questions. Please answer mine. Here they are again.

From what and why did your God evolve?

thehomer:


DNA is derived from other molecules.



DNA is also a physical molecule. The Grand Canyon is also intricate. Whether or not it is visible with the naked eye isn't what makes something important. The sun can be seen with the naked eye and and certain small deviations can also result in catastrophic events. Don't forget that most mutations in DNA are neutral.



I see no reason why I have to impose a human reason on a natural process.



Whether or not I can prove my point doesn't absolve you from actually defending your own claims. I answered your questions. Please answer mine. Here they are again.

From what and why did your God evolve?

I am waiting for him to say that his god is the uncaused cause.

plaetton:


I am waiting for him to say that his god is the uncaused cause.

Won't be too long. If he ever returns.

thehomer:

DNA is derived from other molecules.

DNA is also a physical molecule. The Grand Canyon is also intricate. Whether or not it is visible with the naked eye isn't what makes something important. The sun can be seen with the naked eye and and certain small deviations can also result in catastrophic events. Don't forget that most mutations in DNA are neutral.

I see no reason why I have to impose a human reason on a natural process.

Whether or not I can prove my point doesn't absolve you from actually defending your own claims. I answered your questions. Please answer mine. Here they are again.

From what and why did your God evolve?

1. The physical molecules that DNa is derived from came from where? Can you tell us explicitly, and without the dishonest waffling, how those molecules form dna and what the evolutionary drivers of this process was?

2. Most mutations in dna are only "neutral" primarily because there are precise and intricate repair mechanisms in place to correct dna errors as they occur. Who designed these repair mechanisms? Are you saying order can actually be derived from random chaos?

3. You have not answered my questions... In fact I find myself asking them here again because all I get back from you is the same vacuous equivocation.

4. I said nothing about God. I have attributed nothing to him. I a, simply interested in the scientific validity of your claims that dna is simply a product of random, causeless evolution.

davidylan:


1. The physical molecules that DNa is derived from came from where? Can you tell us explicitly, and without the dishonest waffling, how those molecules form dna and what the evolutionary drivers of this process was?

2. Most mutations in dna are only "neutral" primarily because there are precise and intricate repair mechanisms in place to correct dna errors as they occur. Who designed these repair mechanisms? Are you saying order can actually be derived from random chaos?

3. You have not answered my questions... In fact I find myself asking them here again because all I get back from you is the same vacuous equivocation.

4. I said nothing about God. I have attributed nothing to him. I a, simply interested in the scientific validity of your claims that dna is simply a product of random, causeless evolution.

Yes yes and yes.
Order, or at least, the perception of order can arise from seemingly random natural processes.
To wit, I present You, once again, with SNOWFLAKES, intricately formed in very short time by purely random atmospheric dynamics.

^^^
And davidylan,
A microbiologist, a scientific researches should not be asking who created this or who designed that repair mechanism.
You Should be experimenting and trying to figure out how this or that process works and how this or that mechanism evolved.

Creating and designing are for pulpits, not scientific discussions.

plaetton:

Haba.
Long time, buddy.
We missed you around here.
I especially, missed the scriptural support you offer on vexing existential issues.

How have you been?
I hope all is good.

I'm good. Hope all is well with you and wifey. The Great FSM bless you.

plaetton:

Yes yes and yes.
Order, or at least, the perception of order can arise from seemingly random natural processes.
To wit, I present You, once again, with SNOWFLAKES, intricately formed in very short time by purely random atmospheric dynamics.

I'm not sure how you square that with the second law of thermodynamics.

Besides, the intricate design of DNA and its amazingly tight repair mechanisms which leaves very little room for error really is not something i would call the "perception of order".

Just to point out, the snowflake example is utterly useless. The snowflake is not responsible for over 6 billion lives on earth presently. The snowflake does not come with the same repair mechanisms embedded in the DNA process... i'm not sure how you expect to get away with such ridiculous equivocation.

plaetton:
^^^
And davidylan,
A microbiologist, a scientific researches should not be asking who created this or who designed that repair mechanism.
You Should be experimenting and trying to figure out how this or that process works and how this or that mechanism evolved.

Creating and designing are for pulpits, not scientific discussions.

I assume that you know the answer to that question since you're claiming that science already knows the answer hence no other alternative is valid. To ask me to go find the answer for you is quite silly. Having worked with DNA for upwards of 5-7 years, i am more convinced that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Creating is actually a scientific discussion... afterall a baby is CREATED by the fertilization of an egg by sperm no? To limit design from the scientific discussion is also to argue in ignorance... the intricate nature of the cell is clear evidence that it is not simply a mishmash of random cellular bodies jumbled together by accident.

davidylan:


1. The physical molecules that DNa is derived from came from where? Can you tell us explicitly, and without the dishonest waffling, how those molecules form dna and what the evolutionary drivers of this process was?

2. Most mutations in dna are only "neutral" primarily because there are precise and intricate repair mechanisms in place to correct dna errors as they occur. Who designed these repair mechanisms? Are you saying order can actually be derived from random chaos?

3. You have not answered my questions... In fact I find myself asking them here again because all I get back from you is the same vacuous equivocation.

4. I said nothing about God. I have attributed nothing to him. I a, simply interested in the scientific validity of your claims that dna is simply a product of random, causeless evolution.

I'm interested in your ideas about your God. When you're ready to talk about that, I'll be more than willing to answer your questions but, this has to be an exchange not an interrogation.

So, from what and why did your God evolve? Answer that so the conversation can continue.

thehomer:


I'm interested in your ideas about your God. When you're ready to talk about that, I'll be more than willing to answer your questions but, this has to be an exchange not an interrogation.

So, from what and why did your God evolve? Answer that so the conversation can continue.

Not sure why you're desperate to avoid discussing the science. Like I said, not once have I brought up God here. I'm not interested in creationism or God, as a scientist I am simply trying to understand the basis for your conclusions on dna and how it could have appeared out of thin air. Surely that should not be so hard as to have you literally struggling to avoid the topic.

You keep claiming this should be an exchange, well I agree... An exchange of scientific ideas... I'm interested.

davidylan:


Not sure why you're desperate to avoid discussing the science. Like I said, not once have I brought up God here. I'm not interested in creationism or God, as a scientist I am simply trying to understand the basis for your conclusions on dna and how it could have appeared out of thin air. Surely that should not be so hard as to have you literally struggling to avoid the topic.

You keep claiming this should be an exchange, well I agree... An exchange of scientific ideas... I'm interested.

I'm happy to discuss the science. And I've answered several of your questions already. Do you have any point of view at all? If you wish to deny your God, simply say so. The topic is about arguments for the existence of some God. You're either supporting the arguments for the existence of your God or you're against those arguments. If you're in support of those arguments, then try to present or defend them in some way.

I've told you that DNA didn't appear out of thin air and as I've shown you several times on this thread and in our past encounters, I'm more than happy to let you know my own views. All I ask is that you also let me know your views. Saying you've not brought up God is no defense since you actually have a position in this discussion.

So, I'm happy to continue once you've answered these questions.

From what and why did your God evolve?