Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,165,611 members, 7,861,899 topics. Date: Saturday, 15 June 2024 at 10:38 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Three Arguments For God's Existence (100790 Views)
What Christians Say When They Are Losing Arguments (For Atheists) / How Did Demons Come Into Existence? Who Created Them? / 20 Arguments For The Existence Of GOD (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) ... (48) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by KingEbukasBlog(m): 9:09pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
Kay17: Before I answer : R1 What do you understand by "miracle" R2 Where do you think life came from . |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by KingEbukasBlog(m): 9:17pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
dalaman: You just helped explain why I said christians know the purpose of both religion and science , thanks a lot But you've not shown me, using science , how 1. Something came from nothing without a cause and begat everything 2 Life came from inorganic matter (non living ) |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by KingEbukasBlog(m): 9:20pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
dalaman: R1. Even medical practitioners are very strong Christians . R2 .God can heal an amputated limb . |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by dalaman: 9:52pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
KingEbukasBlog: I never made those claims. Just asked both sides to provide evidence and prove their case. |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by dalaman: 9:54pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
KingEbukasBlog: And you saw them using which part of the bible to perform surgeries or diagnosis? R2 .God can heal an amputated limb . No God can do that. We can put that to test and see how it will work out. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by KingEbukasBlog(m): 10:09pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
dalaman: Exactly what Ive been saying . Christians know the purpose of religion and science . Religion is the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. (Definitions ) Please dont get things mixed up . Science tries to explain how it was done . No God can do that. We can put that to test and see how it will work out. Sure you can . So how do you plan doing that ? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by KingEbukasBlog(m): 10:26pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
dalaman: So why do you mock people that say the supernatural is responsible . Science tries to explain how it was done and religion explains why it was done Lemme give you a quick example : 1. Why was the universe or earth formed? Science : No answer Religion : To be inhabited by intelligent , free moral agents to whom God will reveal Himself to 2 . How was the universe or earth formed Science : accretion ; big bang Religion : No answer We were born into this earth ; science just tries to explain how all these came into being (how) . Religion tells us the cause (who is responsible ; who is in charge ) , why (the purpose of life ) and other stuff like understanding the purpose of life , how we should live our lives etc 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 10:58pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:Evasion number 1: You have not answered my question. Merely name-dropping the word "evolution" does nothing to explain how it being a purposeless process can create purposeful objects. So please answer the question: How exactly does a purposeless process (i.e. evolution) create purposeful objects? Now how does this fact lead to your God?What fact are you talking about? Are you referring to the "evolution" that you are yet to explain as “fact”? Please make your argument.Information must necessarily have meaning therefore in order to create it, one must first conceptualize it and then output it. Conceptualization is something that only minds can do. Since computers do not have minds, therefore they cannot conceptualize, therefore they cannot create meaning, therefore they cannot create information. They can only receive data, arrange it based on certain mechanistic settings and then output the rearranged data without creating any meaning whatsoever. This rearranged data may now be read as information by a mindful being capable of creating meaning. To say that a computer is creating information is to say that the computer understands the meaning of the information that it is outputing. This clearly isn't the case. Now your turn: Can you make your argument as to why you think that computers - having no minds - can create information? By more independent, it would be less predictable.A faulty GPS is less predictable. Does a faulty GPS have a mind? Enough for it to be less predictable.Evasion number 2: Again you haven't answered my question. What is the computing power in terms of the processing speed (in hertz) and memory (in bytes) of a mindful GPS device? The output is information. Well the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning. The GPS purpose is to get you to your destination.I see. So you are saying that the GPS acts intentionally yet doesn't have a mind? Actually my reason is that minds don't exist without physical structures. So, unless you can show me a mind without a physical structure, you're still wrong.I asked you what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information? Your answer is that minds have physical structures. This has nothing to do with the question I asked but since it is your answer: Please explain exactly how a mind with a physical structure shows that other things apart from minds can create information. Experimental psychology shows that minds develop as brains develop.It is not enough to make the claim. How exactly does experimental psychology show this? I see that it is red herring season again. Irrelevant question #1. Where are these minds that are functioning through a physical brain? How exactly does a non-physical object have a physical location? How exactly does location affect whether or not something is functioning through another? Where are these minds of yours that are developing with a physical brain? Irrelevant question #2. How do they pick a brain to interact with?How exactly does method of picking change whether something is functioning through another? How do your minds pick which brain to develop with? Irrelevant question #3. Can they switch brains?How exactly does ability or inability to switch tools change whether something is being used as a tool or not? Can your minds switch brains and develop somewhere else? Irrelevant question #4. Where do they go when a person dies? How exactly does whether or not something can leave another change whether it is using the other as a tool? Where do your minds go when a person dies? Irrelevant question #5. Are there multiple minds or just one mind split into multiple bodies?How exactly does whether a thing has multiple users or whether multiple users use one thing change the fact that there is a user/used relationship? Are there multiple minds or just one mind developing with multiple brains? Seriously your questions have nothing to do with the premises being discussed. I too will have nothing to do with them. The fact remains that DNA is an actual molecule that interacts with other molecules.I have never denied this. Now do you deny that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction? A website is very different from a biological organism.Yes but still they are very analogous in the sense that both DNA and the computer code are specific arrangements of objects such that they contain information that is capable of effecting changes in the organism they are defining. Do you affirm or deny this? Ah yes. The classic distinction without a difference. As I've said before and will say again, you are not your literally DNA.As I've said before and will say again, you are quite literally your DNA This is more rubbish. Unless "quite literally" means the opposite of literally, then you're still saying rubbish. You are not literally or "quite literally" your DNA. DNA is a physical molecule interacting with other physical molecules. DNA is not some conscious entity "instructing" cells, those terms are shorthand for the entirely mechanistic process by which DNA works.The information in your DNA is specifically instructing your cells. Do you deny this? You are welcome to explain in very specific terms this “mechanistic process” by which DNA works if you think I am using the word "instructing" inaccurately. It has everything to do with it e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?Another empty assertion. What has where God came from got to do with whether or not you were mindfully created? Each time you say the information defines me.The information that defines you is the information in your DNA as encoded by the specific arrangements of your nucleotide bonds, so are you saying that the information in your DNA is a human conception and hence doesn't actually exist objectively? This is why I said before that you don't know how to have a conversation. When you said I should assume he had a body, that implied you were happy to go along with that premise.Liar. This shows the emptiness of your position. Judging by how much you are fighting to cling unto this red herring of yours. I never said that God has a body neither did I ever show any willingness to follow your red herring. What I said is that you can assume God has a body if you like, it will still have nothing to do with our discussion which is whether or not you are mindfully created. Why are you so desperate to avoid the actual discussion? Do I really scare you that much? So many irrelevant diversions.You mean like the lies, evasions, red herrings and petty semantic games you've been throwing about? Yeah, there are indeed so many irrelevant diversions. You asked for what God revealing himself to me would look like I answered here and followed you down this trail. Now can you answer the question I asked there? Can your God do these things?Answered here. Unless your claim is that revelation (in the manner you have described) is the only basis for believing in a thing's existence then it it is irrelevant to ask whether God can or cannot do that. So are you saying that such revelation is the basis for believing in a thing's existence? Where you accepted it for the sake of argument.I never did. Rather I pointed out your red herring and now I point out your lie. This is irrelevant. Your God has revealed himself to people who didn't seek him so he should have been able to reveal himself to me whether or not I sought him. Just ask him to reveal himself to me.This is not irrelevant. In fact it casts doubts on your sincerity especially since you are the one demanding proof. Do you seriously want to know whether God exists or not or do you only want to argue about it? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:02pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:Evasion number 3: Maybe I am ignorant but it is definitely a serious question: What exactly does DNA actually do in cells? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:07pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:Evasion number 4: If you think that nothingness was never the case then it is either the universe was caused to exist or it has always existed. So now please answer my question. Was the Universe caused to exist? If so, what properties would a thing capable of causing the universe have? . . .or do you think that the universe has always existed? Do you think nothingness was ever the case? If so, how can something come from nothing?I think the universe was brought into existence. Since evidently we both agree that something can only come from something, which means we both agree that there must be a first uncaused cause. What properties do you think that this first cause has? 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:08pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:Perhaps I don't know what a transition is. Please what is a transition and how exactly can we tell its occurrence from looking at fossils? i.e. what should we look out for in the fossils that will inform us that a transition has occurred? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:11pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:Yet you conveniently omitted that part in your response. Why are you so shamelessly dishonest? Does "fast to an extent" mean slow or something else? Why are you so ignorant? Why is it hard for you to accurately represent facts of the matter? Do you think you are literally your DNA?It means "fast to an extent" and yes I am quite literally my DNA. Why were you so dishonest in your exchange with Uyi? What stopped you from properly representing him the first time? Calling me ignorant hasn't masked the fact that your dishonesty had to be called out. |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:14pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:This very thread will do just fine. Let those who read it judge for themselves. thehomer:.....so we are now dishonest and moaning. Well the thread is here for all to read and judge for themselves. I don't expect you to admit your own fear publicly. Also feel free to highlight which line in davidylan's post was insulting to you so as to warrant the insults in your reply Also, since you want us to examine the "substance" of your claim, can you provide any evidence for your claim there? Specifically this one: thehomer: |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:40pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:Yes it true that appearing to be designed doesn't prove it is actually designed. However since you have given us no alternate explanation, we have no reason not to go with how things appear i.e. assume they are designed until proven otherwise. Your burden of proof is to show that the theory of evolution is actually wrong. The theory of evolution explains that. As I've said before, I'm not going to give free biology lessons online to anonymous strangers. There are books and articles on the theory of evolution available.Evasion number 5: Trying to shift the burden of proof? It is you who needs to show us a reason to deny the apparent design that we observe. Secondly, merely claiming that the theory of evolution explains your position means nothing if you cannot actually show how it does. Seeing as you are unwilling to explain your position, you have not met your burden of proof and so we haven't been presented with any reason for us to reject design which by your own admission is obvious to us as observers. Thirdly, judging by how you keep throwing the word "evolution" about without actually explaining what you mean, I am beginning to suspect that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hope to hide this fact by making empty audacious statements. Are you afraid that your ignorance will become exposed? Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. Please explain to me how humans came to exist using your own point of view. You now say even showing you evidence of evolution doesn't count because it is evolution in action. What a joke.Evasion number 6: Trying to shift the burden of proof again? You are a funny character. It was you who said that living things look designed. How exactly does showing a transition from one designed object to another designed object disprove design? What you need to show in order to prove your point is a non-living thing that doesn't look designed transform into a living thing that looks designed via a mindless process. Once you have done this, then I am more than happy to explain to you how I think human beings came to exist. But first of all, meet your burden of proof.....or can't you? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:46pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Now can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different? Again, what exactly is your point beyond word definitions? You've still not said what your point is.Evasion number 7: What are you so afraid of? Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical? Can you please answer my question and stop dodging? I understand what I'm saying and you've just said length isn't a physical property. Is length then non-physical?Another lie. Please show where I said that length isn't a physical property? You were the one who said that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and that length are a physical property of hunger pangs. So please explain to us how exactly you aren't saying that a physical property has a physical property. Okay. Am I to take this as meaning that there are no physical properties of what we perceive?How did you get that from what I just explained to you? No hunger is not matter but it can have some physical effects as I've said before. Please will you answer my question?If hunger is not matter, how then does it have physical properties? Are you suggesting that there are physical properties that do not describe material things?Also, what question are you referring to? I know about my mind because I'm conscious. Can you just answer my own questions?Similarly, I know my hunger because I am conscious. Hunger pangs are an effect of non-physical hunger on the physical body. Again what questions are you referring to? As usual, I've been answering your questions but you avoid answering mine. I will start enforcing that as part of this exchange.Osheyy "Mr Enforcer" . Actually it is you who has been dodging my questions, I have pointed out 7 clear instances of you evading my questions (not counting the posts you ignored entirely). Please make sure you answer them meaningfully before you start enforcing whatever it is you want to enforce. |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 12:15am On Jul 20, 2015 |
Kay17: I have read and reread your answer. It seems to me that while you agree that the physical laws governing the universe show enough structural complexity to suggest design, your argument is that for us to properly assume design we must first explain what design constraints these physical laws are based upon since our designs are based on these physical laws. Have I represented your position accurately? Please correct me if I haven't or if I've overlooked anything. |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by Kay17: 5:06am On Jul 20, 2015 |
MrAnony1: More or less |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by dalaman: 7:15am On Jul 20, 2015 |
KingEbukasBlog: This might sound like an answer but in reality it is empty platitudes. The earth was not created for humans. Humans just found themselves on earth. There are like a zillion times more microbes on earth so we can as well say the earth was created for microbes, since they are everywhere. Which God out of the many that humans have invented will reveal himself to them? This answer is empty and has nothing to do with reality. It is fictitious just like everything religion. 2 . How was the universe or earth formed Religion can not tell you true purpose of your life because even religion doesn't know. It only pretends to know. Every religion ascribes different purpose to its adherents. Which of the Gods is responsible for the earth amd purpose of life? Another empty claim that has no basis in reality. Religion is a system created by men just like science. While science tries to dwell on the observable reality, religion on the other hand dwells on fiction, unfounded assumptions and mythology. Both religion and science are man made processes. Only that science has proven to be more valuable to humans than religion. 1 Like |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by dalaman: 7:25am On Jul 20, 2015 |
KingEbukasBlog: Religion doesn't even try to explain how it was done. It just makes empty assertions without evidence. Religion says God did it and that's all. Accept it the way we have claimed and let it be. Example please use God alone and explain to me why the DNA of some.organisms mutate.
We can bring an amputee and do what Jesus said in◄ Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. If you truly believe in Jesus he says what ever you ask for on prayers amd believe that it. It will be yours. So you can pray for an .amputee whose name I will drop jere and let's see how it goes. The amputee is a christian by the way. He truly believes. 2 Likes |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by SNCOQ3(m): 5:36pm On Jul 20, 2015 |
Kay17:For the 'bolded', an eye is not an 'appearance of design'; It is a design; so is a fish, cat, termite....etc. You manage to miss the fact that my argument implies design is governed by physical laws which in itself is design too. In order words, the forces of nature interact the way they are designed to. If the physical laws loses balance, the universe will be destroyed. Balance, like symmetry is an intrinsic attribute of design. Where there is coherent design, there is a who behind it. This fact is yet to be disproved; therefore: He(Logos) is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Col 1:17
They are not moot; They invalidate the nonsense you where trying to spin around to discredit the fact that design can only be the product of intelligent mind. Theists tie design with God's existence as a matter of necessity. Removing that necessity, removes the necessity of God's existence.Now the serpent is out of its hole. Did you succeed in removing the 'necessity' by appealing to insanity? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by Kay17: 9:30pm On Jul 20, 2015 |
SNCOQ3: But the physical laws themselves create the balance and the symmetry because in their absence there will be nothing of balance nor symmetry. The physical laws are the platform for which any 'who' has to stand on. Imagine a Universe without any physical laws, humans themselves will be unable to create. Imagine all the laws become void, humans will be incapable of building houses, spaceships and other designs which you so much admire. Also note that design arises from the surrounding environment not by the mere wish of the designer like you are suggesting. If an environment is lacking why then the design?! This environment is formed by physical laws and to prove physical laws are designed, you must point out the surrounding environment which necessitated the design. |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by davodyguy: 11:23pm On Jul 20, 2015 |
MrAnony1:This part killed it. We can keep going round and round in circle or cycle, we would still go back to default of ' what happened in the beginning of time'? If it evolved, what propelled it to evolve? The bible is not a scientific material, neither will it try to prove anything scientifically. But it rather gave explanations, which can be aligned with in the absence of any scientific contradiction about the origin of the universe |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by davodyguy: 11:42pm On Jul 20, 2015 |
Kay17:This is so not true to say the least. Have asked from the Japanese why they chose the design for Honda and Toyota? Have you heard of the word conceptualisation? Have you heard of creativity? What about inspiration? I compose songs and my lyrics are from my inner minds and not my environment. So many designers would say, I just decided to make this shirt this way Whilst not saying environmental impacts makes not contribution to a design, I'm saying not in all cases. Creativity can be inborn |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 6:10am On Jul 21, 2015 |
Kay17:If that is the case, then you haven't answered my question in any meaningful sense. This was my question: What reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you? First of, to say that because we don't know what design constraints the physical laws have shows that the universe isn't designed is absurd mainly because design constraints are not a necessary component of design rather they are external things that inspire amendments to an already conceptualized design. Secondly, even if I was to assume (though I am not) that the fact that we don't know the design constraints of physical laws shows that it is undesigned, the fact still remains (and you admit this fact) that fishes, trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas e.t.c. appear designed and equally have the universe as their platform and the physical laws as their constraints just like human designed things such as aeroplanes, houses, oil rigs e.t.c. So seeing that they both appear designed, they both operate on the same platform and they both have the same physical constraints, what then specifically is this distinction that should make us believe that one category is designed while the other isn't? |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by davodyguy: 7:24am On Jul 21, 2015 |
KingEbukasBlog: here's something from Stephen William Hawking CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA Text of `Origin of the Universe' by S.W. Hawking Copyright 1988 Stephen W. Hawking. All rights reserved.: Science May solve some problems, but there are couple of other things that science will never ever solve till maybe man or the universe ceases to exit. eg according to Hawkings, why does the universe bother to exist 1 Corinthians 1:27 Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 1 Like |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by SNCOQ3(m): 10:04am On Jul 21, 2015 |
Kay17:You are describing the purpose of physical laws not defining what it is. We are in agreement on what it does. The point is: physical laws create and sustain balance and symmetry on objects because balance and symmetry are intrinsical to physical laws; therefore physical laws falls under the category of design. (I have mentioned before that balance and symmetry are properties of design.) -- forgive my verbosity, just trying to clarify things -- Now, physical laws are simply the forces of nature with balance and symmetry causing constraint - DESIGN. This forces of nature interact with one another- upsetting the balance and symmetry in space-time in a controlled fashion causing vibrations hence motion - ENGINEERING. (vibration is a result of forces trying to regain balance consequently generating waves - this is fundamental to physics). Think of physical laws as invisible self-regulating machine sustaining the universe. The platform was created to be a platform for 'who' to stand on the same way a fine artist must create a canvas to paint is mona lisa on. I have to be free from the constraint of this earthly body to understand life without physical laws. As long as I am constrained, I can only apply the law of displacement, that is: to replace the laws of physics with my virtual laws in my imagination. You are repeating a claim you are yet to validate. Both the object and its environment falls under the category of design: the environment is designed to constrain, support and sustain the object. Give me matter and motion and I will construct the universe – Rene Descartes The keyword is 'me' and 'I'.
Who said environment is lacking?
Here is my earlier quote: Physical laws is not an imposition on design but a part of what constitute the environment. The other part is space-time. The environment and all things in it is called the Universe- A grand design; Therefore physical laws is part of the grand design. Now, lets evaluate my comment in successive order: Space-time: an environment for physical laws to operate. Physical laws: environment for objects to exist and operate within space-time. Therefore: Space-time and physical laws constitute an environment for objects to exist and operate. Objects are design. The environment is designed to support objects. Therefore: the objects and the environment is design. The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia) The Universe is a design. The Universe is in motion. The Universe has a beginning. By logical implication, Designer, Engineer, Architect, Prime Mover, Intelligence, Uncaused Cause must suffice. |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by thehomer: 2:39pm On Jul 21, 2015 |
UyiIredia: Yes amino acids are present in living things. UyiIredia: Yes and have you rectified that problem? UyiIredia: That isn't being deceptive, that is being factual. Evolved systems are different from objects designed by humans. Making that analogy will always fail because it a poor one. You've not shown how intelligence can even exist without a material substrate i.e a brain. UyiIredia: It is an argument from ignorance because whether or not I prove you wrong doesn't make you right. You still have to show your God. UyiIredia: The reason you gave wasn't reason wasn't sufficient as my point above shows. UyiIredia: No it isn't because firstly intelligence needs a material substrate. In the case of humans, we have the brain. Does your God have a physical substrate that you can show for you to even begin to make the comparison? 1 Like |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by thehomer: 2:40pm On Jul 21, 2015 |
timonski: What do you have to show for your creator? 1 Like |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by Kay17: 2:41pm On Jul 21, 2015 |
SNCOQ3: It seems we are on the same path except where you try to imply that the intrinsic properties of physical laws make physical laws themselves a design. That will be a convolution of reasoning. Since physical laws function as a source of design to objects etc, they themselves can not be said to be designs. So if any designer including God, intends to make a creation, he must abide to the structure, symmetry and balance provided by physical laws. Again, I agree with you that physical laws act as a constraint. This forces of nature interact with one another- upsetting the balance and symmetry in space-time in a controlled fashion causing vibrations hence motion - ENGINEERING. I think physical laws not only as self regulating but foundational. I wouldn't want to equivocate forces of nature with physical laws, because the interaction between the particular forces of nature you talk about, are themselves ordered and governed by the overarching physical laws. The platform was created to be a platform for 'who' to stand on the same way a fine artist must create a canvas to paint is mona lisa on. If you read my slightly long post on physical laws, I said we often extrapolate from human creativity and conclude the Universe itself, is not dissimilar from other human creations but I further said a prerequisite was our understanding of physical laws. If you really understand me, you would know I do not presume that all things are created. Now for you to suggest that the platform is created, is entirely unappealing to me. Of course the analogy of the artist and his canvas is apt but not to be taken literally but limited to its expository purpose. Yet contained in every act of creativity, a platform is required. Especially when the question is asked, upon what platform was the Universe created. I have to be free from the constraint of this earthly body to understand life without physical laws. As long as I am constrained, I can only apply the law of displacement, that is: to replace the laws of physics with my virtual laws in my imagination. Yes in your imagination, but such imagination is expressed in the constraint of design. The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia) Since you believe the Universe constitutes the environment as well and both are created, what then are the constraints necessary for design? 2 Likes |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by thehomer: 2:56pm On Jul 21, 2015 |
UyiIredia: What would you say is the function of legs? UyiIredia: That isn't the only line of evidence. Recall that there are other lines of evidence. Using your example of Java, is it not the case that native applications generally run better and faster than Java programs? UyiIredia: Bad design is evidence of a bad designer thus cannot be the work of a perfect person. God shouldn't have any constraints should he? UyiIredia: But there are better designs available so why should humans and other organisms along that lineage have that similarity? That is bad design or even malicious design when we know that there are better designs available. UyiIredia: And those constraints are there because the organism evolved. A good designer won't take the circuitous route. UyiIredia: I talked about whale leg bones. Again, the fact that they've been repurposed isn't why they're vestigial in the biological sense. UyiIredia: So what? UyiIredia: Again, so what? UyiIredia: It is foolishly dense and ignorant to assert organisms that evolved over millions of years were designed by an intelligent person. It is also buffoonish to say that one cannot point out bad design when we've seen good design. UyiIredia: It is neither. UyiIredia: Just make your point or a summary of what you're trying to get at. 1 Like |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by Kay17: 2:56pm On Jul 21, 2015 |
SNCOQ3: But don't physical laws determine how spacetime operates and interacts with matter? Do the intricacies of the triangle or causality vanish outside the sphere of spacetime? Can a tangible entity such as spacetime confine the operations of an intangible entity such as physical laws? Objects are design. Your logic is sits well with itself however, you are making an assertion that the objects influence the environment rather than the other way round. If you said the environment supports the objects, rather than the environment is designed to support objects, we wouldn't come to the conclusion that the environment is designed. The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia) But upon what was the Universe created on? God's head? 1 Like |
Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by thehomer: 2:57pm On Jul 21, 2015 |
timonski: Thank you for your concern. Please can you tell me what I lost and how exactly I lost it? 1 Like |
(1) (2) (3) ... (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) ... (48) (Reply)
Girl DIES for 23 hours and claims she saw Hell / Bishop Oyedepo Dedicates Winners' Chapel VGC, Lagos, Built By A Single Member / Is Catholic Church Of The Transfiguration Most Beautiful Church In Nigeria?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 165 |