LordReed:


I keep saying it, your inability to absorb information just makes these conversations unnecessarily tedious. I have previously clearly delineated between what we hold as natural processes and what we hold as the works of capable agents. How is it a contradiction? If these capable agents were removed from the scene would any of their works arise naturally?

There is one important question you failed to put into consideration; through what PROCESS do brains and all other organs of these capable agents operate ? Natural process or supernatural process ?

According to your belief; it is through natural process. Therefore, if these capable agents designed an aeroplane, then the aeroplane has been designed through what process ? Natural process or supernatural process ? Of course, through natural process.

But my question goes thus ; given enough time, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? And you said NO.

This implies that your statement has CONTRADICTED your belief.

I know it is very difficult to accept defeat especially in the presence of many observers who are with us on this platform. But when you leave the platform, think very well you will see that my argument is true.

Abdulgaffar22:


There is one important question you failed to put into consideration; through what PROCESS do brains and all other organs of these capable agents operate ? Natural process or supernatural process ?

According to your belief; it is through natural process. Therefore, if these capable agents designed an aeroplane, then the aeroplane has been designed through what process ? Natural process or supernatural process ? Of course, through natural process.

But my question goes thus ; given enough time, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? And you said NO.

This implies that your statement has CONTRADICTED your belief.

I know it is very difficult to accept defeat especially in the presence of many observers who are with us on this platform. But when you leave the platform, think very well you will see that my argument is true.

What defeat? You are equivocating on what is a natural process and what is an artificial process and proclaiming victory. By your own admission now this is nothing but a trick question and you refuse to accept that capable agents are performing artificial processes. Well, I have nothing further to say.

LordReed:


What defeat? You are equivocating on what is a natural process and what is an artificial process and proclaiming victory. By your own admission now this is nothing but a trick question and you refuse to accept that capable agents are performing artificial processes. Well, I have nothing further to say.

Yes, an aeroplane was designed by an artificial process. But what make this artificial process to be possible ; brain activities. Through what process do these brain activities emerged ? Natural process or supernatural process. According to your belief, it is natural process. Therefore, aeroplane was ULTIMATELY designed by natural process.

So I am not equivocating on what is natural process and artificial process. What you don't what to accept is the implication of your belief.

If your belief says that there is nothing that exist by supernatural process, then the artificial process that designed an aeroplane must be EVENTUALLY arose from natural process.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane was designed by pure natural process. But you said no.

Abdulgaffar22:


There is one important question you failed to put into consideration; through what PROCESS do brains and all other organs of these capable agents operate ? Natural process or supernatural process ?

According to your belief; it is through natural process. Therefore, if these capable agents designed an aeroplane, then the aeroplane has been designed through what process ? Natural process or supernatural process ? Of course, through natural process.

But my question goes thus ; given enough time, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? And you said NO.

This implies that your statement has CONTRADICTED your belief.

I know it is very difficult to accept defeat especially in the presence of many observers who are with us on this platform. But when you leave the platform, think very well you will see that my argument is true.

You just admitted this is a trick question. If I say yes you will now say something else to counter any point I have made. Defeat indeed. LoL

LordReed:


You just admitted this is a trick question. If I say yes you will now say something else to counter any point I have made. Defeat indeed. LoL

Don't you know that if something is FALSE, it will never tally with the REALITY from any perspective you choose to analyse it. This is exactly the reason why your answer ( whether yes or no) will always will be wrong.

Suppose you said ; yes, natural process alone design an aeroplane, then you're saying indirectly that unguided natural process can carryout intelligent and conscious activities . This would imply that nature is an intelligent and conscious entity. Yet there is no any evidence for this assertion. So it is your own world view that is having problem. The question I asked is reasonable and sound. It can only be a trickery question for you; not for me.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane originate from pure natural process (if A=B and B=C then, A=C) . But you said no

Abdulgaffar22:


Don't you know that if something is FALSE, it will never tally with the REALITY from any perspective you choose to analyse it. This is exactly the reason why your answer ( whether yes or no) will always will be wrong.

Suppose you said ; yes, natural process alone design an aeroplane, then you're saying indirectly that unguided natural process can carryout intelligent and conscious activities . This would imply that nature is an intelligent and conscious entity. Yet there is no any evidence for this assertion. So it is your own world view that is having problem. The question I asked is reasonable and sound. It can only be a trickery question for you; not for me.

What it just shows is you have a problem with definitions of artificial and natural, that's your problem not mine.

LordReed:


What it just shows is you have a problem with definitions of artificial and natural, that's your problem not mine.

Yes, an aeroplane was designed by an ARTIFICIAL PROCESS. But what make this artificial process to be possible ; brain activities. Through what process do these brain activities emerged ? Natural process or supernatural process. According to your belief, it is natural process. Therefore, aeroplane was ULTIMATELY designed by natural process.

So I am not equivocating on what is natural process and artificial process. What you don't what to accept is the implication of your belief.

If your belief says that there is nothing that exist by supernatural process, then the artificial process that designed an aeroplane must be EVENTUALLY arose from natural process.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane was designed by pure natural process. But you said no.

Abdulgaffar22:



Yes, an aeroplane was designed by an ARTIFICIAL PROCESS. But what make this artificial process to be possible ; brain activities. Through what process do these brain activities emerged ? Natural process or supernatural process. According to your belief, it is natural process. Therefore, aeroplane was ULTIMATELY designed by natural process.

So I am not equivocating on what is natural process and artificial process. What you don't what to accept is the implication of your belief.

If your belief says that there is nothing that exist by supernatural process, then the artificial process that designed an aeroplane must be EVENTUALLY arose from natural process.

If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane was designed by pure natural process. But you said no.

Why do we need to differentiate between artificial and natural if everything is natural?

I say no because without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. But go ahead and keep equivocating, I have said my piece. When people start arguing with themselves I usually just let them get on with it.

LordReed:


Why do we need to differentiate between artificial and natural if everything is natural?

I say no because without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. But go ahead and keep equivocating, I have said my piece. When people start arguing with themselves I usually just let them get on with it.

Blind!!!
He caught you hands and feet.

Abdulgaffar22:
If bread originate from flour and flour originate from wheat, then we can say conveniently that bread originate from wheat.
Similarly, if human intelligence that designed an aeroplane originate from brain activities and brain activities originate from pure natural process according to what you believe, then we can say conveniently that aeroplane originate from pure natural process (if A=B and B=C then, A=C) . But you said no

This is just absurd. Do you ever take wheat and then proclaim you have bread? Do you assemble pieces of metal then proclaim it an aeroplane? You will be considered mentally ill should you go about making such senseless proclamations. SMH.

Blabbermouth:

Blind!!!
He caught you hands and feet.

You wish.

LordReed:


Why do we need to differentiate between artificial and natural if everything is natural?

It is like you're asking;
Why do we need to differentiate between flour and wheat if everything is wheat ?

Though we differentiate the flour from the wheat. But this does not disprove the fact that flour ORIGINATES from wheat


Similarly, we differentiate artificial process from natural process. But this does not disprove the fact that artificial process ORIGINATES from natural process if and only if supernatural process does not exist just as you believe.

Therefore, it is quite right to say that an aeroplane which was created through an artificial process was really designed by pure natural process if your world view is really true. But you said no

LordReed:

I say no because without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. But go ahead and keep equivocating, I have said my piece. When people start arguing with themselves I usually just let them get on with it.

I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

@ LordReed



I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

Abdulgaffar22:
@ LordReed



I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

Abdulgaffar22:


It is like you're asking;
Why do we need to differentiate between flour and wheat if everything is wheat ?

Though we differentiate the flour from the wheat. But this does not disprove the fact that flour ORIGINATES from wheat


Similarly, we differentiate artificial process from natural process. But this does not disprove the fact that artificial process ORIGINATES from natural process if and only if supernatural process does not exist just as you believe.

Therefore, it is quite right to say that an aeroplane which was created through an artificial process was really designed by pure natural process if your world view is really true. But you said no



I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

Answer this question, if a person has renounced his Nigerian citizenship and taken up Canadian citizenship, what should he fill as nationality in a form?

LordReed:


Answer this question, if a person has renounced his Nigerian citizenship and taken up Canadian citizenship, what should he fill as nationality in a form?

But you supposed to answer my question first before asking me any question .

Well no problem let me answer your own.

Of course, he should fill the Canadian citizenship but his renouncement has not TRULY changed him from being a Nigerian to being a Canadian if he was TRULY born in Nigeria

Abdulgaffar22:


But you supposed to answer my question first before asking me any question .

Well no problem let me answer your own.

Of course, he should fill the Canadian citizenship but his renouncement has not TRULY changed him from being a Nigerian to being a Canadian if he was TRULY born in Nigeria

It was necessary to ask you the question in order to illustrate something you clearly understand but want to finagle into the position you are pushing.

The person in our analogy doesn't launch into a lengthy explanation because everyone understands the question being asked. He was one thing before now he is another there is no room for equivocation.

Similarly an aeroplane arises out of artificial processes, it does not matter that the executor itself is a product of nature. It is clearly understood that the aeroplane is not the product of nature, anything to the contrary is just an attempt to be contrary for contrary sake.

Abdulgaffar22:


It is like you're asking;
Why do we need to differentiate between flour and wheat if everything is wheat ?

Though we differentiate the flour from the wheat. But this does not disprove the fact that flour ORIGINATES from wheat


Similarly, we differentiate artificial process from natural process. But this does not disprove the fact that artificial process ORIGINATES from natural process if and only if supernatural process does not exist just as you believe.

Therefore, it is quite right to say that an aeroplane which was created through an artificial process was really designed by pure natural process if your world view is really true. But you said no



I know very well that without such a capable agent an aeroplane will not exist naturally. This is exactly the reason why I framed my question thus ; GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, can natural process alone design an aeroplane ? Do you remember ? Pls go and check my question again.
The phrase "given enough time" has made a provision for the existence of those capable agents. But still yet, you said "NO"

Now that you have fully understood the question, would you go for option "YES" ?

I love the angle from which you see things. But, how do you ascertain if it is an intelligent designer/being and not intelligent designers and intelligent beings thus giving rise to many god-like being.?

LordReed:


It was necessary to ask you the question in order to illustrate something you clearly understand but want to finagle into the position you are pushing.

The person in our analogy doesn't launch into a lengthy explanation because everyone understands the question being asked. He was one thing before now he is another there is no room for equivocation.

Similarly an aeroplane arises out of artificial processes, it does not matter that the executor itself is a product of nature. It is clearly understood that the aeroplane is not the product of nature, anything to the contrary is just an attempt to be contrary for contrary sake.

Nature is an entity which lays the bedrock of how everything in the universe operates. YES OR NO?

Blabbermouth:

Nature is an entity which lays the bedrock of how everything in the universe operates. YES OR NO?

There is no entity called nature. It is how we describe the sum total of physical phenomena in this universe.

nature
/ˈneɪtʃə/

noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

LordReed:


There is no entity called nature. It is how we describe the sum total of physical phenomena in this universe.

nature
/ˈneɪtʃə/

noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Good!
Nature doesn't do anything, just some physical phenomena that guides how things are done in the universe.
Recall, i told you there was a way to test for the origin of existence to a certain extent.
We could go deeper now but before that, would you agree "No thing came to be naturally, as nature itself isnt responsible for existence".

Blabbermouth:

Good!
Nature doesn't do anything, just some physical phenomena that guides how things are done in the universe.
Recall, i told you there was a way to test for the origin of existence to a certain extent.
We could go deeper now but before that, would you agree "No thing came to be naturally, as nature itself isnt responsible for existence".

Huh? If the physical laws of the universe are part of what we describe as nature then it stands to reason that things do come about naturally as they follow the physical laws of the universe to come into existence.

LordReed:


Huh? If the physical laws of the universe are part of what we describe as nature then it stands to reason that things do come about naturally as they follow the physical laws of the universe to come into existence.

Elementary science!!!!!
Physical laws do not CREATE, they GUIDE.
Every happenings or occurrences or phenomenon are never created by physical laws, they are only guided by it.
This is what I mean, do you comprehend?

LordReed:


It was necessary to ask you the question in order to illustrate something you clearly understand but want to finagle into the position you are pushing.

The person in our analogy doesn't launch into a lengthy explanation because everyone understands the question being asked. He was one thing before now he is another there is no room for equivocation.

Similarly an aeroplane arises out of artificial processes, it does not matter that the executor itself is a product of nature. It is clearly understood that the aeroplane is not the product of nature, anything to the contrary is just an attempt to be contrary for contrary sake.

A professor was ordinary human being like others before he obtained his professorship. Now has he TRULY changed from human being simply because he became a professor ?

In 5 billion years ago, ONLY natural entities ( like matter, forces, space, time and natural processes) exist according to your belief. If human being later emerged from the SAME natural entities, are they not part of the original natural entities ? Of course, they are.
Now if human being has designed an aeroplane, then it is the same natural entities that has designed it. But you said no.

If your world view is true, then this is exactly what has happened in our present universe and yet you still deny it.

Let say our universe is a CLOSE container that nothing can enter through it or influence it from outside

One supposed observer look inside this container 5 billion years ago, he ONLY saw matter, forces, space, time and natural processes ; there is nothing like human being and aeroplane.

Now at this present time, the observer look inside the container again and he sees human being and aeroplane.

Pls who is the CREATOR of the human being and aeroplane from the thinking of this observer ? Of course, the creator should be the original natural entities he saw five billion years ago. But you said the observer is wrong !

Blabbermouth:

Elementary science!!!!!
Physical laws do not CREATE, they GUIDE.
Every happenings or occurrences or phenomenon are never created by physical laws, they are only guided by it.
This is what I mean, do you comprehend?

Who said anything about creating? Everything we see is the result of physical laws.

Abdulgaffar22:

A professor was ordinary human being like others before he obtained his professorship. Now has he TRULY changed from human being simply because he became a professor ?

In 5 billion years ago, ONLY natural entities ( like matter, forces, space, time and natural processes) exist according to your belief. If human being later emerged from the SAME natural entities, are they not part of the original natural entities ? Of course, they are.
Now if human being has designed an aeroplane, then it is the same natural entities that has designed it. But you said no.

If your world view is true, then this is exactly what has happened in our present universe and yet you still deny it.

Let say our universe is a CLOSE container that nothing can enter through it or influence it from outside

One supposed observer look inside this container 5 billion years ago, he ONLY saw matter, forces, space, time and natural processes ; there is nothing like human being and aeroplane.

Now at this present time, the observer look inside the container again and he sees human being and aeroplane.

Pls who is the CREATOR of the human being and aeroplane from the thinking of this observer ? Of course, the creator should be the original natural entities he saw five billion years ago. But you said the observer is wrong !

nature
/ˈneɪtʃə/

noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Continue arguing with yourself.

LordReed:


nature
/ˈneɪtʃə/

noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Continue arguing with yourself.

Okay do you agree that human being is the product of those natural entities and aeroplane is the product of human being ?

LordReed:


Who said anything about creating? Everything we see is the result of physical laws.

Digressing with another view. "Everything we see" as in?

Blabbermouth:

I love the angle from which you see things. But, how do you ascertain if it is an intelligent designer/being and not intelligent designers and intelligent beings thus giving rise to many god-like being.?

Have you first agreed that something (either Universe itself or something outside the universe) that has no beginning must be intelligent before human being and aeroplane can exist ?

Blabbermouth:

Digressing with another view. "Everything we see" as in?

Observe

@ LordReed

Why do you think natural process can give rise to human being, but the same process cannot give rise to aeroplane ?

Abdulgaffar22:
@ LordReed

Why do you think natural process can give rise to human being, but the same process cannot give rise to aeroplane ?

The same reason why natural process can result in a cave but can't result in a house, they are different types of processes.