₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
The phrase I posted clearly states codons representing amino acids. Besides, they can't be translated_and they are translated in every sense of the word_if they don't already represent what they are being translated into.

They don't represent amino acids because amino acids are different physical structures. "Translation" when talking about genes is a shorthand for the physical process that actually happens. Take the time to read up on it and compare it to languages to understand the huge different. Just so you know, in English, a single word can have multiple meanings.

UyiIredia:
This is you mistaking the genetic code for the chemicals through which it is implemented. The chemicals follow the laws of chemical bonding. But you don't show how the genetic code (codon-amino acid relationship) is specified by chemical bonding.

What do you mean? The code table is a human abstraction. That relationship is specified by chemical bonding. Look it up. That is why gene translation works the way it does.

UyiIredia:
Don't you think it will be silly if I said human language follows laws of wave propagation because of how words are conveyed through air ? Is understanding the laws of waves
sufficient to understand human speech ? Is understanding the laws of chemical bonding sufficient to explain the genetic code ?

Human language is a different type of thing from the genetic code. You're making a category error in trying to compare them both.

UyiIredia:
I'll summarize my arguments again.

In the argument from order in the universe I infer God from order in the universe. One can base this on the fact that intelligent agents work with order.

You can't make that inference. You started by saying humans work with order and say therefore God exists. Is God a human? Or are humans God? Secondly, isn't order necessary for a universe with humans to function? How is God needed?

UyiIredia:
In the argument from life, I note that genetic codes which almost all life is based isn't explainable by natural processes based on how they codes don't follow natural laws. I state how codes are usually made by conscious effort (ostensibly by humans) and so on this note I deduce that A conscious God made lifeforms.

Since the genetic code is explained by natural processes and does follow natural laws, your God isn't needed. An argument from ignorance. You don't know how genes work therefore God did it.

UyiIredia:
Arguing from consciousness, I note how it is inexplicable from a purely materialistic viewpoint. Chemical reactions and physical events at various levels have material effects alone. In brains, materialists face a dilemma where the effects are not only not material, but have a unique property: a mental property which can't be defined in purely material terms. This is a good reason to conclude that a God exists.

What is the relevance of God here? This a classic argument from ignorance. You don't know how consciousness works therefore God did it?

So far, you've made several arguments of irrelevance simply tacking on God at the end but you've not shown what God has to do with anything other than simply asserting that he is there and has something to do with everything.

DeepSight:
You really and truly don't know anything.

Really and truly.

Since you're so knowledgeable, please inform me.

DanGiginyu:
See all of you talking , Didn't you see baby factory in the south? Or kidnapping? All this is us own terms of civilization? Laws are made to be obeyed. If kidnapping is punishable by death, y didn't u ask how would dey kill someone for just hiding anoda person. So just don't rationalise things u don't understand. Islam is a religion and like all religion it has its rules n regulations. may Allah lead us to d straight path. Amin

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Is your God so weak that he needs people to defend him? If the rules given in Islam are abominations, should we be forced to obey? What don't you understand about the fact that killing people because you claim they blasphemed is simply not acceptable.

And this is why there should be only one set of laws in a country.

DeepSight:
^^^ Even water can carry thoughts. What am I saying, thats going too crude. Thoughtwaves can carry thoughts from one mind to another.
I dont know if the relevance of this to your question hits you.

Huh? What evidence do you have of these "thoughtwaves"? Or are you just making stuff up? Water can carry thoughts? Please can I have some of what you're smoking?

UyiIredia:
This is circular reasoning at its worst. Merely asserting there's no good reason to believe in a thing isn't a good reason to doubt it. If no one believes dragons are in their backyards it's because no one has seen dragons. That's a good reason.

Isn't the fact that no one has seen dragons a good reason not to believe that there is a dragon in their backyard? Or is that "too circular" for you?

UyiIredia:
The next sentence makes the phrase useless. In that sentence, you clearly said natural laws describes events AFTER the singularity. If you think natural laws could apply to the singularity then say so.

Look just go back to school and learn English. It is starting to look like you want me to teach you English. Look up the meaning of "current" and try to understand how it was used in various forms in those sentences.

UyiIredia:
Yeah. And the A and AU REPRESENTS an amino acid as the phrase I quoted stated. Which makes your previous assertions to the contrary wrong. Did you miss out that part ?

No they do not represent an amino acid, they are "translated" into amino acids when proteins are being synthesized. Please can you state what was wrong and why it was wrong?

UyiIredia:
Okay then. If you believe that the genetic code follows natural laws. State the natural laws it follows and how it follows them.

It follows laws of chemical bonding i.e covalent and hydrogen bonding among others. Now what is the name of the thing that isn't physical? Do you agree that the table is a human abstraction?

UyiIredia:
I'll just leave you to your foolishness here. If you think my statement is wrong give a good reason.

I've given you many good reasons but in your stupid ignorance, you're unable to appreciate them. It is like casting pearls before swine.

UyiIredia:
What argument doesn't involve assertions In fact, aren't premises themselves assertions one may believe or doubt.

Present the premises and the conclusions.

UyiIredia:
I'm not confused. The sarcasm in my earlier answer was lost on you. Hardly surprising, since your brain's all mush.

Sarcasm? I pointed out brains weren't oceans and you were amazed.

UyiIredia:
Saved. Another example of your idiocy. Turns out I didn't need to search after all.

This is why I say you're a proper ignoramus. If there isn't a good reason to believe there is a dragon in my backyard, isn't that a good reason not to believe there is a dragon in my backyard? Or has English become too difficult for you again?

UyiIredia:
". . . we can say our current knowledge of
natural laws bread down at the singularity. Let me make it clearer. Natural laws are currently used to describe events
occurring after the singularity i.e after the universe has
expanded to a certain size."

Your words.

Are you this stupid or are you just an illiterate? Couldn't you read the preceding phrase before what you put in bold? The part that goes "our current knowledge of"?

UyiIredia:
"For example, the codon "AAU" [represents the amino acid
asparagine, and "UGU" and "UGC" represent cysteine"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_code

I made a mistake. Genes don't represent amino acids. Codons do. Genes do code for proteins though.

Of course you made a mistake. Codons are physical molecules. the "A" in AAU is a physical molecule.

UyiIredia:
No. The molecules involved have their names. The genetic code shows the relationship between the molecules. Specifically, which codons represent an amino acid. The relationship as shown in the genetic code table is not physical. Genes aren't linked to proteins. In fact, where genes are read and where proteins are made as a result happen in different regions of a cell.

What is the name of the thing that isn't physical? The table is a human abstraction using symbols to represent physical molecules. That is what you seem to find so difficult to understand and that is why you're not qualified to even begin to try to make an argument based on genes. You're too ignorant about the topic at hand.

UyiIredia:
I do. In fact, rules aren't physical. They are conceptual.

Just go to bed. You're confused.

UyiIredia:
I made arguments in the OP. Arguments you responded to that got us to this point.

You did not make arguments, you made assertions. If you think you made arguments, please present the premises and conclusions of your so-called arguments.

UyiIredia:
It was a silly answer that avoided the question.

A very good answer is a silly answer. Your confusion knows no bounds.

UyiIredia:
Cool ! I'm not surprised, I've seen thehomer's idiocy played out in various manners, on many threads in this forum.

Is that so. Please can you present five examples with links and say what you thought was idiotic?

UyiIredia:
I agree he's blunting the argument especially as regards to consciousness and the genetic code. I'm not sure he understands the argument, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

There's no argument yet. If you have any arguments, please make them.

UyiIredia:
Yeah. His $tupidity there was mind blowing. Hunger is immaterial and has a physical nature. Lol ! Classic homer $tupidit¥.

Would you say hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature? Let's see your real stupidity.

UyiIredia:
Good point. It is always both funny and tragic to me when I see such folly. An atheist or evolutionist points to an intelligently designed process to show that exquisite systems arise naturally. In fact, such designed processes, for the most part, don't even bother to simulate natural processes, they are designed from top to bottom.

Yeah yeah so you assert.

UyiIredia:
You said natural laws break down at the singularity, and that singularity is physical. Clearly, its absurd to have a physical thing following no natural laws.

Please can you show me where I said natural laws break down at the singularity? You're mistaking our limited knowledge for the actual limit of the natural realm. This is the hubris I've come to expect from religious people.

UyiIredia:
Once again, I'll leave you to your foolishness here. Let it be noted that I started out making the point here that intelligent beings prescribe rules a material system can follow.

Actually, I simply exposed your stupidity. That is why you're flailing once more.

UyiIredia:
Within the context of a cell, genes represent amino acids. That representation isn't physical and natural laws are blind to it, hence chemical processes in the cell treat genes and amino acids solely based on their physical properties.

Wrong again. Genes do not represent amino acids. Genes are different from amino acids. You say chemical process affect genes and affect amino acids so what is the non-physical thing you're talking about? What is its name?

UyiIredia:
Given that you asked for an explanation you aren't in a position to state this.

I am because I actually know what the terms mean and you're misusing them. Misusing those terms makes it impossible for you to actually communicate with those terms.

UyiIredia:
Genes represent amino acids, this is confirmed in the genetic code table where the amino acids various genes represent are stated. All codes must be translated via a physical process but that hardly makes codes physical or explainable by natural laws.

Again, genes are physical structures. Amino acids are other physical structures. Some more physical structures link them together yet you're saying something here isn't physical. What is the name of the thing that isn't physical in this set up? You do realize that the "genetic code table" you're referring to is the human symbolization of physical molecules.

UyiIredia:
To further bolster my point here's the definition of the genetic code from Wikipedia:

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.

The rules aren't physical.

Who says they aren't?

UyiIredia:
This doesn't answer whether the scientific method follows natural laws.

It doesn't because that is a malformed question based on confusion of terms.

UyiIredia:
Isn't it my arguments that led us to this point ? If I have to make them again or explain how things like consciousness are facts you are an imb€cil€.

This is why I keep pointing out that you're a stupid fool. You made several assertions not arguments. I asked you to express a certain argument as a syllogism. You still failed at that yet you continue moaning. If you like, you can link me to where you made actual arguments not mere assertions.

UyiIredia:
A very good answer.

I know. I presented that answer.

MrAnony1:
Since to you there is no contradiction when you claim that hunger is immaterial and yet has a physical nature. Can you please tell us some of the physical properties of immaterial hunger.

Hunger pangs.

Please point out the contradiction.

MrAnony1:
God is the ultimate creator of the universe. The fact that the universe shows evidence of design makes it obvious that the universe has a creator. Uyi has done quite a good job highlighting some of them.

What evidence are you referring to?

MrAnony1:
This seems to me to be quite a dubious claim since you seem to be basing the existence of God on whether you think the reasons are good enough to your subjective mind which even you have no way of knowing if it is working properly and feeding you correct information.

Science and philosophy have given us many ways of knowing whether or not your God is out there. If you wish to make some strange argument, please make the actual argument.

MrAnony1:
...or perhaps you really mean to say that there are no objectively good reasons to believe in God. In which case you will have to tell us what you think a good reason will look like.

A good reason for not believing in your God is the fact that there is no good reason to believe he is out there.

MrAnony1:
For you to claim even before hearing my case that I am unable to defend my reasons for believing in God shows me that you are already close-minded to whatever it is that I want to say and hence continued conversation with you is futile.

If you're able to defend your reason, please go ahead and do that rather than moaning before you begin.

UyiIredia:
So you have a physical system, the singularity, and natural laws don't apply to it. That's absurd.

Who says natural laws don't apply?

UyiIredia:
Nature itself can't change its rules. Intelligent beings can change their rules.

Ask your God to break it for you then. Just let us know when that is happening.

UyiIredia:
No, the mapping of a sequence of nucleobases to amino acids isn't physical.

Please explain.

UyiIredia:
By referring to, in the case of genetic codes, genes and amino acids which are physical.

The amino acids and genes are physical and follow. Genes REPRESENTING amino acids isn't physical, and natural laws can't describe which gene represents an amino acid. Likewise, the electrical signals (representing 0's and 1's) and symbols used for ASCII codes in computers are physical. But the REPRESENTATION of symbols with electrical signals isn't physical and natural laws don't prescribe which electrical signal represents a symbol, humans do.

You're misusing several terms and therefore creating a word salad. This is why I asked you to first try to read these things up before you continue because you're already in way over your head.

Genes transfer heritable traits they don't represent amino acids. Sequences of codons are translated to amino acids in a physical process. I really don't understand why you're so confused about something so clear and simple. ASCII is a form of representation of common characters. What does the sequence of your codon represent?

UyiIredia:
You can't see how saying hunger is immaterial and saying it has a physical nature contradicts ! You are being idiotic.

No I can't see it you fool. Please explain what the contradiction is.

UyiIredia:
SMH. By the way, does the scientific method follow natural laws or not ?

Don't shake your head. The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism. Please give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method and present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea.

UyiIredia:
The entity is known though not shown. No one argues from ignorance but what we do know. I don't need to argue about the universe's order, genetic codes and consciousness. Any well-educated person should know about those, an slowpoke would know the last one but then maybe you aren't as smart.

You're making the argument from ignorance. I've already shown you how you're doing that. Oh? You don't need to make an argument because "everyone should know your arguments"? As usual you're trying to hide your ignorance but I won't let you. Assume that I'm an ignorant slowpoke and present your argument since you're so smart. In your stupidity, you'll be unable to make your argument.

UyiIredia:
Good. And if no consciousness results from those chemical reactions why should brains be any different ? Why are brains exceptions to the rule ?

Because brains aren't oceans.

UyiIredia:
This is a poor answer. Other laws describe what happen in that instance. Again, why do natural laws break down at the singularity if it's physical ?

That is the actual answer. Yes other laws do that but as I said, that is how we can say our current knowledge of natural laws bread down at the singularity. Let me make it clearer. Natural laws are currently used to describe events occurring after the singularity i.e after the universe has expanded to a certain size.

UyiIredia:
Did nature make that rule or did you infer that rule from nature ?

It is a rule of nature whether inferred or not. Go ahead and break it.

UyiIredia:
More ignorance. Of course, the nucleobases and amino acids are physical. What isn't physical is the sequence of the former representing the latter. Natural laws don't describe that relationship, no more than they describe how words represent concepts or objects.

The sequence isn't physical? The amino acids are the results of that sequence. Aren't amino acids physical anymore? You seriously need to first take the time to read the Wikipedia article on the genetic code or just read a biology text book. You'll notice that so far, your God hasn't been useful in presenting these explanations.

UyiIredia:
Wrong again. You confuse codes with their physical medium.

How have I done this?

UyiIredia:
I'll just leave you to your foolishness here. Let the reader note that I explained that humans are part of living things that need be explained, and so can't be the cause in contention, and that aliens only shifts the puzzle backwards, their existence too will have to be explained.

This is another stupid response. I've told you why your so-called explanation is fallacious and therefore useless. You can resolve this yourself by properly laying out your argument in a syllogistic form. If you can't do it or are afraid to, simply say so. Doing that will help you resolve your ignorant stupidity.

UyiIredia:
You have stated hunger is immaterial. Then you say it has a physical nature, which contradicts what you said earlier. This is stupid.

What is the contradiction you fool?

UyiIredia:
The scientific method is a product of the mind. That is more consonant with idealism (which regards mind as fundamental to reality) than materialism (which precludes existence outside the material universe).

Please give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method and present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea.

UyiIredia:
The entity doesn't have to be shown to be known, no more than dark matter is. God is not simply asserted, God is the only valid inference from the facts stated (ie order in the universe, genetic code in lifeforms and consciousness).

If the entity isn't known, then you're making a fallacious argument from ignorance. Please make valid arguments for what you're calling the stated facts. i.e make your arguments for order in the universe, genetic code in lifeforms and consciousness.

UyiIredia:
Other chemical reactions outside the brains of various organisms.

Why should those chemical reactions be conscious? Are they brains too? Chemical reactions occur in the oceans. Is the ocean a brain such that it should be conscious? These are the sorts of silly and flippant responses that rapidly bore me.

UyiIredia:
If it was physical then how can it be said the natural laws break down at the singularity ?

The same way we say Newton's laws break down at relativistic speeds.

UyiIredia:
No, order can arise naturally and in specific conditions. And nature certainly can't and doesn't prescribe rules to be followed. Only intelligent beings can do that.

Really? Well according to the rules of nature, you cannot swim in the sun. Go ahead and break that rule.

UyiIredia:
I have said that the physical mediums of codes follow natural laws so you've said nothing new. The genetic code isn't a representation of nucleotides. It's the rule that shows which sequence of nucleobases represent amino acids. Likewise, in ASCII and Morse codes determine which given sequence of electric signals represent a symbol.

Can you not see that in your poorly phrased way, you're saying what I've said? The base sequence is something physical, the amino acids are physical. The code is a human symbolization of those physical relationships. The codons A, T, G, C, U represent physical molecules.

UyiIredia:
You have failed woefully in that regard.

No you've failed to understand the basics of elementary biology.

UyiIredia:
I don't have to conclude with humans. And I've told you why one can't use humans. Put simply they are part of life that we seek to account for. Aliens would also need to be accounted for and there are only 2 options, either life was created by God or it arose through natural means.

Then you don't know how to make an argument. It would be clearer for you if you put it in a syllogistic format. Go ahead and do that in three or four steps. While you're trying to do that, you'll realize your error.

UyiIredia:
It's silly to say hunger is immaterial then say it has a physical nature. Maybe you meant to say it has a physical cause.

No I meant to say what I said. What would you say is the nature of hunger?

UyiIredia:
Yes. Consciousness makes sense in (and is the very basis of) an idealistic framework. I don't think you humbly accept limitations, I think you prefer to remain ignorant than admit to being wrong.

Please go ahead and explain consciousness. Since I'm ignorant and you have knowledge, I'll await your explanation.

UyiIredia:
Materialism fails with regard to science since matter by itself is incapable of knowledge. What opens the door to knowledge is consciousness and that is what idealists have always maintained is truly important.

You can maintain whatever you want as being truly important. Please can you give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method? And present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea?

UyiIredia:
Why is God worse ?

It is an empty assertion. A form of argument from ignorance and it posits an entity that hasn't been shown to be present.

UyiIredia:
The question of material activity in the brains causing consciousness as a by-product when in all other contexts it doesn't.

What other context? Humans have brains and exhibit conscioiusness, other animals with complex neurological systems also seem to have various degrees of consciousness so what context are you talking about?

I strongly disagree. As a sex God, they must not call any other name. Calling on Zeus during a sesion is an unthinkable crime.

UyiIredia:
Answer the question and we'll take it from there.

It was physical.

UyiIredia:
Don't intelligent people create order or laws and rules that prescribe how systems should be run ?

Sure they do. But that can also occur naturally. Unless you think your God is simply an intelligent person, then you've still not made a proper argument.

UyiIredia:
No, you're the confused one. ASCII codes, Morse codes and the genetic code don't follow natural laws. They are decided upon. The materials that implement the codes follow natural laws. The codes don't.

Once again, you've confused several things. ASCII and Morse are generally symbolic representations of human text. The genetic code is a representation of physical nucleotides that act and interact in a physical way following laws of physics, chemistry and biology. This is the same error you've made over and over again.

UyiIredia:
Not all natural laws have predictable outcomes (eg Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) so just because a thing is predictable doesn't mean it's a natural law. A computer's actions can be predicted because of the code it follows.

I've already told you why genes follow natural laws and that computers don't act in a supernatural manner.

UyiIredia:
You can't posit humans or aliens since the came after world existed and need to have their existence explained. The genetic code isn't a human symbol. It's just a symbol. And God is not an unknown creature.

If you're making an argument from analogy using human intelligence, then you have to conclude with humans or something very much like humans. The genetic code is a human symbol representing the physical nucleotides. What is God? How many people is it?

UyiIredia:
Of course, it isn't. Only conscious beings feel hunger.

And they feel it because of its physical nature.

UyiIredia:
So a materialistic viewpoint is useless at best. This question simply shows willful ignorance on your part.

Can you fully explain consciousness from your point of view and be actually correct? Humbly accepting limitations in our knowledge isn't willful ignorance. A materialistic viewpoint is what makes science work. Your supernaturalistic viewpoint is actually worse than useless.

UyiIredia:
No, supernaturalists (from Descartes) acknowledge the mind is the effected by the brain. But, unlike materialists they see a clear inconsistency in physical activities (specifically chemical reactions in brains) effecting a consciousness that is inexplicable as a new compound or as a form of energy. It is a quality entirely unique and isn't found in far more numerous examples of chemical reactions outside the context of a brain, that begs the question. Materialists like you can only give a fake promissory note that we will know how the brain makes the mind.

Again, begs what question? Can you actually phrase this question? Those of us who don't believe in the supernatural don't explain consciousness as a new compound. I don't know we ever will but simply asserting God did it is even worse.

whocanbewho:
you came from your parents. Why did you parents come from? I was once like you, to be an atheist you need to have answers to things. Which obviously you don't seem to have...I can answer that question from an atheist point of view but I want you to answer me.

They came from their own parents. Where did your God come from? Were you really like me? Because if you were, then you should have known that introducing your God doesn't answer any question.

Tjayjosh:
It is only a fool that says, there is no God. God is so real my friend. And Satan is also real. You think you know anything. There's more to this world, than what you see, think or hear. Since you've decided to join satan in his rebellion. I will not beg you to repent.

Anyone who says "you fool" will be in danger of hell fire. You're well on your way to joining me in that hell. It is only a fool that calls other people fools because they refuse to believe claims based on poor evidence. Do you think you know anything yourself? Why did God create Satan, allow him to rebel, send him down to earth to deceive people he claims to love only to torture those people for eternity? Talk about the madness of your God.

whocanbewho:
. Before you came into this world, where did you come from. If you can tell me where you came from I'll tell you where God is. Stating how things are says a lot about God. As a medical person, Everything is too uniform and precise for there not to be a master planner. Stand in front of a mirror take a look at yourself from head to toe and tell me someone somewhere more intelligent than we are didn't design us. Let me the eye for example: In order for an eye to see, all of its parts have to co-
exist and work in harmony. For instance, if an eye
happened to have lost its eyelid, but still had all the
other parts such as the cornea, conjunctiva, iris,
pupil, eye lenses, retina, choroid, eye muscles, and
tear glands, it would still be greatly damaged and
soon lose its seeing function. In the same manner,
even if all its organelles were present, if the tear
production were stopped, the eye would soon dry out
and become blind.
"The chain of coincidences" posited by evolutionists
loses all its meaning against the complex structure of
the eye. It is not possible to explain the existence of
the eye other than as a matter of special creation.
The eye has a multi-sectioned complex system and,
as discussed above, all of these individual sections
had to come into existence at the same time. It is
impossible for a half-developed eye to function at
"half capacity". In such a circumstance, the act of
seeing can by no means take place. An evolutionist
scientist admits to this truth:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that
they can only function if they are fully developed. In
other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a
bird with half-formed wings cannot fly.
In this case, we again face that very important
question: who created all of the components of the
eye all at once?
The owner of the eyes is obviously not the one who
makes the decision about their formation. For it is
impossible for a being devoid of the knowledge of
what seeing is like, to desire to have a seeing organ
and have it attached to his body. So we have to
accept the existence of a Possessor of superior
Wisdom Who has created living beings with senses
such as seeing, hearing, and so on. Another claim is
that unconscious cells gained consciousness-
requiring functions such as seeing and hearing by
their own desire and effort. It is crystal clear that this
is impossible. In the Qur'an, it is stated that seeing
has been bestowed upon living beings by God:
Say: He it is Who brought you into being and made
for you the ears and the eyes and the hearts: little is
it that you give thanks. (The Qur'an, 67:23)

You've still not made a cogent argument. Simply saying you're amazed and that you can't imagine how some things happened doesn't mean your God did anything. It could simply be that you're ignorant. Just so you know I like most people came from my parents. I don't know why you would be ignorant of this.

whocanbewho:
you are wrong on that part, if you appreciate life and your immediate environment . then you will see reasons why the uniiverse is perfect. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles
an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour,
our days and nights would be ten times as long as
now, and the hot sun would then burn up our
vegetation during each long day, while in the long
night any surviving sprout would freeze.
Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface
temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our
earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal
fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the
sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we
would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we
would roast.

What if the earth rotated at 1001 miles/hour? Or the sun had a surface temperature of 12,002 degrees Fahrenheit?

whocanbewho:
The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23
degrees, gives us our seasons; if it had not been so
tilted, vapours from the ocean would move north and
south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon
was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its
actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that
twice a day all continents would be submerged; even
the mountains would soon be eroded away.
If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet
thicker, there would be no oxygen without which
animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet
deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been
absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our
atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors,
now burned in space by the million every day would
be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires
everywhere.
Because of these, and host of other examples, there
is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is
an accident.

Simply stating how things are says nothing about your God. So, where is your God?

phabulux:
Jesu von Jesu!

How perfect could this life have been without you messing it up?

I'm the one messing up this life and not your God who invented diseases, created the devil and created hell?

phabulux:
I know you don't have a soul. Read my lips: anyone of your kind does not deserve it.

Thanks for your knowledge. I'm glad you don't have a soul too and that you don't "deserve" it either.

xcelentattitude:
He wants to torture them so he gave them chance to repent?

Is there a chance to repent when you're in hell?

UyiIredia:
I have doubts about the BB. One question regarding this would be of what nature was the singularity that supposedly cause our universe. Was it material ? Or not ?

What do you mean? What do you wish to compare it to in order to decide what its nature was? How exactly would this question help you in any way?

UyiIredia:
By the way, don't you think order in the universe is sufficient to infer God ?

No I don't. Why should I?

UyiIredia:
No they don't. Genes follow the genetic code. OTOH the materials that comprise genes follow natural laws. Likewise, all the materials in computers follow natural laws. The codes as stored on the various drives and chips don't, they were decided by programmers.

You're still confused. How can the nucleotides follow natural laws but the genes that they make up not? Computer codes follow natural laws. That is why its actions are predictable.

UyiIredia:
Since humans are part of organisms and its their existence we need to explain we can't posit humans. Neither can we posit aliens, that will only shift the question backwards as to whether the aliens evolved naturally or were created by God. My argument holds no fallacy.

Humans are organisms. Why don't we explain the existence of bacteria and elephants? Why can't we posit humans or aliens? Saying that it is humans that we need to explain doesn't mean humans couldn't have been created by more advanced humans. Your argument is fallacious because you're leaping from the knowledge that humans use symbols to making the claim that some unknown creature also uses human symbols.

UyiIredia:
That's just how it is. One's awareness of their thoughts and environment is not a material thing.

Neither is hunger a material thing.

UyiIredia:
Consciousness can never be fully explained from a materialistic viewpoint.

So what?

UyiIredia:
Materialists frequently confuse explaining how the brain affects consciousness means consciousness has been explained but that's not true. They are different and matter certifiably lacks consciousness as a property so its existence in the brain begs the question.

Supernaturalists confuse our incomplete understanding of how the brain works with their assertion that their God does everything. Begs what question?

Kay17:
And I was really excited to see where MrAnony1's points would have ended.

Just watch him cut and run.

MrAnony1:
Dear Uyi,

The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself.

Is it really? Which God and what feature of this God is obvious to you that should also be obvious to me?

MrAnony1:
Interestingly what I have never heard are reason's to doubt God's existence.

Then you've not been paying attention. The fact that there's no good reason to believe your God is out there is a very good reason to doubt his existence.

MrAnony1:
It is wearisome to argue with people who have no reasons for their positions but would rather argue for the sake of arguing and not for the sake of arriving at truth.

Coming from someone who is unable to present and defend his reasons for believing in the particular God he believes in is just ridiculous. It is also wearisome trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't know how to speak about whether or not something is obvious.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

It's unlikely that you will. But let's go try and see what happens.

UyiIredia:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Because there are scientific explanations and hypotheses available. The order of the physical universe says nothing about an intelligence behind the universe.

UyiIredia:
2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

We've been through this before. Genes do follow natural laws. The fact that they can be represented as symbols seems to be what confuses you. Actually as humans, what we know is that other humans use symbols so, unless you're saying your God is a human, then you're making a fallacious argument.

UyiIredia:
3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Why do you think consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon? Secondly, the fact that a phenomenon hasn't been fully explained doesn't mean your God did it. That is another fallacious argument.

Looks like the usual suspects are back in full force.

Tjayjosh:
On the 9th of may 2015, i saw this interesting topic on nairaland by walspring titled; Reasons why you must not go to Hell fire. I decided to read through. After all that was written and read about Hell. In the first page i saw this comment by thehomer 12:06pm on the same day. He said: "If heaven is where the monster who created hell is, maybe i'd rather go to hell. In hell, there will be thinkers like myself. There may be shouting but the shouts may be vigorous debates" Another comment by MIzMYCOLi: 11:19am on may 10. She said: "waow, that God the Op just described is scary, it must be my devil"
I was cut to the heart!

My impression.

God is as real as that man or woman you see walking on the street. Hell is as real as the sun, moon and the stars.

If God is as real as all the things you mentioned and we can see those things you mentioned, why can't we see your God? Why is he hiding?

Tjayjosh:
Over the years, Hell fire has been a very difficult concept for many to accept, including myself. People kept asking if God is so loving why will he allow people to burn in hell?. God is a God of holiness and justice as well as a God of of love. Consider this carefully. From the beginning of the history of the human race, God has expected obedience and acceptance of his word from all of his creation as absolute truth. Before God made man.

Hell is not justice by any reasonable standard.

Tjayjosh:
1. God created the angels.
2. God made a place of suffering-Hell.
3. God placed Hell as a price on sin if the angels sinned.
4. The angels were fully warned.
5. One-third of those angels sinned.
6. God had no choice but to do what he said he would do.
7. God made man.
8. Satan came to man and wanted to drag man to the hell where he was going.
9. Satan persuaded man to do what he had done and commit the same sin he had committed.
10. The price had already been set.
11. God had to let man go to hell, though hell was not prepared for man. (matthew 25:41)

Those angels saw and met God. God knew even before he created humans that most of them would end up in hell. God doesn't have to torture humans forever.

Tjayjosh:
The Solution.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
God was willing to break up the God head for 33years so that man could be freed!
The lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 peter 3:9). Now you have one choice out of two, accept Jesus christ as your lord an saviour and go to heaven or don't accept and go to Hell.

That is not a solution because all sorts of questions can be and have been raised about Jesus and the New Testament gospels. God lost nothing. 33 years is nothing to an eternal being. If you think 33 years is significant how about the 2000 years after? Like I said, your God knows most people would be going to hell so the line about everyone coming to repentance is just noise. Accepting Jesus doesn't mean you'll go to heaven. In fact, most Christians will be going to hell too. Thanks for your offer. I'll take my chances.

plaetton:
Deepsight is probably marooned in an alternate universe.

Unsurprising really.