₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
O, and in addittion, you still haven't given me your evidence that the first cause decidedly and conclusively CANNOT be intelligent.

I dey wait.

_Joker.

I wanted to let it slide and focus on how we might have gotten intelligence issue but you seem to think your so called evidence ". . .a creator cannot bequeath  attributes it does not have to its creation"

I gave you instances and you dismissed them as man passing intelligence. Tell me,

When the Wilburs created their first aircraft what was the purpose. . .to think out mathematics or to fly?
What attribute did the brothers bequeath to their craft if not the ability to Fly What is the intelligence bequeath by the wright brothers to their aircraft?
Have they not bequeath an attribute they do not have i.e ability to fly, to their aircraft?

As for the other cases where man has created "artificial intelligence". . .bad news. Man did not conceive anything rather they look at what nature has already done and copy it.

Nature can take millions of years of sedimentation and erosion to create an island or a lake but man can use less than 5 years using the same principles to landfill a site or dig a hole creating an island or lake. Does that mean nature is intelligent?

Deep Sight:
Tudor, i presume you are attempting to provide me with comic relief?

Your contradictions are so amazing it simply beggars belief.

I think together with Kay17 and Atheists you must rank as the most confused atheist on this forum.

Let's have a look at it -

I said -

And you responded -


To which i reverted -


I am surprised that you did not discern your ghastly gaffe at this point. Let me briefly point it out again -

Premise A - You suppose my assertion that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself - to be a wrong assertion; and you propose to debunk it by -

Premise B - - giving examples of things created by intelligent beings and which thereby contain artificial intelligence! ! !

Do you see it now, duh? You gave an example for my case, not against my case: your example dwelt on intelligent beings bequething artificial intelligence!

What a hocus pocus laugh! Talk about playing into my hands entirely!

Any onlooker can easily see that you have spent your energy arguing my own point for me!

What you effectively showed by your examples is that pieces of technology with articial intelligence built into them are the products of intelligent minds! Tudor, have you had something to eat today? What sort of analogy was that? Since when did i hire you to make points favourable to my case?

And as though that was not enough, you now went on to solidify my case by a total and unconditional concession of defeat. It really shocked me that you could make arguments so favourable to my case and yet stand back clueless about what you have said.

See your own words -

GBAM! GBAM!! GBOGA!!!

End of story, someone help me out here, what more need i say?? You have yourself explained why we can create artificial intelligence. You have talked about "arranging elements in a particular order!"

And yet you comically insist that our own intelligence needed no preceding intelligence!

Tudor, since when did you become an apostle of intelligent design? Why are you arguing in favour of the existence of a higher intelligence?

I thought this guy would come at me with something sensible instead of huffing and panting trying to force me to agree with him?

All these are characteristics of a confused man who cannot refute my arguments.

I clearly stated we are able to re-create intelligence because we can arrange stuffs in an order manipulating the forces and laws of nature to acheive the end result.

My question is; we are all made up of atoms, what stops nature from arranging the elements in a particular order to bring about the end result as we have it today. . .is 14 billion years not time enough?

P.s: all that hocus pocus about 14 billion years is a non-starter because it presumes things to be already existent, whereas the universe is finite in the past. Shelve it.

After the big bang the universe started to expand among the things at that point were atoms which are the building blocks of matter including you and I.

Extrapolate backwards and you'd find the source of all elements and you'd get to that point including the elements responsible for your intelligence.

The first cause needn't be a super-einstein it just needed to be made up of atoms which over time fell into place to produce this reality. Simple!

Afam:
I also agree with Arthur Eze on Abacha. Nigeria was much better under him and his practice of reciprocal foreign policy remains the best and most effective till today.

Much better under him because he hated America, Britain and jews like you?

Here's a quote from our racist anti-semitic Afam

Afam:
They should have killed Ironsi? So because they did not succeed in killing him (even when he foiled the coup) it then means the coup was planned by Igbos even when Nzeogwu was from the Mid West?

What manner of reasoning is this? Just to justify unwarranted killings of innocent people? I think we still have people in this time and age that are worse than those that took the decisions in 1966 and 1967. What manner of hatred would a rational human being have to justify such senseless massacres?

What manner of hatred would a rational human being have to justify a regime who massacred his fellow country men in addition to gross human rights abuse, Calling such a regime the BEST EVER?

Abacha hates America. . .that is all Afam needs to identify a good leader.

Afam:
Seems you have been reduced to and exposed as the inconsequential and confused fool that you are. I warned you that you would self destruct a couple of months ago. Good to know you didn't disappoint.

Would it kill you to make sense for ONCE in your life?

illusion2:
Im not 'ranting off- topic'. . .I was just giving you back your words.

Jesus said He is the Messiah. . . you don't believe,you say no he's a liar.

You say you're female. . . . .I don't believe you. . . . does that make you a liar?

What is the issue in that ?

However,the verses  I listed don't say anything about 'messiah' only mention 'the Son of God' in the OT (which Yisraylite inferred didn't exist). . . .

The verses do not name jesus as the son of god does it? It mentions only A son of god.

Everyone from olumba to jesus can claim to be that son of god.

I hope so. . . .

I wanted to create a thread with this title but decided to search and voila!

However I find no answers here.

My own question to the religionists would be in the frame of Why was man created? . . .why did god make Adam and Eve? What purpose were they supposed to accomplish.

If you're a creator you surely must have a reason for creating don't you?

And for the likes of deep sight who disregard the abrahamic faiths I also would be interested in what they think man was created for.

Anybody pls indulge me.

^
Thanks rich j

Nezan:
You can open a thread, aint it better?

let me see you harassing the muslims then you'd tell me whats up.

Nezan:
allah and YHWH, where is tudor?

What are you making noise about?

Haven't you heard about the crusades and the LRA in uganda?

Deep Sight:
And is the energy infinite? Go back to Einstein's works please!

What are you talking about?
Energy can't be destroyed can it?

Deep Sight:
Your last two posts are more like it! Good, Tudor!

Screw you. I'm not here to conform to any standards set by you or anybody.

I will address them later cos i am heading to my ofis now.

But preliminary thoughts on the penultimate post is this:

To create those things man posessed the intelligence and thought patterns to bring them to reality!

So you have creded the debate again.

This God may not be able to defecate, as humans do, but he similarly posesses the thought patterns and intelligence to create beings that could!

Does it escape you that all those technologies you mentioned contain what is called [b]artificial intelligence! And it is that artificial intelligence that makes them function: which we bequeathed to them![/b]

Capisce?

Will be right back. . .

What intelligence? Everything up there even to the human brain are a series 0 and 1 binary instructions on a circuit which are all governed by the laws of the universe which also includes behaviour of the elements and how they interact with one another.

As science puts it The universe over billions of years formation the first simple living thing was formed by a mixture of elements then overtime evolution and changing conditions led to the more complex life forms.

What am i saying? Intelligence is nothing supernatural it isn't magical but as a result of simple chemical reactions between elements in the brain. If you isolate all the components needed for our brain function you'd find out they are all to the least indivisible parts atoms.

We are able to create 'artificial intelligence' as you put it because we arrange the elements and reactions in a particular order to acheive such a result.

14 billion years of permutations and combination is a very very very long time for things to be arranged the way they are.

The causative factor of the universe doesn't necessarily have to be intelligent. Containing the the required reactants is enough and time (14 billion years of it) is quite enough to mix them in different proportions and stages to result in intelligence.

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=370492.msg5171026#msg5171026 date=1261558623]Yes but not Oyedepo.[/quote]Then why are the fees at CU basically same with those if not more in some cases?

Deep Sight:
Ta. . . didn't expect you to grasp that matter is by nature finite. . . ta ta . . .

More crap.
Matter is converted to energy which can neither be created nor destroyed so what are you blabbing about?

Deep Sight:
Ha ha. I ask for your reasons for positively asserting that the first cause lacks intelligence and all you do is spew insults and entirely avoid the question. Tudor one sign of mental incapacity is brain-dead-self-repetition. You do not use a statement as its own justification, son. Thus your bovine repetition of -

- Makes no sense at all, given the fact that i have given REASONS for my suppositions. You attack the supposition of intelligence without advancing ANY REASONS for attacking it. That's frankly infantile.

No escape, its simple enough.

We both agreed there is a first cause.

I said i suppose it has intelligence and i gave my reason -

If you suppose the contrarr, namely that it does not have intelligence, give us your reason: either way, for you to describe me as psycotic, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

If you fail to give a reason, then your assertion that the first cause lacks intelligence is nothing but dogma - which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of! Indeed your dogmatism will be far worse than ours because we have proferred reasons - you are yet to proffer ANY reason.

_{Small wonder the thread we opened to hear you out was such an empty skunk.}

Play the victim card by claiming I insult you all you want, i don't give a damn.

Secondly, I make no assertions as to the nature of the causative element. I willingly own up to my ignorance but basically reject your so-called evidences because they're all based on conjecture.

". . . .that a force cannot bequeath attributes it does not have in itself"


Incase you haven't noticed i'm not given to long stories, plenty talk here and there and senseless grammar that are just empty shells with no substance within. I'm going to ask you these simple questions.

1. That Arthur and wilbur wright created the first aircraft does it mean they can fly?

2. I create an infrared camera does that mean i can see infrared rays?

3. I produce an underwater robot can I survive underwater?

4. My CT and Ultrasound can see internal organs within your body does that preclude me being able to do same?

5. My mobile phone can send information across two continents can I do that with my body?

Dude. . . .

Deep Sight:
And by the way, i did proffer a reason for supposing that God could not walk the earth as a man -


_{Hint: Same way as a more advanced software may not be supported by less advanced hardware.}

But i do not suppose that you will be able to respond rationally to this!

This is a joke right?

Since God created man himself what stops God from creating a human body capable of containing him?

Do you listen to yourself at all?

"You reflect that divine infinity cannot be borne in a creation as man. . . ."

YOU REFLECT?

Can you demonstrate this reflection by way of evidence?

People bring their own assumptions you summarily dismiss them labelling it psychotic. . .rather than stop at that you go ahead and profer your own ridiculous assumptions and expect us to accept it as fact. . .you have got to be kidding me.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Neither is there evidence to suggest that the First Cause is[b] not [/b] a being. So what are you on about?

In several of our excahnges you have conclusively accepted that there must be a first cause, and you also assert that even scientists accept that.

The contention is therefore the nature of that first cause.

In discussing its nature you cannot conclusively assert that it must per force be devoid of an attribute such as intelligence - unless of course you are omniscient.

Admittedly, neither can i assert its nature conclusively, but the world around me strongly suggests intelligence rather than the absence of it.

Whichever way we argue it, you have no basis for stating that it must lack intelligence as you do not know that for a fact.

My own thinking is that it has intelligence: now although i agree that i cannot be conclusive, since i am not omniscient as you are, at least i have advanced some reasons why i think it must have intelligence. Such as when i argued that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself. Now even if you disagree with this reason, i have at least proferred one.

What reason cau you proffer Tudor, for your positive assertion that the first cause cannot be intelligent, and that anyone who believes so is deluded?

For us to be deluded, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

Give us such evidence!

This is terribly lazy and dishonest.

Even science which tends to agree our present universe as it is now started at a point clearly owns up to its ignorance to the the exact state and nature of such a thing that kick started the reaction.

But lo and behold some people think they can dream up attributes and pass it up as undisputable fact and truth.

You claiming the first cause is intelligent, living being etc are as deluded and psychotic as one who claims it has three heads, a son, loves human sacrifices and encourages paedophilia. . . . .is there any difference?

You are such a hypocrite.
You deny jesus as god based on assumption. . .can you in anyway positively assert with evidence that God did not come to earth in form of man 2000 years ago? Give us such evidence.

illusion2:
I laugh in hebrew 

Tudor says s/he female

I say Tudor is male.

so therefore Tudor is a fraud for claiming to be female. . . .QED    !

Are you going to address the issue rather than ranting off-topic?

Deep Sight:
You didn't get it, did you? Ok, let's go kindergarten: a fellow man like YOU is claimed to be the first cause. . . need i go on. . . .?

AGAIN you regard this as delusion based on the preassumption

[/quote]God cannot take a human for and walk this earth right?

BIG FAT ASSUMPTION? ? ?
[quote]You must be omniscient to be able to assert conclusively that the first cause is [b]not an element that has attributes of a being!
O well, since you are that first cause yourself, i guess you should know!

More crap.
There is no evidence to conclusively assert the first cause to be a living being is there?

The universe doesn't necessarily need a living being to kick start the chain reaction does it?

Afam:
That means you agree with my last post. Thanks. I thought you would have continued to live in self denial, bloody mumu!

You haven't made any sense or have you?

Are igbinedion and bells profit making ventures?

illusion2:
Olaadegbu,with all due respect you obviously didn't have the answers(posting largely obtuse links). . ,  thank you mavenb0x for coming up with the goods. . .  .
Christians should learn to address issues ,especially concerning their faith headlong without recourse to such diversionary tactics.
People will value your posts more if you anwered simple questions.

As for The OT is replete with references to Jesus,thou you may conveniently chose to deny it,the ones that come to mind immediately:
Dan 3:25
Psalm 110:1
Isa 7:14
And I don't think we need to be aggressive when discussing religion,you are perfectly entitled to your point of view just like everyone else. . . 

These are LIES. The highlighted scriptures NEVER mention jesus as the messiah BUT describe A messiah.

Jesus was just a fraud who claimed to be the messiah.

The jews are still expecting their messiah till this day!

^^

Thunder fire you wherever you are.

Mumu. its people like you that stir up riots and wars in your childish urge for revenge, spilling innocent blood as well.

May you get hit by a bus and die. . .murderous pig!

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=370492.msg5169562#msg5169562 date=1261528413]Good education is not cheap.[/quote]sharap there. . , should the aim of a mission school be charity or profit making?

Why are the fees at par or even more than secular universities like igbinedion and co who are out to make profits?

I had course mates who in the course of their studies lost their parents and were subsequently kicked outta school because they couldn't afford the fees. . . .tell me, is that what jesus woulda done?

@justcool.
Deep sight believes the first cause to be a being. . . .thats one of his many delusions.

Deep Sight:
I have presumed no such thing.

I have merely presumed that YOU, Tudor, are not the First Cause.

Capisce?

Did I claim to be the first cause?

Stay off the hard drugs my guy.

Physically assaulting your congregation and r.aping their finances. . .what's the difference?

Deep Sight:
You have presumed that intelligence cannot exist within an entity that is the First Cause. Ridiculous presumption in the extreme.

In reference to your analogy, i simply reject the claims of a fellow human being to be that First Cause.

Aha! See your mis-jive now? ? ?

You reject this based on a presumption God cannot become man and walk this earth?

Ridiculous!

Does this racist anti-semitic pig have anything NEW to say?

Deep Sight:
^^^ What is so deluded about extra-terrestial intelligence? ? ? ? ?

If you could have intelligence here on earth, why do you presume there cannot be intelligence elsewhere? ? ? ?

BIG FAT PRESUMPTION TUDOR.

What is so deluded about God having a son who is also god?

If we can have sons on earth why cant extra-terrestials have sons?

BIG FAT PRESUMPTION DEEP SIGHT.

Nezan:
You can bookmark me with this addendum: there is forgiveness with YHWH while there is no forgiveness in allah.

bullshit. . .where is the forgiveness for the victims of the titanic?

You mean your god killed 1500 people including infants and children because of the utterings of ONE man!!

I have bookmarked this page let me see you ranting in the muslim section then you'll tell us the difference.

^^
They become delusions when you begin your usual banter of infusing stuffs like all intelligent, all powerful, a being with life etc