₦airaland Forum

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

Yes, but not the creator star.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UyiIredia:
An amusing parody. Stars are material so their existence also demands an explanation. And as I've said earlier, humans create more than stars do, to deny that would be foolish.

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

You don't have to believe in something to imagine it. Otherwise, authors of fictional entities would have to believe they actually exist.
You were silly to write this and that's putting it mildly.

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

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

At least, you agree that consciousness is immaterial. How would this material explanation of consciousness look like ?

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

What is the evidence that shows that non-living things resulted in living things ?

I don't understand what you mean by evidence.

Funny. I think it's the weakest argument. The argument from design is the strongest.

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

UyiIredia:
This is a gross misstatement of what occurred. When asked for the distinction between natural laws and the genetic code, I pointed out that natural laws describe phenomena outside man's control while the genetic code describes how some physical objects represent others.

The precise wording is there for all to see.

It is if the reconfigured material did not exist before. I already explained that given the fact that humans can make new materials or it is evident that the mind is a creative force. I used this to infer that God (who has a mind) created the universe, unlike humans God isn't constricted by natural laws, He made them.

Stars can make new materials too. I can equally validly infer a star unconstrained which created everything.

Actually, I can very well imagine this universe to be godless as you do.

You can only imagine it if you don't believe that God is the source.

I don't think the facts support such a conclusion though. At this point, I have a few questions I would like you to answer. Please indulge me.

1) Do you think consciousness is immaterial ?

2) Do you believe life was created or it evolved ?

3) What do you think is the best argument against God's existence ?

Certainly

I think consciousness can be explained materially due to how inextricable from and dependent on the brain it is.

I think life arose from non life. I think it is meaningless to say life was created if the thing that did the creating is also alive. Therefore the only options I see are life arising from non life and life being eternal. The sort of life that we know cannot be eternal because we see it cease after a while, we know it wasn't always here on earth, and in whatever form it takes, virus or whale, it requires a body. Nothing with a body can be eternal in a universe where the big bang model applies, since there weren't always molecules. So i expect that life can from non life.

Arguments against the existence of God are dependent on arguments for God's existence. Each argument against can only be used to respond to a specific argument for. I find it impossible to compare the strength of one argument to another, since the arguments do not all respond to the same claim. However we can compare the strength of one argument for God to the strength of another, and the strongest argument would naturally require a stronger rebuttal.

I used to have difficulty with Anselm's ontological proof and it's modern variants by Godel and Plantinga. It's a bit of a task to figure out for yourself what is wrong with it. I like the kalam cosmological argument too. It forces you to really think.

UyiIredia:
So absence of the universe can be defined as chaos.

Oh dear.

I can since their origins are different.

That said, this argument started when I said codes are laws too. You asked me what made codes different from natural laws and I stated it. You simply disagreed with it and made this absurd request after I stated you were being wilfully ignorant. I recall using the example of how rain would wet a book without giving heed to its contents to show that natural laws as exhibited in natural processes don't discern codes.

You don't believe physical laws have natural origins. You don't believe genetic code has a natural origin either. You can however make a distinction between their origins. Fine, I won't push it.

You stated the basis of your distinction and when I asked what was unusual about it, you said the origin of genetic code could not be explained naturally. In other words, you stopped explaining and just restated your OP. I decided to come out with my objection at that point, since you had run out of explanation.

I remember your book example and i remember what was unusual about it.

I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler than that.

How convenient.

Arrange atoms in a given manner and you've got a crystal, make atoms emit fast-moving helium nuclei, electron streams and gamma rays and you've got a radioactive substance. I've just described crystalline and radioactive states in purely physical terms. Humor me by doing the same for consciousness.

Arrange atoms in a given manner and you've got consciousness. I don't know the manner, of course, so God did it.

You are being decietful. I said the new forms of matter eg phones, cars etc are created by human minds. You OTOH stubbornly maintain humans must create matter out of nothing. Let me make it clear again. Human minds can and do create new material forms from existing matter. Humans cannot make matter out of nothing, only God can.

Reconfiguration is not creation, in case you didn't hear me the first time. I don't know how you managed to conclude that mind can create matter when the only minds you have observed cannot create matter. I don't accept this conclusion and we've been through the arguments for and against already. What to do?

No, it won't. Such a universe would simply only have matter and nothing more. Physics is the STUDY of the nature of matter and energy; that requires a conscious mind.

I meant physical laws, sorry. Of course, any sort of study requires a mind.

A lame excuse.

It was an illustration. If you don't get it, that's okay.

That doesn't in any way mean one can't consider a universe without God, where the universe is all that exists and where life and consciousness are thought to have arisen by natural events without divine intervention. This is the world you and other atheists believe in, no ?

It is the sort of world I believe exists. You can attempt to consider such a universe. The problem is that if you are right about God then you can't say that anything should be able to exist without God. Not even one planck length of empty space. Everything you know only exists because God exists, so any universe whose Godless existence you want to consider would have to contain things you are not familiar with.

UyiIredia:
Definitions are an appeal to authority. That's a first.

The link was simply a restatement of your claim that the state of existence consisting of God without a universe is chaos. The ancient Greeks agree with you, so what?

I've never said physical laws have natural origins and I don't believe so. Your point here is moot. One doesn't need to explain how natural laws existed to explain the origin of the genetic code.

Your premise is hinged on such a distinction in origin between genetic code and physical law. Without it, you can't correctly distinguish between both of them in terms of their origins.

Make your point.

I couldn't make out what you were trying to say.

Yes. Even then, dead brains aren't conscious, which shows that consciousness isn't a primary (or essential) property of brains, it is a secondary one.

Matter is various things at various times. Sometimes it's liquid, sometimes it's crystalline, sometimes its radioactive, and other times its conscious.

This is a silly request. Humans make new materials from existing ones. You don't expect them to poof up new matter that didn't exist.

You're the one that says mind can create matter. Now you're creating all sorts of objections to mind creating matter.

Wrong. Physics only applies to matter, not consciousness. Consciousness OTOH is crucial for physics, physics is the product of man's conscious mind.

There would be physics even if there was no consciousness. Any universe that ranks at 1 on your scale of orderliness shouldn't have consciousness. It would however have physics.

In a sense, stars could be said to be creators but they, as well as other natural processes, are highly constrained in what they can create. Humans are less so. It's absurd to ask that humans create matter out of nothing when they are material beings.

Think of it as a sort of recursion.

I'll just let smart people spot the difference.

So I'm not a smart person? Oh well.

To originate from only natural factors and processes eg clouds, sunlight, snow, minerals, air, naturally occuring compounds etc In short, any natural factor that must have existed prior to living things.

Everything originates from God, remember?

UyiIredia:
"Chaos (Greek χάος, khaos) refers to the formless or void
state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in the Greek creation myths, or to the initial "gap" created by the original separation of heaven and earth."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

Lol. Classic appeal to authority.

You could as well have said God isn't needed. No need dancing around the point.

Come on. I must have said so at least twice by now.

A very silly point. Man didn't need to know how the universe began before they figured out that life evolved. They didn't haven't even figured out how life started and yet I'm sure you don't doubt that you evolved.

You conveniently missed the silly point.

If this was necessary you would have clearly stated the need from the start, therefore, it stands to reason that this is a ruse to cover up the fact that you couldn't state which natural laws a code follows.

Not to mention how utterly ridiculous it is for me to have to school you on what is supernatural and what isn't. Even illiterates know the difference.

I already told you that I don't know. My ignorance is not an excuse to make unjustifiable claims. Besides, I even asked you this question before you asked me for the natural law a code follows.

You are confused, understandably. According to you, God made physical laws, then he made genetic code, and both were designed for our universe, yet one has natural origins and the other is supernatural. I merely want you to acknowledge this confusion in claiming that all of existence has two mutually exclusive sources, which is central to your argument.

You cannot explain the natural origin of physical laws mainly because you don't think that anything has a natural origin, even though you claim for the sake of argument that there are natural and supernatural origins.

Good point. Cold has heat to a lesser degree, it isn't entirely lacking of it. In fact, it's impossible for a material to absolutely lack heat. But its very possible for a material to absolutely lack life, and absolutely lack knowledge.

?? ??

Dead material human beings aren't. In fact, things such as intestines and hearts in living human beings aren't conscious.

So it is the brain that is conscious?

It is relevant. If humans need matter to exist they couldn't have made it. Also, if matter existed before humans, which everybody belives, they couldn't have made it.

They can make the matter which they don't need to exist, and of course any matter they make is one which cannot predate them.. I'm not saying they made matter, I'm saying they should make some.

Yes. But the brain is within the ambit of natural laws and it is the seat of consciousness.

Consciousness is subject to physics, then.

It is. It is the creation of new forms of matter that did not exist before. You don't need to create from nothingness like God did to be a creator.

It's ex nihilo or nothing bro. Otherwise stars are also creators.

How so ?

I said matter can give rise to immaterial consciousness if it can be reconfigured into anything other than more matter. You said matter cannot give rise to immaterial consciousness if it can only be reconfigured into more matter. Same thing.

Because, its existence categorically makes it impossible for humans to have arisen by purely natural means.

Since you believe everything is from God, what do you mean by "arise by purely natural means"?

UyiIredia:
Not if by nothingness we mean the absence of the material universe.

Absence of universe = chaos. Oh dear.

Wrong. The more consistent a given universe is with its laws the more regular its order can be said to be. I would expect random universes to be far less regular, since there's no one or no cause that ensures it follows its laws consistently.

The issue is how to determine the point at which God is needed (not that I agree with anything you've said up there).

Why is it so ? It doesn't make sense to have to know the origin of nature and its laws to know an entirely different genetic code.

You can't say there are two kinds of things without knowing what the two kinds are. If you say there are two kinds of origins, you must know both of them. It is your knowledge of the one that you compare with your knowledge of the other in order to make distinctions.

And you are yet to rebut my first premise that the natural processes (and laws) don't
account for the genetic code. You can't give me a natural law that the genetic code follows and yet you still have the audacity to say that my claim lacks a sufficient basis.

I'm saying your premise is based on the distinction between natural and unnatural which you have created. Justify the assumption that such a distinction exists.

I'm not going to push it. You are free to believe or disbelieve what you want.

Good for you.

Is this even a point ?

It's practically the same thing you said about matter and ignorance:

Ignorance is not a property anymore than cold or death are. Like death (lack of life) and cold (lack of heat), ignorance is the LACK OF a property, knowledge. Since matter lacks the ability to know anything, matter is ignorant. That is not a category error.

In order words, consciousness lacks the ability to be hot, consciousness is cold. Not category error.

This doesn't make matter any more conscious since it isn't.

Material human beings are conscious.

Even when I've told you that humans themselves rae contingent on matter. Even though its clear that humans can only work within the ambits of natural law in a material world they met. And even though its clear we created new configurations of matter from elements to compounds.

Contingency is irrelevant here. Besides, the human mind is a part of God's mind, being sourced therefrom.

Consciousness is not within the ambit of natural laws, if I understand you correctly. Your claim is that no natural process is responsible for it.

Reconfiguration is not creation.

It isn't. If matter can only be reconfigured into new material forms then it's impossible for it to be fashioned into an immaterial consciousness.

This is a recap of what I said.

I actually meant that natural processes couldn't make material forms humans make such as clothes, phones, cars etc. But there's no problem, I do believe God made matter.

That depends on if you consider humans to be a natural process or not.

Why single out genetic code?

It's meant to make my arguments more poignant.

Of course it is. You don't think your arguments are poignant enough.

UyiIredia:
I disagree. The state of nothingness is what I said was chaos.

Yes, except that there was God so there couldn't have been nothingness.

I simply chose it, if you have a reason for disagreeing state it.

I didn't expect that you would have better reasons for choosing it. I was trying to show you that claiming "order in our universe comes from God" remains untrue if existing universes must have some order by default and we have no means of measuring how much order any universe has in order to tell whether there is a regular or irregular amount of order in that universe.

My argument doesn't require that I explain the origin of physical laws. Let me query your position. If the genetic code follows natural laws then you should have no problems telling me the natural laws it follows. Could you please state examples.

It does require you to know that the origin of physical laws is different from the origin of your genetic code, and you cannot know that if you don't know what exactly the origin of the physical laws is.

I don't know what laws genetic code follows, if any. My argument is that you have not shown sufficient basis to sustain your claim that genetic code is different in origin from every other thing we find in nature.

A random universe can very well be in a state of flux. In fact, existing in a state of flux is known to occur in quantum physics.

Dude, how can you tell that one universe which faded out of existence is the same as another existing universe? Your claim could support the argument that our own universe is in a flux.

No. Consciousness involves knowledge.

You'd also agree that consciousness cannot be hot, despite the fact that heat is not merely the absence of cold but a distinct property which matter can possess.

Till they become corpses. Then it becomes most clear that matter isn't conscious.

Death can be viewed as a transition, like water transitions from solid to liquid.

The mind of God, not man.

In humans, consciousness is subject to matter and matter precedes its existence so human consciousness couldn't have made matter.

Human consciousness should be able to recreate matter, then.

How can matter be reconfigured to immaterial consciousness ? That doesn't make sense. And natural processes couldn't have made such material forms. I find it funny no one would venture to suppose that artificial constructs like houses, computers or paints can arise naturally; and yet these are far less complex than the tiniest lifeform and moreover aren't conscious.

We're not looking at the mechanism. We're looking at whether it is possible in principle. It is possible in principle if matter can be reconfigured into anything other than more matter.

@Bolded. I was wondering when you'd come out and say that matter is also not the result of natural processes. It makes your genetic code argument neater.

In your last sentence we're venturing into the complexity argument, which wasn't part of your OP.

UyiIredia:
Why ? Insofar God created order were there was none I think I'm still correct. Another way of looking at it would say that the state of nothingness before God created the world was chaos. Classical Greek religion held this belief.

God was chaos then, since God was the only state before creation.

7

In essence, there is a degree of order above which God is required and you have pegged it at 7. how do you measure order and why is 7 the magic number?

I think you are being wilfully ignorant at this point. I didn't get any objection from you when I said nature can't recognize symbols and used the example of rain wetting a book (obviously without knowing what its contents are). I extend this argument to the genetic code and this is what I get.

The genetic code as a part of nature is natural, but its origins can't be explained by natural processes. To rebut my point you can either deny the fact that genes symbolize something else (amino acids) within a cell OR you can tell me how natural processes can discern when a given material represents something else.

I was not satisfied with your criteria for distinguishing between natural and unnatural processes. If you could give your natural explanation for the origin of physical laws I'd definitely take your claim that there is no natural explanation for the origin of genetic code more seriously.

It can exist in a state of flux as I said earlier. Or it could flip from one state to another (say in one instance Earth's gravity is 9.8 ms-2 and in another instance Earths gravity is much higher ceteris paribus).

Any given universe can't be in flux.

The continued existence of any given universe means that it obeys the laws telling it to continue it's existence.

No, undercat is a human and I don't know how you look.

Ignorance is not a property anymore than cold or death are. Like death (lack of life) and cold (lack of heat), ignorance is the LACK OF a property, knowledge. Since matter lacks the ability to know anything, matter is ignorant. That is not a category error.

Is consciousness hot?

Then we should just end this debate. Keep in mind though that conscious beings can think and can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. If matter is conscious, it should have those attributes.

Perhaps we should. Human beings are matter and they are conscious.

That configuration of matter didn't exist before. New elements and compounds are reconfigurations of existing matter, they also didn't exist before. No physical being can bring matter into existence since they themselves are subject to matter and existed after matter. I think you are setting the bar higher to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Given the fact that new material forms can be concieved and the fact the mind is absolutely necessary for one to know there is matter, then implicit in mind is the idea of matter and as such idealism doesn't face the same problem as materialism.

The bar is as high as it should be. Your claim is that the mind created matter.

Consciousness, being a non physical thing not subject to matter, should be able to bring matter into existence.

Any reconfiguration of matter is based on existing matter. If you claim that matter can be reconfigured to create a totally novel thing then you open the door to matter being reconfigured into your immaterial consciousness, by accident.

New material forms are only conceived from earlier material forms.

holytribe:
Am a guy and an introvert. But is it advisable to normal for a guy to be an introvert looking at the circumstances of our society?

Being an introvert alone doesn't exactly put you at much of a disadvantage. If you are shy or timid or unassertive however, you will have a disadvantage. Luck or a privileged background might help but the best bet is to learn to overcome these traits.

UyiIredia:
God created an orderly universe with a tendency towards chaos.

Then it is not correct to say that creation of order out of chaos obtains at a universal level, as you claimed.

It would have order to a far lesser degree than our universe, especially since it's random.

How do you measure the degree of disorder? For example, on a scale of 1 to 10 with one being the least ordered and 10 being the most, where would you place our universe?

Natural processes can't know that a given material is a symbol. It therefore makes natural origins for the genetic code impossible since genes refer to amino acids other than itself.

This statement is only true if we assume that the genetic code, which we have found in nature, is not natural. I think you are arguing from incredulity.

I disagree. There could be.

I'd like to know how

No. Even the mind can know its ignorance. For instance, I know that I don't know what undercat looks like. But matter is absolutely ignorant since it's mindless.

undercat looks like any other cat.

Matter cannot be ignorant. To say that it can is to make a category error. I remember you saying that mass and momentum cannot meaningfully be applied to consciousness. The error you imagined is the sort you're making here.

Things can become real because we concieve of them. For example, I can think of a building not existent and make it real when I build it. This is what I'm trying to get across that mind can not only percieve what exists, it can also concieve new things formerly non-existent into existence.

I would expect a universe without God to have no conscious beings since consciousness is not a property of matter. However, once we posit a God we can not only explain the existence of matter (since minds can concieve of new forms of matter) but the existence of consciousness is not a problem.

We have not moved forward. When you say consciousness is not a property of matter, you speak for yourself.

A building is merely a reconfiguration of existing matter. What we need is an example of a mind bringing matter itself into existence. Barring this, the existence of matter would be a problem in such a world.

UyiIredia:
Before God created the universe.

God created chaos before creating order?

Yes.

So what is God needed for if a so called random universe can have order all by itself?

Again, natural processes treat things as is. If rain falls on a book it won't know what it represents it will only wet it.

Yes yes. I'm asking what is unusual about that.

Unnecessary. Since the universe we are in follows natural laws.

But there cannot be a lawless universe in the first place.

No, what I've said is that because mind observes and imagines and matter can do neither, mind is greater.

It is better to concieve and percieve than not. This should be self-evident as much as the fact that knowledge is better than ignorance, and as such the conclusion that mind is greater than matter is not subjective. To mindless matter, nothing exists and so ignorance lingers. To the mind, existence is known and so knowledge begins.

This is just a means of avoiding the conclusion I've made. Without the mind we wouldn't know cancer exists, and without the mind we won't be able to find its cure. Reality can only be known through the mind, matter is ignorant of reality. And that makes the mind greater.

Ignorance belongs to the mind.

Your conclusion is tenuous, there is nothing to avoid. Whether mind is greater or lesser than matter can not have any bearing on the mind - matter gap unless you can show that things pack more explanatory power or manage to become real simply because we find them great.

People have already claimed that God must exist simply because they find a universe with God greater than one without, but we are where we are. Such a line of argument (ascribing ontological clout to "greatness" won't do much for you here.

NumberOne2:
Is that not a contradiction looking at those definitions?
So one can be scared of the devil (witches) but there is no god?

Using the definition of superstition you gave, there could be a contradiction. The contradiction is avoided by shifting the boundary of the natural, so that the superstitious belief falls within the natural, or so that the supernatural is eliminated entirely. For example, one can say that his supposed superstitious belief is simply unexplained natural phenomena (there are definitions of supernatural that allow this) or that everything that exists is natural.

Also, it is possible to believe that there are supernatural things without believing in God (sentient ultimate cause). For example, an alternate universe might be supernatural to us and anybody that believes in one would thereby believe in the supernatural. Similarly, a "spiritual world" consisting of demons (but no God) could possibly have developed just as science suggests ours did.

An atheist can be superstitious. A theist can hold no superstitious belief, or even a belief in the supernatural.

UyiIredia:
Chaos can't precede God since He is the first cause. God made an orderly universe out of nothing.

In other words, there has never been chaos.

Yes.

So order would be present to some degree in such a universe?

They represent proteins. Natural processes don't involve representation, they treat things as is.

What is so unusual about this?

And one can infer from the necessity of intelligence in both cases to a God who established the universe amenable to laws.

Let's first settle whether there can be a universe that is not amenable to laws, or if we can even find ourselves in one.

No, it doesn't. It just means we need consciousness to infer natural laws from nature. It does not mean we made ourselves and/or nature.

Hm. We need consciousness to infer. We need sharp objects to cut. We need phones to make phone calls.

Good point. However, since mind possesses the ability to concieve of matter this isn't a problem for me. Authors and artists regularly demonstrate this when they concieve of things not existent in nature eg unicorns, dragons etc.

Look at it this way. Physical things are unaware of their existence (and of material universe) without a mind. So from their vantage point, nothing exists.

However, with the mind, not only the material world exists but things we don't see in the material world can be imagined and in some cases made and we can ascribe or infer properties such as beauty, morality, mass and speed which aren't material things. This should tell you that mind is greater than matter not the other way around.

This is curious. What you have said in essence is that "because mind conceives, mind is better than matter, and therefore matter cannot explain mind."

I'm not sure that it is better to conceive than not. This is mostly because I don't think it makes any more sense to say "mind is better than matter" than to say "mind is more pointy than matter". Mind is only better than matter to the mind. To mindless matter, there is no such thing as better or worse. So when you say mind is better, for whom or for what is it better? The supposed better-ness of mind is subjective.

Even if it were objectively better, that should not have any effect on reality. Things do not become real simply because they are better, otherwise we would not have things like cancer.

UyiIredia:
Intelligent beings can and do create order out of chaos. The same could apply to the universe.

What chaos? Isn't it your argument that the universe is ordered? And if it were true that order was created out of chaos at a universal level, then it would mean that chaos precedes God. Perhaps the God you speak of isn't the first cause.

A random universe may just as well cease existing or exist in a flux (that it is repeatedly created and destroyed)

I don't think that any given universe can exist in a flux (unless one believes in the reincarnation of universes, like ogbanje children).

A random universe may equally continue existing. Do you concede as much?

Yes. BTW it is possible to control how genetic codes work. Genetic engineers do this.

I don't see how that is sufficient basis for the distinction. What is special about what genetic codes do?

Genetic engineers do with genetic codes what physicists do with physical laws, such as create synthetic elements.

Of course, physical laws are immaterial. They are products of our consciousness which is also immaterial. You have a material natural world and immaterial minds and concepts which observe and explain them. Matter is fundamentally mindless (or unconscious) so it makes no sense within a materialistic framework that it would effect consciousness of any sort at any level.

This is muddled up.

If the physical laws are the product of our consciousness, that makes us God, since we would have created ourselves by producing the physical laws (big banging the universe and all of that). That makes no sense, if I understand you correctly.

Also, the unbridgeable gap between matter and mind ought to be inaccessible to mind too, and not just matter. Thus, mind, being fundamentally immaterial, cannot make sense in any non materialistic framework which proposes that it affects matter.

You really need firm footing for your objection.

UyiIredia:
Sorry for responding late.

Okay. I have proposed God. Do you have any problems with it ?

That's okay. Man must wack.

I find it extraneous. What is it needed for? I see it as a mere transfer of inexplicability.

No, it isn't. And since we know what to expect from our universe it certainly isn't random.

True. The problem is that you also know what to expect from the universe you regard as random. It's just the degree of predictability that differs. For example, you expect a "random" universe to continue existing, which implies a certain stability or order in its fundamental laws.

Natural laws are about physical phenomena outside man's control. Codes are about how a given system represents another.

The laws themselves are not physical. Also, what genetic codes do are outside our control. Are you giving codes a special status because you say they are about how systems represent other systems?

No. The fact that it's associated with physical things doesn't make it less immaterial. Matter has properties like mass and momentum, such properties can't be meaningfully applied to consciousness.

You can not identify the mass or momentum of the force gravity this minute, if asked. Besides, physical laws would also fit your definition of immaterial. That hasn't stopped people from coming up with theories involving them. You need a better basis for your objection to a theory of consciousness.

Hideous motherf_ckers all over the place tho.

UyiIredia:
No, you aren't.

Lucky me.

So, what accounts for the universe existence. Itself ? Or God ?

I'm assuming that there are things that can't be accounted for, mainly because assuming otherwise leads to the infamous infinite regress. As we demand for an account of existence we have to keep in mind that there might simply be no account. That being said, I don't know what accounts for the existence of the universe.

Actually a lawless universe cannot possibly look like ours. It's taking any form means it won't adhere to a given configuration or set of laws as our universe does.

Being lawless entails permissibility, or a lack of prohibitions (I actually doubt that there is a tidy definition of randomness or lawlessness). Also, randomness implies unpredictability. If you know what to expect from a random universe, is it truly a random universe?

Actually, codes are laws themselves. They are rules which determine how a given physical system can represent another. For example the word 'water' representing a given thing.

If codes are laws, then they are similar to the natural laws. What is the basis of distinguishing them from any other natural law?

How can that be possible when consciousness is immaterial ?

Given that consciousness is strictly always found in material or physical things, it is preemptive to label it immaterial.

I hope I'm not too late for the party.

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

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.

So?

The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

Precisely because it is lawless an unordered universe can take any form and it could pretty much look like ours. There is nothing to stop it from doing so. So for all we know our universe is unordered, in the most fundamental sense.

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.

Do the genetic codes follow any laws? You left that out.

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.

Do you have proof that it is impossible for there to be a materialistic theory of consciousness?

Poor girl.

That toilet is strangely blood free.

If you expect foreigners to worship your God, then it's not out of place for you to worship foreign Gods.

Obviously Yahweh offers assasinations as part of his package. #hitman.

tobechi74:
whenever she mentions marriage,run

Lol. I don't know if it's marriage phobia you have or it's commitment phobia. Assuming the girl doesn't mention marriage and you don't dispose off her till the end of your days, isn't the life long relationship between both of you akin to marriage?

tobechi74:
Understand and get the mentality that girls are disposable. The moment you begin feeling that some girl is not disposable, you are setting up yourself to be hurt

When is the girl to be disposed off; is it after a year, 2, 5, 10, 20 or at the end of your life?

Joshthefirst:
And I say that the fact that something currently exists throws away the possibility of nothingness. The fact that something currently exists shows that something always existed, because nothing cannot create something.

I don't mean that there was actually a time when nothing existed. What I mean is that reality could have turned out differently such that there would have been nothing at all, instead of the richness we have now. I'm saying that I don't see the necessity of anything existing, that is, I sometimes wonder why there should be anything at all. You can only rule out the possibility of nothingness if you have the answer to that question.

OK. Let's take things one by one. I say the source is personal, because only volition can cause our universe to be birthed from eternity.

I don't think volition is the only option. Like I said the universe could have been unstable as a singularity. Even physicists will tell you that physical laws breakdown in a singularity. A state in which laws have broken down is far from stable, if you ask me. Of course this is just my lay person's view.

But Space-time has been shown to have a physical origin. So it cannot be eternal.

Now you're assuming that nothing physical can be eternal.

I mean you have to show the creator of this universe is not timeless and spaceless before you can say the creator might have been created, as a timeless and spaceless creator is uncreated.

My point is that you cannot show anything about what exists outside this universe. There could be time and space out there, or there couldn't. How are you to know, one way or the other? I don't think space and time have any feature that limits their appearance to this universe.

Joshthefirst:
The non-existence of anything is not feasible because we already have something existing. And something cannot arise from nothing.

Yes, something currently exists. However, everything could also not have existed. That's what I mean when I say nothingness is a possibility.

The bang refers to the explosion of everything about our universe, including space-time from some "ancient energy".

The "ancient energy" you call God. I'm merely trying to show you that it could just as well not be "God".

I do not think the universe is eternal. Your question of why there is a universe solves the question of the PERSON of its cause. Only an act of volition will cause the birth of the universe from infinity. Only volition will cause something of our universe's nature to be. Again. Nothing cannot create something, therefore a state of " nothingness" is not feasible, meaning that an eternal personality has always existed. Super abounding and being infinity itself.

I thing you are just repeating yourself here, that eternity=personality.

This does not invalidate the argument but only makes the argument repeat itself for a different space time.

I'm trying to say that spacetime can be eternal. That would invalidate the argument.

How is it possible that this universe had a creator who was created? You might say it is possible this universe might have sprung from a previous one, but you can't say it has a creator who might have been created, because you'll have to adequately challenge the attributes of the cause of this universe, adequately arguing that the cause itself would be less than infinite with regards to time and space so that it will be able to have an origin itself, as infinity has no origin.

I couldn't understand you here. Could you explain a bit?

As you have implied, the reason I have ruled it out is because only a volitional act can explain why something like our universe came into being. Why did eternity continue in its own singularity?

Perhaps the singularity is inherently unstable. Perhaps this universe is one of the possible states of the singularity. These are options.

Joshthefirst:
Sheer nothingness is logically and physically incoherent and not feasible.

I beg to differ. I think the non existence of anything at all is a possible state of things, if you can call such blankness a state. Try to imagine a condition where anything you can think of is not.

The Universe is not just said to have reached its present state but is said to have gotten its origin in a 'big bang'

If the universe means the whole of existence, then it includes whatever it was that banged. The bang refers the inflation of the universe, before the bang the universe was infinitely dense. It could have existed in that infinitely dense state forever, before banging.

No actually. Eternity is essentially infinity. And it is essentially causeless. Unless you have an idea of an infinity of origin that you might want to share. I'm willing to listen

I mean "cause" in the sense of the answer to the question "why does A exist and not B?". For example, why is there an eternal universe? or, why is there an eternal God? Why isn't there nothingness instead?

Our universe (including space-time) is said to have had an abrupt beginning. I make the conclusion that anything sans space an time is eternity, infinity. And infinity is in all directions and uncaused. And there's a problem of infinite regress if one sticks to your train of thought.

We can only speak for our space-time. If we must speak of something outside the universe, what entitles us to assume that it has not space-time of its own?

My train of thought is not infinite regress per se, but a finite series. It is entirely possible that this universe has a creator who was in turn created. The idea is that it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the ultimate creator directly created our universe.

Space and time are said to have originated with the big bang so the cause is necessarily immaterial, timeless and spaceless.

It follows that the cause is personal, because only conscious choice and action and even "thought" can account for the burst of energy and matter and space time and our universe in the absence of former conditions.

This does not follow at all. Like I'm suggesting, the cause could also be an impersonal, eternal singularity. Have you ruled it out, and if yes, why?

It is not entirely clear that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. If something begins to exist out of sheer nothingness, can you even point to its starting point?

The universe is said to have gotten to its present state due to the big bang, which I guess is the beginning you are referring to. What if in its previous state it had existed forever?

It is not entirely clear that eternity is devoid of a cause either, and it is proper to ask "what is the cause of this eternal state of affairs?"

The universe may have a cause but it is not logically necessary for the cause to be itself uncaused. E.g. man is the cause of computers but man is not uncaused.

Similarly, it is not logically necessary for the cause to be immaterial, timeless and space less. The cause is free to have its own time, space and material.

It also does not follow that the cause is personal. How did you arrive at this?

One implication of our being imagined by God is that every single one of the thoughts which you think are yours are actually God's. If this is true, I can authoritatively tell you right now that God may be having a headache.

twosquare:
. To be serious, God is saying it is a sin to be dead. We all think we're alive but we are not. A new born baby is born dead, just as we all are. And that's what God consider a sin. All men are dead, they are not alive. Being in the flesh is not the same as being alive. That's the judgement and God considers those who are dead sinners and what He wants is that all be made alive in Him. So, when you see a new born with blinking innocent eyes, it is not alive, it is not innocent....such a baby has been contaminated at womb. It is like a virus passed on.

So, technically, we're giving birth to dead children, just as we were given birth as one.

In other words, we are dead, not alive, and it is a sin to be dead. This is a questionable state of affairs, but who are we to question how things have been made? Thanks for your input.