₦airaland Forum

me: vestigials
the haphazard quality of nature's designs
common ancestry and evidence for links amongst lifeforms
the inevitable conclusions of natural selection, mutations and time
the observable effects of micro-evolution and artificial selection

All these are scientific hogwash?

genius: Yes.

me: All the hoopla about the Higgs BOSON last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims......

............

.....But that's besides the point anyways, as whatever is responsible is a BOSON, they are the force carrier particles

genius: Magic particles, you mean. No difference really.

I read it up. Bosons are hypothetical. They DON'T explain how the sustenance and movement of the planets are effected. 'Bosons-did-it'
doesn't cut it.

Let me rewind that

me: All the hoopla about the Higgs [size=14pt]BOSON[/size] last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims.

genius: Magic particles, you mean. No difference really.

I read it up. Bosons are hypothetical. They DON'T explain how the sustenance and movement of the planets are effected. 'Bosons-did-it'
doesn't cut it.

Did you even stop to ponder why it's called the Higgs [size=14pt]BOSON[/size]?

http://www.livescience.com/27888-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html

livescience: "The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is," said CMS spokesperson Joe Incandela in a statement.

Cool. So its not been fully ascertained, but it looks very likely and the predictions seem in order.

Ah! What say you? They've not been observed yet? Still complaining about how bosons are hypothetical magical particles? Perhaps you think your less magical god in all its immaterial, baseless complexity is more likely than the 'magical' bosons.

Ok, ok, to settle this, what about other bosons? Like say photons. Wait?! Those photons used in just about every electronic device?!

wiki: Photons have many applications in technology. These examples are chosen to illustrate applications of photons per se, rather than general optical devices such as lenses, etc. that could operate under a classical theory of light. The laser is an extremely important application and is discussed above under stimulated emission.

Individual photons can be detected by several methods. The classic photomultiplier tube exploits the photoelectric effect: a photon landing on a metal plate ejects an electron, initiating an ever-amplifying avalanche of electrons. Charge-coupled device chips use a similar effect in semiconductors: an incident photon generates a charge on a microscopic capacitor that can be detected. Other detectors such as Geiger counters use the ability of photons to ionize gas molecules, causing a detectable change in conductivity.

I guess your computer runs on magic then. Exactly what sort of engineer are you planning to be btw?

Btw, you do know gravity is responsible for orbits, so wtf are you on about? Gravity and all the forces are powered by spirit-power?
............................

me: ie you're ignorant? No $hit sherlock..

^^^In before you try to claim you speak only of the graviton - you weren't


https://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2007-11-26.jpg

^^^ Sums it up brilliantly. Willfully blind/ignorant just because you want to squeeze GOD!! into it. More likely just foo.lish though.


https://artfulwriter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/dog-whargarbl.jpg
^^^Sums up the post, and it's some of the finest I've ever seen


Ok, I don't think you could sink any lower (unless you can pull off some miracle), so this time I'm probably gone for good. Kudos for now.

Uyi Iredia: You speak schizo too well, for a sane person.

Ty, high praise ideed, considering you're the expert.

Uyi Iredia: No, by addressing a part.

Get rid of that teacher, find one with experience dealing with "special" kids (or pls ask her to do that for you). Also, I'll be using colors to aid you. I understand some 'special' people learn more easily when colors are involved, I hope it works on you as well.

Now, ask your new teacher 'does this post address only a portion of mine?'.

To highlight, were these not your words?

Uyi Iredia: It is in fact tenable. The very presence of materialists prove this. But for the purpose of advancing my belief and because of my belief I'm BOUND to say it's untenable.[/color]

When I say the statement in red is enough for me, just how in your universe does that amount to cherry picking? Here

confusionist; "I think rap is $hit, but I can see why some people dig it"
sane; "Cool. The bolded is enough for me"
confusionist; "YOU'RE CHERRY PICKING MY STAMENTS!!!"

Indeed, if anyone is being taken out of context, it is I!!. And note, asides from the fact that I do NOT modify your meaning in any way, I also actually address your other points in that post (even though I really didn't want to), yet you accuse me of cherry picking? Then what exactly are YOU doing now by ignoring the rest of my post? Not to mention claiming I did not represent your position

I suppose the sane man should never have bothered with the confusionist in the first place.

Uyi Iredia: God is non-contingent, conscious and intelligent energy. This effected the material world and it (Dog's intelligence) is expressed through the material world. Ergo, God like humans expresses it's intellect thru matter. Unlike humans, it's thinking is not contingent on matter.

And, for the nth time, you assert that intelligence, feelings, etc, need a material base. SO WHY DOES GOD GET A FREE PASS? The only reason you've given is you used intelligence to discern the universe may be different. Therefore; DOG!! Checkmate atheists...

Excellent.

Uyi Iredia: Darwin's ghost told me when you were jizzing off.

Leave Darwin out of this. It's a respectable pursuit, everyone jizzes excepting asexual folk, of course. In your case, I'm sure you're all too familiar with having a special relationship with your hand.

Very clearly those assumptions you make are FALSE. Lightning, brains, the FACT of evolution, etc, all possible without intelligence, else we wouldn't be here now. As above, where did the intelligence spring out of? Nowhere? Really? You notice how complex objects are built from simple -> complex? You notice how intelligence requires a complex, material base to manifest?

Uyi Iredia: Indeed. Like the unproven assumption that physical laws will never change.

And where, in your oh so infinite specialness, did you note me make that assumption? Every.single.thing.needs.to.be.pointed.out.to.you. Everything. I appreciate the work of special needs teachers more.

BOTH SCENARIOS ARE ASSUMPTIONS, SO YOUR CONCLUSIONS FROM EITHER COULD ONLY BE THAT, ASSUMPTIONS

As for deductions and likelihoods, we don't know if the universe could be any other way. We don't. We do know though that it is this way, so that is the point any sane man would start from. Your scenario is indubitably an assumption yet you bandy it about like a fact, therefore you've already failed.

To make matters worse your scenario, even if indulged, does not in any way lead to your conclusion. You used intelligence therefore intelligence is necessary to create it? Wtf?!

Uyi Iredia: And does intelligence have the relationship described wrt those materials. Did intelligence destroy the universe yet, mr wiegraf ?

Don't worry, we'll soon build a mega-black-hole that will suck up the whole universe. CERN's working on it. But wait...this means CERN created the universe..

Uyi Iredia: Am I ? Someone seems to think aliens made number 1.

Is that really what you got from that exchange? The sad part is I'm not sure if troll or serious. How in whargarbl does abstract = aliens?

Uyi Iredia: Nah men !

Same way the magic wand of random mutation and natural selection has been invoked ad infinitum and not ad nauseum.

ok

Uyi Iredia: Take out your thyroids and tonsils, a doctor once argued they were vestigial. It is in fact, for example if you retina faced front instead of back, 'twould be over 3 days before you can reply me - it's that sensitive. You design a living thing from inorganic matter and you may perharps have some bragging rights.

We have a winner here. I'm completely stumped. You win. I gree.

Wait! Is this the same retina that is inside out and features a needless blind spot?

wiki page posted earlier:
The eyes of many taxa record their evolutionary history in their contemporary anatomy. The vertebrate eye, for instance, is built "backwards and upside down", requiring "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns."[32] While such a construct seems to have drawbacks, it allows the outer retina of the vertebrates to sustain higher metabolic activities as compared to the non-inverted design.[33] It also allowed for the evolution of the choroid layer, including the retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells, which play an important role in protecting the photoreceptive cells from photo-oxidative damage.[34] [35]

The camera eyes of cephalopods, in contrast, are constructed the "right way out", with the nerves attached to the rear of the retina. This means that they do not have a blind spot. This difference may be accounted for by the origins of eyes; in cephalopods they develop as an invagination of the head surface whereas in vertebrates they originate as an extension of the brain.

You think your good god could have calibrated it to be, you know, less sensitive? Do note, you aren't even making the case for a conscious being behind the creation of the univeres, eg setting the constants (the only place anywhere where there could be possible questions), manipulating events so that evolution will take place, etc. You're far more foo.lish. You believe this intelligence was actively involved in designing/making humans and all the other life. A good and proper creationist. You also insinuate this great galaxy was created just for us and our specially designed brains. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean all sentient life (though I'm quite sure you don't, let's just say I'm being optimistic).

So, again, could he not have come up with better, optimized designs? For instance, we stand at the cusp of immortality, or at least vastly extended lifespans (something most life craves), are getting rid of faulty issues with our design eg susceptibility to cancer, etc. In essence, unlocking the full potential of our bodies. These we've/will achieve in how many years since the age of enlightenment?

Your god has supposedly been around for eternity, immaterial and all. Somehow effecting events and tuning stuff to meet his grand design? So, why did he require billions of years to achieve sentience via humans, and why is the design in now way optimized, no quality, with just about good enough to deal with nature?

You really think all these;

vestigials
the haphazard quality of nature's designs
common ancestry and evidence for links amongst lifeforms
the inevitable conclusions of natural selection, mutations and time
the observable effects of micro-evolution and artificial selection

All these are scientific hogwash?

You even mention ID as if it were some sort of science...

Uyi Iredia: Now to the cogent matter. You don't argue that physical events have never been observed to make specified complexity. You plead for Mr Time and Mrs Chance. No evidence. Excuse me. I pointed out facts. Go make a plea in the courts.

See above, and as for time, do you dispute how stars are born? Or even say some of the more mundane like mountains are formed? Would you like to sit around for a few million years to observe this processes take place despite their obvious logical conclusions and evidence of these events taking place? So because you were not there and cannot live the millions of years required to observe these phenomena, someone must have created them?

Uyi Iredia: And you are, smart. For believing despite the fact that mutations and NS made species with purpose. I'm 'quite', you ARE föölish

Made with purpose?!
If natural selection qualifies, then yes. But is natural selection conscious? OBVIOUSLY NOT

Uyi Iredia: Now to the more cogent matter: you SIDESTEPPED the fact that intelligence has been (even as you later propose that humans customise their brain) the only property observed capable of making objects that simulate living things.

ME!:
Extra powerful computers do not require a designer. As for 'good', with nature it's "good enough" that counts.

Oh boy, I pity your teachers.

Lemme guess, I'm cherry picking or misrepresenting you or my case, yes?

Uyi Iredia: Why should it ? You make a brain from nothing, then it'll and I will agree humans are unto something. To be candid, I don't think God petty, unlike mr whargarbl.

If he's mature about it, then I'm sure our genius scientists will share with him. And I do hope you're not whining, or do you think you cover yourself in glory in your exchanges?

Uyi Iredia: Classic case of cherry-picking. Ignore other facts with ad-hominems. Point out a fact you agree with.

Oh! I see one of the problems. You clearly don't know what cherry-picking is. Oh dear.

Uyi Iredia: So no empirical basis. You have presented NOTHING as evidence for what holds the earth in space and what makes it move in a certain order. Classic 'boson-of-the-gaps' argument.

You're right, bosons don't exist, there's no empirical basis for them. All the hoopla about the Higgs BOSON last year was an elaborate ploy setup by the scientific community looking to extort us so they could buy those 20' rims. They need the blingin' too. In actuality, pixie dust is all we need. Bosons? DoHOHOHO. Don't make me laugh, that foolish nonsense created by those meddling scientists.

See the big a$$ accelerator they used to search for the Higgs? As that article linked above indicates, you'd need one the size of jupiter to even remotely stand the chance of detecting gravitons. There are other ways of verifying their existence though, as indicated there.

But that's besides the point anyways, as whatever is responsible is a BOSON, they are the force carrier particles

wiki article earlier: Bosons contrast with fermions, which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (see Pauli exclusion principle).

Since bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter (although in quantum physics the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut).

Focus on the bolded. Read up.

Uyi Iredia: I can't know everything you know. Do you know who Ihiokpamwonyi is ?

And where did anyone imply you need know everything? However, if you're going to discuss golf, don't you think you should AT LEAST know the rules first?

Uyi Iredia: I struggle to understand and see flaws with the basics of evolution

You don't say.

Even if you did understand, you clearly want to hold onto the belief of some santa.

And do note, you know how science works? If there's an issue, it gets off its a$$ and looks for a solution. It does not "GOD!!". Look around, that has worked very well for us, unlike "GOD!!"

Uyi Iredia: as thehomer would say " . . . profound ignorance". I know the basics, even the intermediates. I struggle with the basics of evolution the same way you struggle with ID or creationist basics.

.....
I struggle with creationist basics?!.................
...

Uyi Iredia: If I didn't consider you intelligent sufficiently dull, we wouldn't be talking.

And then.....so? Ty for gracing me with your unadulterated nonsense?

Uyi Iredia: Then what were you referring to. Clarification matters.

My opinion about what you find interesting.......4k, every single thing needs to be spelled out..

Uyi Iredia: God, I don't think, is bothered with appelations. Call it a kitten if you like.

Actually, how can a non-existant being be bothered in the first place?




Now, there is far too much folly in your average post, enough to fit a novella if one were to be honest. Not to mention, while I'm sure it is genuine foo.lishnes, it's still hard to discard the notion that this a troll, as foo.lishness of this level is rarely encountered in people supposedly of the non-sheeple variety. 3? years of training for this? Usually when the hero goes on a 3 year training arc he comes back with impressive techniques, while you have this? Even if what you were saying overall turned out correct, your reasoning is at its very best risible.

Think on the above. If you need any diagrams to help you digest any of these topics, please ask your kindly teacher or god (AKA google) to help. There's only so much folly sane non-qualified folk can endure.

Kudos.

Edits; spambot ban, etc

I admit it, this is mind-shattering stuff. I was going to get high, but the foo.lishness on display helped me achieve that, ty. Get your crayons ready, let's see if I can speak schizo

Uyi Iredia: I see that. Just that you cherry-picked. I point that out and you ask non-sequiturs.

I cherry picked by addressing the whole post?

Uyi Iredia: I don't give a hoot.

Erm, good for you?

Uyi Iredia: Its intelligence, unlike humans, is not-contingent on matter. I repeat this again, if its intellect depends on matter it isn't God.

This is you earlier.

Uyi Iredia: I agree intelligence to be made manifest requires a physical base.

Do you have a sane, coherent, non-m.oronic kindergarten teacher around you? Yes? Does s/he have treats to give you when you're a good boy? Yes? Good. Then please ask him to explain to you how these two statements above $hit all over each other.

Uyi Iredia: Indeed, it bedevils us all. Some see it. Some evotards don't.



I can agree Santa made it. Much closer home than aliens.

Refer to the teacher, s/he may be able to explain in your terms.

Uyi Iredia: Which proves my point. Design is needed for computers and electricity generation - not 'Mrs Evolution'.

Oh wow..Like mind-blown..
Just how in whargarbl did you come to that conclusion?!

Uyi Iredia: It isn't really. Counter-intuitive is how even evolutionists describe their pet theory. However,
a simple inference

We know the physical world could operate differently.
We know this using intelligence.
Ergo, we infer intelligence behind the physical world.

Bolded is a patent assumption

Now, assuming you were indulged, because you used a tool to discern the universe could be different, that means intelligence is behind the universe? Wow. Let's see, I used a sledge hammer to break down a door, that means a sledge hammer was used to make the door. I used a knife to skin a goat, therefore, the knife created the goat.

Are you that desperate for santa?

Uyi Iredia: Oh the patent nonsense from $hitheads such as you, who claim skeptics don't grasp evolutionary basics. You and I see mostly harmful mutations. You wallow in ignorance, I'll keep my reason - thank you ! Evolution of the eye FAILS to show how the eye evolved. Light-sensitive spots in cave-dwelling animals are gesticulated at and then a lot of hand-waving that evolution of the eye started from them. You miss the point. Say from fish-mammals. You need a different kind
of retina, visual cortex, iris etc. All these must happen at once b4 u got a mammal eye from a fish eye. Let the story begin !

Refer to the teacher. And be nice to her or she might not give you good things.

Pore through the details, look for gaps, apply god. That has never failed humanity. There's a saying from einstein about madness being repeating the same folly, over and over again. Enjoy

Uyi Iredia: An earlier (modified) post

"I revert back to the crucial question of life. Creationists and ID theorists can confidently say that:

• undirected matter is limited in what it can
make (montmorollite crystals, diamonds, snows
etc)

Again, m.oron, this is false when you factor in chance and time. And if you want to see haphazard design, look at the awesomeness that is vestigial organs and 99% of uselessness. What an excellent designer your god is.

Uyi Iredia: • intelligence (as especially seen in humans)
makes systems which simulates life (the way
all living things are made from encoded DNA or
RNA is some viruses) and they hardly say this,

Yes, because humanity is vewy special and santa lurvs you so spwecially. He created this gargantuan universe just for you. You're quite foo.lish.

Indeed, our brains are optimized. Should those nasty scientists create therapies that fully optimize/unlock the potential of our brains, mayhaps even give us the ability to customize, etc, will your god get jealous?

Uyi Iredia: • intelligence (thoughts, feelings, beliefs,
chimeras etc) is necessarily expressed through
material means.

You noticed?!

Uyi Iredia: Of course, any one (using intelligence) can
argue for or against these, either for the sake of, or because of a bias but these 3 propositions are factual.

Uyi Iredia: I concluded, therefore that the materialist position confutes itself because it (by
definition) denies the existence of what makes it possible while using it intelligence to propose how life and indeed the universe arose. From those 3 facts it can be reasonably inferred that intelligence is a crucial factor to life arising from matter."

Uyi Iredia: Good. Space-time is intelligent. To help you, note that only intelligent dudes talk about it.

Uyi Iredia: One, it's hypothetical. Two, it fails to answer the question. You see, you should show HOW the whatever is reponsible directs the earth's movement and supports it.

And it may never be observed individually, due to gravity's nature. But it can be inferred both logically and indirectly, eg, gravitational waves

wiki page linked earlier:
Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector.[13] The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole.[13]

However, experiments to detect gravitational waves, which may be viewed as coherent states of many gravitons, are underway (e.g., LIGO and VIRGO). Although these experiments cannot detect individual gravitons, they might provide information about certain properties of the graviton. For example, if gravitational waves were observed to propagate slower than c (the speed of light in a vacuum), that would imply that the graviton has mass (however, gravitational waves must propagate slower than "c" in a region with non-zero mass density if they are to be detectable).[14]

But you struggle with the basics of evolution. Sort that out first before looking at other topics

Uyi Iredia: I hardly know about Higgs' boson. Simply, inferences and deductions from elementary physics.

ie you're ignorant? No $hit sherlock..

Uyi Iredia: So Occam's razor helps you understand propositions ? You really are dull. Deducing, I repeat, you are dull.

If you considered me intelligent, then I'd worry. Use occam's razor to try to figure out what why no one understands your nonsense. In crayon-speak, what is the most simple explanation that explains why everyone thinks your whargarbl is unmatched? This is a very simple task, can you manage it?

Uyi Iredia: I'm referring to the nonsense you posted.

And that's not what I was referring to my good m.oron. Che..

Anyhoo, enjoy your DOG DID IT!!!!

Uyi Iredia: You're a daft you know. You pointed out a part of an earlier statement and left out the others.

Che.. Well then, good genius, did you or did you not make that statement, yes or no?

If your answer is yes, could you please tell me in your infinite wisdom why you planted a di.ldo up your own a$$? Do I ever state you didn't post anything else? Wasn't the rest of the post addressing your other issues?!

Actually, I did NOT even want to post a reply, just highlight that particular bit and leave you to your whargarbl. I only posted a somewhat detailed response because I did not want to make your lengthy post seem wasted, call it decorum. That's basically the "other reasons" I speak about in my initial reply.

So, I repeat, that part of the post was enough for me. All I wanted from you was to acknowledge that materialism is a reasonable stance. I hope that's clear now. However, you've now caught my attention, so, time allowing, let's explore your folly..

If your answer is no, well then...

Uyi Iredia: How is it baseless ?

In case you missed it

me: You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

So how did your super-immaterial god become intelligent? Ah, yes, the special pleading.

Uyi Iredia: Precisely. It is non-contingent, unlike humans. If it needed a physical base, it won't be God.

That special pleading thingie again.

Uyi Iredia: Who else did ? An alien.

No, santa did. He created numbers before he created himself. For instance, there is only 1 santa, however before 1 even existed, and note that he couldn't exist without the concept of the number 1 existing, santa created it.

So, all around the world, the people who discover mathematical laws, created them? I'll be damned, why have the eediots been wasting time with proofs, etc? They should just create the laws, simple. Eg, rather than prove pi = 3.14159, one should have just created any number, like 489ru24944534.434245434556, and called it pi, no? Or rather than show 1 + 1 = 2, they should just create a new answer, like 1 + 1 = "ARE YOU RE.TARDED?", no?

Uyi Iredia: I'll take you seriously when Intel and co goes out of business, due to a supercomputer being made by your precious evolution.

I'll take you seriously when NEPA goes out of business due to natural phenomena producing electricity

Uyi Iredia: I can't. You'll have to infer it.

Again

Because you say so?

Please explain why I should just accept something you yourself admit you cannot explain. Or did I cross into sheeple territory? Do it slowly, as this is so counter-intuitive a notion to digest that your answer has to be something epic and monumental, changing the very way we look at the universe like general relativity or quantum mechanics did.

Uyi Iredia: So, it's haphazard when it's God, but 'good enough' when it's evolution. Not to mention tje patent $tupidity in proposing rare 1% beneficial mutations as how species evolved. Design an eye from the scratch, I'll take you a bit more seriously.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

wiki: The majority of genetic mutations neither assist, change the appearance of, nor bring harm to individuals. Through the process of genetic drift, these mutated genes are neutrally sorted among populations and survive across generations by chance alone. In contrast to genetic drift, natural selection is not a random process because it acts on traits that are necessary for survival. Natural selection and random genetic drift are constant and dynamic parts of life and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life.

Please, read the above slowly. You seem to have problems grasping the very basics of evolution. Again, s-l-o-w-l-y. And let's even ignore the HARMFUL mutations..

To give you a wider scope, through time, exactly how many species overall have ended up extinct?

For evolution of eye. I'd rather you learned how to use google though..

Uyi Iredia: It is. You OTOH believe a primordial concoction made the first universal common ancestor.

Go back here

me: You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

Then do tell, cogently, how your view makes more sense.

me: Clearly, yes. You said everything exists as an abstraction. Now, are abstractions material or immaterial ?

They are playing golf.

me: Yeah ! Unfortunately you propound an 'evolution-of-the-gaps' argument.

No, I propound a "please-be-reasonable" argument.

Uyi iredia: God (conscious, intelligent energy) perforce effected our universe. What you call space I call God. Luckily for me, you've stated space is something.

WWoooooaaahhh. Mind blown. But how does that help your case? I suppose spacetime is intelligent? I can see it, right now besides me, just thinking about breakfast as well...

Uyi iredia: God. Let's assume bosons hold it up. We still have space, lots of it, underneath, so how is it held up. Not to mention your bosons hardly account for the movement of the planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

wiki: In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson.

As are all forces IIRC. Perhaps you've taken the hype about the higg's boson too literally and decided it really is the "god" particle?

Uyi iredia: It's not my fault you're dense. You make no effort to get what I say.

And, despite being fairly intelligent, everyone else on this thread and others also failed to make an effort to get what you say?

Use occam's razor and try and deduct (very likely) why no one understands you pls.

Uyi iredia: A flawed opinion.

How can something as subjective as say selecting your favorite color be objectively flawed? Or are you, as usual, just spouting another (silly) subjective opinion?

Uyi Iredia: Cherry-picking I see.

What are you smoking? Did you or did you not post that?

Uyi Iredia: I see. So you were forced to reply me. My thought: free-will in humans is pre-determined.

Italicized, yes. But that's not necessary atm.

Uyi Iredia: I agree intelligence to be made manifest requires a physical base. I also agree that an intelligent God is the nexus of the material world. Especially since I know physical laws could be different.

The bolded is completely baseless. And agreed with who? You agree that intelligence requires a physical base to manifest, yet somehow god is intelligent without a physical base?

Uyi Iredia: Why do abstractions exist by default ?

Again, see mathematics. Or do you think someone created the number '1'?

Uyi Iredia: Extra powerful computers don't need a designer. I guess the course I'm studying (Comp Engr) is needless. Intel and co also need not work since powerful computers don't need designers. Can Nature make a 'good enough' hut ?

So? The computer you're using now had a designer, that means all computers require a designer? That's ridiculous. NEPA generates electricity when they can be bothered, that automatically means all electricity requires a designer.

See your brain, or just about the brain of any organism, to see powerful computers created by no conscious agent.

Uyi Iredia: Actually, impetus is needed.

Because you say so? Do show me the conscious impetus behind the sun's shining.

Uyi Iredia: Any design involves trade-offs which could be taken to be flaws. Vestigial organs is, in fact, baseless.

So, deny the obvious, the extremely haphazard machinations of nature? The 99% of genetic mutations that end up being redundant, and lock them away as baseless? As logical trade-offs? 99% useless mutations = logical trade off? How incompetent of a designer is your god then?

Uyi Iredia: Yet, materials organizing themselves into living organisms is not absurd - right !

Good, but god just immaterially organized himself. Much more sensible.

Uyi Iredia: The physical world, is also, an abstraction - going by the bolded.

Clearly no. But it exists as an abstraction as well. Erm, why does this need pointing out?

Uyi Iredia: They are a folly, since they deny intelligence is the cause of matter (and life) using intelligence. If materialists were as dull as apes, there would be no debate.

Che..

Uyi Iredia: Evolution requires vast details - not known. I suggest God making earth and life involves vast details.

Yes, I know, god did it.

Uyi Iredia: I agree. I don't think you see what it implies.

Well.. Please enlighten me

Uyi Iredia: Bosons are sub-atomic particles that don't, in the least, answer my question.

So what holds it up, spiritual power? What should we do to keep everything in place, shout 'abracadabra'? Are you sure you know what bosons are?

Uyi Iredia: Feigning ignorance.

In case you haven't noticed, just about no one understands what you're on about.

Uyi Iredia: The materials are clearly purposeful too. Since they knew how to organize themselves into living systems that are based on a coded plan.

Ah...again..well..

Uyi Iredia: So consciousness exists, but not God. Interesting !

Not really, no. Then again, what one finds interesting is subjective, so this is just my opinion.

This was supposed to be a people come read then move on thread. Even I hadn't read all of that before posting it, as it was long. I just skimmed through. The haters showed up and brought attention to the thread (thank you very much, good bigots. Well, some of you are just bu.tthurt, kpele). And now you post something that merits attention. Meh. So..

never_say_never: I'm not in anyway against atheism, but I think the high level of security, harmony/unity play a bigger role in reducing crime rates, not the presence of sizeable atheist population. Technology plays even a bigger role. Africa lags behind in these areas, you know.

If our views on ethics differ, I think we should define it then. Ignorance causes what you consider as trillion-making in spirit power, education can tackle that, don't you think? Atheism operates on free will, so if unopposed, how long until all other free willed decisions be allowed? Then you'll see nothing wrong with prostitution, homosexuality, pedophilia, rape etc.

Most religious people are gullible quite all right, especially in Africa, but I put it to you, ignorance, illiteracy et al plays a large role in that.

Most of these countries you refer to have values and standards they stand for, and which they'll due protecting. So, what happens if Africa loses grip on the one value its well known for (morality), extinction?

This boils down to Africans can't be trusted to be civilized without coercion. I have to disagree. See the red, so are you saying we'll stop being moral without the gun to our heads? That doesn't make us very moral, or does it?

and now.........

Look at India, behind the west in just about every discipline they decided to focus on IT. Why? It was very successful in the rest of the world and required relatively little to succeed; it just requires mathematically inclined minds to be educated, and they had many of those. Did the west get to be successful via a focus on IT? No, it was mostly the industrial revolution (and guns) with a focus on manufacturing. Did India need to copy the (rather more expensive) industrialization processes which involved manufacturing in order to succeed? No. A new, less expensive way to achieve industrialization had become possible and indeed the west was starting to look in that direction; focusing on services like IT. They took that path and succeeded.

Point here being that even if (and a big IF) I were to indulge you and accept that religion like the abrahamics were crucial or pivotal at some point or the other during the west's industrialization/domestication phase, it need not be necessary now. Service-oriented fiscal models have been shown to work, others even ape them and succeed. In fact, it's the sensible path to follow for a lot of developing countries, focusing on manufacturing would be silly for many of them. Same thing here. Secular societies have been shown to be successful near universally, it would be silly for us to then assume they will not be successful in africa, no?

Consider your labeling prostitution (assuming done right, mind you) and homosexuality to a list of 'immoral' things already aids my case. I can guarantee you cannot show me how these things are immoral by my standards, which simply is "do they infringe on the rights of others?". Clearly no. In fact, if you were to outlaw these without showing how they infringe on the rights of others then you would be the one (by my standards) CLEARLY infringing on the rights of others, and therefore doing something evil. (The quicker we learn our 'objective' ethical standards are not objective the better for us all IMO, people need to learn how to negotiate and respect the rights of others).

Now, I can only surmise there's some background religious motivation involved somewhere, and it's already proving to be insidious. For instance, say an Alan Turing shows up, a gay atheist. A clearly gifted mathematician capable of revolutionizing a field, like he did with computing (his work we are using at this very moment). Do we

a- Condemn him and lock him up for having teh ghey (his actual eventual fate, more or else), which is of course no good to our religious beliefs or
b- Realize his ghey atheism is absolutely not harming anyone else, or indeed is any business of anyone else, and therefore we should focus on his work and depending on the situation perhaps even support him?

Tell me which option do religious societies (of the abrahamic/hindu sort) gravitate towards?


Other quibles;
Most of these gullible folk you refer to are simply following doctrine; it's written there in your books. They do not understand the 'true' nature of these books? And the non-gullible ones do? Again, it's written there in your books, they can equally claim they are the 'true' religionists. See @olaadegbu (and he has some sort of education. He even teaches me new words. What the hell is 'nescient'? It's not even in my spellcheck... The one true god, google, knows about it though). These beliefs, whether in educated or no, carry along A LOT of baggage. Don't forget all the other witch hunts other than 'kill teh gheys' for instance, the collisions with science, the moral blank cheques, etc.

On a broader scale, what societies often require is an alpha that will settle disputes and protect the interests of everyone, thereby engendering trust between neighbors. Just like your wolf-pack alpha; set the laws, enact the laws, and protect the peace. Does so in the interest of everyone. In human societies, quite often that alpha is god(s) due to our ability to conceptualize. We don't need that anymore. Strong governments, effective rule of law in particular, can play that role. That is what we should be focusing on.

Also note, I've been using atheism through this, but strictly speaking atheism has little to do with this discussion. It's more humanism vs (some brands of) theism. Atheism comes with no dogma, philosophy, etc.

And no one said you were against atheism, it's simply my style of writing, don't misunderstand

I actually thought I posted this earlier...seems my connection died..

*Kails*:
and I understood why posted it.

I posted that because of this

*Kails*:
atheism is not about facts but rather emotion.

Since she's trying to justify her anger the piece is supposed to be emotional, and she states so at the beginning. These are not her reasons for being atheist, blah blah ... then again

*Kails*:
I just found it amusing.

Ahh, I see. I completely missed your intentions. No vex

*Kails*:
never that!!

never_say_never: That being said, morals and good ethics goers5goes better on a theisthic line than an atheistic one

This has been done to death. Look up HDI and countries with lowest crime rates. Most have considerable atheist populations, higher than average. Does atheism lead to less crime? I would say yes, but that's besides the point. What matters here is that the presence of sizable atheist populations does NOT increase the crime rate (indeed it seems to do the opposite), so this view holds no water.

Do note though what you consider ethical may not be what I consider ethical. But as far as rights are concerned, most would agree those developed countries are way ahead of the rest, eg the developing world. Or do you think 9ja, which generates trillions in spirit power and piousness, is more ethical? Your opinion, but I'd strongly have to disagree if you think so.

Also, who do you think is more 'good', the one good without coercion or the one who's being good because he has a gun to his head? What happens if you remove the gun or the person with the gun tells him to blow himself up and win 72 vi.rgins?

There's more, but this is enough I suppose.

Mr Troll: I think this my previous post is saying the same thing with all you just copied above.
Yo wiegraf, yield man. You posted wrong info about horus as compared to jesus. Why not simply accept that you didn't research properly before posting it?

And stop telling the troll when to be polite or not

Yield, why? Like I already said, I did. But I suppose you expect one to crawl through the entire internet while making a facetious post. Again, read the thread's title. And you still ignore the fact that the theme was not wrong, even if the details (in this particular case) are contentious.

Trolls aren't supposed to be polite unless its part of the endgame. I'll give you that your doing so is rather annoying and therefore trollish. I'll let this go as you didn't see the follow up and apologized for calling me a liar. But really..

Mr Troll: ok, sorry for calling you a liar. Thing is, about 80% of the facts posted there about horus as compared to jesus were false. Off the top of my head, only the part about his escape from Seth was similar to jesus' escape from Herod. So I say again, for the most part it doesn't check out.
I'm not a christian by the way, certainly not an apologist.

What sort of troll apologises? What sort of troll even announces his presence? Unless all this is a troll, you fail excellently as one..

Egyptologists agree with you about this particular case, but I still maintain this, the jesus legend, in its entirety, is mostly borrowed. There might have been a jesus, but all the miracles, practices and blah blah were pilfered from other cultures. The apologist site I quoted earlier, based on a book by this guy

apologist: There are several points that need to be made, I think, about all the parallels that exist between the stories of Jesus and other supposed “divine men” of ancient Greece and Rome. The first is that there were indeed a number of similarities between the ways Christians talked about Jesus and the ways pagans (and in some instances, Jews) talked about other “sons of God.” There is no point denying this (it comes as a huge surprise to my students. We have stories of other “divine men” from antiquity who were thought to have been supernaturally born; to have been preternaturally wise, religiously, while still youths; to have engaged in itinerate preaching ministries; to have done miracles such as miraculously feeding the hungry, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead; and at the end of their lives to have ascended to heaven. These other stories do exist (and not just about Apollonius of Tyana.))

But – the second point – the fact that Jesus was talked about in ways similar to how others were talked about does not mean that he (or they) did not exist. Some of these stories are told about figures who are absolutely and incontrovertibly historical (Alexander the Great; the Emperor Vespasian; Apollonius; and so on). If you wanted to tell stories about a figure you considered to be more than human, to be in some sense divine, these are the kinds of stories you told. That means that the stories about Jesus may well have been shaped by the expectations of the Jewish and pagan audiences to whom they were told, so that one needs to take that into account when deciding what actually happened in Jesus’ life. But as I indicated in my previous answer, this is unrelated to the question of whether Jesus actually existed.

And finally – my third point – it should be stressed that all of these figures about whom such stories were told were also different in key ways from one another. They were not all the same. The stories varied from one person to the next. The stories about Jesus are different in many ways from the others (just as each of them is different from the others). This is important to bear in mind because mythicists often claim that everything said about Jesus can be paralleled in the myths and legends told about other divine figures on earth. And that simply is not true. A number of the key stories about Jesus are in fact unique to him, including some of the most important.

Just to take two examples. As I spell out at greater lengths on one of my blog posts, even though there are numerous instances of divine men who are supernaturally born, there is no instance of a divine man being born to a “virgin,” as happens in the case of Jesus, for example in the Gospel of Matthew. The entire point of most of the pagan supernatural birth stories is that a (mortal) woman is made pregnant by a God, precisely by having sex with her (often in human form, though sometimes Zeus preferred being in the form of a swan, or a snake, or…. some other animal, for some odd reason). I don’t know of any instances in which a woman gives birth as a virgin. So too: the resurrection. The Gospel understanding of the resurrection is that Jesus came back into his body (a one-time corpse) which was then transformed and raised and exalted (explicitly in Luke-Acts) to heaven. This reanimation of the body type of resurrection is not attested, so far as I know, for any other divine man in antiquity.
This is an important point because mythicists want to claim that all the stories about Jesus were simply taken over from the pagan environment. And this is simply not true.

Again (still not sure why the post was hidden), bold says it all. The italicized is his case for differences, you (and anyone else reading, since it seems I have to spell it out..) judge.

^^^

Your usual ebullience, I can only but admire it.

This piece isn't about justifying atheism, it's about justifying (the sometimes observed) atheist anger

edit;might not need stating, but don't let anyone cramp your style

Mr Troll: I didn't see much of the follow ups after you put up that post but I'd llike to assume that if you wanna put up some 'factual' memes then you should make sure they check out. Secondly its not only the virgin birth similarity that's false and despite it being true that the Jesus guy shares some similarities with other ancient deities, this particular one with horus is inconsequential.

And I did check, even if not extensively, hence the bit about the vir.gins not being accurate, yes? Or do you think that came off the top of my head? I'm not an egyptologist (or even a hobbyist in such).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Misconceptions_in_Popular_Media

wiki: Misconceptions in Popular Media

The documentary movie Religulous (2008) and the book The Christ Conspiracy claim that Horus was born of a virgin. Egyptian texts demonstrate that Horus’ mother was the goddess Isis, and not a human virgin. Horus was conceived when Isis resurrected the dismembered god Osiris and had intercourse with him, which precludes the idea of virginity, and certainly parthenogenesis.

Notice mentions of pharaoh on that page? And again, 'for the most part the rest checks out'. I would think that if you wanted to subscribe to the ideas in that meme you'd verify what the 'most part' is, yes? We aren't exactly sheeple here. Again, even a responder (and you, as I'm assuming you just checked yourself) picked that up. Yet you accuse me of lying. Note this, you don't say I was mistaken or wrong, you say I was lying

It is not as inconsequential as you make it seem. There are parallels, that is undeniable. Again, after noting interest it generated I looked through more thoroughly and addressed this. Referencing an xtian apologist site, not even an atheist one. That pic may not be the most accurate around but there's some truth there.

Deep Sight: A comical response because nothing you have mentioned has anything to do with the discussion on atheism whatsoever.

A sound write-up, though.

Are you saying @anony's post merited a serious response?

Mr Troll: I hope y'all know that Wiegraf lied about the Horus and Jesus comparisons?

I'll let you go since the follow up was hidden, for mysteriousness reasons I suppose.

Mods, why'd you hide my post? Or does facebook god not qualify as a meme? We now have this area god slandering my not so good name?

And also note, mr troll, even in the initial post I state he was not born of a virgin, but the rest more or else checks out. After looking around I wouldn't say that pic is the most accurate around, but as I showed in my follow up, even apologists do NOT deny the parallels between jesus and other ressurected old gods. Myrtha, dyonisius included. (random; And there are also strong parallels between seth and...satan. Even the name gives it away...)

And most of the intended audience here have the good sense to verify themselves, as they themselves indicate when replying to that post. You see, we atheists like to do that, just like I assume you just did. The title here does say "atheists", yes? Not "sheeple", yes? Even in my follow up, I ask them to judge themselves if the apologist's arguments (claiming the similarities are inconsequential) hold any water.

Logicboy03: I dont blame Fellis on this occasion. Thisis a strong issue for her probably and she is trying to educate this chauvinist pigs but they wont learn.

See how low Anony has gone- defending pleep who posted an article and made dubious claims about since he didnt even read it in whole. He only read the part that he thought supported his argument.

Italicized, that's how it's going to remain. You need be a serious optimist if you expect to get through. It looks to me an exercise in futility, especially as all's been said already.

Bold, I stopped paying attention to good anony's posts quite a while ago, I'm not exactly reading through so I don't know the specifics of this thread (after my departure ie). However, I'd be genuinely surprised if you expected any better. As in, really... You seem to be the ultimate optimist..

@fellis, you seem to enjoy indulging folk..

Texas.Cowgirl:
Hilarious thread

Lmao @ the hippo

Wait, is Horus' bibliography true and accurate?

9jadelta: wow

i gotta do some research on this

[img]http://img1.nairaland.com/attachments/1156861_147-Jesus-vs_-Horus-590x706_jpg686a7c6fecedb89e15e04c3e0e12592a[/img]

may be jesus was just a myth afterall

Not all of that may be accurate, there is some debate. However, from an xtian apologist site

apologist: There are several points that need to be made, I think, about all the parallels that exist between the stories of Jesus and other supposed “divine men” of ancient Greece and Rome. The first is that there were indeed a number of similarities between the ways Christians talked about Jesus and the ways pagans (and in some instances, Jews) talked about other “sons of God.” There is no point denying this (it comes as a huge surprise to my students). We have stories of other “divine men” from antiquity who were thought to have been supernaturally born; to have been preternaturally wise, religiously, while still youths; to have engaged in itinerate preaching ministries; to have done miracles such as miraculously feeding the hungry, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead; and at the end of their lives to have ascended to heaven. These other stories do exist (and not just about Apollonius of Tyana.)

But – the second point – the fact that Jesus was talked about in ways similar to how others were talked about does not mean that he (or they) did not exist. Some of these stories are told about figures who are absolutely and incontrovertibly historical (Alexander the Great; the Emperor Vespasian; Apollonius; and so on). If you wanted to tell stories about a figure you considered to be more than human, to be in some sense divine, these are the kinds of stories you told. That means that the stories about Jesus may well have been shaped by the expectations of the Jewish and pagan audiences to whom they were told, so that one needs to take that into account when deciding what actually happened in Jesus’ life. But as I indicated in my previous answer, this is unrelated to the question of whether Jesus actually existed.

And finally – my third point – it should be stressed that all of these figures about whom such stories were told were also different in key ways from one another. They were not all the same. The stories varied from one person to the next. The stories about Jesus are different in many ways from the others (just as each of them is different from the others). This is important to bear in mind because mythicists often claim that everything said about Jesus can be paralleled in the myths and legends told about other divine figures on earth. And that simply is not true. A number of the key stories about Jesus are in fact unique to him, including some of the most important.

Just to take two examples. As I spell out at greater lengths on one of my blog posts, even though there are numerous instances of divine men who are supernaturally born, there is no instance of a divine man being born to a “virgin,” as happens in the case of Jesus, for example in the Gospel of Matthew. The entire point of most of the pagan supernatural birth stories is that a (mortal) woman is made pregnant by a God, precisely by having sex with her (often in human form, though sometimes Zeus preferred being in the form of a swan, or a snake, or…. some other animal, for some odd reason). I don’t know of any instances in which a woman gives birth as a virgin. So too: the resurrection. The Gospel understanding of the resurrection is that Jesus came back into his body (a one-time corpse) which was then transformed and raised and exalted (explicitly in Luke-Acts) to heaven. This reanimation of the body type of resurrection is not attested, so far as I know, for any other divine man in antiquity.
This is an important point because mythicists want to claim that all the stories about Jesus were simply taken over from the pagan environment. And this is simply not true.

The bolded says it all. Stories, borrowing from old and mixing with new, intended to appeal to the audience of the day (for some mysteriousness reason it still appeals to sheeple... well, indoctrination is not so mysterious I suppose). The italicized is some of his case for differences in the myths. It looks weak to me, but you judge.

random; dyonisius also strongly resemble jesus, Mithra and practices sorrounding his religion closely resemble xtian practices. And satan is more or else egyptian seth.

And more facebook god. You don't believe in miracles? He is god afterall, no miracles for him

Uyi Iredia: It is in fact tenable. The very presence of materialists prove this. But for the purpose of advancing my belief and because of my belief I'm BOUND to say it's untenable.

First off, the bold is enough for me, but I'll address some of your points for various reasons.

Uyi Iredia: I would certainly hope mp3 players and calculators think. Unfortunately, I wonder how you'll feel if your computer went to reddit.net when you wanted to log-in to Nairaland, of course, it will assuage your fears by telling you it thinks reddit is more suited to your types. Animals, yes they do have intelligence but it appears there are limits to what they can grasp. I wonder if a chimpanzee would pick up interest, in say, classical music or calculus.

Computers don't go off to reddit because they lack emotions. No desire on their side to do anything, as they have no 'wills'. But you, that has emotions and what not, could always program one to do so. ie, to achieve your aims.

I don't think even we have free will, but I'll just ignore that for now.

Uyi Iredia: Not magic really. Pardon the oncoming 'rambling'. I'm trying to understand reality in terms of one fundamental thing. Materialists say matter. I pick intelligence. You look at the matter which intelligence is expressed. I OTOH note that intelligence is not the attribute of matter, in itself. That's why brains outside bodies are useless as stones, that's why corpses with brains cannot think. You reduce it to matter. I infer intelligence.

Intelligence exists as an abstract concept. Then again, everything exists as an abstract concept by default. You don't create them, you discover them, see maths. However, intelligence requires a material base to manifest, not the other way round. Note, abstract may or may not, but intelligence definitely requires matter.

Uyi Iredia: On magic, I must say I find one ironic thing: it necessarily involves physical things. Even as a Christian just joining Nairaland I began to opine that there could be no supernatural as such. Just natural things we've not yet come to terms with (explained, rationalized etc.) I think even supernatural events like hearing a booming voice in the sky could be explained away or patently ignored especially since they are, you guessed, material. Uncertainty. Randomness. You can't point to an object called random. But you can describe events involving objects as random or uncertain. Actually that's good stuff right there. I just know you'll refer to it (consciousness that is never seen, smelt, heard, tasted or touched) using behaviours of objects people know to be consciousness.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Again, abstractions exist by default.

Uyi Iredia: Good thinking ! So let's agree on something. Good extra-powerful
CPU's require a designer. This designer could, at least in theory, be an intelligent, immaterial being (a.k.a God) or a purposeless, material thing (matter). You assert that matter self-organizes into into systems given certain plausible conditions. But note this, it is purposeless and non-intelligent, let's assume for example that deep time (which is a concept objectified by referring to objects) and matter made a human body without the metabolic processes (which involves controlled motions of enzymes and chemical compounds) vital to make it living. What gives it the impetus to start these processes. Energy, perhaps ? The Blind Watchmaker, no ? Favorable abiotic conditions ? Of course, immaterial intelligence must be sidestepped since it brings in notions of Zeus, Mithra, Brahma etc.

Extra powerful computers do not require a designer. As for 'good', with nature it's "good enough" that counts.

No conscious impetus is needed, sun doesn't need one to shine. All of these are simply logical conclusions. They will be regardless of any sort of consciousness, just as abstractions.

Uyi Iredia: Yeah ! Always talk about evolution in anthropormorphic terms. This is the evolutionists the speck in the eye that plagues evolutionists. The paradox of explaining a purposeless process using purpose-laden terms that denote intelligence e.g win, lose, direction, goodness. And like space, are immaterial. I think you enjoy your brain, you BELIEVE or KNOW or PERCIEVE via the senses, it exists. I don't think you know, believe or percieve the immaterial element so necessary for it to exist.

Not sure again what your point is.

Uyi Iredia: Why do I get the feeling that even if consciousness evolved in all mammals I would be talking with a Mufasa adulating and reinforcing the process of evolution.

If we ascertained completely and without a doubt that the odds of intelligence evolving were astronomically low, yet we found myriad intelligent species about, then the case for a designer becomes stronger, not weaker, see? Especially if the designs are (logically) optimized, no flaws similar to vestigial organs or inside out eyes. If these condition were met then one could say perhaps there's a purpose, ie some intelligence with a purpose maybe went out of its way to create all these intelligent species, thereby explaining the ubiquity despite the impossible odds.

Note, even in this case, that does not necessarily mean the intelligence responsible is first cause. This would be somewhat similar to adherents of aliens created humanity theories.

Uyi Iredia: You are playing Zeno's mind games you know. Just the way Zeno ignored the obvious perception of a rabbit overtaking a tortoise: and reduced it to an infinitesmal distance that is, practically impossible to cross, and infinity (a concept) that is 'impossible' to cross. You expound on 'unbelievable vastness' (as if I don't know or grasp the concept of infinite largeness of matter and its possible configurations) and billions of years (as if I can't comprehend trillions, nay, nonallions of years) as the 'gods' that made us. Lemme worship them since they are so powerful for mortal men like me to understand, only a priviliged group (including you) know it. You forget, that time is an immaterial concept (defined using events - even DeepSight makes the error attimes) and matter, by itself, has no compulsion to be purposeful.

Again not sure. But note, time is not as immaterial as you think. In true nothing there's nothing like time, see? It can be measured, etc. As far as abstractions are concerned, again, everything exists as an abstraction by default.

Uyi Iredia: This . . .

. . . contradicts this. Lemme agree that you are simply telling me your belief, no guns drawn and no swords unsheathed.

It doesn't, I'm not asking you to subscribe to my beliefs, eg something from nothing, etc. But I'm indeed telling you something, there's excellent reason to hold onto these beliefs, they are not some grand folly as you seem to make them out to be.

Uyi Iredia: May I suggest that incredibly vast details you comprehend are involved. Funny thing is ID theorists say there is no viable mechanism as to how intelligence made life. They could and should (and in a sense) co-opt evolutionary thesis. Insist that intelligence
is immaterial, necessarily makes matter and organisms with varying capacities to adapt to their environment and the changes we see are as a result of pre-defined genetic computational abilities.

Having trouble following you here as well. People make the same complaint to me.

Uyi Iredia: Lemme ask u something. In our world, it is a fact that matter supports matter. Where a levitation of matter occurs there is a magnetic material involved. Where levitation and described motion occurs a machinery involving magnetic material is involved. Fact: In our solar system, all the planetary motions hang unsupported in space (immaterial '3-dimensional' boundless) following motions that are predictable, what is the material support ? Prediction: you'll appeal that energy does it.

Spacetime is not nothing. Nor is energy. Spacetime isn't even boundless in most models, it will simply lead you round and round in circles or something similar. True nothing has no dimensions, including time.

Bosons for the most part are responsible for energy (and perhaps spacetime itself), and they have interesting properties (most beyond me).

Uyi Iredia: Hmmn. When you can make the matter (atoms, photons, ions etc.)that makes computers (without using extant matter), give me a call. I think it's unlikely though because matter reigns supreme.

Not sure again

Uyi Iredia: Saying sub-consciuous while emphazing not conscious sounds to me like fire is under a pot but the water in the point won't heat up. The very concept of sub-conscious is inextricably linked with conscious beings.

The conscious beings being us and the rest of life, even if their consciousness is limited or different. And note keywords there are 'evolving' and 'material'. Need not have started with the conscious/subconscious duality, rather it begins with a material base then evolving to the conscious/subconscious. And these aren't my beliefs, they're simply more reasonable than a purposeful god responsible.

Uyi Iredia: I already anticipated and (in my mind) clearly expressed that meme in my previous quote here:

• intelligence (thoughts, feelings, beliefs, chimeras etc) is
necessarily expressed through material means.

and herein is the paradox we all (including God itself/herself/himself) must face how the immaterial interacts with the material. Or how a digit '0' denotes nothing. The theist and deist
percieve but can't prove to the atheist that an immaterial conscious effected a material universe. The atheist believes (or knows) that matter constitutes into intelligent things, but those damned theists don't get it ! Let us console ourselves with the fact that albeit sperms and eggs join to make humans, we begin, at a certain age, to believe in things like consciousness, intelligence, love etc.

Not sure again.

You don't believe in consciousness, it exists.

The second to last one certainly made his point. And horus wasn't born to a virgin, but for the most part the rest checks out

@uyi, computers think. Other animals do as well (you yourself assert this) even if at very basic, instinctive levels. It's simply the ability to perform abstract reasoning/computation. Again, animals are capable of only very basic levels of this, so they don't 'reason' like we do, eg most lack a sense of self, etc, but they do. I'm not sure why you guys go on and on about this.

Consciousness = computations + emotions, feelings etc. A sense of self, etc, eventually occurring if certain conditions are met, ie if a brain is capable of certain types of calculations and emotion/feeling. Mix these ingredients with the fact that by the time you finish reading this post your brain will be different. New types of connections formed, others lost (unlike machines which remain static), a feature intrinsically linked to how we learn stuff btw. The different brains we all have, each idiosyncratic in its own way, each unique like fingerprints, and combine that with uncertainty at the quantum level and how that may influence development. The general randomness of it all and the variety. And then voila! Consciousness. Conscious individuals. There's good reason why damaging/altering ones brain can completely change ones personality. Iirc they've even succeeded at implanting memories in mice, but I'll have to dig up the article to confirm. Once we can replicate some of these extremely complex processes we will arrive at AI (though note again, AI would probably require some form of biological components, at least simulated, to evoke feeling/emotion, perhaps growth, etc), and what would we have accomplished then? Magic?

You need extra powerful cpus, like ours which handle all these functions as well as other funtions you're unaware of; your heart beating, muscle coordination eg walking, all very complex issues (and hence the difficulty with building bipedal robots as robust as we are) to handle all these functions. Like our brains, arguably the most complex organ we know of (I think), you need evolution to win the lottery in that direction in order to enjoy the goodness that is our consciousness. Why is it that of the billions of species that have been so far we the only ones to have evolved this sort of consciousness? The rarity is a point for evolution, NOT against it. Extremely low odds of it occurring and hence the fact that we're the only ones we know of capable of such. But impossible? Considering the sheer, unbelievable vastness that is this universe, considering the billions of years involved in nature doing its thing, you still consider this impossible?! It's inevitable


I'm not forcing my beliefs down your throat, but when you look at the numbers involved you're clearly wrong when you say the atheistic (if materialistic) or materialistic, stance is unreasonable. Very much so. Details as to how some of these steps in evolution occurr might not be fully known atm, true, but do please show me where 'god did it!' (whatever conscious god) ever, and I mean EVER, was shown to be true. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

What was this god doing? Altering dna through millenia until it arrived at us? Really? Is he also responsible for alterations caused by micro-evolution, you know, the changes we can observe in labs? What of island gigantism for instance? Was he involved when we were not watching, or somehow abstractly influencing nature via supernatural means? Please do show where the ability to compute without any material base was achieved. Or how he remotely guided these changes, if you will.

I have noticed humans involved in making completely hairless dogs from wolves in a few thousand years. These gods sure did take their time, often at times being capricious in their actions, if their goal was to arrive at consciousness. Look at how long it took us to arrive computing machines. I'd say we're much more competent than any consciousness out there, of course, depending on the goal.

Even the pantheist position is more reasonable than a deist one imo. Where we're all (and I mean ALL life, and perhaps all matter/energy) simply part of some sort of evolving collective subconscious (note; subconscious, not consciously aware,) bumbling along, makes more sense than deist positions to me. And note, even that, or any sort of consciousness, would require a material base to operate from.

So when you all go the materialist stance is untenable, one can only smh and wonder what you're on about. It is not unreasonable, in any shape of form.

edits

Deep Sight: OMG! Talk later. . .

I do admire your open-mindedness. It's also excellently critical.

Deep Sight: Now, of all your "whargarbl", all that is to be discussed is where you say that "God pops out of nowhere. . ."

You are being inattentive.

I agree with italicized. I have a short attention span

Deep Sight: If you were being attentive, you would have noticed in my list of atheistic absurdities, that it is many atheists, who in fact argue that things pop out of nowhere and nothing. This argument has been made by many eminent atheist scientists - with much ooohs and aaaahs from atheist supporters! They have referred to virtual particles, radioactive decay and other such; as evidence that things may 'pop' out of nothingness! It is thus extremely funny, that same line of thinking is mocked by atheists!

No it isn't mocked by atheists. What is mocked is the assumption that god can pop out of nothing while simple energy can't, see? Or that simple energy can't be 'self-existant' whereas super duper god can, etc. I can show you many posts where that is highlighted if you wish (at least when I'm free)

Deep Sight: Now, as for God, it is never asserted by theists that God "pops" out of nothingness. It is asserted rather that God is eternal and self existent.

I very highly doubt you speak for all believers of gods, or do you?

Deep Sight: To get a handle on the matter of self-existence, I will have to ask you first if you appreciate and understand the fact that, for anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self-existent?

No. I'm in the something from nothing crowd. And I mean true nothing, at least physically. I'm with the crowd that is down with certain paradoxes.

Logicboy03: Weigraff!!! LWKMD!!

hahaha...Anony exposed

The guy tire me.. I suppose he thinks hugging a transformer is normal. Consider that when mad, they roast you forever....
Actually, I think they don't think roasting one forever indicates anger either, I think they call it love..

jayriginal: . . . . . . . . .

There are no kangaroos in the bible?

Deep Sight: ^^^^ For any serious discussion on the existence of God, these, I repeat, THESE are the questions that are at play -

- Why something instead of nothing?

- Does the universe exist?

- Did it have a beginning?

- Did something cause its beginning?

- What caused its beginning?

- Does the cause possess attributes of -

i. Transcendence (existing outside the universe)

ii. Pre-existence (Existing before the universe)

iii. Power (having the energy to cause the universe)

- - - And not Santa Claus this, Santa Claus that.

If you address the questions, you arrive at God as defined.

O, and its interesting how you side-stepped all those atheistic absurdities i listed, by referring to Santa Claus. Just for the record, no, even I do not think God or Santa Claus capable of any of that. Its you lot who believe in such voodoo, not me.

DOHOHOHOHO

Don't be like that. For you, just for you, since you're a sometime ally of justice against the raving crazy bent on shoving their doctrine (or truth, as they call it) down the throats of others, I'll lay off the santa. But you clearly ignore that most santa talk is aimed yahweh and similar gods, not necessarily your deist god. Though I genuinely do not think you have a case, non at all, for various reasons, it is at least a bit more rational. So don't assume talk of santa is directed at your god, it is directed at the crazies. And there are far, far more of them here then there are reasonable theists. Granted my post was initially directed at you, therefore it was your god I referred to as santa, but generally speaking, santa talk is directed at the god of the crazies.

As for the rest, your whargarbl makes as much sense as the other stuff you refer to as whargarbl. Actually, less so imo. God pops out of nowhere and can do 'spiritual' stuff. How convenient. That's whargarbl as well, simple. Opinions for the most part. And you know what they say, they're like $hit. Everyone thinks every other person's stinks. My own views on all these are rather complex anyhoo, and I don't force them down people's throats, I just let it be known when I can that there are other options...

Deep Sight: 1. The discussion between the atheist and the theist as refers: the existence of God, is not, and cannot be about any particular religious notion of God (such as Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, Zeus, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster or, heck, your mocking Santa Claus if you like. The discussion is and remains about the origin of this universe and whether or not it had a powerful, transcendental, and pre-existent source. Note these three terms carefully.

This is very clearly false in most situations, not sure how you intend to get away with this. Between the atheist and the deist? Depends on which deist and his definitions of god. Against theists like xtians? Obviously no.

Deep Sight: 2. However anyone chooses to clothe that source with their peculiar cultural worldview does not have any bearing on the discussion about the existence or non existence of a pre-existent cause[b][/b] of the universe and reality as we know it.

3. As such, it is entirely beside the point, when an atheist argues as follows -

a. Yahweh as described in the bible is blood thirsty and immoral, and so God does not exist.

b. Allah as described in the quoran is blood thirsty and immoral, and so God does not exist.

c. Olympus is a physical mountain and there is no evidence of Zeus there and so God does not exist.

d. I have not seen a man sitting on the clouds and so God does not exist.

e. The description of Brahman in hinduism is logically inconsistent and so God does not exist.

f. Santa Claus is a kiddies fairy tale, and so, God does not exist.

g. I have not seen God, and so, God does not exist.

Again, no. See above.

Deep Sight: What these statements have in common is a complete side-step of the pure philosophical questions at play, namely -

- Does the universe exist?

- Did it have a beginning?

- Did something cause its beginning?

- What caused its beginning?

- Does the cause possess attributes of -

i. Transcendence (existing outside the universe)

ii. Pre-existence (Existing before the universe)

iii. Power (having the energy to cause the universe)

You can therefore see that the discussion should be about the logicality or illogicality of presupposing a transcendent, pre-existent, powerful cause of the universe.

Whatever name anyone gives to that idea in their language or culture, and whatever addittional attributes they imagine and heap on it, has no bearing on the core discussion.

This is a philosophical and logical matter, and science should also bear on it.

It is for this reason that I find it hard, tiresome, and bothersome to revert when someone simply casts the matter in a most puerile form: to wit: Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and other such idle forms which just show that the person does not even have an idea of what is meant to be discussed in the first place.

- - - - - -

And even if one chose to indulge you, when you apply attributes to your first cause such as transcendent, pre-existent, powerful, backed up by no evidence, non, simply on whims frankly, you have veered directly into 'santa' territory.

I can't see what your problem is, let's see...

Deep Sight: Now I come to your statement that the word "spiritual" is simply another word for "make believe".

Listen - in several discussions with atheists on this forum, I have elicited admissions that non physical things (like time, thoughts, emotions, ideas) do exist. The best they have been able to insist on is that these are creations of a material brain. That's actually neither here nor there. That non physical things exist, is enough to show that the non-physical is not "make believe".

And how in what universe do you jump from all non-physical = spiritual? Are you saying all abstract objects are spiritual?

spir·it·u·al
/ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Noun
A religious song of a kind associated with black Christians of the southern US, and thought to derive from the combination of European...
Synonyms
mental - ghostly - sacred - unworldly - religious

So, time you're touting here, is spiritual?

Deep Sight: You may quibble about whence they derive or arise, but you cannot deny that they exist, unless you are willing to state that time does not exist, that your thoughts do not exist (in which case I would not be willing to engage in a discussion with something that does not exist, lest I be considered mad) - and you must also be further willing to demonstrate that a thought (or time) possesses the scientific qualities of matter - namely has weight and occupies space. You should be willing to measure the weight and space as well.

I can tell you that thoughts are contingent on the physical. No CPU? No processing. No brain? No thoughts. There might just be a definite relationship right there, one testable and backed up by evidence no less, don't you think?

Deep Sight: What you can see from the foregoing is that you cannot wave your hand and describe the non-physical as "make believe" unless you are willing to state that your thoughts and time itself, are make-believe.

Non physical? Complicated. Spiritual though is make believe, and very clearly so. As far as we're concerned, something happens to your brain, you're gone. End of. No spirits anywhere, else, please do show them.

Deep Sight: In actual fact, there was a wonderful post some years ago made by a great mind here (will look for it later) which demonstrated just by our every day activities and actions, that no human being actually lives his or her life on the supposition that only matter exists. Everything, absolutely everything, that has any meaning in the life progression of a human being is an immaterial thing. Time. Thoughts. Emotions. Ideas. I could go on forever.

Even if you were indulged, again, so what?

Deep Sight: You see, when atheists talk, they often make terrible statements far worse than any religious dogma. I have had long discussion with atheists on this forum who, in their bid to stay materialist, or deny the existence of God, have gone so far as to say that -

(i)We don't know that the universe had a beginning

(ii) If it had a beginning we dont know that it had a cause

(iii) the law of cause and effect is an argument from ignorance and also a part-whole fallacy

(iv) the laws of motion are also an argument from ignorance and a part-whole fallacy

(v) something may come from nothing

- - - And also measured the properties of "nothingness" and ascribed it a value

(vi) Since we do not know the cause of virtual particles, they come from nothing - despite the fact that the vacuums in which they are observed are not "nothing" and contain gaseous pressure

(vii) Time commenced at the big b@ng - but - nothing could exist outside time and yet the pre existing singularity existed before the big b@ng,

(viii) Time and Space do not exist outside the human mind

- - - and many more.

Judge for yourself these ludicrous statements, and see if they are logically consistent in any form.

You think these ludicrous, yet have no problem with santa being capable of these and more?

And these terrible statements do indeed lead to our forcing you to not worship our non-god or not get stoned to death, or not marry whom our non god decrees you not marry

Deep Sight: Then please contrast them with how I must feel, when some one comes along idly talking about believing in Santa Claus.

Imagine how I feel when you assert the above is not logically consistent, but somehow your make-believe bossu is a special case that is exempt from the above? I really can't see what your problem is.

Deep Sight: ^^^ I wasn't able to discern anything in your post above worth responding to.

I have noticed how your posts so far have been filled with substance. Including, of course, your annoyance at us atheists not knowing how many reindeer santa requires to pull his sleigh

It's a very free world, so feel very free to run away, good, kind and noble sir.