₦airaland Forum

MrPresident1:
There is no atheist that is not a criminal. All atheists are criminals

An atheist is like a leaking tanker of petrol, it is only waiting for a spark to unleash mayhem, this is the way of any human being that is unencumbered by God, they have no limits, they have no boundaries, they have no morality - because God is morality. The morality of any atheist is the morality of an hyena, once sufficiently motivated, it will go for the kill without pity or mercy or remorse. It's not like of needs big motivation o, just a small trigger, just a lirul spark and you will see a gargantuan uncontrollable conflagration

An atheist is a leaking petrol tanker

if God is the only reason you're acting like a decent human being. Then I hate to break it to you, but you're not a decent human being.

You're like an irrational child whose only reason for not stealing candy from the drawer is because "mom will beat me". That child still very much wants that candy.

So Mr. AssistantLocalGovernmentChairman2... do you still want to act like a hyena and "go for the kill"?

StillDtruth:
1) In your desperate attempt to say something you ended up talking nonsense, for clearly, this off point! No one asked whether you believe in God and hell nor did i say here atheism is like theft, corruption etc.

This is obviously your own conscience judging you and telling you that atheism is like theft, corruption and murder.

Your statement was "Like you are not looking forward to seeing Nigerian politicians, kidnappers/ bandits burn in hell, like every other person."

You started of with an assumption about a place I hold no belief in. I only clarified that. Imagine if I said "Like you wouldn't look forward to your children visiting Narnia.

Of course I expect you to completely miss the point here and repeat your common catchphrases.

2) Cearly, we all see you dodged the point i made which is the natural desire that just is must be done and evil people must be punished.

1. Justice not "Just is". What sort of lawyer doesn't know how to spell the very thing they claim to fight for?

Anyways that was off topic. I apologize.

Which ofcourse cannot be answered so you shifted post to create another issue to argue about. E no work. No Road!

Traffic conductor... Welldone

MrPresident1:
You should be quarantined away from civilization. You are a walking nuclear bomb

Yeah... because somehow not believing in an imaginary sky fairy is the name as highly explosive thermonuclear fission.

jaephoenix:
Again, this is Dtruthspeaker. Logic don't mean nothing to him

I engage him for nothing more than comic relief. His responses are generally so irrelevant they've become predictable.

FxMasterz:
Enough because you cannot prove that there's something outside of this system.

Inability to prove that there's something outside our universe does not make the claims about outside said universe automatically true.

You atheists say you believe only what you can see and be proven. Now, because you've met a superior argument, you want to start arguing based on what you cannot see and cannot be proven. We have no knowledge of any outside system. We cannot base our conclusions on what no one has ever claimed to exist.

I don't know where you got that idea about atheism from... But that's not true. Also, you've presented no superior argument so far. You're the one trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven or falsified. You sir, are the one trying to argue based on something that cannot be proven.

The argument has a very obvious imbalance. It is not always true that you must be outside of a thing before you create that thing.

Simple question. Before the thing was created then, where was the creator?

The bolded is exactly what science does.

I could take the time to explain how the scientific method works, but that would just derail from our main point. So I won't bother with that now.

The Creator is not necessarily outside of our universe. We can use what we observe to determine the possibility of an existence of a Creator. And that's perfectly normal. It becomes abnormal when you start doing mental gymnastics to say you don't believe in the existence of a Creator simply because the rules of an imaginary outer universe could be different. Who reasons like that? Scientists or Artists? Tell me.

I don't believe in a creator because I have not seen evidence of one based on the definitions, or in your case, a lack of definition given. You failed to define what you mean by a mind, and how you would go about locating or showing one. You instead avoided clearly defining a mind, by telling me we all know what a mind is.

You want to posit the existence of something you refuse to clearly define, nor explain. Sir... how exactly do you expect us to progress in the analysis of the alleged claim then?

We're do not need to apply the logic of an imaginary universe. That's mental gymnastics.

You need to first prove to us that there's a reality outside the system.

The burden of proof lies on the person making claims of some external super mind. More on this below

Yeah, if you limit it within the context of a mind only. Not trying to make it look as though I'm talking about the Creator's nature in the broader sense of the word. My position is that there is a mind. That mind can also be a creator without assuming the nature of anyone. We cannot talk about nature until we agree that there's a mind.

A mind is not nothing. It is a type of thing. If you claim a thing is responsible for creating the universe, and you call it a mind.. that is a description of said thing. That falls under the nature of said thing.

Your analogy of a house does not do justice to the point you raised. I have provided better examples to prove that a creator can actually be within what he created. You obviously ignored those and decided on a soft point.

I don't need to prove that the Creator was within the universe He created because I never said so. This is what I said, "The Creator must not necessarily be outside the universe to create it." He could be within or without because we have evidence within our own world that a Creator could be within or without his creation.

My analogy of the house was to make a point, that when talking of a thing being brought into existence, it is impossible to not make reference to a sort of metaphorical outside. The house was an example. But to buttress my point further, I will ask you the same question.

Before said creator created the universe.. where was it?

If you want to claim there was a "somewhere", then you're alluding to the possible existence of said outside, which proves my point. Just like the plot of land before the house was built.. or the area of grass or surrounding before the fence was built.

If you say there was not a "somewhere", then you're claiming there was absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing in the most absolute sense, except said mind.

In that case, you need to explain how a mind can just "exist".. because for someone who happens to draw inferences from our observable universe, you know more than anything that minds do not exist without something like a body or form, which would be in a "somewhere".

Now you see how it goes in a circle?

FxMasterz:
No worries my friend. We all have busy schedules.

You should complete it. The purpose of Nairaland is to make the creator money through socialization which attracts ad revenues. But still, Nairaland has a purpose anyway. And that is just the point.

That was not my point, but okay.

Whatever the purpose is. Nairaland has a purpose and therefore emanated from a mind. You cannot consider all the complex codes and the intricate libraries that work harmoniously on Nairaland to fulfil that purpose, and then conclude that Nairaland has no creator. The mind is the source of everything you see on Nairaland.

There was never a disagreement in this area.

In any sense and any how. Purpose is not the reason for the existence of things.

No Sir. I think I need some clarification on this. If you want to talk about the potential purpose and source of a thing that exists, you cannot ignore how and why that thing would exist in the first place. And that applies to everything.

Should that concern me? I'm only concerned that it is fulfilling a purpose because it was made to do so by the one who designed it so. If it is not fulfilling a purpose, it would be very easy for you to argue that it has no creator. Isn't it? The argument against a creator is hard simply because you yourself know that only a mind can create things that fulfil specific purposes as could be observed in our universe.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a creator. If you want to posit such idea, you need to provide reasonable evidence for it. So far, you've not provided such. Your argument rests on our observation of how things work in a system we are observing from the inside. And I have pointed out reasons why that line of reasoning is faulty.

You responded by saying we have no knowledge from outside the system, which would be the universe in this case to draw information from. And that is exactly my point.

Due to a lack of sufficient information, your conclusion is unfounded.

You'll need to point me to something purposeful in our world that has no creator. Afterwards, I'll answer your question.

That's a non-starter and you know it. The entire fulcrum of this discussion is the concept of a creator for the universe. In what way would something inside that same universe negate that premise?

StillDtruth:
So all the threads here in religion are trust me bro stuff, eh?

And ofcourse, you would like people to trust Devils like you atheists abi.

Strawman.

No one asked anyone to just "trust" them or they things they say.

If someone claims something to be true, there has to be valuable evidence for it.

In the case of the deathbed statements by atheists, there's no valuable evidence to back up the claims.

I could as well create a website and say Cleopatra's last words were "drop it like it's hot".

Of course I more than expect this to fly over your head.

StillDtruth:
Like you are not looking forward to seeing Nigerian politicians, kidnappers/ bandits burn in hell, like every other person.

1. I neither believe in a hell, nor a god. You should know this by now

2. Your miserable attempt at trying to equate a lack of belief in a god (atheism), to actual dangerous crimes like theft, corruption and murder is laughable.

LordReed:
A very good watch for those interested in the truth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRtSZXS6wzQ?si=095VvQdySnYfrjnv

I was able to watch the original video she posted. It was good comedic relief.

She must have been using that "trust me bro" source because I couldn't find any reliable data on the claims she made.

Plus some of the people she mentioned were not even atheists.

Also I find it interesting how certain Christians seem to salivate over the thought of people potentially burning in hell.. so much so that you have to invent a fake story about deathbed conversions just to get off.

FxMasterz:
Why should we concern ourselves with things external to our universe.

The bolded is actually enough. Since you have admitted that these things are true as we view them from our universe, that's just enough.

Enough in what sense? I literally talked about systems and how things aren't always the same outside a system as they are inside.

No one has assumed anything outside of our system. We do not even know if there's anything outside of our universe. So, why should we bother?

I feel like this is pretty self explanatory. We are talking about a possible creator of the universe... where else are we supposed to look? If you're trying to find out who made a pencil.. do you search inside the pencil?

But we don't know if there are things outside the universe, so that's no argument at all.

You're the one trying to posit the existence of some external super-mind. We don't know what exists outside our universe. You're using the idea of what we've observed to try to describe what could exist outside it. I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic.

Going by this your logic, you make all knowledge acquired in this universe invalid because all the data, knowledge, education and all information we have in all our libraries were all gleaned from our observations and experiences within our universe. We got absolutely nothing from or about an extra-universe. Hence, you're saying that all knowledge humans have acquired within this universe might be right or wrong.

The person who observes that things fall down when you toss them up is 100% correct if he applies his logic to the boundaries of the system, being earth.

No one is negating our observations here so far. Observations within the system do not necessarily translate to the reality outside the system. That was my point all along.

We can never say because what we think we know might be different from what actually obtains outside our universe. I think, this is a very big flaw of this logic. Or is there any form of knowledge on earth that was gotten from outside of the universe? Point me to one.

You've lost me... what do you mean?

1. I do not concern myself with the nature of anything. The nature of the Creator is of no concern to me. My only point is that only the mind can create purpose.

You talk of a mind able to create purpose.... is that not something about the nature of said creator?

2. I do not presume that the 'something' is external to our universe. Do you have any proof that this 'something' you're talking about is external to our universe?


Humans create houses inside which they live. People create fences around themselves while they're still within the fence. The spider builds a web around itself while it still abides within the web. The Eastern Ten Caterpillar surrounds itself with froth from within itself. It builds and abides within its own froth. It is not true that a creator must be outside something to create it.

Before the house was created, there was no "inside" or "outside".. there was just the environment. The creation of the house and living in it doesn't negate the fact that the builders of the house were in the area that would now be considered "outside" before the house was created.

Let me give a very clear example.

A plot of land is bought in a field... A house is built there.. fields have discernable properties, as do houses. When we talk of the creation of the house, we're talking of the time when the house, and the properties that define the house did not exist. The properties that defined the field are what existed on that plot of land.

When we talk of the creation of the house, we are referring to the activities and processes that took place outside what you refer to as the house.. because at the time, the properties that defined the house did not exist in that area.

To sum it all up... It is impossible to talk about the creation of a thing without making reference to what conditions existed before it was created.

Also... if you're trying to imply that the creator may be inside said universe, then the floor is yours to prove it.

Remember, you believe the creator is a super-mind capable of creating purpose. I'm curious to see how you define what a mind is, and how exactly the said mind would be clearly identified as existing within the system and not outside it.

Apologies for the late response. It's been a busy week/weekend.

FxMasterz:
First, purpose is not a vague thing. For example, the purpose of Nairaland is to socialize. Is that vague?

I disagree with you. I think the purpose of nairaland was simply to make the creator money.

I change my mind. I think the purpose of nairaland was to have a platform where you could create as many threads as possible. Now do you get my point?

No, that's not correct. That's not the argument. It's not about a super mind wanting these things to happen and exist. No no no. The existence and/or sustenance of life itself is the purpose. We can confirm scientifically that these complex things are well designed and delicately calibrated to fulfil this singular purpose. Take note of the word 'calibrated.'

The argument is that a mind wanted life to exist and therefore created such complex things that work harmoniously to make life exist.

Okay. Noted

No, this argument doesn't seek to deny chaos in anywa. I never said anything like that. If chaos can create monstrous complex things that can work in unison to fulfil a shared purpose, then it means chaos has a reasoning mind, and it can thus assume the position of a creator. The ability to create purposeful things is only vested in a mind because of the mind's ability to reason.

I don't know if I already said this before. But when talking of the why things exist, I don't subscribe to the chaos vs order argument. I was initially trying to make a point which I think you responded to later on.

Things can exist without a purpose.

In what sense? How exactly?

But when some complex things exist to work harmoniously to fulfil a collective purpose, then that's not the result of any random occurrence.

So a short recap so we don't go around in circles.

You believe things can exist without a purpose. You also believe the creator of a thing determines the purpose. Then without knowledge of the creator of a thing, how are you sure that something fulfils the purpose for which it was intended (by the creator)?

Basically.. do you think your observation (as NOT the creator) of a thing could be wrong?

Also... I want you to answer my question regarding how something purposeless can just "exist" but something purposeful can't. I'm very very curious to know.

FxMasterz

Here's part 2. This is why I believe your logic about what we've observed in our universe is faulty.

You're making reference to how things work inside our universe. In our universe, we see minds create things because said minds want those things to fulfil a certain function/purpose. True. But that says absolutely nothing about the nature of things external to our universe.

The rules of a system, including it's nature and how it functions say little to nothing about the nature of things external to the system. We have observed in our system that minds (a product of the rules of the system) create things with purpose.

That's the only line of creation we've seen within the boundaries of the system. To assume that things outside the system would function the same way things do in the system would be very naive.

I gave the example of a car earlier. I will try to give a more precise example.

A human who has never left earth, and has no knowledge of outer space can observe that throwing a ball up means it comes down. Ignoring wind influences, even a feather will fall back down. Said person can assume that things falling back down is just how reality works. But they'd be wrong.

The earth is a mini-system in a greater system, and the observed phenomenon of things falling back down won't necessarily apply if you're in outer space.

Your super mind argument is analogous to the human on earth assuming that just because things fall when you toss them in this mini-system, then they must do so outside the system. Remember this human has no knowledge of outer space. Their information comes from what they've observed only on earth.

When you say some external "super mind" must have caused the universe, you're trying to attribute properties within a system to the unknown outside the system. Like the assumption of the ball falling.

Here's the catch. You could be right. You could also be very wrong. Unlike the person on earth, we have absolutely no way to verify how things outside the universe work. At least not yet.

But until then, if your argument for the nature of something external to a system is based only on what you've observed in the system... then you're doing it all wrong.

Also, I'll quickly point out that the reason I'm talking about outside the universe is because we're talking about a possible creator. Said creator would need to be outside something to "create" it.

If this wasn't clear enough, let me know. But i don't know how else I can try to explain this to you.


Also... on a side note... I find your exchanges with the AI very laughable. Particularly the natural selection vs intelligent design argument. The fact that for some reason they're seen as opposites by anyone is downright laughable.

FxMasterz


I've seen your response. And I've noticed you're making reference to this vague purpose thing. So before the discussion goes further, I would like for us to straighten it out to avoid unnecessary confusion.

I will make some statements to try to better describe your position accurately. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

First of all, you said based on our experience, we've seen minds create things with a purpose, for example, a human creating a car for the purpose of traveling faster, or more simply, a dog digging a hole for the purpose of hiding its bone.

Your logic follows the line that the hole serves a purpose, and exists because the mind of the dog wanted somewhere to hide its bone and the car serves a purpose, and exists because the human wanted to reach somewhere faster.

By that logic, you look at the universe and the complex processes within it, and infer that some super mind must have wanted these things to happen and exist. And that such things do not just arise by chaos or randomness.

The problem with this line of thought is that the very chaos it tries to deny is not nothing. It is a something. A random box of metals won't create a car. But a box of metals is something. Please keep this in mind.

Now my first question to you is, do you think/believe that things can exist without a purpose? Regardless of if the purpose is known or not.

If your answer is no, then it means you believe everything that exists has a purpose, and therefore, was brought about by a mind. Welcome to infinite regress.

Second question.. who determines said purpose? The mind that creates something, or the mind that observes/uses something?

Thirdly, if a mind creates something, you'd agree it's not random. It's purposeful. Question is.. how then did said purposeful mind exist? Why would it exist?

It doesn't matter if you appeal to complexity or purpose. The argument still shifts forward, and you are faced with either infinite regress, or determining some arbitrary point where something purposeful just has to exist without a preceding mind.

I'll address the issue of facts and science in another post.

FxMasterz:
I didn't give my perception of the universe. All the claims are scientific. You should read the OP again. The only inference I drew was that Only A Mind Can Create a Purpose. This inference was drawn from our existential experience on earth.

I didn't make any claim. I only drew an inference which you have not yet disputed. Infact, you have not addressed the issue at all.

Sir, I respectfully disagree. I've read the OP multiple times. The only things "scientific" about the OP are the references to the things that exist in the universe, like the eye and DNA.

Your inference that it suggests some sort of "intelligent design" or super mind is very, very perceptional. You're asking me to disprove an inference that hasn't been proven in the first place. How is that supposed to work?

All these are according to science. Please read the OP again and confirm these facts from science literatures.

What exactly is according to science? The science of what exactly? You've been spamming the word science like it's supposed to automatically give credibility to unsubstantiated claims. Science is not some book you quote from.

What branch or field of science substantiates the claim that nothing else can create something with "purpose" other than a mind? How do you even go about defining what a mind is, or what "purpose" is supposed to be? At this point you end up using very very fluid words to try to paint an idea of something that doesn't exist.

I think it would be a good idea if you kindly defined for us, what a "mind" is, in this context.

Except you have another universe outside of here. What we're talking about is our own universe. Whatever applies outside of our universe has nothing to do with us.

No Sir. Respectfully, it does. You're trying to make reference to something that created the universe. In what other direction do you look? If you're looking for who or what created a car, do you look inside the car? What part of the wires and metals and oil suggests that the creator of the car is made of super metals and super wires and super oils?

It's what I've been trying to explain since the beginning. Any claims about what a potential creator (of the universe) is supposed to be, or not be, cannot be based on what or how things exist in the universe.

Please tell me you can at least understand this line of reasoning.

FxMasterz:
Your argument doesn't hold any water. It's very lame. If you're going to perceive things in any other way, then you must give reasons that would be persuasive enough for your alternate perception to be given any thought. You just want us to dismiss this debate because you have an unfounded objection.

Let me get this straight. You gave your perception of the universe.. which is based on an unverifiable claim.. and I'm the one who's supposed to come up with an "alternative" perception?

You're the one who is required to substantiate your claim first.

Second of all. I never claimed to have an alternative position as to why things are the way they are. I only told you your perception lacks the evidence needed to be taken seriously. And so far you've not given me any reason to think otherwise.

I have explained my position, whether it is an anthropogenic, biogenic, geogenic, abiotic or any way of reasoning it, the fact still remains that nothing else can create purpose other than a mind. It's just as simple as that.

That is not a fact. That is your perception which you're trying to paint as a fact. That's the fundamental point we disagree. That's one of the unverifiable claims you keep making.

You're talking about what we've observed, so far, IN our universe. Not OF our universe. 2 different things. That's why I disagree with you.

Just because something applies inside a system, doesn't mean it must apply outside, or about said system. That's something you need to try to understand here.

Observing how things inside the universe work says very little about how and especially why the universe came to be.

I'll say it again. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest the "things" outside the universe HAVE TO work the same way things inside the universe do. And we have no way to confirm or falsify our hypothesis.. which is why I call it an unverifiable claim.

Atheists should be ashamed of themselves whenever they say Atheism is a lack of belief as they've been saying on this thread because they're confronted with indisputable facts about the possibility of a Creator existing.

You've neither shown something that's indisputable, nor something that's a fact.

Should I create a topic now to say "I have found the evidence for a Creator." The only attackers of that topic would be atheists. It is very hilarious that you guys are now denying a position that everyone knows atheists hold. If you actually believe in a Creator, you'll also believe in a God. You don't believe in a God because you don't believe in a Creator. Very simple. So, any evidence for a Creator is an attack on atheism. How long will you continue to live in denial?

The line between a "creator" and a "god" is one i fail to see. I only used the word creator because you were protesting against the word god. To me, they would mean the same thing, or at least be interchangeable.

Let me break it down for you.

A creator implies a god
A first cause does not imply a creator, nor a god. But that's another topic. Not so important here.

My assertion is not unfalsifiable. This position is drawn from our experiences as human beings. And there's nothing more probable than an experience. This argument is drawn from what we know by virtue of our very existence. We know that if anything, no matter how simple or minute it may be, can so exist just to fulfil a purpose, then there's a mind behind it. How can anybody dismiss the rhythmic cooperation of extremely large and complex things that science has empirically confirmed the purposes they fulfil, and all these individual purposes working together to fulfil one single purpose - the sustenance of life - according to science. How's that anthropogenic?

I've addressed these points above.

Purpose cannot come about through chaotic and unplanned processes. The sense of purpose in the whole structure of things is what my position dwells on, and that's what atheists have not been able to disprove.

Purpose is very, very subjective. The pothole was not made for the puddle.. nor was the puddle made for the pothole.

I'm not claiming there's no purpose. I'm not claiming there is. I... Dont... Know.

But your reason for the perceived purpose, is one that has no basis outside the anthropogenic view of things. And like I said twice above, is based on the unverifiable claim, that things outside/about the nature of the universe function the same way things in the universe do.

FxMasterz:
Still waiting for more atheists to counter this post. Till date, none of them have been able to raise any solid rebuttal.

What sort of "solid rebuttal" exactly are you looking for?

By definition, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. You've said several times on this thread that you're referring to a creator, not necessarily a god. But somehow it's up to the atheists to give a rebuttal to something that apparently isn't related to their (lack of) belief?

Secondly, I believe we talked about the issue of a creator quite extensively.

You hold the position that the way things are in the universe, complexity and "purpose", seem as though they were crafted by a super-mind. I disagreed and said it's an anthropogenic way of looking at things. I also stated my issues with that line of thought.

Essentially you perceive things a certain way. I don't. It's become more of a debate based on our perception of a thing, rather than the thing itself. Plus you make reference to an unverifiable claim, which is the super mind.

How exactly am i supposed to offer a rebuttal to your perception which is already based on an unfalsifiable claim?

MrPresident1:
Any congregation of BLACK people is hell. Anywhere you see black people in control, ruling or dominating, that's hell right there

A tad bit racist don't you think?

FxMasterz:
While it might seem that the idea of a "super mind" is just a human construct, there's still a compelling argument to be made. The complexity and apparent design we see in nature aren't easily explained by random chance or natural processes alone.

I never claimed it could be.. I'll add a bit to your last statement.

The complexity and apparent design we see in nature aren't easily explained by random chance or natural processes, or a super-mind alone.

The way everything fits together; the fine-tuning of physical constants; the emergence of life; and the intricate relationships within ecosystems - suggests that there's something more deliberate at play.

The puddle in the pothole.

On a serious note. Taking away the anthropogenic view of things, I fail to see how there's something "more deliberate" at play here. The whole idea of deliberateness or randomness are not ideas I subscribe to in respect to the universe.

If you're asking why things exist the way they do (purpose, complexity), stopping at the "fine-tuning" of the constants is barely the start.

What is a constant? Why should one exist in the first place? Why not more? Why not less? Why anything at all? What exactly is "life"? What exactly is a mind?

When you ask these questions, you realize pointing to some "deliberate super mind" just doesn't cut it. Because even said mind would need to be defined by something.. and the chain goes further.

You bring up a good point about the mind needing certain conditions to exist. But this doesn't mean that the idea of a mind or purpose is off the table.

I never said it was off the table. As an atheist, I've just not seen any probable reason or evidence to consider the said mind as the reason for things being the way they are.

Instead, it might indicate that there's a deeper, unifying principle or reality that connects both the mind and the natural world. Also, the mind needing certain conditions to exist does not mean that the mind cannot be the source of purposeful designs which is the fulcrum around which this argument rotates.

I appreciate the last statement. You're 100% right. An emergent mind can still make things. Humans are an example. But in respect to that, I'll have to repeat my point above.

I'm not saying a super mind is off the table.. I've just not seen any reasonable evidence or reason why it's the case.

When people argue for Creationism or intelligent design, it's not necessarily about imagining a human-like intelligence behind it all. It's more about acknowledging that the complexity and purpose we see in the world seem to go beyond what random chance or necessity could explain. There seems to be a sense of direction or purpose built into reality, where things appear to be moving towards certain goals. We can clearly see that these complex elements deliver intended deliverables. All working together towards a unified goal - the sustenance of life on earth.

Recognizing this isn't just about shifting the question to a higher level or bringing in an unproven entity. It's about seeing that the natural world shows a profound sense of purpose that we can't fully explain with our current understanding of physical laws.

So, the discussion isn't just about the nature of mind or intelligence. It's about the inherent sense of purpose and direction we observe in the world, suggesting that there might be a deeper reality or principle at work—one that goes beyond purely naturalistic explanations.

I have to disagree with the unified goal you seem to have perceived in the case of the earth.

I'm also beginning to think we might mean different things when we talk of purpose and direction.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "goes beyond purely naturalistic explanations"

You seem to draw this distinction between what the natural world is supposed to be, and what a deeper reality is supposed to be.

Is there a particular reason for that?

FxMasterz:
.

I understand you clearly but by the term Intelligent Design, I do not want to focus on the intelligence in the designs or the lack of it. Rather, I see a situation whereby there is a pre-conceived intention to execute some purposeful activity, then there's something put together intelligently enough with all complexity to fulfil that purpose. So, there's a deliberate cause to bring about a desired effect.

The very idea of a preconceived intention to execute something purpose demotes the very intelligence you're trying to avoid focusing on.

My issue with the idea is that it tries to define things based on a human perception of the natural world.

It's something I intend to go more into detail in a subsequent post.

By our knowledge today as humans, we know that the effects we see wouldn't be visible if there was anything missing in the complex designs that brought about the effect.

The effects would be different.. because the conditions would be different.

I don't want to use the "puddle fits the pothole" analogy here because we are not outside observers of the puddle and the pothole. We ARE the puddle.

And nonetheless, even if we allude this to the unproven "mind", the question still shifts further.

You and I know that a mind or a super mind must have been involved in those things. We cannot deny that they're so intentional and deliberate, and fulfil obviously pre-intended purposes. And, the truth is that only a mind can establish a purpose.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with the idea that a "super mind" must have been involved in this. Again, very anthropogenic.

The very idea of a mind itself is something that relies on the seemingly "deliberateness" of certain parameters or conditions to be able to exist. And what then set or determined those parameters? Why would any of the parameters exist at all, and in the way they do?

This is why I said you only push the question higher. An unproven super-mind don't answer the question.

FxMasterz:
Actually, in summary, I'm talking about intelligently designed complex things that are by their designs enabled to fulfil particular purposes. This cannot be accidental complex designs. They're intentionally designed to fulfil particular purposes hence there's a Creator behind them. The keyword there is PURPOSE or FUNCTIONALITIES being made possible by intentionally designed complexed stuff.

I think it's time to address something I've been letting slide ... Which is the idea of "intelligent design". If you notice, I've also avoided using the phrase since the beginning.

That's mainly because I don't see things that way. I agree with things like purpose and functionality.. as clearly seen.. but my issue with the phrase 'intelligent design' is that it looks at things from our perspective, and already tries to establish qualities about a possible creator even before trying to prove one. It ends up going in a circle.

To recap.. I agree that things are complex. I agree things look like a serve certain functions and purposes.

Minus the claim of intelligence, I don't just see why any of these would denote a creator that couldn't also be subject to these terms.

It's why I say it just pushes the question further and causes us to create more unverifiable attributes of the said creator we're trying to envision.

By the way, when did you start identifying as an atheist. You always say you're an agnostic.

Jaephoenix promised I'll get the monthly atheist palliative (half a cup of rice) if i promised to identify as one.

On a serious note tho.. I just decided to define my beliefs, or lack thereof more clearly.

As long as people understand what atheism is (lack of belief in a god), then I have no issues identifying as one.

FxMasterz:
You didn't show me anything. You've argued only about a god and Complexity. The OP has nothing to do with any of these. Please read to understanding before presenting any argument.

the OP listed several things which I summed up into "how" and "why". More precisely, how things are the way they are, and why.

I also explained what I meant when I said complexity in the beginning. Once again. It's okay if you reject these things.

I'll summarize in a way that'll be easier to understand. You listed several qualities of the universe/natural world, like purposefulness, universality, complexity, variety.

You're asking why things are the way they are. Your conclusion is that a creator is responsible.

My response is

1. I don't know why things are the way they are. Why we have complexity, variety, purposefulness etc. as you've described. I'd love to know.. but so far, I don't know why.

2. Your conclusion of a creator doesn't answer the question of why things are the way they are. Even if it did exist (which has so far not still been proven) It just pushes the question a step further.

Do you finally get it or do i have to explain it again?

FxMasterz:
Please go and sit down. I don't think you even understand what we're doing here.

You keep making noise about how you've destroyed atheism, and when someone shows you how your arguments fail, your best rebuttal is

1. "No don't use G word.. g word not c word"
2. Claim the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

By the way I changed all the words with god to creator in my first and second response.. maybe now you can face them?

It's also fine if you can't. But don't just go around singing about destroying atheism when you barely made a reasonable argument to begin with

FxMasterz:
No atheist has been able to offer any counter-argument against the arguments in the OP.

The OP hasn't offered any reasonable argument to begin with. What exactly are we countering? Your preconceived notions on what atheists believe?

FxMasterz:
Off point. Trash!

Read again and find anywhere I made any allusion to a God or Gods.

is the use of the word "god" your problem? You can switch it out for creator if it's easier for you to grasp. We both know both words in this context denote the same thing.

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

Permit me to sum all these up under the branch of "complexity". Why?

To me, complexity is more than just different varying components coming together to create something different. It also comes from the very essence of a thing. For a thing to have purpose, for a thing to even be at all... both the tiny constituents that make it up, as well as the thing as a whole.

Your argument seems to come from 2 questions.

1. How complexity
2. Why complexity

Basically, we observe things around and within us, and we've seen great, incredibly great complexities (how), and in SOME cases, a sort of function for the complexity (why).


The problem is, this also applies to the idea of a god. Plugging a creator into the equation doesn't solve it. It just pushes the question from the universe to the creator. Explanation

A creator would have to be incredibly complex, perhaps more incomprehensibly complex than the things it 'created'. Such an agent being able to act on it's own denotes a purpose. Not a mission. A purpose, even if self-given. To be able to want to do something, to be able to will and decide something.. that's also a kind of something. How exactly would the nature of this being have come to be? Why exactly is it the way it is?

Just saying "that's because it's a creator" or "that's the way it is" doesn't answer the question. And you very much as well would not accept that answer from someone who says that about the universe.

Now I can already guess some things you might want to say. Things like eternity, omnipotence and so on, are abstracts. Words that have absolutely zero quantifiable meaning.

We can actually study things like planets, atoms, elements and the universe as a whole to give it properties like complexity, form, origin and so on.

We have absolutely zero information on what a creator is supposed to be in terms of these parameters like the ones I've listed above. So giving it properties like eternity, omnipotence and so on have no meaning. Because even if this alleged creator existed, we have no way to observe or verify any of the supposed properties you'd ascribe to it.

So at the end of the day, we both end up at the exact same spot, which is having no explanation for how things are, and why they are that way.

For me, it's the universe, for you, it's a creator. The only difference is, I've found no reason to take the extra leap just to end up asking the exact same questions I'm asking now.

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Imagine my excitement when I saw this thread, thinking finally someone would be able to prove that creator/creators exist, only to be met with a false presupposition from the very beginning.

To correct you, atheism does not posit that the external world CAN be explained without a need for a creator. That is to presuppose that atheists have an explanation for the natural world that does not include a creator. That is simply not true.

Certain aspects of the natural world are currently unexplainable, or unknown to us. But regardless of that, it doesn't mean a creator magically fits the explanation.

As an atheist, I have found no evidence to suggest that a creator is responsible for the complexity of the universe. It doesn't mean I know why the universe and things are the way they are. I don't, and I would really love to know. But if you're going to say a creator did it, there has to be some sort of evidence other than "I don't know any other reasons, so I'll go with the big C"

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

Congratulations. You just discovered the argument from complexity. Little tip. It also applies to a creator. Also, please remember what I said earlier. Your excuse for something cannot just be "I don't know any other reason, so X." I will bring it up quite often during our subsequent discussions.

Also, I'm going to apply the argument from complexity to a creator in my next reply, so you see exactly what I'm talking about.

jaephoenix:
The guy was saying I should do it offline. Told him in my line of work, religion weighs in heavily. I may lose patients. So I'd rather do an anonymous online thingy, probably Twitter Spaces, where folks or guest can chip in questions

I wouldn't recommend any agnostic or atheist, or anyone else with a "controversial" opinion on religion, having public discussions in an environment like Nigeria.

Even if the debating theist is civil, there are more than enough nutjobs who are itching to murder in the name of their non-existent god.

It reminds me of the atheist association of Nigeria and how they got relentlessly attacked till they all went into hiding.

It's just sad. Online would be the best

jaephoenix:
Btw, Willy, I thought u r agnostic. Why are you flirting with atheism, my guy?

Atheism started flirting with me.. i merely flirted back

Nah but seriously.. I've become more comfortable with being called an atheist, as long as people understand what it means.

A lot of people still think atheism claims that a god/gods cannot exist.. which isn't really the case.. so as long as people understand the definition... I'm game

jaephoenix:
Aha! So where can we have this debate. I'll double the money to 100k. Lets see who blinks. Please get a venue, preferably online. And make it public so people can view.
Guys see how this one would run

I would genuinely be interested in seeing how a debate between atheists and theists would look like in Nigeria.. especially online.

If you guys fix something please mention me

StillDtruth:
Since when did emphasis become shouting? If you are called oyibo slave now, you would get angry *Anyway this is a distraction and off point*

The bold: Again, more dishonesty.
You cannot readdress my answer you have already first answered it. It is fraud called reargument or relitigation.

So bye bye rearguments are not allwed for you had made your argument and i countered. And you broke the law of argument in your attempt to counter, my counter, and that is where we stopped

And instead of you to leave the issue you have still switched and change post to rearguing what you have already argued.

None of the things you said here makes any sense.. so i will ignore it and focus on other things.

You mean "a word"!

And people know not to take people bu their words but actions are bettef tells of truth of a person which is why we say "Action speaks louder than words!

Words vs actions was not the point here and you know it. I gave the definition of the word atheism, which describes the lack of belief in a god.

What people say vs what people do was not the point. Stop shifting the goalpost.

Now are you claiming you don't know what an attack is?

If you make a claim and are unwilling to provide more information or clarifications.. then I'm not obliged to take you seriously.

In all of your threads, did you have in mind Allah, or krishna?
https://www.nairaland.com/7327192/god-hates-sin-much-then#116559508 "Well.. the answer is unfortunately B. The Christian God seems to have one of the worst damage control measures known to humanity."

Great work Einstein. Was that the only one of my threads you could find?

What about the one regarding holy books.. or questioning gods.. or the ones involving theists defending their god? You're just cherry picking what suits your narrative.

Also.. if you want to know why i sometimes raise topics about the Abrahamic god, then do yourself a favor and re-read my "why i as an atheist debate religion" thread.

Or you can just keep being dishonest and I'll humor you till I get bored of your antics as usual

StillDtruth:
See how dishonest.you are!

Instead of you to address my response which is that our action is predicated upon "rebuttable presumptions"

You then switched the argument to "Lots of theists also support or accept things like evolution and the big bang." WHICH IS NOT EVEN THE ISSUE OF YOUR THREAD! A complete off point and departure from post and divertilon and fraudulent switching of the attention to theists, (switching of the burden) whereas the attention is on you.

YOUR RESPONSE HERE IS EVEN TRYING TO. FRAUDULENTLY SWITCH IT BACK AGAIN TO THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED.

YOU ATHEISTS DON'T KNOW HOW TO HAVE A FAIR DEBATE!

lots of bold texts and yelling.. and still you've said nothing. I'm telling you not to have presumptions in the first place because they are based on a false idea, and you're ranting about how I should try to refute your false presumptions.. instead of you not just having them in the first place.

StillDtruth:
Oh, so because you defined it, you are right and your definition is True and cannot be comtradicted? Because you are the god of atheism god of all abi?

You think too much of yourself!

a-theism.. it's literally in the name. Look it up in any dictionary too. It's not "my" definition. I'm just defining the word based on what it literally means... from the name.. and trying to dispel the multiple wrong misconceptions people like you have about it.

I will tell you what i told your mad brother

"You think people are blind like you? Think people don't see that you people do not really attack muslims?

Did you not hear that actions speaks louder than words?

Attack muslims in what sense? And in what sense do we attack christians? if criticism of your belief, which like i said, directly affects the society i live in is seen as an attack to you, on you, then you're the one who's not seeing things clearly.

Can be applied is not the same as applied.

And by your.actions you have only applied it to one area.

So, clearly, you have impliedly admitted and confessed that you have only attacked christians and their God as your threads even prove.

As i can attack is not the same as i.attacked so also Can be applied is not the same as applied.

In what way have i applied my actions to one area? Here's a list of some of my posts.

1. Why You Should Absolutely Question "God"
2. If You Have A Personal Relationship With God, Why Do You Need Holy Books?
3. Theists, Prove YOUR God Exists

and there's more. How are these questions, or these threads geared at only christianity or the christian god?

StillDtruth:
Hey! Fallacy Tu Quo Qu/ Switching the burden.

Theus will not see this bad argument now!

There's no switching of any burden here. You wanted to start off with a false generalization, which i showed you is simply not true