Kay 17: @anony

The nature of an entity determines its function

Hence a complex entity performs a complex function/action.

The mind's intricate nature, which makes it difficult to even understand and describe

I don't know where you are heading with this. I have already explained to you that the mind is not the same kind of thing as a car or a swiss army knife. It is not intricate/complex in the same way a car is intricate/complex. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Besides you still haven't told us how this intricate mind is simpler than chance.

thehomer:

This has to be one of the most asinine things I've come across on this forum. You declare that I've committed a logical fallacy, I ask you to demonstrate it and you just go bonkers. You then hop on to making the sorts of comparisons that even children will notice as being a demonstration of either idiocy or insanity.

I'm done with you. Your petulant cry for attention has been noted.

You mean the idiocy that characterizes you, not to mention the bold lies, because anyone who reads through our short discussion will find I referred you to the OP as an example requested. But laziness typically being the distinguishing features of demented goats such as yourself, all you do is ignore the question and focus on trivialities. Your constant evasion of points raised has been noted.

Uyi Iredia:

You mean the idiocy that characterizes you, not to mention the bold lies, because anyone who reads through our short discussion will find I referred you to the OP as an example requested. But laziness typically being the distinguishing features of demented goats such as yourself all you do is ignore the question and focus on trivialities. Your constant evasion of pointa raised has been noted.

Uyi please can we keep the conversation civil?

thehomer:

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is just a waste of time. You often find it difficult or are just too dumb to back up your own claims.

The whining exemplified by old hags and lazy bums. I raise points. That you objectify time. I said how your definition of cause is flawed with reasons. I suggested you read an article on taste so you know the Eiffel tower can be tasted. You ignore them. But then ! Ignorance is the hallmark of fools.

chukkynwob:

Uyi please can we keep the conversation civil?

I respond in kind to comments. I wouldn't give outright insults unless I'm provoked or insulted. I think you should talK to thehomer as well and ask him why he replies my POINTS with insults.

Kay 17: Sorry for breaking up my argument, I thought the qualities of the mind only will convince one of its higher complexity than Chance.

Chance: possibility of the happening of an event.

The possibility (or likelihood) is not an attribute of the event itself. It is an attribute humans ascribe to the event just like time and location. Chance, time, location are concepts used by humans to describe the event. Without humans and/or their pre-requisite intelligence such concepts won't matter - they won't exist. What I can agree with is that there is an event.

Mr anony:
Lol, "corrected" indeed. Anyway, no need beating this dead horse

You just keep resurrecting it.

Mr anony:
How exactly this question relates to my comment, I know not.

Then let me show you again. What you're describing is for instance a universe where the speed of light rather than being a constant at say 3E⁶m/s, you're thinking of one where it may be 1 m/s then becomes 200m/s then becomes 0.2m/s then 7E⁹m/s. My question to you is whether or not such a phenomenon is actually possible.

Mr anony:
That is what you'll have to show in order to demonstrate chaos. You wouldn't have to show this if the physical laws exist necessarily. But if the physical laws do not exist necessarily, then it is logically possible but since we don't observe chaos, we can comfortably say that the universe follows a design.

No I don't because I presented you with what I meant by chaos. You on the other hand were talking about something else. You're saying we don't observe chaos but the article I showed you to said otherwise. Note once more that I'm talking about physical possibilities not logical possibilities.

Mr anony:
Seriously this is just you being dishonest. You know full well that to say that a thing exists necessarily is to say that it is not logically possible for such a thing to exist otherwise. In fact you employ this when questioning God's necessary attributes.

What on earth are you talking about? You're the one talking about some necessary existence and claiming that I made some concession but for some reason, you've been unable to show me making these mysterious concessions.

Mr anony:
Now you have been caught like a fly in a web you have suddenly developed amnesia of what it means to be necessary and started "correcting" me into what you know full well is wrong. Don't be a coward now. You can't make an argument if you won't stick your neck out. You can't fire arrows while hiding behind a claim of ignorance

If what I'm saying is wrong, then you have to actually show me that I'm wrong.

Mr anony:
Lol, I know what I said. Misrepresenting it like this doesn't help you

That is not a misrepresentation. That is the implication of what you said.

Mr anony:

Good. So according to you we can tell that something is the work of an intelligent agent when

1. the thing is assembled in such a way that is very unlikely to occur by chance
2. this assembly works in such a way that it achieves a certain end
3. we don't have to know what the particular end is all we need to see is that it is functioning according to a specific pattern.

For instance a computer program is designed because
1. it is assembled in such a way that is unlikely to occur by chance
2. it works in such a way that it achieves a certain end
3. We don't have to know the particular end all we need to see is that it is functioning according to a specific pattern

Compare with

1. The DNA code is assembled in such a way that is unlikely to occur by chance
2. it works in such a way that it achieves a certain end
3. We don't have to know the particular end all we need to see is that it is functioning according to a specific pattern

According to your criteria, the DNA code is designed. Wouldn't you agree?

No I don't agree because I DNA is not unlikely to occur by chance. Note that DNA is a molecule that can be represented as a code.

Secondly, even if I agreed that DNA was designed, it still doesn't get you to God since there could be other designers like extra terrestrials and fairies.

Mr anony:
I have argued something specific which is that the universe is designed because it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function
In much the same way that I can say that a car was designed because it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict and analyze how it ought to function.

All you have done here is ignore the reason why I inferred design (in bold) and thrown in silly questions like "who created the trafficator bulb filament?" "who created the car door handle?" You are reducing the design to it's components and trying to say if the components don't meet the requirements of the whole then the whole fails. What you have committed is the fallacy of composition.
If you are not interested in seriously tackling my argument then please say so.

Pay attention to what you're doing. You're saying everything in the universe has: it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

But what you're hiding is the fact that the entire phrase in bold is what you mean by design so you've successfully begged the question of design. Unless of course you think that that phrase in bold could be true but it still won't be designed.

What I'm pointing out to you is that you're saying everything in the universe was designed by God and with that, you've explained nothing by explaining everything.

What I'm trying to do is to understand using examples, what you mean by inferring design. You can still help if you could tell me whether or not the following objects are designed.

Viruses, neutron stars, crickets, sand, melon, water, electron, vacuum, amoeba.

Note that you've not actually demonstrated your claim that I made the fallacy of composition but you on the other hand are saying that God did it all except when I point out to you what humans actually did.

Edited for clarity.

thehomer:

You just keep resurrecting it.



Then let me show you again. What you're describing is for instance a universe where the speed of light rather than being a constant at say 3E⁶m/s, you're thinking of one where it may be 1 m/s then becomes 200m/s then becomes 0.2m/s then 7E⁹m/s. My question to you is whether or not such a phenomenon is actually possible.

Of course it is possible. Do other particles not change speed? What is so special about a photon? Once again this proves that the speed of light does not exist by necessity. A universe where the speed of light varies is very logically possible.

No I don't because I presented you with what I meant by chaos. You on the other hand were talking about something else. You're saying we don't observe chaos but the article I showed you to said otherwise. Note once more that I'm talking about physical possibilities not logical possibilities.

But I have also shown you that what you mean by chaos is not truly chaos but can be predicted accurately as long as it is measured accurately.

What on earth are you talking about? You're the one talking about some necessary existence and claiming that I made some concession but for some reason, you've been unable to show me making these mysterious concessions.

Lol, never mind, you have already said that you don't know. Just don't get any bursts of memory soon.

If what I'm saying is wrong, then you have to actually show me that I'm wrong.

Lol, this is just too funny. Let me remind you what I asked you:

I asked you if the universe exists necessarily and I gave you this warning

"Be very careful how you answer this question. Let me tell you the implications: If you say yes, then you would be saying that the idea of a multiverse is a logically incoherent idea. If you say no, then you would be saying that the universe must ultimately be contingent on something that exists necessarily. Your call"

You read it all and then replied that you didn't know if the universe existed necessarily.

At that point, you knew fully well what it means to exist necessarily you knew that to say a thing exists necessarily is to say that it is logically impossible to exist any way else.
By claiming that you don't know, you have excused yourself from making the contention "if the universe were different" because that will mean that you KNOW that the universe does not exist and function necessarily. I pointed that out to you. Claiming ignorance is not a shield here sir. If you don't know, then you can't contend because contention requires that you know.

That is not a misrepresentation. That is the implication of what you said.

no it is not.

thehomer:

How about the trees growing, the sun shining, the wetness of water, the flying of airplanes and the 2004 tsunami?

What exactly is your point?

thehomer:

No I don't agree because I DNA is not unlikely to occur by chance. Note that DNA is a molecule that can be represented as a code.

Secondly, even if I agreed that DNA was designed, it still doesn't get you to God since there could be other designers like extra terrestrials and fairies.

Lol, interesting, first of all I'd like to know where you draw the line for things likely resulting from chance and things that are unlikely to result from chance otherwise what you've just said is pretty vague I can as well say that a computer software is not unlikely to occur by chance. You have really said nothing here. I am especially interested in where you draw the chance line between dna code of for instance a banana and a computer code like nairaland.

Secondly, a computer program is a software that can be represented by code. and by the way, we can engineer genes by tweaking the DNA code same as software programs by tweaking the code.

Thirdly, the question is not who designed DNA but whether DNA is designed according to your criteria. If you think there are extraterrestrial design teams floating about, feel free to give evidence for them later. For now tell us whether you think the DNA code is designed.

Pay attention to what you're doing. You're saying everything in the universe has: it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

The part I highlighted there is your strawman. I said "the universe has constituent parts....." not "everything in the universe has....". I am focussing on the universe as a specific entity and applying my criteria for inferring design to it.

But what you're hiding is the fact that the entire phrase in bold is what you mean by design so you've successfully begged the question of design. Unless of course you think that that phrase in bold could be true but it still won't be designed.

What I'm pointing out to you is that you're saying everything in the universe was designed by God and with that, you've explained nothing by explaining everything.

This is the problem with your strawman not my argument

What I'm trying to do is to understand using examples, what you mean by inferring design. You can still help if you could tell me whether or not the following objects are designed.

Viruses, neutron stars, crickets, sand, melon, water, electron, vacuum, amoeba.

I have a feeling that this is a red herring but I'll answer you either way. I will only use this response to explain what I mean. I will not be drawn on a tangent following from this

viruses - i don't know enough about them to make a call
neutron stars - i don't know enough about them to make a call
crickets (by which I suppose you mean the insect) - yes, they consist of constituent parts arranged in such a way that they work according to a specific pattern that can be recognized analyzed and predicted.
sand - i don't know enough about them to make a call
melon - yes for the same reasons given for crickets
water - not necessarily designed
electron - not necessarily designed
vacuum (if by vaccum you mean nothing)- not designed
amoeba - yes

Note that you've not actually demonstrated your claim that I made the fallacy of composition but you on the other hand are saying that God did it all except when I point out to you what humans actually did.

I accused you of that fallacy because I thought you actually got my argument. I am now convinced you did not. You were arguing a strawman all along

Mr anony:
I don't know where you are heading with this. I have already explained to you that the mind is not the same kind of thing as a car or a swiss army knife. It is not intricate/complex in the same way a car is intricate/complex. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Besides you still haven't told us how this intricate mind is simpler than chance.

I didn't insist the mind was of the same complex material as a car or swiss army knife, rather on complexity simpliciter. The idea of jurisprudence is complex but not of the same complex material as matter.

Also I have stressed and described on the complexity of the mind many times already! Besides you admitted to the complexity via function/behaviour, then you turn around acting puzzled about complexity of d mind

Mr anony:
Of course it is possible. Do other particles not change speed? What is so special about a photon? Once again this proves that the speed of light does not exist by necessity. A universe where the speed of light varies is very logically possible.

Once again, you're answering a question I did not ask. I asked if it was physically possible.

Mr anony:
But I have also shown you that what you mean by chaos is not truly chaos but can be predicted accurately as long as it is measured accurately.

That is directly contradictory to what is in the article.

Wikipedia:
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

Mr anony:
Lol, never mind, you have already said that you don't know. Just don't get any bursts of memory soon.

Once again, you run from demonstrating your own claim that should be easy.

Mr anony:
Lol, this is just too funny. Let me remind you what I asked you:

I asked you if the universe exists necessarily and I gave you this warning

"Be very careful how you answer this question. Let me tell you the implications: If you say yes, then you would be saying that the idea of a multiverse is a logically incoherent idea. If you say no, then you would be saying that the universe must ultimately be contingent on something that exists necessarily. Your call"

You read it all and then replied that you didn't know if the universe existed necessarily.

At that point, you knew fully well what it means to exist necessarily you knew that to say a thing exists necessarily is to say that it is logically impossible to exist any way else.
By claiming that you don't know, you have excused yourself from making the contention "if the universe were different" because that will mean that you KNOW that the universe does not exist and function necessarily. I pointed that out to you. Claiming ignorance is not a shield here sir. If you don't know, then you can't contend because contention requires that you know.

This still stems from your failure to understand the entire realms of the possibilities.

Let me make it even more explicit.

Here are the only two possibilities.

1. The universe necessarily exists the way it does.
2. The universe does not necessarily exist the way it does.

My point is if (1) your response is: God did it that way. If (2) your response is: God did it that way. So in your attempt to explain it all, you explain nothing at all.

Mr anony:
no it is not.

Then show that it doesn't follow.

Mr anony:
This is irrelevant to the thread. I don't need to know exactly what it is designed for in other to know that it is a design. All I have to show on this thread is evidence that the universe was designed.

How can you say you don't know what it was designed for , yet still claim it was designed?. . .A car is desiged for driving. . .What is the universe designed for?. . .

How does the universe behave? It acts in accordance to physical laws of nature e.g the law of gravity

That does not mean it was designed, it just means it acts in certain ways. . .Chance can also make it act in such ways. . .

Try specific patterns of motion such that we can calculate and predict these movements, collisions and explosions.

It only means that the universe acts in a particular way. . .

I never said anything about the universe functioning as a human society

That is what your entire premise is, re-read what you have written. . .If we are to go with your claims, we can as well say that the universe has designers. . .

Mr anony:
Lol, interesting, first of all I'd like to know where you draw the line for things likely resulting from chance and things that are unlikely to result from chance otherwise what you've just said is pretty vague I can as well say that a computer software is not unlikely to occur by chance. You have really said nothing here.

The line is a statistical one but what you need to realize of course is that however unlikely computer software might be, it is still less likely without the initial presence of sapient beings therefore, the presence of sapient beings is more likely than the presence of computer software.

Mr anony:
Secondly, a computer program is a software that can be represented by code. and by the way, we can engineer genes by tweaking the DNA code same as software.

Wrong. A computer program is code. Tweaking the DNA code is a short way of saying you're moving around specific molecules.

Mr anony:
Thirdly, the question is not who designed DNA but whether DNA is designed according to your criteria. If you think there are extraterrestrial design teams floating about, feel free to give evidence for them later. For now tell us whether you think the DNA code is designed.

Actually, the question of who is very much in play because your aim with this line of inquiry is to present DNA as being evidence for God.

Mr anony:
The part I highlighted there is your strawman. I said "the universe has constituent parts....." not "everything in the universe has....". I am focussing on the universe as a specific entity and applying my criteria for inferring design to it.

This is why you should have read the entire sentence before randomly picking out something and calling it a strawman. What you did was to edit out the rest of your own quote and you called it a strawman. Really. The words following the semicolon that are in bold are in fact your very own words.

Mr anony:
This is the problem with your strawman not my argument

I quoted your own argument and you're calling part of it a strawman?

Mr anony:
I have a feeling that this is a red herring but I'll answer you either way. I will only use this response to explain what I mean. I will not be drawn on a tangent following from this

viruses - i don't know enough about them to make a call
neutron stars - i don't know enough about them to make a call
crickets (by which I suppose you mean the insect) - yes, they consist of constituent parts arranged in such a way that they work according to a specific pattern that can be recognized analyzed and predicted.
sand - i don't know enough about them to make a call
melon - yes for the same reasons given for crickets
water - not necessarily designed
electron - not necessarily designed
vacuum (if by vaccum you mean nothing)- not designed
amoeba - yes

It is not a red-herring and what you've just demonstrated is that you're partly making an argument from ignorance and contradicting yourself. Let me explain as usual.

You don't know whether or not some of those objects were designed. If you don't know that, then you cannot actually say (what follows is a direct quote from you on own method of inferring design not a strawman): it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

You also said some of those objects weren't designed. If they weren't designed, but you're willing to attribute the moon to your God's design, how did they come about?

Mr anony:
I accused you of that fallacy because I thought you actually got my argument. I am now convinced you did not. You were arguing a strawman all along

I really find it difficult to understand why you guys just chuck out the name of a fallacy and think it settles everything. That isn't how to have a serious discussion. Please can you actually show me how I committed this fallacy? If you had tried to do that and read my post in its entirety, you'll have realized that it wasn't a strawman. Unless of course you failed to recognize your own ideas being quoted back to you verbatim.

davidylan: Since emotions do not interact with the universe in a detectable manner, i therefore declare it non-existent.

Here is the problem, god as defined by christianty is supposed to be detectable. . .He is said to always interact with humans and wants to be in a relationship with the. . .Even the bible talks about signs that will follow believers so that unelievers will see and believe. . .The bible does NOT talk about an undetactable god any where. . .it talks about a god that is actively engaged with humans. . .Not the hidden god christians apologist are now constantly selling. . . .That is not the god advertised in the bible. . .

thehomer: Once again, you're answering a question I did not ask. I asked if it was physically possible.

I remember pointing out to you that particles change speed all the time and asking you why you seem to be convinced that a photon can't.

That is directly contradictory to what is in the article.

This is also from the article:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

This tells me that the key issue here is precision which is basically what I said.

Once again, you run from demonstrating your own claim that should be easy.

i don't see the need since you have now claimed ignorance.

This still stems from your failure to understand the entire realms of the possibilities.

Let me make it even more explicit.

Here are the only two possibilities.

1. The universe necessarily exists the way it does.
2. The universe does not necessarily exist the way it does.

My point is if (1) your response is: God did it that way. If (2) your response is: God did it that way. So in your attempt to explain it all, you explain nothing at all.

Lol, no that is not what I am arguing at all. What I'm arguing is that
If (1) the universe necessarily exists the way it does then there is no need to say that God did it that way.
If (2) the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does, then it can be said that God did it that way.

Then show that it doesn't follow.

I'll give you rough analogy. Let us say that Seun wrote the entire code that defines Nairaland. The constituent parts of Nairaland you see result from that code. The comments we type can be seen as our own creations made by re-assembling parts of an already created Nairaland.
Your argument against the moon is like saying Seun created Nairaland but didn't create the "Submit" icon. To make this argument you must show that another mind created the submit button and that it doesn't follow from the code.

The same can be applied to the universe and it's physical laws resulting in all of it's space, time and matter.

thehomer:
The line is a statistical one but what you need to realize of course is that however unlikely computer software might be, it is still less likely without the initial presence of sapient beings therefore, the presence of sapient beings is more likely than the presence of computer software.

interesting, I can also say that however unlikely a DNA code is, it is still less likely without the initial presence of an intelligent being and therefore the presence of an intelligent being is more likely than the presences of the DNA code.

Notice that you have not told us anything about why one code is more likely or less likely than the other

Wrong. A computer program is code. Tweaking the DNA code is a short way of saying you're moving around specific molecules.

Constituent parts all assembled and working according to a set of specific pattern such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function.

Or to use your criteria: parts assembled so that it works in such a way that it achieves a certain end

btw: I can also say tweaking a computer code is merely changing a bunch of alphabets and numbers it doesn't change anything about the software being designed

Actually, the question of who is very much in play because your aim with this line of inquiry is to present DNA as being evidence for God.

The question to you is do you think it was designed? You are not under any obligation to say who

This is why you should have read the entire sentence before randomly picking out something and calling it a strawman. What you did was to edit out the rest of your own quote and you called it a strawman. Really. The words following the semicolon that are in bold are in fact your very own words.



I quoted your own argument and you're calling part of it a strawman?

Read again exactly what I highlighted and what I said about what it

It is not a red-herring and what you've just demonstrated is that you're partly making an argument from ignorance and contradicting yourself. Let me explain as usual.

You don't know whether or not some of those objects were designed. If you don't know that, then you cannot actually say (what follows is a direct quote from you on own method of inferring design not a strawman): it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

You also said some of those objects weren't designed. If they weren't designed, but you're willing to attribute the moon to your God's design, how did they come about?

I remember specifically saying that I didn't know enough about them to say if they were designed or not i.e. I don't know their constituent parts and how they work properly enough to make the call. If you gave me more information about them, then I'll be in a better position to tell you if they are designed or not. There is no contradiction there

....and yes a vacuum is not designed neither is it an object. It is nothing.

I really find it difficult to understand why you guys just chuck out the name of a fallacy and think it settles everything. That isn't how to have a serious discussion. Please can you actually show me how I committed this fallacy? If you had tried to do that and read my post in its entirety, you'll have realized that it wasn't a strawman. Unless of course you failed to recognize your own ideas being quoted back to you verbatim.

Go back and read it again. Pay close attention to the part I highlighted in red

Mr anony:
Let me ask you a question I have asked thehomer. Do you think these physical laws exist necessarily i.e. Do you think they couldn't have existed any other way?

Allow me to answer. I think they are not necessary. For example, there's nothing to prevent hydrogen and oxygen mixing to become salt, or the atom just being a static neutron. We can think of these. Furthermore, why are these phenomena consistent ? I therefore suppose that an intelligence arbitrated these properties. How ? I don't know.

thehomer: 1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

While addressing this argument, please tell us the God you have in mind.

Edit for more clarity:

Oh I think I see the source of some confusion. Let me try to make things more explicit.

1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.
3. If he does interact with the universe in a detectable manner, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If he doesn't interact with the universe in a detectable manner, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

The argument is okay. The weakness is in 3. Things which can be presumed to exist may not be detectable. A very good example of this is in atoms. Millenia before the atom was detected philosophers such as Democritus proposed its existence. Planets such as Pluto have presumed before being detected.

jayriginal: A non detectable god is for all intents and purposes a non existent god.

Succinct.

Hence, dark endrgy, dark matter and multiverses are non-existent since they aren't detectable. Unrecorded past events also don't exist since they aren't detectable.

Uyi Iredia:

Hence, dark endrgy, dark matter and multiverses are non-existent since they aren't detectable. Unrecorded past events also don't exist since they aren't detectable.

God as presented by religions like christianity is supposed to be detectable by definition, because he intereacts in the world all of the time.....

It is a waste of time discussing with people who do not know what they are.

People who thnk that they were assembled by dead stones, purposelessly.

A man could not be more dead than one who has such a belief.

When I used the word 'corpse', it probably for this same reason was entirely lost on thehomer.

I will chat about this one last time. In Plaetton's thread on consciousness, or in a new thread. When I am done, I will NEVER discuss this ediocy again.

mazaje:

God as presented by religions like christianity is supposed to be detectable by definition, because he intereacts in the world all of the time.....

Agreed. My point still stands.

Uyi Iredia:

Agreed. My point still stands.

Nope it doesn't. . .Dark energy, dark matter and multiverses are NOT things that intereact with humans, they do not have a personal relatiionship with humans, do not answer their prayers, protect them or favor them over other humans. . .God is said to do all these things, if it is true then god must be detected in one way or the other by a neutral observer. . .actually the bible even talks about signs that will follow believers so that those that do not believe will see and believe. . .The fact that we do not see any of these claims or promises in reality and the with the fact that the christian god that is said to be detectable remains undetectable means he does not exist. . .Mind you when we talk about god, we are talking about god as advertised or presented by the christians not, the deist undetectable god people like anony are trying to sell here. . .The god as presented in the bible is NOT what anony or davidylan are trying to sell on this thread. . .

Deep Sight:
It is a waste of time discussing with people who do not know what they are.

People who thnk that they were assembled by dead stones, purposelessly.

A man could not be more dead than one who has such a belief.

When I used the word 'corpse', it probably for this same reason was entirely lost on thehomer.

I will chat about this one last time. In Plaetton's thread on consciousness, or in a new thread. When I am done, I will NEVER discuss this ediocy again.

More like, assembled in a purposeless primordial soup given plausible conditions. A certain evolutionist on talkorigins advanced the silly notion that billions of chemical reactions going on in an ocean filled with chemical compounds 'solved' the problem of making life. I think design and purpose found in living organisms is the best evidence for intelligence. Further evidence is in the proposition that: natural conditions are limited in the kind of complexity they make (e.g. snow, diamonds, stalactites etc)

mazaje:

Nope it doesn't. . .Dark energy, dark matter and multiverses are NOT things that intereact with humans, they do not have a personal relatiionship with humans, do not answer their prayers, protect them or favor them over other humans. . .God is said to do all these things, if it is true then god must be detected in one way or the other by a neutral observer. . .actually the bible even talks about signs that will follow believers so that those that do not believe will see and believe. . .The fact that we do not see any of these claims or promises in reality and the with the fact that the christian god that is said to be detectable remains undetectable means he does not exist. . .Mind you when we talk about god, we are talking about god as advertised or presented by the christians not, the deist undetectable god people like anony are trying to sell here. . .The god as presented in the bible is NOT what anony or davidylan are trying to sell on this thread. . .

Sorry sir Mazaje, but this is just arrant sttupidity.

Uyi Iredia:

Agreed. My point still stands.

Indeed: particularly the point about undetectable things in the past: which may never be detected, but without which we would not exist.

Thehomer's argument reads like saying evolution never happened until it was detected.

Deep Sight:
It is a waste of time discussing with people who do not know what they are.

People who thnk that they were assembled by dead stones, purposelessly.

A man could not be more dead than one who has such a belief.

When I used the word 'corpse', it probably for this same reason was entirely lost on thehomer.

I will chat about this one last time. In Plaetton's thread on consciousness, or in a new thread. When I am done, I will NEVER discuss this ediocy again.

One doesn't agree with you = eediocy? Do you know what eediocy means?

This is all opinions, and we know what they're like, but I would think that word very clearly applies to you.

wiegraf:

One doesn't agree with you = eediocy? Do you know what eediocy means?

This is all opinions, and we know what they're like, but I would think that word very clearly applies to you.

You of course must be very very slow not to have realized a long time ago that it is nothing but ediocy not to agree with me. Agreeing with me is very smart: disagreeing is ediocy, becuase I am always right. Now, I am not being sarcastic: I mean it: I am always right. Disagree at peril of your own ediocy.

Thehomer and anyone else, including yourself sire, who believes that mindless matter purposelessly assembled human beings over time, is a prize winning eddiot and certainly no better than a goat or rooster in terms of brains or perception.

Deep Sight:

Thehomer and anyone else, including yourself sire, who believes that mindless matter purposelessly assembled human beings over time, is a prize winning eddiot and certainly no better than a goat or rooster in terms of brains or perception.

I take this back: it is an insult to goats and roosters.

mazaje:

Nope it doesn't. . .Dark energy, dark matter and multiverses are NOT things that intereact with humans, they do not have a personal relatiionship with humans, do not answer their prayers, protect them or favor them over other humans. . .God is said to do all these things, if it is true then god must be detected in one way or the other by a neutral observer. . .actually the bible even talks about signs that will follow believers so that those that do not believe will see and believe. . .The fact that we do not see any of these claims or promises in reality and the with the fact that the christian god that is said to be detectable remains undetectable means he does not exist. . .Mind you when we talk about god, we are talking about god as advertised or presented by the christians not, the deist undetectable god people like anony are trying to sell here. . .The god as presented in the bible is NOT what anony or davidylan are trying to sell on this thread. . .

Yes, it does. From Jayriginal's point that dark matter, dark energy and unrecorded past events are non-existent. Jayriginal's point rests on the supposition that things which aren't detectable don't exist. You admit that dark matter et al aren't detectable, hence, they don't exist. Dark matter is a mass (masses are supposed to be detectable) which interacts with the universe. Here's a piece from Wikipedia

Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.

Now why is something that is supposed to be detectable but not detected (such as dark matter) exist while the Christian God doesn't exist ?