Hermes019:

Saying I am confused and calling what I said "nonsense" is a bit harsh and uncivilized but I will let it pass

Could you define God ?
Tell me God's features and
Tell me how you came to ascertain them

I hope we can have a mature and intellectual conversation without cursing at each other or trying to claim that "I am right and you are wrong "

I also modified the post I made earlier u might want to check that out

This sort of discussion might be lengthy so I need to see if it will be worth it by asking you this question, what sort of evidence would convince you of the existence of God?

If you seek physical evidence, then I have none to present. There are lots of abstract concepts in the world — love, hate, complex numbers in maths, many elementary particles in the Standard model in Physics, etc. — that no one has ever seen.

We only accept them to be real based on logic, their effects and applications. By engaging in this sort of discussion as an irreligious fellow, I would offer the same sort of evidence of God's existence — logical notions in philosophy and physical effects.

Hermes019:


P.S I am not saying that such entity as described in my post exist,my opinion is simple,the universe is very complex and there a re a lot of things we don't know about it yet, science is making giant strides but it is unfortunate we don't recognize or even acknowledge them,u are an example, for you to question evolution shows that we are still far, even if it didn't occur exactly in the pattern described by scientists we have numerous solid evidences that evolution did occur but I won't go into that,but of course u should know that evolution doesn't claim to exist how the universe began.Back to what I was saying,I am not emphatically claiming that there is an entity that caused or created the universe(whatever u thnkthe word "created" means),I am rather implying that such is possible,there are a myriad of other possible explanations that could be given as well,so for now I wouldn't say that such an entity exists until there is proof so in that sense I would describe myself as agnostic (if I can use the word).
Lastly considering the relatively little knowledge I have about cosmology I feel that if such entity does exist it would be something beyond our comprehension maybe undimensional

The highlighted part is why I regard your posts as tripe. Can you show me where I stated evolution is questionable?

If you're discussing with someone for the first time, you don't do that with pre-conceived notions or wrong assumptions, lest you render your submissions as an unjustifiable attack against such a person.

Some fools may attribute the design of the universe to ONLY evolution, I'm not one of such. If all you have to say is pre-conceived notions and wrong assumptions, there is no point in engaging you any further in this discussion.

gensteejay:

The highlighted part is why I regard your posts as tripe. Can you show me where I stated evolution is questionable?

If you're discussing with someone for the first time, you don't do that with pre-conceived notions or wrong assumptions, lest you render your submissions as an unjustifiable attack against such a person.

Some fools may attribute the design of the universe to ONLY evolution, I'm not one of such. If all you have to say is pre-conceived notions and wrong assumptions, there is no point in engaging you any further in this discussion.

I apologize since that is how you feel,so I would ask you then
Do you believe that evolution occurred ?

gensteejay:

This sort of discussion might be lengthy so I need to see if it will be worth it by asking you this question, what sort of evidence would convince you of the existence of God?

If you seek physical evidence, then I have none to present. There are lots of abstract concepts in the world — love, hate, complex numbers in maths, many elementary particles in the Standard model in Physics, etc. — that no one has seen.

We only accept them to be real based on logic, their effects and applications. By engaging in this sort of discussion as an irreligious fellow, I would offer the same sort of evidence of God's existence — logical notions in philosophy and physical effects.

Everything is Meaningless!!!!!And no philosophy can prove God's existence. If you also subscribe to the "Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense" as regards physical effects,that wouldn't be surprising considering the effects of certain "declarifications" on your mind. I won't bother to ask you "why".I would rather let you know that you can't answer all the questions that must be asked. Yet,"The more you know, the more you need to know".

gensteejay:

This sort of discussion might be lengthy so I need to see if it will be worth it by asking you this question, what sort of evidence would convince you of the existence of God?

If you seek physical evidence, then I have none to present. There are lots of abstract concepts in the world — love, hate, complex numbers in maths, many elementary particles in the Standard model in Physics, etc. — that no one has ever seen.

We only accept them to be real based on logic, their effects and applications. By engaging in this sort of discussion as an irreligious fellow, I would offer the same sort of evidence of God's existence — logical notions in philosophy and physical effects.

A physical evidence is okay but a logical evidence would be preferred
You might want to answer the question below first so I don't say something assuming that is what u mean while its not the case

Hermes019:



Could you define God ?
Tell me God's features and
Tell me how you came to ascertain them

HellVictorinho:


Everything is Meaningless!!!!!And no philosophy can prove God's existence. If you also subscribe to the "Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense" as regards physical effects,that wouldn't be surprising considering the effects of certain "declarifications" on your mind. I won't bother to ask you "why".I would rather let you know that you can't answer all the questions that must be asked. Yet,"The more you know, the more you need to know".

If everything is meaningless literally speaking,is the bolded statement also meaningless

Hermes019:

If everything is meaningless literally speaking,is the bolded statement also meaningless

The bolded statement is philosophical.
It can be explained/enunciated.
The "Actuality of Things is the Ultimate Crap" is another statement whose meaning could be deciphered.
Finally, I can let you know that the "settings" for EXISTENCE are absurd.

HellVictorinho:


The bolded statement is philosophical. And it can be also explained/enunciated.
The "Actuality of Things is the Ultimate Crap" is another statement whose meaning could be deciphered.
Finally, I can let you know that the "settings" for EXISTENCE are absurd.

Lol,ok

gensteejay:

Very funny, so if I had such knowledge, I would be engaging in this discussion with you on Nl or will still be on this planet.

So, how did all those systems I mentioned earlier come about?By chance? Evolution? That's the answer I expected from you, not what you stated above.

Is that what you believe, that direct knowledge of this great intelligence will cause you to transcend the earth?

Now lemme reiterate, cosmology is not part of the atheism so it stands on its own. However as an atheist I lean heavily towards accepting scientific evidence and hypothesis for the origins of our universe.

From what I have learnt so far, the origins of our universe is necessarily shrouded in mystery that science may or may never uncover because of the timescales involved and the physics. As far is known now the universe expanded out from a singularity. What caused the singularity is unknown, what was before the singularity is also unknown.

HellVictorinho:


The bolded statement is philosophical.
It can be explained/enunciated.
The "Actuality of Things is the Ultimate Crap" is another statement whose meaning could be deciphered.
Finally, I can let you know that the "settings" for EXISTENCE are absurd.

OK, you're right if everything is meaninglessness to you. You can stay out of my mentions since it's meaningless for us to engage in any meaningless back-and-forth any further.

Hermes019:

A physical evidence is okay but a logical evidence would be preferred
You might want to answer the question below first so I don't say something assuming that is what u mean while its not the case

Will give my responses later.

LordReed:


Is that what you believe, that direct knowledge of this great intelligence will cause you to transcend the earth?

If I have such knowledge, I won't think twice before leaving this planet. I believe there are better worlds and advanced civilizations out there. It's not logical to hold the notion that only our planet holds intelligent life out of several hundreds of billions of planets in the universe. So, I am an advocate of Elon Musk's space exploration programs and follow his progress on this.

There is so much deceit and violence here.

LordReed:

Now lemme reiterate, cosmology is not part of the atheism so it stands on its own. However as an atheist I lean heavily towards accepting scientific evidence and hypothesis for.

I never said cosmology is an aspect of atheism. Did I?

LordReed:

From what I have learnt so far, the origins of our universe is necessarily shrouded in mystery that science may or may never uncover because of the timescales involved and the physics. As far is known now the universe expanded out from a singularity. What caused the singularity is unknown, what was before the singularity is also unknown.

You're right about that paragraph, at least from the current scientific viewpoint. I will post more comments later.

LordReed:


Is that what you believe, that direct knowledge of this great intelligence will cause you to transcend the earth?

Now lemme reiterate, cosmology is not part of the atheism so it stands on its own. However as an atheist I lean heavily towards accepting scientific evidence and hypothesis for the origins of our universe.

From what I have learnt so far, the origins of our universe is necessarily shrouded in mystery that science may or may never uncover because of the timescales involved and the physics. As far is known now the universe expanded out from a singularity. What caused the singularity is unknown, what was before the singularity is also unknown.

i have repeated this lines on many times with budaatum. So you share similar idea. Interesting

HellVictorinho:


Everything is Meaningless!!!!!And no philosophy can prove God's existence. If you also subscribe to the "Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense" as regards physical effects,that wouldn't be surprising considering the effects of certain "declarifications" on your mind. I won't bother to ask you "why".I would rather let you know that you can't answer all the questions that must be asked. Yet,"The more you know, the more you need to know".

pls do you have a job or you are still a student?

I ask this becuse the seemingly most meaningless life has purpose, though not always obvious. The baby who lives a few moments after birth still has a lasting impact on those around her or him. IThe universe doesn’t make mistakes. If it does you will not be here.There is meaning in everything and everyone.

I think the philosopher and scientist propagating this negative thought should be arrested. They want to create a saddist world.

gensteejay:

If I have such knowledge, I won't think twice before leaving this planet. I believe there are better worlds and advanced civilizations out there. It's not logical to hold the notion that only our planet holds intelligent life out of several hundreds of billions of planets in the universe. So, I am an advocate of Elon Musk's space exploration programs and follow his progress on this.

So would such knowledge help us advance our technology so that we can transverse the vast reaches of space much more effectively?

[/quote]
I never said cosmology is an aspect of atheism. Did I? [/quote]

No you didn't but you said this:

How is it possible for the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies to come into existence from NOTHING?

Just want to make sure it is understood that cosmology is not core to atheism, if not for you for others who may read my comment.

vaxx:
pls do you have a job or you are still a student?

I ask this becuse the seemingly most meaningless life has purpose, though not always obvious. The baby who lives a few moments after birth still has a lasting impact on those around her or him. IThe universe doesn’t make mistakes. If it does you will not be here.There is meaning in everything and everyone.

I think the philosopher and scientist propagating this negative thought should be arrested. They want to create a saddist world.

Do you know what I mean by "Everything"?And when I say "Meaningless",I mean "Not satisfying LOGIC absolutely when considered existentially.

gensteejay:

OK, you're right if everything is meaninglessness to you. You can stay out of my mentions since it's meaningless for us to engage in any meaningless back-and-forth any further.


Will give my responses later.

The statement is philosophical.And you SHOULDN'T take it literally.
Life can't be meaningless/meaningful when considered as the quality of having the characteristics of living things.
It is actually USEFUL.
Most people erroneously describe this quality,which is biological, using words like "meaningful/meaningless".
These quoted words can be used to express presence or absence of significance but their usage must be done correctly and due to the complexity of most natural occurrences it wouldn't always be LOGICAL to use them in describing certain things.

HellVictorinho:


Do you know what I mean by "Everything"?And when I say "Meaningless",I mean "Not satisfying LOGIC absolutely when considered existentially.

It is a fact that logic can be abused, Sometimes logic go awry when they are reductive in nature.They most certainly do awry when skepticism turns into denialism. We all know what this looks like—when skepticism turns into foot dragging or no by other means.

gensteejay:

**Modified

All right. Although, I'm irreligious, I'm not an atheist either. And I also hate labels.

I perfectly understand why an atheist would regard the concept of God in religions as a sham. God and his attributes, as explained in religions, are creations and fabrications of men.

That doesn't mean there is no God. But I don't like to use the word, "God", to describe the Entity that I regard as Infinite Intelligence (infinite understanding by humans) because that word has been grossly abused by all those jealous, insecure, and vengeful gods of religions that seek to be worshipped.

I know the universes, men, animals, and all that exists are created by an Entity (through a process, i.e. evolution). I prefer to call it The All, as Hermetic philosophers would say, or the Infinite Intelligence, and such an Entity wouldn't demand worship, punish people for evils they commit, and wouldn't create paradise or hell as places of reward or retribution, as the case may be.

And the Entity isn't sitting up there, monitoring our activities and regulating our affairs; every living thing, planet, universe, multiverse ... lies in The All. In other words, we are all parts or aspects of The All.

Associating things, like worship, prayer, forgiveness, benevolence, hate, love to the Infinite Intelligence is erroneous like the religionists do.

For instance, when science gets to an advanced level and virtually all societies become advanced ones, there is no need for anyone to pray. Prayer, as some philosophers say, is for the weak. Thinking is better and wiser.

The universe is governed by laws (rules), and these laws do not recognize Forgiveness. The Infinite Intelligence is not emotional like the gods of religions.

All other examples I gave above — love, hate, etc.— are mere relativistic concepts, whose meanings and implications change, depending on your frame of reference.

I don't fathom how atheists have sought answers to these questions satisfactorily and reached the conclusion that there is no Infinite Intelligence (not God or gods as described in religions) behind the creation of our world and several hundreds of billion worlds out there.

Most people became an atheist due to the way and manner God is described in religions. After studying a number of religions myself, I have seen their flaws, which is why I embraced irreligion.

I have also studied atheism, and its core concepts, like the problem of evil and the problem of good, and have seen its flaws. (Though if a large percentage, or even 50% of Nigerians were atheists, this country would have been much more developed than this.)

How is it possible for the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies to come into existence from NOTHING?

I feel atheists, having recognised the flaws in religions, should also critique the atheistic philosophy and note its flaws, and read books on philosophy, especially the Hermetic Philosophy. These will enable one gain a better insight on reality and grow, instead of being stagnant in the parochiality of atheism.

First let me mention that you have caused me to bring my mind to this discussion, and nothing pleases me more so thank you immensely! Second, note how I have placed some alternative words in your's above for consideration. I'll be using those alternatives in my response. They are at best, lenses through which we look, labels that we wear that distort what we see, and which Buddhism refers to as the finger that points to the moon and not the moon itself.

Labels are how most people understand others. They are the rudiments of language by which we communicate. But when we pigeonhole others with those labels, we claim we completely understand them, but that's like defining an elephant by it's trunk. Religions however encourage this simplistic attitude, which I am atheistic towards, as in, it is not a believe I adopt. Yet, one has no choice in the matter of labels when discussing with others for the benefit of being understood. Still, one must guide against taking the pointing finger for the moon it points to.

You say, infinite intelligence, and by choosing that phrase, you automatically, by implication, place your infinite intelligence in some external entity, whereby, I am placing an infinite understanding in the heads of humans. We both look at the universe, and you assume, if you don't mind my saying, that something must have created it, while I understand that it came in to being. It's like we both look at the course of a river, and since it appears to flow in what could be considered the best possible course for it to flow, one of assumes something intelligent designed that course while the other claims the river chose its own course guided by the simple rule (as opposed to a law) that water always flows downhill, which is explained by the rule of gravity. If there is evidence for a creator, I will willingly accept it but I am not likely to look at the course of a river and assume it's flow was created by anything but itself and the downhill rule of the flow of water. My atheism stops me from creating and fabricating things beyond the obvious rules that the universe appears to always obey, and which we seem to have the infinite ability to understand if we but search for them.

You ask "How is it possible for the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies to come into existence from NOTHING? And you say you know "the universes, men, animals, and all that exists are created by an Entity". To start with, atheism does not imply that the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies came into existence from NOTHING! An honest atheist will accept that they do not know how these things came about. I ask, do you really know how these things came about, or is it not truer to say that all you truly know is these things exist and how they came to exist is way beyond your knowledge? I, to be honest, only know that the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies exist, and any claim beyond that is not part of knowledge that I have, but a belief I may chose to hold on to with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to justify holding that belief - if I chose to hold on to it, which I don't. The truth is, I don't know how "the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies" and "universes, men, animals, and all that exists" came into existence, and neither am I willing to accept any of the religious ideas, be it God said, or a big bang, as reasons for their existence. Honesty, and an acceptance of the limits of my own understanding, allow me to take this stance and be content with it, and there's no need for me to create and fabricate beliefs in my head and claim they are things that I know. My atheism has not found "answers to these questions satisfactorily", but I feel no need to fill in the gap with an intelligent designer, or "Infinite Intelligence", as you call it. For though I claim that the entire human race has an infinite ability to understand, I know that I may possibly never reach the point of complete understanding, but still, we can continue to strive to reach that understanding rather than adopt a stop gap solution by inserting a belief for knowledge we are yet to attain. And by I, I do mean the entire human race for ever and ever. The evidence does however suggest that things follow the rules of evolution and have evolved into being what they are and which we see today. And they would continue becoming whatever they will become. But how it all began is so far back in time that we can only speculate, or create and fabricate beliefs about it, all of which I feel no need to do being mere human with limited knowledge.

I must say, I do not know what the core concepts of atheism are apart from the non-acceptance of an intelligent designer, be it gods, infinite or anything else, apart from a disbelieve and rejection of such notions, and not claiming to know what there's no evidence for. Atheism does not hold to the view that the hundreds of billions of planets and billions of galaxies came into existence from NOTHING! Atheism simply implies not filling the gap with "creations and fabrications of humans" without evidence, and has nothing to do with "the problem of evil and the problem of good". And that's where religion, or education, I would say, steps in, after all, that's what religion really is, a process of educating people about good and evil. It just so happens that the curriculum is based around our early understandings of things which is god based, but we are slowly evolving towards non-god based morality. Not many today after all believe that gods punish wrongdoing as seen by our inability to leave wrongdoers to be punished by gods with most societies choosing to inflict human punishment instead. But how about wrongdoings not punished by society, one might ask, like not working for one's daily bread, or being unkind to one's fellow humans. Does not reality deal with such wrongdoings itself, I ask? A great text in hermeticism says, "one who sows maize, reaps maize, and one who sows barley reaps barley. Humans reap what they sow". The fact that this is so can be observed in the universe, such that one can claim it as a rule. Or is it not true that everyone reaps what they sow? I can assure you that you chose to allow me to reap the intelligence of your mind because you have seen what I sowed and if I were as dumb as some, you would not have rewarded me with the intelligence that you have. Basically, you would not have cast your pearls in front of me if I were a swine. Do correct me if I am wrong. And not so much because a god said so, but just because, like me, you are human. I assure you that I would not have come up with this response to you if it were not for the intelligence which you sowed before me. And if I do not work for my manna, it will not from heaven drop into my mouth!

Just so it's known, I was fortunate to not have religionising parents whilst growing up and only got to know of gods as creators when I first arrived in Nigeria aged 7. Before that, I was familiar with Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods, but they were not taught to me as things to believe, but as things to understand along with the ability to think rationally which was the underlying lesson. In Nigeria, we are taught about gods as if they are facts that we must hold on to unfortunately, and the ability to reason is substituted with the principle of belief. It is this attitude to gods, the need to believe as opposed to the ability to seek to understand, that holds us back as a nation and which with every breathe I oppose, since it only promotes slavery to those whom we believe are more worthy and privileged than us to go up the mountain to the gods. As I've said on here, I'm the sort who would insist on going up the mountain too, and any god who considers me unworthy is not worthy of my time even if I were to believe that those who do go up return to claim they saw gods, which I wouldn't believe anyway.

Thanks for your time! I agree that everything is a hermetic whole, and if I were religiously inclined, could not but end this by saying it's all for the glory of that whole, or your "Infinite Intelligence", or the gods as some would put it, or my so called infinite ability of humans to seek understanding. They are labels, fingers, all. But they must not be mistaken for what they point to and imply and which we ought not to be reticent in seeking to understand.

Hermes019:


Could you define God ?
Tell me God's features and .

Yes, and in your own words:

"An entity which caused or played a role in its existence" and it's features".

And from your own definition, it's features would be that of a "causer" or "role player".

Now, you tell us how you came to ascertain the above!

budaatum:

Yes, and in your own words:

"An entity which caused or played a role in its existence" and it's features".

And from your own definition, it's features would be that of a "causer" or "role player".

Now, you tell us how you came to ascertain the above!

"The Forming of Existence" is an ever-occuring event.
"WORDS" are "declarifications" so they can't always be capable of conveying LOGIC despite their indispensability.
The "Existential Constant" ,which has been erroneously described as God/Infinite Intelligence/First Cause/The All/The Supreme Being of The Supreme Dimensions,is not and will never be something worthy of worship.
The "settings" for "Existence" are absurd.
"IN-EXISTENCE" is "Ever-Impossible".

budaatum:

Yes, and in your own words:

"An entity which caused or played a role in its existence" and it's features".

And from your own definition, it's features would be that of a "causer" or "role player".

Now, you tell us how you came to ascertain the above!

I don't really understand your question ?,is that for me or gensteejay

budaatum:

I agree that everything is a hermetic whole, and if I were religiously inclined, could not but end this by saying it's all for the glory of that whole, or your "Infinite Intelligence", or the gods as some would put it, or my so called infinite ability of humans to seek understanding. They are labels, fingers, all. But they must not be mistaken for what they point to and imply and which we ought not to be reticent in seeking to understand.

You said a lot of things here. Looking at your "flow of the river" analogy, why don't we consider the river itself — how it came into existence — rather than merely focusing on one of its traits, like the way it flows?

Isn't it more logical to consider the whole system, the river, rather than one of its attributes.

Hermes019:

I would ask you then
Do you believe that evolution occurred ?

I recognize the part played by evolution in how life came about on our planet, at least up to the extent science has explained.

But I also feel the theories of evolution are not solely responsible for the development of living things (animals, humans, birds, etc.) over time and these theories, as you may be aware, have their limitations.

I feel, when looking at how life came about up to this present age, evolution has played some part and some advanced entities (which some people call aliens, or gods in religions, like Allah, Jehovah, Atum, Chaleb, etc.) also played some part some millions of years ago.

I hold this view due to the fact I have studied a number of books in religions and philosophy, including Bible (Book of Yahweh, the Christian god), Qur'an (Book of Allah, the Islamic god), Book of Enki, Book of Gilgamesh, and Book of Atum, which OtemSapien has been compiling for few years now.

Having read all these books, one thing I find common in them is that the gods claim they created ancient men (our forefathers) through techniques, such as DNA sequencing and cloning, a sort of process similar to 3D organ printing but more advanced than it, in vitro fertilisation.

Some of them claim that ancient technology was far more advanced than ours, and I feel they are right.

I feel there are some truths in these claims and owing to the humongous number of worlds, planets, in the universe, it's quite logical to think that there are advanced civilizations out there and that there is a strong possibility of interplanetary contact with our planet and other ones in the past.

So, I feel evolution and creationism have both played some part in how life came about on this planet.

And while evolution plays some part in this, science hasn't shown us any part it plays in the birth and death of galaxies, planets, stars, and ultimately, the universe.

This brings to the fore the question, how did our universe (planets, galaxies, suns) come into life over 13 billion years ago?

I feel an intelligent designer is behind this.

For instance, if I stumble on a dazzling and extremely smart object while walking on the road and no info is stated on the object concerning its designer or owner, it's logical to attribute the creation of such an object to a person or a set of persons, since it can't just materialize out of thin air.

If you substitute the said object in that analogy for our universe, you should be able to see the logic behind attributing the latter system to be the creation of an intelligent entity.

Seun:
I guess the main problem with the atheist position is its unpopularity.

We can fix that by engaging religious people in constructive conversations more often. Helping them to see that not only is there no good reason to believe that any God or gods exist, but that we can have better morals, success, happiness, health, family lives, etc in our societies without believing in any God or gods.

You really don't know how annoying it is when you with the problem think it's you who should help.

You'd only have an idea of what your ignorant pride infuses when you-a programming expert- talk with a high school lad who argues blindly with you on programming, thinking it's him who should educate you.

Hermes019:

I don't really understand your question ?,is that for me or gensteejay

It was for you, and is an answer to your question, an answer you yourself provided.

gensteejay:

You said a lot of things here. Looking at your "flow of the river" analogy, why don't we consider the river itself — how it came into existence — rather than merely focusing on one of its traits, like the way it flows?

Isn't it more logical to consider the whole system, the river, rather than one of its attributes.



I recognize the part played by evolution in how life came about on our planet, at least up to the extent science has explained.

But I also feel the theories of evolution are not solely responsible for the development of living things (animals, humans, birds, etc.) over time and these theories, as you may be aware, have their limitations.

I feel, when looking at how life came about up to this present age, evolution has played some part and some advanced entities (which some people call aliens, or gods in religions, like Allah, Jehovah, Atum, Chaleb, etc.) also played some part some millions of years ago.

I hold this view due to the fact I have studied a number of books in religions and philosophy, including Bible (Book of Yahweh, the Christian god), Qur'an (Book of Allah, the Islamic god), Book of Enki, Book of Gilgamesh, and Book of Atum, which OtemSapien has been compiling for few years now.

Having read all these books, one thing I find common in them is that the gods claim they created ancient men (our forefathers) through techniques, such as DNA sequencing and cloning, a sort of process similar to 3D organ printing but more advanced than it, in vitro fertilisation.

Some of them claim that ancient technology was far more advanced than ours, and I feel they are right.

I feel there are some truths in these claims and owing to the humongous number of worlds, planets, in the universe, it's quite logical to think that there are advanced civilizations out there and that there is a strong possibility of interplanetary contact with our planet and other ones in the past.

So, I feel evolution and creationism have both played some part in how life came about on this planet.

And while evolution plays some part in this, science hasn't shown us any part it plays in the birth and death of galaxies, planets, stars, and ultimately, the universe.

This brings to the fore the question, how did our universe (planets, galaxies, suns) came into life over 13 billion years ago?

I feel an intelligent designer is behind this.

For instance, if I stumble on a dazzling and extremely smart object while walking on the road and no info is stated on the object concerning its designer or owner, it's logical to attribute the creation of such an object to a person or a set of persons, since it can't just materialize out of thin air.

If you substitute the said object in that analogy for our universe, you should be able to see the logic behind attributing the latter system to be the creation of an intelligent entity.

There is nothing logically amazing about the planets/galaxies/universe.

And you shouldn't celebrate the "Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense"

awesomeJ:


You really don't know how annoying it is when you with the problem think it's you who should help.

You'd only have an idea of what your ignorant pride infuses when you-a programming expert- talk with a high school lad who argues blindly with you on programming, thinking it's him who should educate you.

Forget about Seun,one of the most significant problems humans have is their tendency to describe whatever they discover about the universe (functionally) as "Amazing".

There is nothing good about making discoveries if they won't lead to scientifically beneficial advancements!!!!!

And whoever/whatever could have "Masterminded " the "Nonsense" which we experience today as "the Forming of Existence" must be capable of just one thing- Orchestrating Magnificent Absurdities/Inexplicably awesome but Meaningless Events.

HellVictorinho:


Forget about Seun,one of the most significant problems humans have is their tendency to describe whatever they discover about the universe (functionally) as "Amazing".

There is nothing good about making discoveries if they won't lead to scientifically beneficial advancements!!!!!

And whoever/whatever could have "Masterminded " the "Nonsense" which we experience today as "the Forming of Existence" must be capable of just one thing- Orchestrating Magnificent Absurdities/Inexplicably awesome but Meaningless Events.

You sound like a nihilist to me. But it's all good.

gensteejay:

You said a lot of things here. Looking at your "flow of the river" analogy, why don't we consider the river itself — how it came into existence — rather than merely focusing on one of its traits, like the way it flows?

Isn't it more logical to consider the whole system, the river, rather than one of its attributes.



I recognize the part played by evolution in how life came about on our planet, at least up to the extent science has explained.

But I also feel the theories of evolution are not solely responsible for the development of living things (animals, humans, birds, etc.) over time and these theories, as you may be aware, have their limitations.

I feel, when looking at how life came about up to this present age, evolution has played some part and some advanced entities (which some people call aliens, or gods in religions, like Allah, Jehovah, Atum, Chaleb, etc.) also played some part some millions of years ago.

I hold this view due to the fact I have studied a number of books in religions and philosophy, including Bible (Book of Yahweh, the Christian god), Qur'an (Book of Allah, the Islamic god), Book of Enki, Book of Gilgamesh, and Book of Atum, which OtemSapien has been compiling for few years now.

Having read all these books, one thing I find common in them is that the gods claim they created ancient men (our forefathers) through techniques, such as DNA sequencing and cloning, a sort of process similar to 3D organ printing but more advanced than it, in vitro fertilisation.

Some of them claim that ancient technology was far more advanced than ours, and I feel they are right.

I feel there are some truths in these claims and owing to the humongous number of worlds, planets, in the universe, it's quite logical to think that there are advanced civilizations out there and that there is a strong possibility of interplanetary contact with our planet and other ones in the past.

So, I feel evolution and creationism have both played some part in how life came about on this planet.

And while evolution plays some part in this, science hasn't shown us any part it plays in the birth and death of galaxies, planets, stars, and ultimately, the universe.

This brings to the fore the question, how did our universe (planets, galaxies, suns) came into life over 13 billion years ago?

I feel an intelligent designer is behind this.

For instance, if I stumble on a dazzling and extremely smart object while walking on the road and no info is stated on the object concerning its designer or owner, it's logical to attribute the creation of such an object to a person or a set of persons, since it can't just materialize out of thin air.

If you substitute the said object in that analogy for our universe, you should be able to see the logic behind attributing the latter system to be the creation of an intelligent entity.

This is basically the watchmaker analogy which has several problems that have not been satisfactorily answered.

One basic one is if complexity requires a complex creator it follows that the complex creator also requires an even more complex creator. In other words who created the creator?

Another is watches are made from less complex materials which you already recognise. Where are the less complex building materials for the universe?

Following the previous argument is if you stroll along the road and find a different object say a shoe, you don't assume the shoe was made by the watchmaker, you assume a shoemaker. Therefore implying there are several creators at work, a sunmaker, a planet maker, a moon maker.

There are many more objections to this watchmaker analogy which also I think destroys it.

LordReed:


This basically the watchmaker analogy which has several problems that have not been satisfactorily answered.

One basic one is if complexity requires a complex creator it follows that the complex creator also requires an even more complex creator. In other word who created the creator?

Another is watches are made from less complex materials which you already recognise. Where are the less complex building materials for the universe?

Following the previous argument is if you stroll along the road and find a different object say a shoe, you don't assume the shoe was made by the watchmaker, you assume a shoemaker. Therefore implying there are several creators at work, a sunmaker, a planet maker, a moon maker.

There are many more objections to this watchmaker analogy which also I think destroys it.

Yes, apart from evolution there were several advanced entities (called gods in religion) that designed and fashioned ancient men, microbes, plants, animals.

Those entities also designed suns, moons, and I think planets (not sure I remember this correctly). All these are claims from those books I made mention of earlier.

I think there are some truths in the claims and believe science of today will still get to the level of creating man, through DNA sequencing and cloning, 3D organ printing, and in vitro fertilisation. In the near future, scientists will also be able to design suns, moons, planets.

Did you read the news story reported last year about the artificial moon designed by scientists in China? I think some German scientists also designed an artificial sun.

DNA sequencing and cloning and in vitro fertilisation have already witnessed great breakthroughs in the modern era.

Of course, if they can create a man, designing animals and plants can also be achieved. Obviously, such scientists will face backlash from ethicists and religionists. But it's only a matter of time before science will sound the death knell on religions and superstitious beliefs. It's a gradual process.

All the technologies and techniques for creating man, animals, plants, and astrological bodies are not new; they are only lost or hidden.

Anything any scientist or god creates, in my opinion, is still created by The Infinite Intelligence (who some call God) as every living thing, planet, universe, etc. lie within it and are its aspects. That's my own philosophy as of now.

gensteejay:

You sound like a nihilist to me. But it's all good.

God forbid!!!!
I can't subscribe to anyone's philosophy because I have mine.

HellVictorinho:


God forbid!!!!
I can't subscribe to anyone's philosophy because I have mine.

Ok

HellVictorinho:


There is nothing logically amazing about the planets/galaxies/universe.

And you shouldn't celebrate the "Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense"

All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend and you say this are not amazing. If i may ask what will you not consider as masterminded nonsense. I mean what will be logically amazing to you?