^^^ Maybe better leave it, Daiquiri.

Enigma:

^^^ Maybe better leave it, Daiquiri.

You heavy for my hand. Noted

. . . . .wow, whoever said weather chat was boring. Clearly not.

Ok! Somehow this drink omniscient and omnipresent divines thus my whereabouts.

Now that, might just be indian magik.

Daiquiri:

You heavy for my hand. Noted

I'm flattered and honoured.

Deep Sight:

I am sorry to answer you with links and pictures, but my conviction is that people who discountenance intelligent design simply have yet to grasp the nature and design of the biological elements of conscious life. It's that simple.

Really? Why was the design done? You would need to know this to conclude that that there is some sort of design.

Deep Sight:

No one could have a thorough understanding of the working of the biological elements of conscious creatures and deny intelligent design. No one.

Those that claim they do, factually do not. Its that simple.

I hope you realize that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Those who understand and agree with you are correct those who understand but don't agree with you don't really understand?

Deep Sight:

But worst of all, such people do not have a grasp of the import of sentience in a being.

Only people who believe in intelligent design do?

The introduction of a Creator is credible enough to explain the orderliness, complexity and stability of the universe, however the intelligent creator is

himself: orderly, intelligent, brimming with purpose and complex which leaves the obvious question, who caused or created him? We have eventual

created uncaused and timeless hypotheses for our Grand Creator/Hypothesis!

The Beginning not just within our reach

thehomer:

Really? Why was the design done? You would need to know this to conclude that that there is some sort of design.

Why is a painting done by an artist?

Reflect closely on that, and therein you might find your answer.

Hint: self expression.

I hope you realize that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Those who understand and agree with you are correct those who understand but don't agree with you don't really understand?

No it is not. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Nobody needs to agree with me that 1 +1 = 2. It is a logical and empirical FACT. Nor does anyone have to agree with me that 0 + 0 = 0. Nobody has to agree with me on the law of cause and effect and the laws of motion. I did not create them. These are evident and empirical FACTS son.

It is thus equally logical that design elements with given functionalities are evidentially purposed and purposeful.

Only people who believe in intelligent design do?

Yes.

^^^
A painting could have other purposes apart from that which the known designer created it for. Purpose could very dynamic. In this present universe,

what is its most objective purpose? Promote life?

life is a very small and fragile part of the universe and all the components of the universe do not

have not an impact on us.

Self-expression? that is if he is in the shoes and brains of man. Primitive societies have made similar mistakes: failing to

recognize the power of Nature and perhaps Chance

Deep Sight:

Why is a painting done by an artist?

Reflect closely on that, and therein you might find your answer.

Hint: self expression.

How about a desire to get paid? Now you seem to suggest self expression as the reason for this God to design what? DNA, humans, animals, plants, stars? Which of the numerous natural objects is the self expression of this God?

Deep Sight:

No it is not. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Nobody needs to agree with me that 1 +1 = 2. It is a logical and empirical FACT. Nor does anyone have to agree with me that 0 + 0 = 0. Nobody has to agree with me on the law of cause and effect and the laws of motion. I did not create them. These are evident and empirical FACTS son.

Yes it does have to do with agreeing with you since according to your claim, even scientists whose specialties and occupations lie in understanding biological systems simply do not understand them. But you somehow understand their fields better than they do since they do not agree with your claim of intelligent design.

Deep Sight:

It is thus equally logical that design elements with given functionalities are evidentially purposed and purposeful.

You would first have to show this ultimate purpose.

Deep Sight:

Yes.

Then you are sorely mistaken because numerous scientists and humanists (secular or otherwise) do understand the importance of sentience.

Nobody needs to agree with me that 1 +1 = 2. It is a logical and empirical FACT.

Sorry to interject in your conversations. i just thought i will adjust your simple equation.

1 - 1 = 0.
where +1 is matter and -1 is antimatter.

In other words, when this universe was formed from nothing it contained an equal amount of matter and antimatter.

^^^
I doubt if they are equal

mantraa:

Sorry to interject in your conversations. i just thought i will adjust your simple equation.

1 - 1 = 0.
where +1 is matter and -1 is antimatter.

In other words, when this universe was formed from nothing it contained an equal amount of matter and antimatter.

This is severely misconceived reasoning I have to say.

~ As you start with the statement - "when this universe was formed from nothing" - then you would have to start at a zero - in other words - nothingness.

~ You therefore cannot commence your reasoning from the point of view of things already existing, whereat you have values already in existence [1].

~ Thus you have yet to resolve the core conundrum, namely - why something instead of nothing?

~ Again an understanding of the nature of anti-matter does not support the sort of equation you laid out. Anti-matter is not taken away from matter in such a manner as to suggest a removal of a factor from the other. Rather the reverse - the addition of both is what leads to annihilation of both, and not subtraction of one from the other as your equation suggests.

Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter can lead to the annihilation of both, in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The result of antimatter meeting matter is an explosion.

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

This shows that your equation is altogether misfooted.

The very first level of thought remains the origin of these elements. WE cannot magically arrive at a scenario where these exist, and then begin to discuss cosmology from that point of view without asking the initial question: where did all these elements originate from? In proper context of this discussion, this is the real question.

This is thus what is at the pith of a discussion regarding the existence of a prime mover and first cause.

thehomer:

How about a desire to get paid?

This is not the innate purpose of any art. I refer to the innate purpose of art.

That should have been obvious to you since what we are discussing is the innate nature of things.

Now you seem to suggest self expression as the reason for this God to design what? DNA, humans, animals, plants, stars? Which of the numerous natural objects is the self expression of this God?

Everything in existence is a part of the infinite expression of the infinite mind of existence itself: which is what reality is.

Yes it does have to do with agreeing with you since according to your claim, even scientists whose specialties and occupations lie in understanding biological systems simply do not understand them. But you somehow understand their fields better than they do since they do not agree with your claim of intelligent design.

Well i will accept that the minute you can show me one scientist that disagrees that 1 + 1 = 2, or 0 + 0 = 0.

Then, and only then, can we refer the discussion to the exclusive realm of opinion.

Until then, it remains an objective, rational and empirical discussion.

You would first have to show this ultimate purpose.

The ultimate purpose is the infinite expression of the eternal and infinite mind that is itself reality.

Sorry, that may not be scientific enough for you i know, however the material realm does have its limitations.

Ditto, the hardened materialist.

Then you are sorely mistaken because numerous scientists and humanists (secular or otherwise) do understand the importance of sentience.

The atheist ones certainly do not have a grasp of its import.

jayriginal:


In the meantime, on this thread, nobody knows for sure (one of the questions I asked you on that is if you were certain of your position). I may as well ask here if you are absolutely certain that your musings are the infallible truth and you have perceived the nature of "God".

To be honest, I believe I am as certain as I will ever be in this lifetime.

Deep Sight:

This is not the innate purpose of any art. I refer to the innate purpose of art.

That should have been obvious to you since what we are discussing is the innate nature of things.

So you do not think some people engage in art to get paid? Well good luck with that.

Deep Sight:

Everything in existence is a part of the infinite expression of the infinite mind of existence itself: which is what reality is.

This sounds like pantheism with some curiously combined words.
Just to get this straight, you're claiming that the purpose of design is the "infinite expression of the infinite mind". This of course means I have to ask what you think your own purpose is.

Deep Sight:

Well i will accept that the minute you can show me one scientist that disagrees that 1 + 1 = 2, or 0 + 0 = 0.

Then, and only then, can we refer the discussion to the exclusive realm of opinion.

Until then, it remains an objective, rational and empirical discussion.

It seems you still do not understand the fallacy you've committed. And you go on to present a non sequitur. How does the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 show intelligent design? What do arithmetic operations have to do with this discussion?

Deep Sight:

The ultimate purpose is the infinite expression of the eternal and infinite mind that is itself reality.

Sorry, that may not be scientific enough for you i know, however the material realm does have its limitations.

Ditto, the hardened materialist.

So, this eternal and infinite mind is reality? What do you think a mind is?

Deep Sight:

The atheist ones certainly do not have a grasp of its import.

Again, you are wrong. Please answer this question. How can you tell that someone considers sentience important?

thehomer:

So you do not think some people engage in art to get paid?

That is still not the innate purpose of art.

I am horrified if you dont know that. And here, we are discussing the innate nature of things.

So smarten up for once, mate.

This sounds like pantheism with some curiously combined words.
Just to get this straight, you're claiming that the purpose of design is the "infinite expression of the infinite mind". This of course means I have to ask what you think your own purpose is.

I am an infinitesimal embodiment of the consciousness arising from the infinite mind: I dwell therein and thereof, my purpose sealed in the variegated experience of consciousness, which defines its own eternal instant of reality. . . .

Yeah, i know, over your head.

It seems you still do not understand the fallacy you've committed. And you go on to present a non sequitur. How does the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 show intelligent design? What do arithmetic operations have to do with this discussion?

Its been a while since i had to address your seeming refusal to follow discussions, son.

Its simple really. You stated that I was dealing with opinions. I say to you that I am dealing with logic. I assert that, and prove that, by showing you that certain basic logical postulations are not a question of opinion. Such as 1 + 1. And such as 0 + 0 - a sum which shows mathematically and conclusively that no combination of nothings could ever arrive at a something. The implication of this is that we can logically dismiss any suggestion that things may arise from nothingness.

By the way, the factors of numbers inherent in reality is the most sound pointer to the ordered nature of the infinite mind. But again, that may be well over your chosen realm.

Please don't make me have to walk you through on such simple stuff again. I am tired of being misunderstood in the way I express myself.

So, this eternal and infinite mind is reality? What do you think a mind is?

Mind is the quality that is, and apprehends, all things.

Again, you are wrong. Please answer this question. How can you tell that someone considers sentience important?

Considering something important is not the same as understanding its import

There always has to be something rather than nothing and it is definitely material, cos nobody knows what the non physical is like. God then should a physical guided by physical laws

Kay 17:

There always has to be something rather than nothing and it is definitely material, cos nobody knows what the non physical is like. God then should a physical guided by physical laws

God is the self-existent eternal and fundamental principle of reality that actuates all things in itself.

All things are caused by the principle of GOD. The GOD-principle, I might say.

If matter is caused by it, then it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is immaterial.

Heck, principles are immaterial anyway.

Deep Sight:

God is the self-existent eternal and fundamental principle of reality that actuates all things in itself.

All things are caused by the principle of GOD. The GOD-principle, I might say.

If matter is caused by it, then it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is immaterial.

Heck, principles are immaterial anyway.

Principles attract meaning in relation to matter, its not self dependent. If God is not physical, then this present world wouldnt be either except if he

created out of nothing! which is impossible. Also the essence of design is diminished if he has to create anything from nothing. Cos nothing also means no preexisting conditions to warrant accommodation of one's invention.

Deep Sight:

That is still not the innate purpose of art.

I am horrified if you dont know that. And here, we are discussing the innate nature of things.

So smarten up for once, mate.

I advice you to smarten up yourself for once. Unless you somehow represent all artists of all time, simply asserting what you think the "innate" purpose of art should be doesn't really help you. Claiming that people don't do or have never done artworks to get paid is simply absurd.

Deep Sight:

I am an infinitesimal embodiment of the consciousness arising from the infinite mind: I dwell therein and thereof, my purpose sealed in the variegated experience of consciousness, which defines its own eternal instant of reality. . . .

Yeah, i know, over your head.

Meh just more woo woo stuff that people say to make themselves appear inscrutable. It is simply word salad.

Deep Sight:

Its been a while since i had to address your seeming refusal to follow discussions, son.

Its simple really. You stated that I was dealing with opinions. I say to you that I am dealing with logic. I assert that, and prove that, by showing you that certain basic logical postulations are not a question of opinion. Such as 1 + 1. And such as 0 + 0 - a sum which shows mathematically and conclusively that no combination of nothings could ever arrive at a something. The implication of this is that we can logically dismiss any suggestion that things may arise from nothingness.

By the way, the factors of numbers inherent in reality is the most sound pointer to the ordered nature of the infinite mind. But again, that may be well over your chosen realm.

Please don't make me have to walk you through on such simple stuff again. I am tired of being misunderstood in the way I express myself.

For some reason, it appears that it is easy to misunderstand your attempts at self expression.
So according to you, the intelligent design claim is analogous to arithmetic? Are you being serious here? It isn't enough to throw about numbers, you also need to show the purpose. Claiming people who have studied this through out their careers don't see it but those that agree with you see it is simply fallacious.

Deep Sight:

Mind is the quality that is, and apprehends, all things.

So whatever that doesn't apprehend all things isn't a mind? A mind is the quality that is? Is what?

Deep Sight:

Considering something important is not the same as understanding its import

Okay, what is the difference between the importance of something and its import?

Claiming that people don't do or have never done artworks to get paid is simply absurd.

I never said that, Mr. Homer. I said very simply that that is not, and never will be, the innate purpose of art.

If you think commercial enterprise is an innate purpose of art, i can only conclude that you are not an artist

Leonardo Da Vinci, easily for me the most brilliant man ever to walk the earth, earned money from art, amongst his many other briliiant endeavours. I do wonder though, if you think that that was the innate purpose of his art.

Okay, what is the difference between the importance of something and its import?

Tell me you're kidding.

Deep Sight:

I never said that, Mr. Homer. I said very simply that that is not, and never will be, the innate purpose of art.

If you think commercial enterprise is an innate purpose of art, i can only conclude that you are not an artist

Leonardo Da Vinci, easily for me the most brilliant man ever to walk the earth, earned money from art, amongst his many other briliiant endeavours. I do wonder though, if you think that that was the innate purpose of his art.

Tell me you're kidding.

Purpose can be very dynamic, a knife has a variety of purposes which even the maker did not anticipate

Kay 17:

Purpose can be very dynamic, a knife has a variety of purposes which even the maker did not anticipate

I should not have to explain the innate purpose of art.

Communication

Self expression

Appreciation

Commercial interest

Fame and Publicity etc

Deep Sight:

To be honest, I believe I am as certain as I will ever be in this lifetime.

I appreciate that. At least I understand your position. The only puzzle left for me now is your concept of the afterlife. I would be grateful if you can shed light on that (on the other thread of course).

Deep Sight:

I am an infinitesimal embodiment of the consciousness arising from the infinite mind: I dwell therein and thereof, my purpose sealed in the variegated experience of consciousness, which defines its own eternal instant of reality. . . .

Yeah, i know, over your head.

import

lol, nice wordplay!! But at the end of the day, no matter how many words you pull out of your a$$ and the dictionary, your "oneness of infinity a.k.a infinite mind" is still the product of your brain.  It didn't go over anybody's head because it's in your head!

All you're demonstrating is the fact that men create gods in the own image, with their own ideas and with their own intellect according to what they feel "GOD" should be like. All you have to do now is write your "infinite mind" idea down, find some simple minded people to buy into your "God" and PROFIT!!! See L. Ron Hubbard for reference.

Deep Sight:

I never said that, Mr. Homer. I said very simply that that is not, and never will be, the innate purpose of art.

Saying that getting paid cannot be a purpose of art implies what I said which is what you're responding to.

Deep Sight:

If you think commercial enterprise is an innate purpose of art, i can only conclude that you are not an artist

And if you think the commercial enterprise cannot be an innate purpose of art, then I can only conclude that you are not an artist.

Deep Sight:

Leonardo Da Vinci, easily for me the most brilliant man ever to walk the earth, earned money from art, amongst his many other briliiant endeavours.  I do wonder though, if you think that that was the innate purpose of his art.

I really don't care especially when we consider that he is simply one out of many artists.

Deep Sight:

Tell me you're kidding.

No I'm not. Here are definitions and synonyms of "import".

Wiktionary:
1. (countable) Something brought in from an exterior source, especially for sale or trade.
2. (uncountable) The practice of importing.
3. (uncountable) Significance, importance.

I don't think you were referring to the first or second meanings when you were using it in that sentence. So what is the difference?

thehomer:

Saying that getting paid cannot be a purpose of art implies what I said which is what you're responding to.

I will not countenance this discussion until you acquaint yourself with the innate purpose of art.

It will be fair (though dumbfounding) to state that you do not know it, in which case i will inform you.

And if you think the commercial enterprise cannot be an innate purpose of art, then I can only conclude that you are not an artist.

Well just leave art alone then. It causes me physical pain to see anybody so debase it, by stating that its innate purpose is profit.

I really don't care especially when we consider that he is simply one out of many artists.

No, he was not "simply one out of many artists". He is actually the Holy Grail of creativity as far as the history of humanity is concerned. So please don't ever say that in your life again. Ejoo. I can prostrate for you. Don't ever say that again. Ese.

No I'm not. Here are definitions and synonyms of "import".

Sigh. So tiresome. Shades of words have nuances. A thing may be important to someone whereas that person does not understand its real import - or significance. 

totally unrelated to the topic at hand Bros, you too like beta thing ooh no forget to invite me - shaks aplenty - carry on

Deep Sight:

Sigh. So tiresome. Shades of words have nuances. A thing may be important to someone whereas that person does not understand its real import - or significance. 

lagerwhenindoubt:

totally unrelated to the topic at hand Bros, you too like beta thing ooh no forget to invite me - shaks aplenty - carry on

Do you know me?

Deep Sight:

Do you know me?

Hahha. We both know someone you know So I got you on NL and outside. The suspense is killing me

Deep Sight:

I will not countenance this discussion until you acquaint yourself with the innate purpose of art.

It will be fair (though dumbfounding) to state that you do not know it, in which case i will inform you.

Please inform me. I'd like to know how you came about this "innate purpose of art" thing.

Deep Sight:

Well just leave art alone then. It causes me physical pain to see anybody so debase it, by stating that its innate purpose is profit.

I guess I'm going to torture you a bit more.
So creating works of art and selling it is debasing? Please tell me who or what is it debasing? The artist, the work of art, the society? What?

Deep Sight:

No, he was not "simply one out of many artists". He is actually the Holy Grail of creativity as far as the history of humanity is concerned. So please don't ever say that in your life again. Ejoo. I can prostrate for you. Don't ever say that again. Ese.

Meh he was simply one out of many artists. The fact that you see him the way you do doesn't necessarily mean he automatically is "the Holy Grail of creativity". You need to learn to separate your personal desires from certain opinions to avoid your conclusion being clouded by emotion.

Deep Sight:

Sigh. So tiresome. Shades of words have nuances. A thing may be important to someone whereas that person does not understand its real import - or significance. 

I hope you realize that what you just said can also be said thus: a thing may be important to someone whereas that person does not understand its real importance or significance.
Somehow, you automatically know that scientists who do not agree with you somehow don't understand the real importance of something but they understand its importance. What of course follows is who are you to try to impose what you think is the "real" importance without presenting satisfactory evidence? And how do you determine that someone considers sentience important or "of great import".