Plead:


I wonder why atheists on here still engage the dude. Budaatum is a clown taking clownism to a whole new level.

Budaatum is worse than a terrorist.

Image123:


You are not getting me right. Basically, anything He does has to be examined in His standard and attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Give me an example or two of God for proper comparison.

I think we are saying the same thing. He is omniscient therefore anything he does is right because he knows everything. So when he kills babies in a flood, he is right because he knows everything. How do we disagree?

LordReed:


You said (emphasis mine):
Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?



LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.



There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain. Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?



Why can't a subjective mind know that such a thing is true?



Did you miss this:

Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.

EDITED

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?
I don't need to show you any since it is impossible (if just anybody have such history, then it can't be regarded as a SUPERNATURAL CREATION again) but you just showed what is consistent with atheistic worldview that you've been trying to deny by rejecting the Bible a priori.
And I already explained in simple statement why the Bible can be regarded as recording history but the atheistic bias would not allow you

LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.
Again, you've misrepresented my point here. I emphasized that how the universe began cannot be known by science because it cannot be observed, repeated nor tested; this are the pillars of the scientific method. And cosmology is not regarded to be in same ranks with the science which follows the scientific methods such as Physics, Chemistry, Physiology.
Finally, this branch of (historical) science is used as a tool such that data are interpreted according to a philosophical position, and should not be put in same category with that philosophical position which has been the crux of my argument. Atheism use cosmology as a TOOL to answer question about the universe such that it must be consistent with its worldview (no Creator must be allowed)

There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain.
The fact that the mechanism which translate workings of neurons to consciousness is unknown should not make anyone claim that neurons working together produce consciousness in the first place.
If consciousness (mental state, awareness, perception to music and the rest) are just about the brain chemistry, then all should have same consciousness as same matter have same properties. But that is not the case, each human have different consciousness and the split brain experiments are revealing some mind blowing data which suggest that consciousness transcends brain chemistry

Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?
Everything about that is consistent with the Christian worldview. That there is soul of a person which is unique to that person only, that is, the self awareness of such person. Again, a thought experience from the unified consciousness of split brain suggest that if the two halves of a split brain is placed in two persons, both will have same consciousness of the original person. This is because people still remain conscious no matter what hemisphere of the brain that is affected.
A simple scenario is:
Person M has brain composed of matter A and he is conscious. If A is split into two; b and c, then since from our knowledge, b and c are not identical, it can be said that b is a form of matter different from c. But empirical observations show that person M will always be conscious whether b is functional or c. This suggest that person M is conscious (retaining self awareness and identity) with at least, two (2) different matter. This shows that consciousness transcends beyond just matter.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.
Very funny. You assumed for me and accused me of not knowing what abiogenesis is just because I mentioned Pasteur (who demolished the idea that life come from non life which was borne out of an atheistic presupposition to exclude God) but must have ignored the best case for it that I talked about when I mentioned the Miller-Urey experiments (which was also motivated by same atheistic presupposition to still try to prove that life can arise from non life). That's pathetic.
You failed to show how my definition is different from your definition (a good tactic of many atheists?) and ignored the concluding paragraphs that I quoted which showed that abiogenesis is just a blind faith that has no evidence for getting life from non life (after billions of dollars experiments)
Those are what I'm interested on. I'm not falling for your red herrings.
Lastly, I already showed that they are all related to one worldview . Else, what is the point of telling me how we get all life forms from one single life form and want me to not talk about how that single life form come about?

keppler:

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?
I don't need to show you any since it is impossible (if just anybody have such history, then it can't be regarded as a SUPERNATURAL CREATION again) but you just showed what is consistent with atheistic worldview that you've been trying to deny by rejecting the Bible a priori.
And I already explained in simple statement why the Bible can be regarded as recording history but the atheistic bias would not allow you

LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.
Again, you've misrepresented my point here. I emphasized that how the universe began cannot be known by science because it cannot be observed, repeated nor tested; this are the pillars of the scientific method. And cosmology is not regarded to be in same ranks with the science which follows the scientific methods such as Physics, Chemistry, Physiology.
Finally, this branch of (historical) science is used as a tool such that data are interpreted according to a philosophical position, and should not be put in same category with that philosophical position which has been the crux of my argument. Atheism use cosmology as a TOOL to answer question about the universe such that it must be consistent with its worldview (no Creator must be allowed)

There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain.
The fact that the mechanism which translate workings of neurons to consciousness is unknown should not make anyone claim that neurons working together produce consciousness in the first place.
If consciousness (mental state, awareness, perception to music and the rest) are just about the brain chemistry, then all should have same consciousness as same matter have same properties. But that is not the case, each human have different consciousness and the split brain experiments are revealing some mind blowing data which suggest that consciousness transcends brain chemistry

Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?
Everything about that is consistent with the Christian worldview. That there is soul of a person which is unique to that person only, that is, the self awareness of such person. Again, a thought experience from the unified consciousness of split brain suggest that if the two halves of a split brain is placed in two persons, both will have same consciousness of the original person. This is because people still remain conscious no matter what hemisphere of the brain that is affected.
A simple scenario is:
Person M has brain composed of matter A and he is conscious. If A is split into two; b and c, then since from our knowledge, b and c are not identical, it can be said that b is a form of matter different from c. But empirical observations show that person M will always be conscious whether b is functional or c. This suggest that person M is conscious (retaining self awareness and identity) with at least, two (2) different matter. This shows that consciousness transcends beyond just matter.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.
Very funny. You assumed for me and accused me of not knowing what abiogenesis is just because I mentioned Pasteur (who demolished the idea that life come from non life which was borne out of an atheistic presupposition to exclude God) but must have ignored the best case for it that I talked about when I mentioned the Miller-Urey experiments (which was also motivated by same atheistic presupposition to still try to prove that life can arise from non life). That's pathetic.
You failed to show how my definition is different from your definition (a good tactic of many atheists?) and ignored the concluding paragraphs that I quoted which showed that abiogenesis is just a blind faith that has no evidence for getting life from non life (after billions of dollars experiments)
Those are what I'm interested on. I'm not falling for your red herrings.
Lastly, I already showed that they are all related to one worldview . Else, what is the point of telling me how we get all life forms from one single life form and want me to not talk about how that single life form come about?

Why not chance?
Why the supernatural?

HellVictorinho:


Why not chance?
Why the supernatural?

Why not chance?

Because the odds are astronomically improbable. If you have a bucket of paint in your house and you went out, only to come back to see that there is a painting on the wall which reads "HellVictorinho" in a beautiful manner, what will be your explanation for the appearance of the painting on the wall of your house?

Why the supernatural?
Using the scenario above, if someone has explained that it was painted by an intelligent man, would you reject it because you cannot see the intelligent man in favor of some explanation that suggest that 'a small earth tremor occurred such that the house shook and the cover went flying, causing the paint to splash on the wall but another chemical also splashed in such a way that it cleaned excess paint but leaving the impression of "HellVictorinho" on the wall'.

Which would you prefer to rationally believe?

keppler:

Why not chance?

Because the odds are astronomically improbable. If you have a bucket of paint in your house and you went out, only to come back to see that there is a painting on the wall which reads "HellVictorinho" in a beautiful manner, what will be your explanation for the appearance of the painting on the wall of your house?

Why the supernatural?
Using the scenario above, if someone has explained that it was painted by an intelligent man, would you reject it because you cannot see the intelligent man in favor of some explanation that suggest that 'a small earth tremor occurred such that the house shook and the cover went flying, causing the paint to splash on the wall but another chemical also splashed in such a way that it cleaned excess paint but leaving the impression of "HellVictorinho" on the wall'.

Which would you prefer to rationally believe?

How does the existence of life forms or the universe relate to your analogy
What does the bucket of paint represent??
You have to determine the relevance of your analogy to the matter on ground.

HellVictorinho:


How does the existence of life forms or the universe relate to your analogy
What does the bucket of paint represent??
You have to determine the relevance of your analogy to the matter on ground.

Now you're talking.
Well, I wrote a response to five (5) points and you answered with just "why not chance". I wouldn't know what you are replying to which is why I gave a general answer to chance vs supernatural intervention questions.

Anyway, I would love to get an answer to my question as to which explanation you would rationally choose and why, then I can show you how my analogy relate to existence of life forms.

I'll be waiting for your answer in order to proceed

keppler:

Now you're talking.
Well, I wrote a response to five (5) points and you answered with just "why not chance". I wouldn't know what you are replying to which is why I gave a general answer to chance vs supernatural intervention questions.

Anyway, I would love to get an answer to my question as to which explanation you would rationally choose and why, then I can show you how my analogy relate to existence of life forms.

I'll be waiting for your answer in order to proceed

It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho.

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.


If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.


Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.

HellVictorinho:


It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho.

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.


If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.

Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.

It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho
You are doing well.
This shows that you can't accept any naturalistic explanation EVEN IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE HUMAN THAT MADE THE PAINTING. Great!

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.

This assumes you KNOW how God is. If that's true, how did you know that he has no form or structure?

If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.

I never said anything about God having structure yet. You are the one who implied that. So you may please answer the question above on how you knew that he doesn't have one

Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.
After all you've seen me write, you still want to commit the unnecessary fallacy of question begging epithet. That's not a good way to continue the good job you are starting.

Now to your previous question about how the analogy is relevant to origin of life. I want to believe that you know how incredibly complex, the simplest life form is. It is so magnificent in that it cannot be compared to any modern day factory. No machine built by intelligent Human can compare to the so called simplest life form, not to talk of higher animals and then human. All life forms have coded information stored in their DNA which are so complex, in that they have the best known storage system, self repair system, copying system etc. In fact, the information in the Human DNA is so enormous that if they were to be printed in a book, it will be stacked from earth to the moon. Imagine such amazing engineering feat.
Now, if you can't take a naturalistic explanation for the formation of "HellVictorinho" on your wall, how do you find it comfortable to take such for something that no human has fully comprehend, not to talk of having the INTELLIGENCE to do it?
A rational explanation is that such amazing piece of Design is made by a HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Now, the Bible (which has proved itself after so many attacks over many centuries and generation) has revealed that such HIGHER INTELLIGENCE is God. It only take a strong bias to say otherwise.

In simple terms;
only intelligent minds are capable of making stuff that are intelligible or appeared to be designed.
Life forms have the appearance of complex design

hence it can be concluded that an intelligent mind is responsible for the complex designs in life forms

keppler:



It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho
You are doing well.
This shows that you can't accept any naturalistic explanation EVEN IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE HUMAN THAT MADE THE PAINTING. Great!

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.

This assumes you KNOW how God is. If that's true, how did you know that he has no form or structure?

If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.

I never said anything about God having structure yet. You are the one who implied that. So you may please answer the question above on how you knew that he doesn't have one

Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.
After all you've seen me write, you still want to commit the unnecessary fallacy of question begging epithet. That's not a good way to continue the good job you are starting.

Now to your previous question about how the analogy is relevant to origin of life. I want to believe that you know how incredibly complex, the simplest life form is. It is so magnificent in that it cannot be compared to any modern day factory. No machine built by intelligent Human can compare to the so called simplest life form, not to talk of higher animals and then human. All life forms have coded information stored in their DNA which are so complex, in that they have the best known storage system, self repair system, copying system etc. In fact, the information in the Human DNA is so enormous that if they were to be printed in a book, it will be stacked from earth to the moon. Imagine such amazing engineering feat.
Now, if you can't take a naturalistic explanation for the formation of "HellVictorinho" on your wall, how do you find it comfortable to take such for something that no human has fully comprehend, not to talk of having the INTELLIGENCE to do it?
A rational explanation is that such amazing piece of Design is made by a HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Now, the Bible (which has proved itself after so many attacks over many centuries and generation) has revealed that such HIGHER INTELLIGENCE is God. It only take a strong bias to say otherwise.

In simple terms;
only intelligent minds are capable of making stuff that are intelligible or appeared to be designed.
Life forms have the appearance of complex design

hence it can be concluded that an intelligent mind is responsible for the complex designs in life forms

Since God has no structure,then God can't exist.
It doesn't mean I know how God is.
If I know how God is,then God has a structure.
It's impossible to know how God exists when there is no how God can exist.
There's nothing amazing about the universe or life forms.
The complexities are the arrangements of several ageless indivisible objects that are exposed or conscious by chance.
In other words,these arrangements are exposed by chance.

keppler:



It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho
You are doing well.
This shows that you can't accept any naturalistic explanation EVEN IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE HUMAN THAT MADE THE PAINTING. Great!

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.

This assumes you KNOW how God is. If that's true, how did you know that he has no form or structure?

If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.

I never said anything about God having structure yet. You are the one who implied that. So you may please answer the question above on how you knew that he doesn't have one

Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.
After all you've seen me write, you still want to commit the unnecessary fallacy of question begging epithet. That's not a good way to continue the good job you are starting.

Now to your previous question about how the analogy is relevant to origin of life. I want to believe that you know how incredibly complex, the simplest life form is. It is so magnificent in that it cannot be compared to any modern day factory. No machine built by intelligent Human can compare to the so called simplest life form, not to talk of higher animals and then human. All life forms have coded information stored in their DNA which are so complex, in that they have the best known storage system, self repair system, copying system etc. In fact, the information in the Human DNA is so enormous that if they were to be printed in a book, it will be stacked from earth to the moon. Imagine such amazing engineering feat.
Now, if you can't take a naturalistic explanation for the formation of "HellVictorinho" on your wall, how do you find it comfortable to take such for something that no human has fully comprehend, not to talk of having the INTELLIGENCE to do it?
A rational explanation is that such amazing piece of Design is made by a HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Now, the Bible (which has proved itself after so many attacks over many centuries and generation) has revealed that such HIGHER INTELLIGENCE is God. It only take a strong bias to say otherwise.

In simple terms;
only intelligent minds are capable of making stuff that are intelligible or appeared to be designed.
Life forms have the appearance of complex design

hence it can be concluded that an intelligent mind is responsible for the complex designs in life forms

The DNA is not an amazing design.
Haven't you heard of deformities??
Haven't you heard of hereditary problems
Haven't you heard of genetic misdemeanors
Haven't you heard of cancerous cells
These things happen in the presence of the DNA.
Ultimately, the DNA is just a group of ageless indivisible objects that are arranged anyhow.

HellVictorinho:


Since God has no structure,then God can't exist.
It doesn't mean I know how God is.
If I know how God is,then God has a structure.
It's impossible to know how God exists when there is no how God can exist.
There's nothing amazing about the universe or life forms.
The complexities are the arrangements of several ageless indivisible objects that are exposed or conscious by chance.
In other words,these arrangements are exposed by chance.

Since God has no structure,then God can't exist.

This logic is flawed and the fallacies committed are:
1. Fallacy of begging the question: You are yet to show us whether God has a structure or not before drawing a conclusion on such assumption
2. Non Sequitur fallacy: that something does not have a structure does not mean that it doesn't exist, hence, it does not follow
3. Fallacy of appeal to ignorance: You concluded that God does not exist because of your ignorance of God's "structure" (which you showed later)
4. The statement itself is self refuting. God does not exist, yet God does not have structure. One must have information about a thing (which shows that it exist) to know that it has structure or not

It doesn't mean I know how God is.

Back to square of 1. You claim that God has no structure, yet, you don't know how God is. Which one should we take?

If I know how God is,then God has a structure.
It's impossible to know how God exists when there is no how God can exist
This is rife with logical fallacies again:
1. Fallacy of false dilemma: because you can know how God is and still find out that he doesn't have a form
2. Appeal to ignorance again: because there is a way to know how God exists which you've rejected a priori
3. Fallacy of affirming the consequent: tying this statement with your first statement, you are inferring that God has no structure because you can't know how God is. The syllogism is shown below
a. if you know how God is, then God has a structure
b. you don't know how God is
conclusion: God has no structure.
The argument is invalid and not sound because of the fallacies listed and explained already

There's nothing amazing about the universe or life forms.

This is a statement of faith as it is a slap to human Engineers and Scientists who spend years to understand tiny fraction of the design found in life form to make amazing machines. Check the field of Biomimetics and tell the researchers there.
Anyway, it is what you want to believe, it does not mean that it is true

The complexities are the arrangements of several ageless indivisible objects that are exposed or conscious by chance.
In other words,these arrangements are exposed by chance.
This is another statement of faith and I thought we've dissected it and found it wanting already. We agreed that a simple statement "HellVictorinho" cannot be painted by chance, yet you prefer to believe that vast array of information which surpasses any human engineering was formed by chance. If Christians have this type of faith, they will definitely move mountains (lol)

HellVictorinho:


The DNA is not an amazing design.
Haven't you heard of deformities??
Haven't you heard of hereditary problems
Haven't you heard of genetic misdemeanors
Haven't you heard of cancerous cells
These things happen in the presence of the DNA.
Ultimately, the DNA is just a group of ageless indivisible objects that are arranged anyhow.

Like I said in a previous response, your statement is a slap to Engineers. For if they could build an information storage system like that found in the DNA, in fact, that person must win a Nobel Prize. Every scientists who understands the DNA to a large extent will definitely not agree with you on this except due to their materialistic bias as Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved". This is a statement of faith because he himself must have seen amazing design but his atheistic bias would not want him to attribute it to God. In fact, he suggested that life must have been planted by aliens on earth. such is the length that bias can take one to.

Now about deformities and the rest, it is known that mutation is a major cause of this beautiful and amazing structure just as computer virus attacks the amazing software of a computer. It is does not mean that the soft ware is not amazing, but rather, something was introduced which now corrupts it. And since cells have a way of making copies of themselves, and even passed on to the next generation, the defect caused by mutation is thus passed on to next generation. Then comes natural selection which helps in reducing the amount of deleterious mutation in a genome.
This is easily explained in the Christian world view as brought about by sin which brought corruption and degradation to the whole creation. Hence, we cannot attain the perfection that we all ought to be as it was in the beginning but will definitely get that in the world to come (no sin, disease or suffering).

Your last statement seem to imply that those errors happen "in the presence of the DNA" as if it is meant to be a law enforcement agent to stop those things. If that is true, then you don't understand what the DNA is in the first place, which one will not be disappointed that you said the DNA is not amazing..

Open your mind to "Test all things; (and then) hold fast what is good" 1 Thessalonians 5:21

keppler:

Like I said in a previous response, your statement is a slap to Engineers. For if they could build an information storage system like that found in the DNA, in fact, that person must win a Nobel Prize. Every scientists who understands the DNA to a large extent will definitely not agree with you on this except due to their materialistic bias as Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved". This is a statement of faith because he himself must have seen amazing design but his atheistic bias would not want him to attribute it to God. In fact, he suggested that life must have been planted by aliens on earth. such is the length that bias can take one to.

Now about deformities and the rest, it is known that mutation is a major cause of this beautiful and amazing structure just as computer virus attacks the amazing software of a computer. It is does not mean that the soft ware is not amazing, but rather, something was introduced which now corrupts it. And since cells have a way of making copies of themselves, and even passed on to the next generation, the defect caused by mutation is thus passed on to next generation. Then comes natural selection which helps in reducing the amount of deleterious mutation in a genome.
This is easily explained in the Christian world view as brought about by sin which brought corruption and degradation to the whole creation. Hence, we cannot attain the perfection that we all ought to be as it was in the beginning but will definitely get that in the world to come (no sin, disease or suffering).

Your last statement seem to imply that those errors happen "in the presence of the DNA" as if it is meant to be a law enforcement agent to stop those things. If that is true, then you don't understand what the DNA is in the first place, which one will not be disappointed that you said the DNA is not amazing..

Open your mind to "Test all things; (and then) hold fast what is good" 1 Thessalonians 5:21

First,I don't think the DNA is a law enforcement agent.
Also,life is absurd.
Furthermore, there's nothing amazing about the universe.
If you don't agree,then that's your cup of wine.
Keep your unnecessary analogies,illustrations and parables to yourself!!!

keppler:

Since God has no structure,then God can't exist.

This logic is flawed and the fallacies committed are:
1. Fallacy of begging the question: You are yet to show us whether God has a structure or not before drawing a conclusion on such assumption
2. Non Sequitur fallacy: that something does not have a structure does not mean that it doesn't exist, hence, it does not follow
3. Fallacy of appeal to ignorance: You concluded that God does not exist because of your ignorance of God's "structure" (which you showed later)
4. The statement itself is self refuting. God does not exist, yet God does not have structure. One must have information about a thing (which shows that it exist) to know that it has structure or not

It doesn't mean I know how God is.

Back to square of 1. You claim that God has no structure, yet, you don't know how God is. Which one should we take?

If I know how God is,then God has a structure.
It's impossible to know how God exists when there is no how God can exist
This is rife with logical fallacies again:
1. Fallacy of false dilemma: because you can know how God is and still find out that he doesn't have a form
2. Appeal to ignorance again: because there is a way to know how God exists which you've rejected a priori
3. Fallacy of affirming the consequent: tying this statement with your first statement, you are inferring that God has no structure because you can't know how God is. The syllogism is shown below
a. if you know how God is, then God has a structure
b. you don't know how God is
conclusion: God has no structure.
The argument is invalid and not sound because of the fallacies listed and explained already

There's nothing amazing about the universe or life forms.

This is a statement of faith as it is a slap to human Engineers and Scientists who spend years to understand tiny fraction of the design found in life form to make amazing machines. Check the field of Biomimetics and tell the researchers there.
Anyway, it is what you want to believe, it does not mean that it is true

The complexities are the arrangements of several ageless indivisible objects that are exposed or conscious by chance.
In other words,these arrangements are exposed by chance.
This is another statement of faith and I thought we've dissected it and found it wanting already. We agreed that a simple statement "HellVictorinho" cannot be painted by chance, yet you prefer to believe that vast array of information which surpasses any human engineering was formed by chance. If Christians have this type of faith, they will definitely move mountains (lol)

In other words, you don't agree.
Do you think I can't use words like "fallacy","invalid","ignorance",etc?
There's no word in the dictionary that you can use to change my thoughts.
You can also accuse me of several things like budaatum but my philosophy remains unchanged.

HellVictorinho:


First,I don't think the DNA is a law enforcement agent.
Also,life is absurd.
Furthermore, there's nothing amazing about the universe.
If you don't agree,then that's your cup of wine.
Keep your unnecessary analogies,illustrations and parables to yourself!!!

It's not about agreement or not, it's about what the best evidence portray.
Like I proposed already, those are your beliefs and I just want to help you point it out that they are just mere beliefs and nothing more

HellVictorinho:


In other words, you don't agree.
Do you think I can't use words like "fallacy","invalid","ignorance",etc?
There's no word in the dictionary that you can use to change my thoughts.
You can also accuse me of several things like budaatum but my philosophy remains unchanged.

In other words, you don't agree.
Do you think I can't use words like "fallacy","invalid","ignorance",etc?
Again, it's not that I don't agree. I had to show why your argument fails. For example, if someone come to a conclusion that goats can fly, you won't just DISAGREE for the sake of it, would you? You would rather SHOW him how is claim fails using good reasoning which shows ABSOLUTE TRUTHS.

There's no word in the dictionary that you can use to change my thoughts.

You may be right. Which was why I called those things you said, STATEMENTS OF FAITH. It takes serious faith (even in the face of contrary evidence) to believe such statements. In fact, I shouldn't call it FAITH because there are contrary evidence to it.

You can also accuse me of several things like budaatum but my philosophy remains unchanged.

If I make a claim such as this, I do try to show such accusation. You claim that I accuse you but does not show such accusation. This itself is an accusation my friend

keppler:


In other words, you don't agree.
Do you think I can't use words like "fallacy","invalid","ignorance",etc?
Again, it's not that I don't agree. I had to show why your argument fails. For example, if someone come to a conclusion that goats can fly, you won't just DISAGREE for the sake of it, would you? You would rather SHOW him how is claim fails using good reasoning which shows ABSOLUTE TRUTHS.

There's no word in the dictionary that you can use to change my thoughts.

You may be right. Which was why I called those things you said, STATEMENTS OF FAITH. It takes serious faith (even in the face of contrary evidence) to believe such statements. In fact, I shouldn't call it FAITH because there are contrary evidence to it.

You can also accuse me of several things like budaatum but my philosophy remains unchanged.

If I make a claim such as this, I do try to show such accusation. You claim that I accuse you but does not show such accusation. This itself is an accusation my friend

The tendency to make baseless comparisons will be inherited by your children.
You never stated any absolute truth but you keep repeating the same crap.
The so-called evidence is the same empty talk that Dtruthspeaker induces.
I never said you accused anyone.
I only said you can.
Go back to primary school and learn the difference!!!
Ultimately, you are wrong concerning me since you keep repeating what is wrong.

keppler:

It's not about agreement or not, it's about what the best evidence portray.
Like I proposed already, those are your beliefs and I just want to help you point it out that they are just mere beliefs and nothing more

You don't know what you are saying.
There are different ways of saying you don't agree.
Examples are:
1... there's no evidence.
2...it doesn't make sense.
3.... it's pure nonsense.
4.... it's wrong.
5..... it's false.
6..... it's a mere belief.
7..... it's invalid.
8.......it lacks proof.
9...... it's impossible.


People like budaatum accuse others of being lazy or not understanding or being any other thing that's derogatory even when they agree.
Such people are worse than terrorists.
BigBashiru is another one who worships every non-African including the rapists and human traffickers among them but condemns his fellow Africans including those that never offended him.

HellVictorinho:

You don't know what you are saying.
There are different ways of saying you don't agree.
Examples are:
1... there's no evidence.
2...it doesn't make sense.
3.... it's pure nonsense.
4.... it's wrong.
5..... it's false.
6..... it's a mere belief.
7..... it's invalid.
8.......it lacks proof.
9...... it's impossible.


People like budaatum accuse others of being lazy or not understanding or being any other thing that's derogatory even when they agree.
Such people are worse than terrorists.
BigBashiru is another one who worships every non-African including the rapists and human traffickers among them but condemns his fellow Africans including those that never offended him.

Please cease the personal attacks; I don't get personal on public forums.... I only state the facts.... the British aren't innocent...they used military force on Nigeria and invaded the country.... they slowed down growth in Africa and lied to Africans they came to develop africa...they are liars too but it's not an excuse for lack of progress in Africa.

Please stop mentioning my name or creating new threads about me.... it's creepy....

BigBashiru:


Please cease the personal attacks; I don't get personal on public forums.... I only state the facts.... the British aren't innocent...they used military force on Nigeria and invaded the country.... they slowed down growth in Africa and lied to Africans they came to develop africa...they are liars too but it's not an excuse for lack of progress in Africa.

Please stop mentioning my name or creating new threads about me.... it's creepy....

There are many successful and progressive people in Africa.
There are many beautiful and progressive cities in Africa.
But it will be very stupid of you to ask me to name anything.
If you can't Google these things,then that's your cup of wine.

HellVictorinho:


There are many successful and progressive people in Africa.
There are many beautiful and progressive cities in Africa.
But it will be very stupid of you to ask me to name anything.
If you can't Google these things,then that's your cup of wine.

Why are black people always running to Europe and North America but white ppl never try to migrate to Africa!

BigBashiru:


Why are black people always running to Europe and North America but white ppl never try to migrate to Africa!

Stupid question!!!!!!
People of different races move from one place to another to show their skills or abilities!!!!!
It's not only blacks that move!!!!!!
There are also white people that have committed crimes in African countries as a result of their poverty!!!!!!

LordReed:


I think we are saying the same thing. He is omniscient therefore anything he does is right because he knows everything. So when he kills babies in a flood, he is right because he knows everything. How do we disagree?

Again, you somehow missed out the answer to give me an example or two of God for proper comparison.
Nonetheless, anything God does has to be examined in His standard and attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Not just omniscient but Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. He is not just Omniscient(a term you are likely struggling with the definition BTW), He is the Creator and Owner of everything with 100% rights. He is the Supreme Judge of everything. Factor these in. Half truth, half knowledge, or half education is not equal to the full picture.

Image123:


Again, you somehow missed out the answer to give me an example or two of God for proper comparison.
Nonetheless, anything God does has to be examined in His standard and attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Not just omniscient but Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. He is not just Omniscient(a term you are likely struggling with the definition BTW), He is the Creator and Owner of everything with 100% rights. He is the Supreme Judge of everything. Factor these in. Half truth, half knowledge, or half education is not equal to the full picture.

I didn't miss, I am not answering any of your questions period.

Still not seeing any disagreement. He owns and created the babies so he is right when he kills them in a flood. Whatever attributes you've ascribed to him makes it right to kill babies in a flood. I think we agree on this completely.

LordReed:


I didn't miss, I am not answering any of your questions period.

Still not seeing any disagreement. He owns and created the babies so he is right when he kills them in a flood. Whatever attributes you've ascribed to him makes it right to kill babies in a flood. I think we agree on this completely.

Lol, of course you can't answer. You'd probably be shooting your own foot if not head. You forgot that His attributes include being Eternal and that in His realm, people don't actually die in the sense that you depict but will either go to hell or heaven. You cut out that huge difference/part or you refuse to be aware?

Image123:


Lol, of course you can't answer. You'd probably be shooting your own foot if not head. You forgot that His attributes include being Eternal and that in His realm, people don't actually die in the sense that you depict but will either go to hell or heaven. You cut out that huge difference/part or you refuse to be aware?

There is a difference between can't and won't, I won't.

Still doesn't change anything, killing babies in a flood is right because in his realm people don't actually die. No disagreement yet.

LordReed:


There is a difference between can't and won't, I won't.

Still doesn't change anything, killing babies in a flood is right because in his realm people don't actually die. No disagreement yet.

Obviously, you can't. If you can't then you won't.
So if we agree that people don't die in the sense that you portray it, ermmmmm why are you emphasizing death again?

Image123:


Obviously, you can't. If you can't then you won't.

Whatever floats your ark.

LordReed:


Whatever floats your ark.

You cut off the point, try not to bring it up again like it hasn't been shown you.

HellVictorinho:

The tendency to make baseless comparisons will be inherited by your children.
You never stated any absolute truth but you keep repeating the same crap.
The so-called evidence is the same empty talk that Dtruthspeaker induces.
I never said you accused anyone.
I only said you can.
Go back to primary school and learn the difference!!!
Ultimately, you are wrong concerning me since you keep repeating what is wrong.

Of all your response, the bolded is the only which made sense.
Yeah, I must have read into it, using the way you do sound.
I think for the first time in our discussion, you impress me, which suggest you have the potential to reason; only to spoil it with your second to the last sentence. It is obvious for any reader who needs to be well inform

HellVictorinho:

You don't know what you are saying.
There are different ways of saying you don't agree.
Examples are:
1... there's no evidence.
2...it doesn't make sense.
3.... it's pure nonsense.
4.... it's wrong.
5..... it's false.
6..... it's a mere belief.
7..... it's invalid.
8.......it lacks proof.
9...... it's impossible.


People like budaatum accuse others of being lazy or not understanding or being any other thing that's derogatory even when they agree.
Such people are worse than terrorists.
BigBashiru is another one who worships every non-African including the rapists and human traffickers among them but condemns his fellow Africans including those that never offended him.

I already explained that there are absolute truths to which contradictory claims cannot match. When someone tells you that goats fly, you don't just say you disagree for the sake of it, rather, an absolute truth is that goats don't fly.
Now, when the person insist that you can't change his mind, then you may take such statement as his personal belief (even in the face of contrary evidence).
Hence, I don't just disagree with you for the sake of it, I already showed you, using analogy how your statements does not hold up. You responded at a time that THERE'S NOTHING I WOULD SAY TO CHANGE YOUR PHILOSOPHY. Thus, I called them your STATEMENTS OF FAITH

Your last paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion anyway. You may have peace of mind if you can fully defend your position