budaatum:


If atheism is defined as a lack of belief in deities, then babies and orangutans qualify, I'd say. Technically, at least, since they lack belief in deities.

But atheism as a lack of belief, is a definition from the theist point of view, as atheists ought to know instead.

I understand that the word "lack" may be ambiguous. But I had to use that since these people decided to me mischievous.

Well, I don't know about animals but one thing I'm sure is that. Animals can never be atheists.
The first prerequisite for being an atheist is that such thing must be a person. A human being.

KnownUnknown:


After this long winded road to nowhere, I asked this baby if he is atheist or pantheist.

Go to the pediatric ward in a Nigerian hospital and ask if a baby is American.

triplechoice:

I was responding to your friend's nonsensical claim that babies who are just begining to form their minds are born atheist.

I don't see what should stop him from also declaring that everyone is born an American or British. Its the same kind of reasoning

Yes, Francistown was born lacking "Nigerianese" He's not a Nigerian. His default birth status is American.
Even though he was born in Nigeria he lacked "Nigerianese" at birth. Someone who lacks"Nigerianese" is an American

If was taken immediately to America as a baby, he would have grown up to become what he was born with, an American, speaking the language effortlessly and acting true to his default birth


Unfortunately for him, he grew up in Nigeria where he was "indoctrinated" to be a Nigerian.

It's even possible that every baby in the world was born an American, but grew up in places where they became something else, Chinese, Indians, Nigerians, and so on

Your argument is flawed and your point is dead on arrival.
I already responded to this, so lemme avoid redundancy.

FRANCISTOWN:

I understand that the word "lack" may be ambiguous. But I had to use that since these people decided to me mischievous.

Well, I don't know about animals but one thing I'm sure is that. Animals can never be atheists.
The first prerequisite of being an atheist is that such thing must be a person. A human being.

Doubt it's a prerequisite but more like a convention. We don't exactly endow animals with the ability to believe, though it has been argued they might.

FRANCISTOWN:

Go to the pediatric ward in a Nigerian hospital and ask if a baby is American.

Right after you ask the baby what gods and beliefs are.

budaatum:


Doubt it's a prerequisite but more like a convention. We don't exactly endow animals with the ability to believe, though it has been argued they might.

I understand that animals do have some sorta believes, if you noticed the way some dogs act around their owners.

But i don't know for sure what those believes are. I'm not sure whether anyone really knows what those believes are. That's the reason I'm silent about it.

But what I'm saying is. I don't know whether animals practice atheism or not, but judging from the definition of an atheist.

An atheist is a person... And since animals are not persons. Animals can never be atheists. Maybe there's gotta be some other word for animals that practice atheism(if there's any)

FRANCISTOWN:


Your argument is flawed and your point is dead on arrival.
I already responded to this, so lemme avoid redundancy.

It's your own that's very flawed.
The premise upon which you based your argument is that anyone who lacks belief in deities is automatically an atheist. But that's simply not true.

We have those who don't believe in deities but are not atheist . Those ones practice other forms of spirituality. They believe in spirits, reincarnation and practice witchcraft, juju voodoo etc without acknowledging the existence of any deity. An atheist doesn't believe or practice any of those.

We also have deist who can't be regarded as theist or atheist . A deist has not accepted that religious gods exist .

So, you can see you're not making any sense with your explanations. Your atheism is founded on the two major abrahamic religion of Christianity and Islam. That's only thing you know and have been using it to arrive at conclusions that are not supported by any evidence.

There's no evidence that babies are born atheist. If that were true we would be seeing the evidence everywhere. Most people in the society would be atheist, but the reverse is the case.

In fact , the evidences that we have supports the idea that babies are born more spiritually aware than adults. By the time they start using language very well, they usually shock us with some of the things they claim to have seen or experienced. Some of them see ghosts and other disembodied entities regularly ,and also even inform us of how they have lived before in a previous life which some adults dismissed as baby talk. But not all can be dismissed as such

Some reincarnation reports given by children before the age of 6 have been confirmed to be true after investigation.

So going by the evidence ,if we're going to accept that babies are born as anything at all, we shouldn't not be looking at theist atheist , but something else, which is , they're born as spiritually aware beings.

If you insist otherwise, then please provide evidence like I just did, and not baseless explanations of, "if one is not a theist then must be atheist. Such talk is evidence of someone thinking in black and white only

FRANCISTOWN:

I understand that animals do have some sorta believes, if you noticed the way some dogs act around their owners.

But i don't know for sure what those believes are. I'm not sure whether anyone really knows what those believes are. That's the reason I'm silent about it.

But what I'm saying is. I don't know whether animals practice atheism or not, but judging from the definition of an atheist.

An atheist is a person... And since animals are not persons. Animals can never be atheists. Maybe there's gotta be some other word for animals that practice atheism(if there's any)

But you declared on this same thread that anyone or anything that lacks belief in deities is an atheist .

Now , you want to deny it . SMH

FRANCISTOWN:

Nwanne, everyone is born an atheist.
I already gave you an explanation and this should not even be debatable topic.

I don't know why we always need to break things down to our christian brothers especially.

Atheism is anyone that doesn't have the ability to believe, not just anyone who has the ability to disbelieve. Whether as a child or as an adult.

If I said p1 = Δp + p2 , you prolly do not understand that formula or If I spoke in a foreign tongue, you simply do not understand. Your brain cannot process what it doesn't understand.

There are adults in China that if you prolly talked anything about God to 'em, they'll prolly just look at you like you are sick.
Their brain just lack the ability to understand how such things can ever work.

And I've told you that. If babies were raised in environments where they've never heard about deities. By the time they are grown, if anyone asked them about deities. They'd just go blank, the same way you'll go blank if I presented a strange formula to you.

There are no such persons anywhere in the world without a knowledge of what a god is. Knowing about something is not the same as believing in it. They must have read books , listen to stories,or watch movies where deities are depicted.

You just brought up an impossible situation to defend you false claim . There are no such persons anywhere ,not even in China.

This is the problem with defending a lie. You have to use other lies to defend it and don't know when to stop.

It's a lie that babies are born atheist. There are parallels to such lies in religion and in the business world The purpose is the same; To get people acting without thinking so they embrace an idea or product as the only one worthy of embracing or buying.

Muslims. All babies are born Muslims.

Christians. All babies are born sinners.

Atheist. All Babies are born atheists.

. The same rhetoric all of them. None of them is telling the truth.

The same way Muslims and Christians can't see the lie in such claims about babies is the same way you can't see it.

triplechoice:


But you declared on this same thread that anyone or anything that lacks belief in deities is an atheist .

Now , you want to deny it . SMH

Modified:

Since that boy Triplechoice was going to kill himself over this comment.

Hereby: deleted.

Triplechoice said Hawkings was the first to use the phrase "Babies are born atheists".

Can anyone be more dumb?

FRANCISTOWN:

I guess it can't be helped, It's now very obvious that you are with the single digit IQ crew.

No wonder you can't understand simple things.
I'm sorry but I can no longer engage someone who doesn't understand something as simple as pronouns.

You are a complete waste of my time.

Just look at you. What of the "anything" you mentioned?

triplechoice:


Just look at you. What of the "anything" you mentioned?

I'm failing to remember where I said anything that doesn't believe in the existence of deities is an atheist.
Please refresh my memory.

FRANCISTOWN:




Babies can't be born indifferent and they can't be born neutral. Babies are born fully equipped with all the necessary senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.

Since they are not born with any belief, they only make sense of their environment using their senses. And that's how they build their understanding right from small, a kind of believe.

When a child cries and you put a mother's nipple in the baby's mouth, at that time . The baby believes anything that comes into the mouth should quench the feeling of hunger.

To say babies are born neutral or indifferent is a total error. I might agree with "babies are born innocent".

I've told you. It's in your dictionary. I can't be sorry because you refuse to read it.


Anyone or anything that doesn't have even the littlest form of belief in the existence of deities is an atheist.

A baby is non-religious or Igtheist at best. Therefore, an atheist by proximity.

Lemme ask a question .

If you raised a child in an environment where no one mentions anything about deities. By that time the child is 20. When anyone tells him anything about God.

What will be the response of the child?


Now back to the point. If tzizi was a word and people who understand tzizi are called theists.
What will be called of people who don't understand the word "tzizi"?

•Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of deities.
•Babies do not have the ability to believe in the existence of deities.
Therefore,
•Babies are atheists.

That is abductive reasoning in critical thinking.
It's a very intriguing topic in psychology and philosophy.

You talk to much without making sense

triplechoice:


You talk to much without making sense

Okay! I take responsibility for that. The word "anything" was an error.
The error is called a Wrong Word Error in English grammar.
At the end of the day, I was the one who caught my own error and rebutted it in an inalienable manner.

You saw it then and didn't say anything on it. You didn't know it was an error then. 😂 😂

That's called error control in programming.

So what do you have on me?

I'm

FRANCISTOWN:

I guess it can't be helped, It's now very obvious that you are with the single digit IQ crew.

No wonder you can't understand simple things.
I'm sorry but I can no longer engage someone who doesn't understand something as simple as pronouns.

You are a complete waste of my time.

And why did you edit my comment up there to reply me. What sort person are you are?

I said you said, "Anyone or anything" ,in my question to you.
It's clearly there and everyone can see it.But you edited it to remain "anyone". to reply me.

You just exposed your desperation to win an argument with anything SMH. You're not worth anybody's time.

triplechoice:
I'm
And why did you edit my comment up there to reply me. What sort person are you are?

I said you said, "Anyone or anything" ,in my question to you.
It's clearly there and everyone can see it.But you edited it to remain "anyone". to reply me.

You just exposed your desperation to win an argument with anything SMH. You're not worth anybody's time.

Better refresh. You are getting worked up over nothing, or better get a recommended eye glasses.

FRANCISTOWN:


Okay! I take responsibility for that. The word "anything" was an error.
The error is called a Wrong Word Error in English grammar.
At the end of the day, I was the one who caught my own error and rebutted it in an inalienable manner.

You saw it then and didn't say anything on it. You didn't know it was an error then. 😂 😂

That's called error control in programming.

So what do you have on me?

Shut up. It wasn't a mistake. The fact you stupidly edited my comment to reply me shows it wasn't.

Good day.

And continue with your baby talk with others.I can't be wasting my time discussing with someone who lacks integrity .

triplechoice:


Shut up. It wasn't a mistake. The fact you stupidly edited my comment to reply me shows it wasn't.

Good day.

Have a good afternoon.

FRANCISTOWN:

Better refresh. You are getting worked up over nothing, or better get a recommended eye glasses.

Yes, you have gone to bring it back.

But you left a trail. The reason you posted that screenshot was for what?

Was it not to mock me after you deliberately edited my comments to read only "anyone" .

You were certain I had no evidence. Now that
I provided evidence, you have gone on to edit your comment , but not without leaving a trail. I have screenshot your comments which includes that incase you want to remove it. It's late already.



I hope your friends and others following this thread are taking notes of your foolery .

Modified. You edited my comment at first to read only "anyone" If you didn't do that,then explain the reason for the screenshot explaining the meaning of that word alone. You quoted me already. So it's easy to edit it in your reply. Stop fooling yourself.

triplechoice:


Yes, you have gone to remove it .

But you left a trail. The reason you posted that screenshot was for what?

Was it not to mock me after you deliberately edited my comments to read only "anyone" .

You were certain I had no evidence. Now that
I provided evidence, you have gone on to edit your comment , but not without leaving a trail. I have screenshot your comments which includes that incase you want to remove it. It's late already.



I hope your friends and others following this thread are taking notes of your foolery.

Are you basically mad or stupid. Or you are just unfortunate?
Sholoriburuku ni e ni?
Who dey do foolery?

Instead of accusing me of altering your comments. Didn't your dumb head think it could have been an omission or something, and I don't even understand what you are talking about?

Since you are moving mad and you want to kill yourself basically on what I don't know what you are talking about.

Okay! Whatever you are talking about, I did it. Yes I hold my chest to it.

If you said I altered your comment, Yes I did. Now what do you want to do about it?

I'm not here to win an argument. It's not like I'm getting paid.

When you were going on about how Hawkings was the first to use the phrase "Babies are born Atheists". You were just very dumb and stupid in that act. Plainly stupid.

You can't hold me ransom intellectually.

The comment you are crazy about. I'll take it down. And I'll forever taunt you for saying Hawkings was the first to use "Babies are born Atheists".

Since you've decided to be petty. Two can play this game.

You dumb head mofo.

If you couldn't paste those screenshots. You are nothing but a piece of shit.

FRANCISTOWN:


Okay! I take responsibility for that. The word "anything" was an error.
The error is called a Wrong Word Error in English grammar.
At the end of the day, I was the one who caught my own error and rebutted it in an inalienable manner.

You saw it then and didn't say anything on it. You didn't know it was an error then. 😂 😂

That's called error control in programming.

So what do you have on me?

. You admitted here, the "anything" was an error.

So why editing it from my reply to insult and mock yourself with the screenshot defining "anyone" ?

Was the word ,"anyone" the only thing I mentioned? I said you said "anyone or anything.Be sincere without yourself. But you can't .

You're not as smart as you think . I already have a screenshot of our conversation. If you like go and remove the dictionary definition you brought in which has exposed you as a liar.

triplechoice:
. You admitted here, the "anything" was an error.

So why editing it from my reply to insult and mock yourself with the screenshot defining "anyone" ?

Was the word ,"anyone" the only thing I mentioned? I said you said "anyone or anything.Be sincere without yourself. But you can't .

You're not as smart as you think . I already have a screenshot of our conversation. If you like go and remove the dictionary definition you brought in which has exposed you as a liar.

I did everything, do you understand? I did everything. I did every single thing.
There is nothing you have on me.

I altered your comment, I deleted some, I added some, i highlighted some, i italicized some.
Intellectually, you've got nothing on me. I'm not the dumb mofo who said "Hawkings was the first to say "babies are born Atheists"".

Show me one intellectual flaw in my posts and we are good.

You don't have nothing on me bro. The weather is nice today.

FRANCISTOWN:


Are you basically mad or stupid. Or you are just unfortunate?
Sholoriburuku ni e ni?
Who dey do foolery?

Instead of accusing me of altering your comments. Didn't your dumb head think it could have been an omission or something, and I don't even understand what you are talking about?

Since you are moving mad and you want to kill yourself basically on what I don't know what you are talking about.

Okay! Whatever you are talking about, I did it. Yes I hold my chest to it.

If you said I altered your comment, Yes I did. Now what do you want to do about it?

I'm not here to win an argument. It's not like I'm getting paid.

When you were going on about how Hawkings was the first to use the phrase "Babies are born Atheists". You were just very dumb and stupid in that act. Plainly stupid.

You can't hold me ransom intellectually.

The comment you are crazy about. I'll take it down. And I'll forever taunt you for saying Hawkings was the first to use "Babies are born Atheists".

Since you've decided to be petty. Two can play this game.

You dumb head mofo.

If you couldn't paste those screenshots. You are nothing but a piece of shit.

No. It wasn't an ommision. If it was, you would have said so immediately I pointed it out to you.

You doing all of these to cover for your shame. You did that deliberately and posted a screenshot of the meaning of "anyone". to mock yourself, not me, that I don't know the meaning.
So , why denying it.?


Did you not post a screenshot defining " anyone"or you have memory problems. Go back to your comments and see it there.

It seems your head is not there at all .You posted something yourself and now denying it.
If you can't explain the reason for your insults in the image below,then you're stupid and of a very low IQ. There's nothing I said to show I don't know the meaning of the word, anyone, but you decided to display your insanity. You edited my comment to read only "anyone" initially. But here was when you replaced it. Anyone or anything are not the same indefinite pronouns
Go get cured .

triplechoice:


No. It wasn't an ommision. If it was, you would have said so immediately I pointed it out to you.

You doing all of these to cover for your shame. You did that deliberately and posted a screenshot of the meaning of "anyone". to mock yourself, not me, that I don't know the meaning.
So , why denying it.?


Did you not post a screenshot defining " anyone"or you have memory problems. Go back to your comments and see it there.

It seems your head is not there at all .You posted something yourself and now denying it.
If you can't explain the reason for your insults in the image below,then you're stupid and of a very low IQ. There's nothing I said to show I don't know the meaning of the word, anyone, but you decided to display your insanity. You edited my comment to read only "anyone" initially. But here was when you replaced it. Anyone or anything are not the same indefinite pronouns
Go get cured .

Nwanne! I don vex. Baba, I modified your comment. I replied to it and I modified the response. I did all that. I modified everybody's comments on this thread and on this forum
So what are you going to do about it?

I'm not the mentally disturbed one who didn't know the difference between Hawkings and Dawkins. A graduate of citadel of foolishness who said Hawkings was the first to use the phrase "Babies are born atheists".

Even if you were raised by bedbugs. This is 21st century. Get your facts right before you type, especially when there is no established connection between your brain and your fingers.

Yes yes yes. I intentionally omitted your comments. Now wetin your papa wan do?

Dumb mofo. The idiot didn't know the difference between Hawkings and Dawkins.

It would had been better if your parents invested your tuition fees into pig raising.

FRANCISTOWN:


I did everything, do you understand? I did everything. I did every single thing.
There is nothing you have on me.

I altered your comment, I deleted some, I added some, i highlighted some, i italicized some.
Intellectually, you've got nothing on me. I'm not the dumb mofo who said "Hawkings was the first to say "babies are born Atheists"".

. Show me one intellectual flaw in my posts and we are good..

You don't have nothing on me bro. The weather is nice today.

. I have shown the bolded already. Just go back and read it. The summary is that not everyone who is a non - theist is an atheist. So your claim is baby talk.

Concerning Dawkimgs, I'm not you. If I said so,I own up to the error.

Budda already spelt the name correctly ,Dawinkings. I thank him for that.

I'm not of fan of Dawkimgs. He was a very toxic person and fanatical atheist why alive . But this doesn't take away from his achievements in the sciences.

It doesn't matter whether he was the first that said so or not. What matters is thar he promoted the falsehood like you're doing here


You just brought this talk to deflect as you usually do. Face the business of proving the lie you have been brainwashed with . You have no evidence other than empty talk , insults and foolery.

triplechoice:
. I have shown the bolded already. Just go back and read it. The summary is that not everyone who is a non - theist is an atheist. So your claim is baby talk.

Concerning Dawkimgs, I'm not you. If I said so,I own up to the error.

Budda already spelt the name correctly ,Dawinkings. I thank him for that.

I'm not of fan of Dawkimgs. He was a very toxic person and fanatical atheist why alive . But this doesn't take away from his achievements in the sciences.

It doesn't matter whether he was the first that said so or not. What matters is thar he promoted the falsehood like you're doing here


You just brought this talk to deflect as you usually do. Face the business of proving the lie you have been brainwashed with . You have no evidence other than empty talk , insults and foolery.

You were not a fan of Dawkins but you brought him into our discussion?
Am I the only one who is seeing the greatest art of tomfoolery?

FRANCISTOWN:


Nwanne! I don vex. Baba, I modified your comment. I replied to it and I modified the response. I did all that. I modified everybody's comments on this thread and on this forum
So what are you going to do about it?

I'm not the mentally disturbed one who didn't know the difference between Hawkings and Dawkins. A graduate of citadel of foolishness who said Hawkings was the first to use the phrase "Babies are born atheists".

Even if you were raised by bedbugs. This is 21st century. Get your facts right before you type, especially when there is no established connection between your brain and your fingers.

Yes yes yes. I intentionally omitted your comments. Now wetin your papa wan do?

Dumb mofo. The idiot didn't know the difference between Hawkings and Dawkins.

It would had been better if your parents invested your tuition fees into pig raising.

. Then why were you mocking yourself on the meaning of the word ,"anyone" ?

This is the question you have refused to answer because it will expose you for who you're. .

Or you don't know the difference between anyone or anything In my original comment before you edited it and ran mad insulting yourself.

You want to lie it was an ommision on your part. Why "omit" it?

The trail ( the dictionary definition) you left behind is the evidence you edited my comment deliberately , if not, it's not supposed to be there at all.


. As for , Hawking's or Dawkins, not spelling someone"s name correctly is not something any intelligent adult should make an issue of, . I haven't committed any grammatical blunder .It's just spelling mistake or not being sure of the correct spelling., it's a typo . I'm sure you don't know what a typo is. Budda noticed it and corrected me graciously without making an issue out of it because really, there's nothing to it.

But because you're very pained ,petty minded and pendantic you choose to focus on that to escape your inability to provide evidence for your very outlandish claim about babies,and also to cover for your shameful display here.

You who don't know the difference between anyone and anything. You thought they were the same hence you brought a definition for "anyone"

I'm finally done with you. You can continue talking to yourself. .

Explain why you were mocking yourself for not knowing the meaning of the
word, ", anyone" or shut up and own up to your deception you mannerless kid without home training. Someone on this same thread said so about you .So you're well known crazy head on Nairaland. I blame myself for quoting you in the first place. It won't happen again except you change your behaviour.

Apologies for the long wait. If I hadn't kept this tab open, I might have completely forgotten this thread.

TenQ:

You have a way of reading unintended meanings into simply stated facts.
I said:
Our Ignorance of the Tangibility of a Reality has nothing to do with its existence.
That is:
An Object's reality or tangibility is NOT determined by our knowledge of it.

This is just a simply stated fact and it is NOT saying that Things are REAL because we are in ignorance of it. I have not also inferred that "our understanding of it is irrelevant to its nature."

Please understand this: science doesn't deal with absolute, unknowable realities. It deals with EVIDENCE, with observations that help us understand the universe, and right now the evidence points towards a universe that functions perfectly well without a divine creator. So even if your statements may be technically true in a philosophical sense, they still don't come close to addressing the specific issue of a god's actual existence.

I laugh in Urhobo Language:
Atheists usually challenge Christians with the phrases such as
"Show us EVIDENCE......!"
or
"Extraordinary Claim require Extraordinary Evidence!"

I'm sorry, but demanding evidence for extraordinary claims isn't some atheist conspiracy, it's just basic logic.

All I am doing is to FORCE Atheists to say the kind of evidence that will be an objective proof to them.
Hence, I want Atheists to tell me
1. Exactly what they consider as REAL (Existence)
2. And the Question "Is every Existence Tangible?"
3. What is their Definition of Tangible.

"Force Atheists"? Now, I'm curious. Did you just open this thread to get people to indulge in your puerile "gotcha!" game, or do you have intentions of making honest inquiry? Some terms you are citing here are mostly irrelevant. Take "tangibility" for example. We deal with things like dark matter and radio waves, both very real but not exactly cuddle-material. Tangible is for textures. I'd rather focus on verifiable evidence. If you told me you could fly, I wouldn't demand a specific type of proof, I'd just ask you to, well, fly. Same principle applies here. Show me something mind-bending, universe-altering, and then maybe we can talk about "objective proof."

Without a CONCRETE and OBJECTIVELY Defined testable definition of a word like Tangible , every discussion will miss the Road.

This is why it seems I am "all too eager to pin all atheists down with definitions" LOL!

Since you want to play "define everything" so badly, then I guess we both need to define "concrete" and "objectively" too. Shouldn't be fuzzy at all, right?

But Mars is presently un-occupied by any intelligent life: would we conclude that "the device evolved form the Martian earth"?
I think it would be reasonable to conclude that it was brought to Mars by some intelligent creatures

Are we assuming Martians are nature's engineers now? Because unless this device builds furniture and writes haiku, I think "evolved" might be a bit of a stretch.

I was not defining consciousness. I was only stating that the minimum capabilities an Existence must have before it can be deemed as conscious. If you check, I also noted that these criteria are circular: Like saying for an object to be conscious, it must have some minimum level of consciousness.

It is easy to test each of the postulates!

Let's say we're exploring the building blocks of consciousness. I posit that testing your postulates might be easier said than done. How do we objectively measure a subjective experience like "feeling the environment"? And even if we could, wouldn't that just be measuring the physical processes behind it?

All I am saying is that Jessica.Rabbit cannot prove that I did not dream of eating Dinner with both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. QED!
Why?
It is my subjective EXPERIENCE and not yours.

Of course, only me can know is my report is TRUE or FALSE!

You may not believe me, but you have no way of objectively proving that my dream wasn't a true statement.

Subjective experiences like these dreams can be analyzed through a more objective lens. They could actually tell us something about you, your interests, and maybe even your anxieties. But to claim they represent some absolute truth, well, that's where things get a little dicey.

Therefore, I made it practical by asking IF you have any real EXAMPLE of an infinite regress of cause and effect.

You did not confirm my statement that:
The Law of Entropy forbids infinite Regress of Cause and Effect especially if you note that the Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago AND the Universe will not exist forever in a situation called "heat death" where entropy of the Universe will be maximum.

Better still, if the Entropy of the Universe is increasing, it proves that Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

You should be careful not to conflate thermodynamic entropy with casual chains. Increase in entropy only signifies a growing uniformity in energy distribution throughout time. It doesn't forbid infinite regress -- a completely philosophical (not physical) concept -- at all. Physics tells us about the behavior of the universe, but it doesn't dictate the rules of logic or metaphysics. The universe having a beginning doesn't inherently negate the possibility of an infinite regress in a logical sense; it just means our universe had a starting point in its current form. So, while the heat death might put a damper on future cosmic shenanigans, it doesn't logically preclude an infinite regress. It's like saying because the party ends at midnight, there couldn't have been an infinite number of songs on the playlist. The playlist's potential infinity isn't limited by the party's curfew.

Theories are explanations we give for the observable effects we see. I do not condemn it:. I am just saying that a theory is falsifiable with another better theory or law.

You're still dancing around the maypole of semantics here. The beauty of scientific theories is precisely their falsifiability. It's what makes science so dynamic and self-correcting. Unlike dogma, science welcomes challenges and revisions. It thrives on them. However, a theory being falsifiable doesn't make it flimsy or unreliable. It makes it robust. It's like building a bridge that can withstand earthquakes: it's designed to adapt and survive new data, not crumble at the first tremor of doubt. I should probably remind you as well that laws and theories in science play different roles. Laws describe the patterns we observe; theories explain why those patterns exist. Newton's law of universal gravitation tells us that objects attract with a force directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. But it was Einstein's theory of general relativity that explained the "why" by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. So, when you simply say a theory is an explanation for observable effects, you might be selling it short. It's the best explanation we have that fits all the current evidence. And if a new theory comes along that explains the evidence better, then huzzah! Science marches on, and our understanding deepens.

What I was saying in other words is: Even if no humans existed in the world, 1+3 will still be 4.
Mathematics exist regardless of whether we know it or not.

Without a conscious entity to perform the act of counting, does 1, 3 or 4 have any actual meaning? These are not just symbols but concepts that require a mind to define their relationships. In a universe devoid of consciousness, there would be no 1 apple plus 3 apples equals 4 apples because there would be no concept of "apple", let alone 1 or 4. To say that mathematics exists independently of us is to imbue these abstract concepts with a sort of mystical autonomy they simply do not possess.

Does LOGIC require humans to be TRUE?
This is the question.

Of course not! However, even the sturdiest instruction manual needs a machine to operate on. That's my point. Stop making me repeat myself please.

It has everything to do with it ma.
If the Universe will come to an End and entropy becomes maximum: will cause an effect still take place?
Of course the answer is NO!

Wrong. The law of entropy doesn't negate the concept of infinite regress; it merely describes the behavior of energy in a closed system. If we reach maximum entropy, we're talking about a state of equilibrium, not the cessation of all processes.

Of cause, I am not comparing humans and fishes: I am just stating that even animals understand (at their level cause and effect)

Fair enough. So, tell me, does your toaster understand cause and effect when it pops after sufficiently browning your bread? Or is it just divinely ordained toast?

I believe we've trashed this out!

Where? As far as I can tell, you're only retreating to the comfort of "...we've trashed this out!", which is pretty much the universal euphemism for "I've run out of arguments and logic, but I still want to sound profound!" in debates. But if you insist, then we can just agree to disagree, and I'll let the universe's weirdness and non-conformist nature have the final say.

My point is that Atoms and Molecule is the building blocks of any cell: at what point did they acquire data nad instructions.

They don't hold coding bootcamps for atoms, my dear. Their properties are fundamental, not programmed.

And what is your objective proof of this?

Why don't we start with the fact that the universe was around for about 9 billion years before Earth even formed, and humans only popped up in the last minute of the cosmic day. If we were the main event of the entire program, it seems the universe had quite a lot of time to kill, doesn't it? To be honest, while scientists are still working out the kinks in the theory that the universe creates itself, I personally think it's a far more plausible scenario than thinking a cosmic extraterrestrial with a penchant for humanoids decided to sprinkle a little stardust here and not on the other billion galaxies. Talk about playing favorites.

Exactly like someone saying emphatically
"The computer chip and all the hardware are products of the earth and therefore, it requires no intelligent being (computer engineers and programmers) to make it work"

LOL!

This comparison would only hold water if the computer chip had evolved from a primordial soup of silicon, and the hardware had assembled itself through natural selection. Unfortunately for you, that's not how computer chips are made.

You have just stated clearly that an INTELLIGENT mind is behind the functions of the computer up to the Windows 10.

Perhaps. But it does nothing for your argument.

TenQ:

Of course, a belief is not just a random selection of a position, it is usually a basis for which the decision is made.
1. No one Beleives that 1+4 is 5, we know that 1+4 is five because there is no other possibilities other than this answer.

2. No one can truly say, "I know that this Boy will be Alive by next year December" even if the Doctors just gave him a clean bill of health and the probability is exceptionally high

Ok. So what about scientific theories like gravity? We can't directly observe an invisible force pulling objects together, but the evidence is overwhelming. Countless experiments, from dropping apples to orbiting satellites, all point towards gravity's existence. It's a well-tested and highly predictive theory, even if we can't definitively "know" it in the same absolute way we know 1 + 4 = 5. This perfectly highlights the spectrum of knowledge in science. Facts, like basic mathematical equations, are generally considered irrefutable truths. Theories, on the other hand, are constantly evolving explanations for natural phenomena. They're built on mountains of evidence and tested predictions, but they're always open to revision if new data arises. It is true that we can't predict the future with certainty, so we can't "know" the boy in your second example will be alive next December, even with a decent health bill. But let's not pretend that ultimately, we wouldn't still base our decisions on medical diagnoses and statistical probabilities due to the confidence we have in them. I hope you can see how blurry the distinction gets. It's not a binary choice between absolute knowledge and blind belief.

It is based on probabilities from informed science.

Probabilities, not certainties. And "informed science" is just a fancy way of saying "educated guess".

You just successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: you actually have REASONS. Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

Wow. I mean, bless your heart for trying to spin that around. Did you miss the part where I argued for the absence of belief, not the existence of the opposite? Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all. Possessing reasons for disbelief doesn't equate to holding a belief itself. My reasons for disbelief in a deity stem from a lack of verifiable evidence, a world seemingly at odds with an all-powerful, benevolent being, and science offering a compelling narrative for the universe's existence. The absence of a belief in a creator doesn't equate to the presence of a belief in its non-existence. It's simply the state of not being convinced based on the available information. I appreciate the enthusiasm on your part but perhaps a quick reread of my post would be in order before you fall headlong into a pile of your own shit.

Based on the faulty assumption that the Creator of the Universe must be made of Matter and Energy.
Hypothetically, if the Creator exists and he made the Universe at about 13.8 billion years ago when there was no atom, do you think such a Creator will be made of atoms and you can "measure him" with the current laws of Physics and Chemistry?

A poor dodge. So you're saying the creator is somehow beyond the reach of our scientific tools because it's not made of matter and energy? I'll admit that's a convenient excuse, but it's not a serious argument. If your creator is beyond detection, how can you be so sure it exists in the first place? And if it's beyond our understanding, how can you attribute human-like qualities like creation and intention to it?

Another misconception: All-Good Deity: relative to who?
Tell me: When you pour a disinfectant into your toilet bowl and kill off 10 million bacteria struggling to find sustenance for themselves , are you EVIL?

You're missing the key difference here: intention. I take out the trash because I don't want my home to reek of horrible odours. The bacteria, bless their tiny hearts, were just trying to live their best single-celled life. Your all-powerful deity, on the other hand, is supposedly aware of all suffering and has the power to stop it. Yet, according to you, he chooses to let it happen. I hope you took notice of the operational terms I emboldened. Now I'll give you the floor to explain how that squares with the concept of an all-good being. I'm interested to hear your defense because frankly, this whole "bacteria cleansing" scenario you manufactured feels more like a flimsy attempt to deflect from valid criticisms. You're not making a theological argument here, as far as I can tell.

Based on the faulty assumption that Science has an answer for EVERYTHING!
Is this true?

It's a demonstrable fact that the quest for knowledge through scientific inquiry, though imperfect, surely surpasses blind faith in ancient myths.

Again:
I have shown you that JUST because you have reasons, you CANNOT Lack a Belief in the existence or inexistence of the Creator. You actually have a supporting argument to support your bias
You just successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: you actually have REASONS. Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

This ridiculousness has been addressed above. The only thing I've proven is that logic takes a two-step, not a victory lap.

Will you agree to the proposition that"
Every position of Belief is either FOR or AGAINST a position!

False. You're misapplying the law of the excluded middle. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that beliefs are not always binary or mutually exclusive. Many beliefs exist on a spectrum, like shades of gray, rather than absolute black or white and some of these beliefs might be orthogonal, unrelated, or even contradictory to others, defying a simple FOR/AGAINST dichotomy. It would be outrageous of you to flippantly disregard the context, experience, and nuances that influence many beliefs. Furthermore, some beliefs might be provisionally held, pending further inquiry or evidence, rather than being rigidly FOR or AGAINST. So the fact that you think that beliefs can somehow be neatly categorized into binary oppositions is just you demonstrating a staggering lack of understanding of the very thing you're attempting to analyze.

TenQ:

It is simple logic ma.
When we see an interdependent assembly of systems having a unified function, we thing that it was from an INTELLIGENT Mind.

Even something as small as a Pen cannot be other than by an intelligent mind irrespective of how we argue that it somehow evolved from the earth's basic elements.

I look with one eye at anyone who thinks that complex interdependent assembly of systems having a unified function, is not a proof of an intelligent mind.

The simplicity of your logic is almost charming, but unfortunately, it's still so very misguided. It also strikes me as intellectual laziness because your argument amounts to nothing beyond guesswork, if you're really being honest to yourself. We're still figuring out how the natural world works, and that's fine. But the fact that you think you can just hastily fill in the gaps with some spurious theory of a divine maker that you pulled out of your ass doesn't inspire a curious mind. It's just straight up complacency and resigned speculation on your part. And attributing human-like qualities (intelligence, mind) to an unknown entity is a fallacy of reification. We can't assume that the natural world operates according to human logic or design principles. Your argument from "interdependent assembly of systems" is a form of the "watchmaker analogy," which has been thoroughly debunked. Natural processes can give rise to complex systems through self-organization and evolution, as I mentioned earlier, or haven't you considered the possibility that the natural world operates according to its own principles and laws, without the need for a designer? It doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence vs unintelligence. That's a false dichotomy. And if you really think that everyone believes that the universe was created by an intelligent mind, then that's just a reflection of your own biases. It's not a logical conclusion. It's a classic case of "argumentum ad populum" -- assuming that because many people believe something, it must be true.

Abiogenesis may explain synthesis of basic Amino Acids but it doesn't explain the CODE written in the assembly called DNA.

Example:
Having infinite times to juggle several sets all the Alphanumeric English characters, can the resulting string of letters
1. Form a sentence like "The rain in Spain Falls mainly in the Plain"
2. How you you think the Receptor even understood "this English" and knows how to Read?


Do you concur that : The DNA code is NOTHING( random noise) if the Receptor cannot decode the meaning (instructions and data) of the code!

This is ridiculous. The synthesis of amino acids is relatively unimpressive if you juxtapose it to the real magic which happens when these building blocks start interacting, self-organizing, and evolving into more complex structures. Yes, the DNA code is a highly specific and organized sequence that contains instructions for life, but at the end of the day, it is still merely a product of these interactions -- a natural consequence of chemical and physical processes, so I'm afraid I can't share your curious fascination with it. Using letters and numbers to talk about all the possible combinations is far from a perfect proposition. Those jumbled letters might not form a sentence like "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain," but that's because it's a human language with set rules. DNA is a molecule that's been around for billions of years, specifically designed to store and pass on genetic information -- so your example doesn't even come close. As for the "receptor" you referred to, it is simply the cellular machinery that has co-evolved with DNA. It's a biochemical system that recognizes and interprets the chemical structure of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. There's no conscious understanding of English or any language involved, it's all based on chemistry.

StillDtruth:


Which space?

A rock.hurtling through our space on earth has a cause, in all books and (you and i aint seen.a rock flying through the space outside the earth and even if it did, it would definitely have a cause because rocks dont fly on their own, hoing by our own experoence on earth!

You're right, a rock hurtling through our atmosphere has a cause, but that's not the kind of space I'm talking about. I'm talking about the vast expanse of the cosmos, where celestial bodies and galaxies dance to the tune of gravity and physics. The "space" where stars and planets form, and yes, even rocks can hurtle through the void. The bit about rocks flying on their own is irrelevant. The point here is this: in that vast cosmic space, what constitutes a "cause"? Is it still a simplistic, human-defined concept, or does it become something more complex, more nuanced, more...cosmic?

JessicaRabbit:
... where celestial bodies and galaxies dance to the tune of gravity and physics. The "space" where stars and planets form, and yes, even rocks can hurtle through the void...

Hello, intelligentsia. Welcome back. How're doing, Jessie? Did you not stress out while away?