FxMasterz:


Why don't you bring up the proof yourself?

That was how you lied against me on the other thread after I accused you of calling me a retard. You said you never did. Once I proved you did, you started saying I first started it. When I proved you were the aggressor, you started saying it was not directed at me.

Now, trace all our conversations on this thread. Even when you insult me, how have I responded to you? Did I even respond back with insults? Yet, you continue. You start all conversations with insults until I told you that your mind is very dirty.

These are the first few insults you started raining on me. Even when you found out you were wrong that I actually replied you, you didnt tender any apology, but u continued raining insults

jaephoenix:

These are the first few insults you started raining on me. Even when you found out you were wrong that I actually replied you, you didnt tender any apology, but u continued raining insults

You're very satanic, and one does not have to be surprised. You lie exactly the same as Satan himself.

Why did you crop out your insults! So, telling you that you were perambulating is an insult? I proved your deceits before telling you that you're deceitful. That isn't an insult and I owe you no apology whatsoever!

From your very first mention of me on this thread, you came with insults. At least all readers can see that. You're just too satanic and demonic for any truth to reside in you!

Be bold enough to fully screenshot any of the posts you made on this thread before today. I dare you!

jaephoenix:

These are the first few insults you started raining on me. Even when you found out you were wrong that I actually replied you, you didnt tender any apology, but u continued raining insults

Jaephoenix, there's no insult in the screenshots you posted. Post your mention that I responded to. You were insulting me all through the thread until I made the post in the screenshot you attached.

Anyway, I'm a Christian and the Lord Jesus has commanded me to make peace with all men. So, even though you do not deserve an apology, I will in total obedience to my Master apologize to you. I'm sorry.

FxMasterz:

So, even though you do not deserve an apology, I will in total obedience to my Master apologize to you. I'm sorry.

WTF!!?

Everyday247:
This thread never die?

E no go die.

Atheists want it to die but the thread dey gidigba.

FxMasterz:

E no go die.

Atheists want it to die but the thread dey gidigba.

Still waiting for more atheists to counter this post. Till date, none of them have been able to raise any solid rebuttal.

FxMasterz:
Still waiting for more atheists to counter this post. Till date, none of them have been able to raise any solid rebuttal.

What sort of "solid rebuttal" exactly are you looking for?

By definition, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. You've said several times on this thread that you're referring to a creator, not necessarily a god. But somehow it's up to the atheists to give a rebuttal to something that apparently isn't related to their (lack of) belief?

Secondly, I believe we talked about the issue of a creator quite extensively.

You hold the position that the way things are in the universe, complexity and "purpose", seem as though they were crafted by a super-mind. I disagreed and said it's an anthropogenic way of looking at things. I also stated my issues with that line of thought.

Essentially you perceive things a certain way. I don't. It's become more of a debate based on our perception of a thing, rather than the thing itself. Plus you make reference to an unverifiable claim, which is the super mind.

How exactly am i supposed to offer a rebuttal to your perception which is already based on an unfalsifiable claim?

Wilgrea7:



What sort of "solid rebuttal" exactly are you looking for?

By definition, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god. You've said several times on this thread that you're referring to a creator, not necessarily a god. But somehow it's up to the atheists to give a rebuttal to something that apparently isn't related to their (lack of) belief?

Secondly, I believe we talked about the issue of a creator quite extensively.

You hold the position that the way things are in the universe, complexity and "purpose", seem as though they were crafted by a super-mind. I disagreed and said it's an anthropogenic way of looking at things. I also stated my issues with that line of thought.

Essentially you perceive things a certain way. I don't. It's become more of a debate based on our perception of a thing, rather than the thing itself. Plus you make reference to an unverifiable claim, which is the super mind.

How exactly am i supposed to offer a rebuttal to your perception which is already based on an unfalsifiable claim?

Your argument doesn't hold any water. It's very lame. If you're going to perceive things in any other way, then you must give reasons that would be persuasive enough for your alternate perception to be given any thought. You just want us to dismiss this debate because you have an unfounded objection.

I have explained my position, whether it is an anthropogenic, biogenic, geogenic, abiotic or any way of reasoning it, the fact still remains that nothing else can create purpose other than a mind. It's just as simple as that.

Atheists should be ashamed of themselves whenever they say Atheism is a lack of belief as they've been saying on this thread because they're confronted with indisputable facts about the possibility of a Creator existing. Should I create a topic now to say "I have found the evidence for a Creator." The only attackers of that topic would be atheists. It is very hilarious that you guys are now denying a position that everyone knows atheists hold. If you actually believe in a Creator, you'll also believe in a God. You don't believe in a God because you don't believe in a Creator. Very simple. So, any evidence for a Creator is an attack on atheism. How long will you continue to live in denial?

My assertion is not unfalsifiable. This position is drawn from our experiences as human beings. And there's nothing more probable than an experience. This argument is drawn from what we know by virtue of our very existence. We know that if anything, no matter how simple or minute it may be, can so exist just to fulfil a purpose, then there's a mind behind it. How can anybody dismiss the rhythmic cooperation of extremely large and complex things that science has empirically confirmed the purposes they fulfil, and all these individual purposes working together to fulfil one single purpose - the sustenance of life - according to science. How's that anthropogenic?

Purpose cannot come about through chaotic and unplanned processes. The sense of purpose in the whole structure of things is what my position dwells on, and that's what atheists have not been able to disprove.

FxMasterz:


Your argument doesn't hold any water. It's very lame. If you're going to perceive things in any other way, then you must give reasons that would be persuasive enough for your alternate perception to be given any thought. You just want us to dismiss this debate because you have an unfounded objection.

Let me get this straight. You gave your perception of the universe.. which is based on an unverifiable claim.. and I'm the one who's supposed to come up with an "alternative" perception?

You're the one who is required to substantiate your claim first.

Second of all. I never claimed to have an alternative position as to why things are the way they are. I only told you your perception lacks the evidence needed to be taken seriously. And so far you've not given me any reason to think otherwise.

I have explained my position, whether it is an anthropogenic, biogenic, geogenic, abiotic or any way of reasoning it, the fact still remains that nothing else can create purpose other than a mind. It's just as simple as that.

That is not a fact. That is your perception which you're trying to paint as a fact. That's the fundamental point we disagree. That's one of the unverifiable claims you keep making.

You're talking about what we've observed, so far, IN our universe. Not OF our universe. 2 different things. That's why I disagree with you.

Just because something applies inside a system, doesn't mean it must apply outside, or about said system. That's something you need to try to understand here.

Observing how things inside the universe work says very little about how and especially why the universe came to be.

I'll say it again. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest the "things" outside the universe HAVE TO work the same way things inside the universe do. And we have no way to confirm or falsify our hypothesis.. which is why I call it an unverifiable claim.

Atheists should be ashamed of themselves whenever they say Atheism is a lack of belief as they've been saying on this thread because they're confronted with indisputable facts about the possibility of a Creator existing.

You've neither shown something that's indisputable, nor something that's a fact.

Should I create a topic now to say "I have found the evidence for a Creator." The only attackers of that topic would be atheists. It is very hilarious that you guys are now denying a position that everyone knows atheists hold. If you actually believe in a Creator, you'll also believe in a God. You don't believe in a God because you don't believe in a Creator. Very simple. So, any evidence for a Creator is an attack on atheism. How long will you continue to live in denial?

The line between a "creator" and a "god" is one i fail to see. I only used the word creator because you were protesting against the word god. To me, they would mean the same thing, or at least be interchangeable.

Let me break it down for you.

A creator implies a god
A first cause does not imply a creator, nor a god. But that's another topic. Not so important here.

My assertion is not unfalsifiable. This position is drawn from our experiences as human beings. And there's nothing more probable than an experience. This argument is drawn from what we know by virtue of our very existence. We know that if anything, no matter how simple or minute it may be, can so exist just to fulfil a purpose, then there's a mind behind it. How can anybody dismiss the rhythmic cooperation of extremely large and complex things that science has empirically confirmed the purposes they fulfil, and all these individual purposes working together to fulfil one single purpose - the sustenance of life - according to science. How's that anthropogenic?

I've addressed these points above.

Purpose cannot come about through chaotic and unplanned processes. The sense of purpose in the whole structure of things is what my position dwells on, and that's what atheists have not been able to disprove.

Purpose is very, very subjective. The pothole was not made for the puddle.. nor was the puddle made for the pothole.

I'm not claiming there's no purpose. I'm not claiming there is. I... Dont... Know.

But your reason for the perceived purpose, is one that has no basis outside the anthropogenic view of things. And like I said twice above, is based on the unverifiable claim, that things outside/about the nature of the universe function the same way things in the universe do.

Wilgrea7:


Let me get this straight. You gave your perception of the universe.. which is based on an unverifiable claim.. and I'm the one who's supposed to come up with an "alternative" perception?

I didn't give my perception of the universe. All the claims are scientific. You should read the OP again. The only inference I drew was that Only A Mind Can Create a Purpose. This inference was drawn from our existential experience on earth.

You're the one who is required to substantiate your claim first.

Second of all. I never claimed to have an alternative position as to why things are the way they are. I only told you your perception lacks the evidence needed to be taken seriously. And so far you've not given me any reason to think otherwise.

I didn't make any claim. I only drew an inference which you have not yet disputed. Infact, you have not addressed the issue at all.

That is not a fact. That is your perception which you're trying to paint as a fact. That's the fundamental point we disagree. That's one of the unverifiable claims you keep making.

All these are according to science. Please read the OP again and confirm these facts from science literatures.

You're talking about what we've observed, so far, IN our universe. Not OF our universe. 2 different things. That's why I disagree with you.!/quote]
You should actually prove that any other thing apart from a mind can create a purpose.

[quote]Just because something applies inside a system, doesn't mean it must apply outside, or about said system. That's something you need to try to understand here.

Except you have another universe outside of here. What we're talking about is our own universe. Whatever applies outside of our universe has nothing to do with us.

Observing how things inside the universe work says very little about how and especially why the universe came to be.

Nobody is talking about why the universe came to be or how the universe came to be. We're talking about what the universe does and why it does it.

I'll say it again. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest the "things" outside the universe HAVE TO work the same way things inside the universe do. And we have no way to confirm or falsify our hypothesis.. which is why I call it an unverifiable claim.

Things outside the universe are none of our business please. No one is taking about things outside our universe.

You've neither shown something that's indisputable, nor something that's a fact.



The line between a "creator" and a "god" is one i fail to see. I only used the word creator because you were protesting against the word god. To me, they would mean the same thing, or at least be interchangeable.

Let me break it down for you.

Except you fail to see that people worship God because they believe He created them.

A creator implies a god
A first cause does not imply a creator, nor a god. But that's another topic. Not so important here.



I've addressed these points above.

If people believe that there's no Creator, they wouldn't even have the word "God" in their dictionary.

Purpose is very, very subjective. The pothole was not made for the puddle.. nor was the puddle made for the pothole.

I'm not claiming there's no purpose. I'm not claiming there is. I... Dont... Know.

Science says there is. You only don't know because it doesn't suit the position you want to make. Science has told us why these complex mechanisms behave the way they do. These are not my own personal discoveries or position.

But your reason for the perceived purpose, is one that has no basis outside the anthropogenic view of things. And like I said twice above, is based on the unverifiable claim, that things outside/about the nature of the universe function the same way things in the universe do.

There's no perceived purpose in the whole of these argument. The purposes here are scientifically stated purposes.

FxMasterz:

I didn't give my perception of the universe. All the claims are scientific. You should read the OP again. The only inference I drew was that Only A Mind Can Create a Purpose. This inference was drawn from our existential experience on earth.

I didn't make any claim. I only drew an inference which you have not yet disputed. Infact, you have not addressed the issue at all.

Sir, I respectfully disagree. I've read the OP multiple times. The only things "scientific" about the OP are the references to the things that exist in the universe, like the eye and DNA.

Your inference that it suggests some sort of "intelligent design" or super mind is very, very perceptional. You're asking me to disprove an inference that hasn't been proven in the first place. How is that supposed to work?

All these are according to science. Please read the OP again and confirm these facts from science literatures.

What exactly is according to science? The science of what exactly? You've been spamming the word science like it's supposed to automatically give credibility to unsubstantiated claims. Science is not some book you quote from.

What branch or field of science substantiates the claim that nothing else can create something with "purpose" other than a mind? How do you even go about defining what a mind is, or what "purpose" is supposed to be? At this point you end up using very very fluid words to try to paint an idea of something that doesn't exist.

I think it would be a good idea if you kindly defined for us, what a "mind" is, in this context.

Except you have another universe outside of here. What we're talking about is our own universe. Whatever applies outside of our universe has nothing to do with us.

No Sir. Respectfully, it does. You're trying to make reference to something that created the universe. In what other direction do you look? If you're looking for who or what created a car, do you look inside the car? What part of the wires and metals and oil suggests that the creator of the car is made of super metals and super wires and super oils?

It's what I've been trying to explain since the beginning. Any claims about what a potential creator (of the universe) is supposed to be, or not be, cannot be based on what or how things exist in the universe.

Please tell me you can at least understand this line of reasoning.

Wilgrea7:


Sir, I respectfully disagree. I've read the OP multiple times. The only things "scientific" about the OP are the references to the things that exist in the universe, like the eye and DNA.

Your inference that it suggests some sort of "intelligent design" or super mind is very, very perceptional. You're asking me to disprove an inference that hasn't been proven in the first place. How is that supposed to work?

I have established even in the OP that the issue does not rest on the matter of intelligent design but rather on the purposefulness of these designs, to which science agrees.

What exactly is according to science? The science of what exactly? You've been spamming the word science like it's supposed to automatically give credibility to unsubstantiated claims. Science is not some book you quote from.

Already stated in the OP. I differentiated between what my inference is (only one inference) and what we know according to science.

It's actually very interesting that you're trying to posit that science does not automatically give credibility to unsubstantiated claims. You would never say this actually if you were quoting science for yourself. However, there's no unsubstantiated claims in science. The two words don't go together.

I do not know what you infer by unsubstantiated claims since I never made any claims that I attributed to science. I only drew a single inference from scientific findings.

What branch or field of science substantiates the claim that nothing else can create something with "purpose" other than a mind? How do you even go about defining what a mind is, or what "purpose" is supposed to be? At this point you end up using very very fluid words to try to paint an idea of something that doesn't exist.

Is this not the only thing I told you was borne out of my own inference? I never attributed it to science.

I think it would be a good idea if you kindly defined for us, what a "mind" is, in this context.

We're not defining what a mind is. We're pointing out what a mind can do because of what we have seen only minds do. We know by experience that only a mind can create a purpose. For example, you're posting this argument because in your mind you want to disprove my position. You put your mind to work for this purpose. We don't need to define a mind to know that. If you have any objection, you can point us out to purposeful things in our material world that didn't originate from a mind.

No Sir. Respectfully, it does. You're trying to make reference to something that created the universe. In what other direction do you look? If you're looking for who or what created a car, do you look inside the car? What part of the wires and metals and oil suggests that the creator of the car is made of super metals and super wires and super oils?

I don't think I ever inferred what the Creator was made of to warrant this question in the first place. Please read the OP again. I went as far as establishing that we do not even talk about the kind of mind behind these things. We're not saying it's an intelligent mind, neither are we inferring that it's a human, animal or some other kinds of mind. All purposes have been known to originate from a mind. That's all. To counter this debate, the only thing you need to prove is that there are things other than a mind that have been known to create purpose. Any other thing you say does nothing to the argument. This is the only argument here. You've been arguing on things that this argument does not take a position about.

It's what I've been trying to explain since the beginning. Any claims about what a potential creator (of the universe) is supposed to be, or not be, cannot be based on what or how things exist in the universe.

Please tell me you can at least understand this line of reasoning.

You're actually not addressing the matter. I have never said the Creator of the universe should be or not be anything. I merely hinted at a Creator without qualifying the Creator in anyway.

This debate only tries to establish that where purpose is, there's of necessity a mind, because purpose has been known to originate from minds only.

For example, when I was debating the AI, one of the points the AI raised was that chaos can lead to purposeful designs. The AI then described the situation of an erosion that creates a path for men and beasts through its water course. I countered the AI that the path wouldn't be smooth, and are always known to lead to nowhere. Water does not maintain the path too. With time, the path would became a pit as water continues to erode it. It's not maintained. Which means the path does not look purposeful. The rough path that leads to nowhere is not the same as the complex system of things that are extremely orderly. A symphony of complex things compositely fulfilling a shared purpose cannot be said to originate out of chaos. The maintenance of things - for example, self-healing or repairs also destroys that position. I also established to the AI that even if the paths were smoothed and were known to lead to purposeful destinations, we'll still establish water as the creator of the path.

And of course, water is the undisputed creator of the path but a mindless water cannot create the same type of orderly, smooth, complex and purposeful paths that we have seen man creating. The difference between man and water is the mind. We see these sane type orderliness, complexities and purposefulness in our universe. Infact, on a very much higher dimension.

So, we establish that there's a mindful Creator.

jaephoenix:

You're using AI to fine-tune what?
Lol 😆 bwahahahah (lemme laugh like LordReed)
You're talking to folks that use AI on the regular. I use them sometimes for my blog even though I don't use them for my arguments here. Any stuff the AI spews out isn't your thought but machine generated, and if another person asks that same question or query, he gets the same answer

Dude is a grade A mo.ron and keeps making a big fool of himself. I have his time now, he was so triggered he went searching into past topics to give me mentions.

FxMasterz:


I did not use prompt for my debate. I wrote and asked AI to detect scientific errors and fallacies, and make my write-up presentable. You're just too angry to see that Atheism is being destroyed by this argument. Stop crying and counter the debate! Even if AI made the whole piece, counter it! I showed you evidence of how I countered AI when it argued against me on this very topic.

You guys are just shameless. You first berated me for debating AI. AI is more intelligent and more knowledgeable than any human. Yet, AI could not counter this argument!

AI has put off the strongest argument against me which none of you humans had been able to match till now! Instead of whining and crying that I'm using AI, put up.your arguments too. Even if it's AI, defeat it. Meanwhile, these are my arguments. 100% my thoughts. No one anywhere can claim this arguments to be his.

AI has been trained on Evolution data only. Not Creationism! AI argues only for Evolution! Stop being a nuisance and face the task at hand!

If you still don't believe that I own this argument, then, take the challenge and defeat AI as I did. Stop crying. These are my thoughts. Not prompts. AI was not trained to deliver my line of argument. Perhaps you don't know that AI cannot do anything outside of its training!

If i outrightly call you a mor.on or cretard it'll look like an insult but ur ignorance stinks to the high heavens. You are not as educated as you think you are and what little education you think you have has obviously yeilded no tangible results. Do you even know what a prompt is, you ignorant fvck?! Let me explain how daft you sound, its like saying i don't drink soda i only drink fanta or i don't eat noodles i only eat indomie. Go and educate urself on what a prompt is and wallow in shame. Told u, u would keep embarrassing urself.

Why won't you berated for gloating about debating and "defeating" (this is still funny) AI. Same AI that is malleable and unconfrontational to your responses especially around topic bordering on religion and politics. Same AI that spouts nonsense and incorrect info from time to time with the caveat made known to users by the programmers. Same AI that spouted all the dross below when people gave it prompts it specific prompts and it got confused. Its absolute stupidity to gloat that you debated and beat AI but its m.oronic not to realise that.

FxMasterz:


Are you this deficient in reasoning?

AI does not argue for Creationism but against it. So, any argument for Creationism cannot be from an AI's thought process.

Like i said you're frigging ignorant, AI can't argue in support of creationism. Then where the heck did the attached screenshot come from, slowpoke?! Its one thing to be ignorant but to be ignorant and confident is bottom of the barrel. An IT specialist capping ignorant dross, you sure its not a business center specialist claiming IT specialist. Trust me i have your time, im free this week and im going to respond to even those old topic mentions you went to dig up and show you how frigging ignorant your are.

FxMasterz:


Kikiki.

So AI will debate for Creationism? You don't even know what you're saying! Go and try it now and bring it here for us to see.

😅 IT specialist indeed, you are so daft its not funny. Ignorant and confident illiterate wa.nker. Keep embarrassing urself, my screenshot is what? BI?! wtf

Lucifyre:


😅 IT specialist indeed, you are so daft its not funny. Ignorant and confident illiterate wa.nker. Keep embarrassing urself, my screenshot is what? BI?! wtf

Mtcheww. Na only mouth you get. Sense no dey

Lucifyre:


Like i said you're frigging ignorant, AI can't argue in support of creationism. Then where the heck did the attached screenshot come from, slowpoke?! Its one thing to be ignorant but to be ignorant and confident is bottom of the barrel. An IT specialist capping ignorant dross, you sure its not a business center specialist claiming IT specialist. Trust me i have your time, im free this week and im going to respond to even those old topic mentions you went to dig up and show you how frigging ignorant your are.

Hahaha, bring it out from the beginning. You probably gave it my argument or you manipulated it.

AI always tells you it has no belief because it's just an AI and not human. AI would tell you it has no capacity to believe or disbelief. This is obviously manipulated. What do you intend to achieve?

AI is not a sentient entity and therefore has no capacity to believe or disbelieve in a Creator!

Lucifyre:


If i outrightly call you a mor.on or cretard it'll look like an insult but ur ignorance stinks to the high heavens. You are not as educated as you think you are and what little education you think you have has obviously yeilded no tangible results. Do you even know what a prompt is, you ignorant fvck?! Let me explain how daft you sound, its like saying i don't drink soda i only drink fanta or i don't eat noodles i only eat indomie. Go and educate urself on what a prompt is and wallow in shame. Told u, u would keep embarrassing urself.

Why won't you berated for gloating about debating and "defeating" (this is still funny) AI. Same AI that is malleable and unconfrontational to your responses especially around topic bordering on religion and politics. Same AI that spouts nonsense and incorrect info from time to time with the caveat made known to users by the programmers. Same AI that spouted all the dross below when people gave it prompts it specific prompts and it got confused. Its absolute stupidity to gloat that you debated and beat AI but its m.oronic not to realise that.

Mtcheww. Such a petty little kid.

FxMasterz:


Hahaha, bring it out from the beginning. You probably gave it my argument or you manipulated it.

AI always tells you it has no belief because it's just an AI and not human. AI would tell you it has no capacity to believe or disbelief. This is obviously manipulated. What do you intend to achieve?

AI is not a sentient entity and therefore has no capacity to believe or disbelieve in a Creator!

🤣🤣 Embarrassing. Poster child of embarassment with no shame. Where's the original you gave to AI to "fine tune"?!

FxMasterz:


Mtcheww. Such a petty little kid.

😄 Is that all you have to say, IT specialist that doesn't use prompt 😁

FxMasterz:


Mtcheww. Na only mouth you get. Sense no dey

You sir have got no shame and very little brain cells. Your only two brain cells are basically fighting for 3rd place.

Lucifyre:


You sir have got no shame and very little brain cells. Your only two braincells are basically fighting for 3rd place.

Mtcheww. This kid.

Lucifyre:


🤣🤣 Embarrassing. Poster child of embarassment with no shame. Where's the original you gave to AI to "fine tune"?!

Mtcheww. You this lying little kid.

FxMasterz:


Mtcheww. This kid.

Of course that's all youd say after disgracing urself. Remember when i told you to just go?!

Lucifyre:


😄 Is that all you have to say, IT specialist that doesn't use prompt 😁

Kid, AI doesn't believe or disbelieve in anything. AI always confesses that it's not sentient, hence can never believe or disbelieve. Hence your screenshots are very fictitious.

Lucifyre:


Like i said you're frigging ignorant, AI can't argue in support of creationism. Then where the heck did the attached screenshot come from, slowpoke?! Its one thing to be ignorant but to be ignorant and confident is bottom of the barrel. An IT specialist capping ignorant dross, you sure its not a business center specialist claiming IT specialist. Trust me i have your time, im free this week and im going to respond to even those old topic mentions you went to dig up and show you how frigging ignorant your are.

I had a very lengthy argument with the AI. I cannot screenshot everything but I'll screenshot the very beginnings of the debate.

See below:

Lucifyre:


Of course that's all youd say after disgracing urself. Remember when i told you to just go?!

Which disgrace? You think your pettiness carry any influence? What do you make of yourself dear?

My conscience is pure. As long as I didn't manipulate anything to arrive at my position, I'm as free as a bird.

FxMasterz:


Which disgrace? You think your pettiness carry any influence? What do you make of yourself dear?

My conscience is pure. As long as I didn't manipulate anything to arrive at my position, I'm as free as a bird.

STFU🥱

FxMasterz


I've seen your response. And I've noticed you're making reference to this vague purpose thing. So before the discussion goes further, I would like for us to straighten it out to avoid unnecessary confusion.

I will make some statements to try to better describe your position accurately. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

First of all, you said based on our experience, we've seen minds create things with a purpose, for example, a human creating a car for the purpose of traveling faster, or more simply, a dog digging a hole for the purpose of hiding its bone.

Your logic follows the line that the hole serves a purpose, and exists because the mind of the dog wanted somewhere to hide its bone and the car serves a purpose, and exists because the human wanted to reach somewhere faster.

By that logic, you look at the universe and the complex processes within it, and infer that some super mind must have wanted these things to happen and exist. And that such things do not just arise by chaos or randomness.

The problem with this line of thought is that the very chaos it tries to deny is not nothing. It is a something. A random box of metals won't create a car. But a box of metals is something. Please keep this in mind.

Now my first question to you is, do you think/believe that things can exist without a purpose? Regardless of if the purpose is known or not.

If your answer is no, then it means you believe everything that exists has a purpose, and therefore, was brought about by a mind. Welcome to infinite regress.

Second question.. who determines said purpose? The mind that creates something, or the mind that observes/uses something?

Thirdly, if a mind creates something, you'd agree it's not random. It's purposeful. Question is.. how then did said purposeful mind exist? Why would it exist?

It doesn't matter if you appeal to complexity or purpose. The argument still shifts forward, and you are faced with either infinite regress, or determining some arbitrary point where something purposeful just has to exist without a preceding mind.

I'll address the issue of facts and science in another post.

FxMasterz

Here's part 2. This is why I believe your logic about what we've observed in our universe is faulty.

You're making reference to how things work inside our universe. In our universe, we see minds create things because said minds want those things to fulfil a certain function/purpose. True. But that says absolutely nothing about the nature of things external to our universe.

The rules of a system, including it's nature and how it functions say little to nothing about the nature of things external to the system. We have observed in our system that minds (a product of the rules of the system) create things with purpose.

That's the only line of creation we've seen within the boundaries of the system. To assume that things outside the system would function the same way things do in the system would be very naive.

I gave the example of a car earlier. I will try to give a more precise example.

A human who has never left earth, and has no knowledge of outer space can observe that throwing a ball up means it comes down. Ignoring wind influences, even a feather will fall back down. Said person can assume that things falling back down is just how reality works. But they'd be wrong.

The earth is a mini-system in a greater system, and the observed phenomenon of things falling back down won't necessarily apply if you're in outer space.

Your super mind argument is analogous to the human on earth assuming that just because things fall when you toss them in this mini-system, then they must do so outside the system. Remember this human has no knowledge of outer space. Their information comes from what they've observed only on earth.

When you say some external "super mind" must have caused the universe, you're trying to attribute properties within a system to the unknown outside the system. Like the assumption of the ball falling.

Here's the catch. You could be right. You could also be very wrong. Unlike the person on earth, we have absolutely no way to verify how things outside the universe work. At least not yet.

But until then, if your argument for the nature of something external to a system is based only on what you've observed in the system... then you're doing it all wrong.

Also, I'll quickly point out that the reason I'm talking about outside the universe is because we're talking about a possible creator. Said creator would need to be outside something to "create" it.

If this wasn't clear enough, let me know. But i don't know how else I can try to explain this to you.


Also... on a side note... I find your exchanges with the AI very laughable. Particularly the natural selection vs intelligent design argument. The fact that for some reason they're seen as opposites by anyone is downright laughable.