Wilgrea7:
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.

Why should we concern ourselves with things external to our universe.

The bolded is actually enough. Since you have admitted that these things are true as we view them from our universe, that's just enough.

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.

No one has assumed anything outside of our system. We do not even know if there's anything outside of our universe. So, why should we bother?

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 we don't know if there are things outside the universe, so that's no argument at all.

Going by this your logic, you make all knowledge acquired in this universe invalid because all the data, knowledge, education and all information we have in all our libraries were all gleaned from our observations and experiences within our universe. We got absolutely nothing from or about an extra-universe. Hence, you're saying that all knowledge humans have acquired within this universe might be right or wrong. We can never say because what we think we know might be different from what actually obtains outside our universe. I think, this is a very big flaw of this logic. Or is there any form of knowledge on earth that was gotten from outside of the universe? Point me to one.

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.

1. I do not concern myself with the nature of anything. The nature of the Creator is of no concern to me. My only point is that only the mind can create purpose.

2. I do not presume that the 'something' is external to our universe. Do you have any proof that this 'something' you're talking about is external to our universe?

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.

Humans create houses inside which they live. People create fences around themselves while they're still within the fence. The spider builds a web around itself while it still abides within the web. The Eastern Ten Caterpillar surrounds itself with froth from within itself. It builds and abides within its own froth. It is not true that a creator must 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.

I clearly understand your points right from the very beginning.

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.

You can't find it laughable after you yourself admitted in the beginning of this your response that my position is true from the perspective of our universe. What else do you want AI to do?

Wilgrea7:
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.

First, purpose is not a vague thing. For example, the purpose of Nairaland is to socialize. Is that vague?

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

No, that's not correct. That's not the argument. It's not about a super mind wanting these things to happen and exist. No no no. The existence and/or sustenance of life itself is the purpose. We can confirm scientifically that these complex things are well designed and delicately calibrated to fulfil this singular purpose. Take note of the word 'calibrated.'

The argument is that a mind wanted life to exist and therefore created such complex things that work harmoniously to make life exist.

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

No, this argument doesn't seek to deny chaos in anywa. I never said anything like that. If chaos can create monstrous complex things that can work in unison to fulfil a shared purpose, then it means chaos has a reasoning mind, and it can thus assume the position of a creator. The ability to create purposeful things is only vested in a mind because of the mind's ability to reason.

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.

Things can exist without a purpose. But when some complex things exist to work harmoniously to fulfil a collective purpose, then that's not the result of any random occurrence.

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.[/quote[
That's not my belief.

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

The creative mind of course .

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?

If you don't know how the creative mind existed, that does not mean the creative mind does not exist. I do not bother about how the mind exists.

I do not need to see the sun or know how the sun rose to know that the sun has risen. If I see the effect of the sun or its rays, I'll know the sun has risen without asking any question.

I have seen the effects of a mind and I can see the rays of a mind in the universe, and therefore know without asking questions that a mind has risen. These things are things only a mind can do. Only a mind can create a purpose.

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.

The argument shifts nowhere. My argument does not hang on complexity or purpose. My argument hangs on intelligence plus complexity, plus harmony plus purpose. Those 4 cannot come together by chance.

Apologies for the late response. It's been a busy week/weekend.

FxMasterz:

First, purpose is not a vague thing. For example, the purpose of Nairaland is to socialize. Is that vague?

I disagree with you. I think the purpose of nairaland was simply to make the creator money.

I change my mind. I think the purpose of nairaland was to have a platform where you could create as many threads as possible. Now do you get my point?

No, that's not correct. That's not the argument. It's not about a super mind wanting these things to happen and exist. No no no. The existence and/or sustenance of life itself is the purpose. We can confirm scientifically that these complex things are well designed and delicately calibrated to fulfil this singular purpose. Take note of the word 'calibrated.'

The argument is that a mind wanted life to exist and therefore created such complex things that work harmoniously to make life exist.

Okay. Noted

No, this argument doesn't seek to deny chaos in anywa. I never said anything like that. If chaos can create monstrous complex things that can work in unison to fulfil a shared purpose, then it means chaos has a reasoning mind, and it can thus assume the position of a creator. The ability to create purposeful things is only vested in a mind because of the mind's ability to reason.

I don't know if I already said this before. But when talking of the why things exist, I don't subscribe to the chaos vs order argument. I was initially trying to make a point which I think you responded to later on.

Things can exist without a purpose.

In what sense? How exactly?

But when some complex things exist to work harmoniously to fulfil a collective purpose, then that's not the result of any random occurrence.

So a short recap so we don't go around in circles.

You believe things can exist without a purpose. You also believe the creator of a thing determines the purpose. Then without knowledge of the creator of a thing, how are you sure that something fulfils the purpose for which it was intended (by the creator)?

Basically.. do you think your observation (as NOT the creator) of a thing could be wrong?

Also... I want you to answer my question regarding how something purposeless can just "exist" but something purposeful can't. I'm very very curious to know.

FxMasterz:


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.

So calling someone a liar, deceitful, shameless etc isn't insult, when in fact, the person in question didn’t lie?

FxMasterz:

Why should we concern ourselves with things external to our universe.

The bolded is actually enough. Since you have admitted that these things are true as we view them from our universe, that's just enough.

Enough in what sense? I literally talked about systems and how things aren't always the same outside a system as they are inside.

No one has assumed anything outside of our system. We do not even know if there's anything outside of our universe. So, why should we bother?

I feel like this is pretty self explanatory. We are talking about a possible creator of the universe... where else are we supposed to look? If you're trying to find out who made a pencil.. do you search inside the pencil?

But we don't know if there are things outside the universe, so that's no argument at all.

You're the one trying to posit the existence of some external super-mind. We don't know what exists outside our universe. You're using the idea of what we've observed to try to describe what could exist outside it. I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic.

Going by this your logic, you make all knowledge acquired in this universe invalid because all the data, knowledge, education and all information we have in all our libraries were all gleaned from our observations and experiences within our universe. We got absolutely nothing from or about an extra-universe. Hence, you're saying that all knowledge humans have acquired within this universe might be right or wrong.

The person who observes that things fall down when you toss them up is 100% correct if he applies his logic to the boundaries of the system, being earth.

No one is negating our observations here so far. Observations within the system do not necessarily translate to the reality outside the system. That was my point all along.

We can never say because what we think we know might be different from what actually obtains outside our universe. I think, this is a very big flaw of this logic. Or is there any form of knowledge on earth that was gotten from outside of the universe? Point me to one.

You've lost me... what do you mean?

1. I do not concern myself with the nature of anything. The nature of the Creator is of no concern to me. My only point is that only the mind can create purpose.

You talk of a mind able to create purpose.... is that not something about the nature of said creator?

2. I do not presume that the 'something' is external to our universe. Do you have any proof that this 'something' you're talking about is external to our universe?


Humans create houses inside which they live. People create fences around themselves while they're still within the fence. The spider builds a web around itself while it still abides within the web. The Eastern Ten Caterpillar surrounds itself with froth from within itself. It builds and abides within its own froth. It is not true that a creator must be outside something to create it.

Before the house was created, there was no "inside" or "outside".. there was just the environment. The creation of the house and living in it doesn't negate the fact that the builders of the house were in the area that would now be considered "outside" before the house was created.

Let me give a very clear example.

A plot of land is bought in a field... A house is built there.. fields have discernable properties, as do houses. When we talk of the creation of the house, we're talking of the time when the house, and the properties that define the house did not exist. The properties that defined the field are what existed on that plot of land.

When we talk of the creation of the house, we are referring to the activities and processes that took place outside what you refer to as the house.. because at the time, the properties that defined the house did not exist in that area.

To sum it all up... It is impossible to talk about the creation of a thing without making reference to what conditions existed before it was created.

Also... if you're trying to imply that the creator may be inside said universe, then the floor is yours to prove it.

Remember, you believe the creator is a super-mind capable of creating purpose. I'm curious to see how you define what a mind is, and how exactly the said mind would be clearly identified as existing within the system and not outside it.

Wilgrea7:


Enough in what sense? I literally talked about systems and how things aren't always the same outside a system as they are inside.




I feel like this is pretty self explanatory. We are talking about a possible creator of the universe... where else are we supposed to look? If you're trying to find out who made a pencil.. do you search inside the pencil?




You're the one trying to posit the existence of some external super-mind. We don't know what exists outside our universe. You're using the idea of what we've observed to try to describe what could exist outside it. I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic.



The person who observes that things fall down when you toss them up is 100% correct if he applies his logic to the boundaries of the system, being earth.

No one is negating our observations here so far. Observations within the system do not necessarily translate to the reality outside the system. That was my point all along.




You've lost me... what do you mean?




You talk of a mind able to create purpose.... is that not something about the nature of said creator?




Before the house was created, there was no "inside" or "outside".. there was just the environment. The creation of the house and living in it doesn't negate the fact that the builders of the house were in the area that would now be considered "outside" before the house was created.

Let me give a very clear example.

A plot of land is bought in a field... A house is built there.. fields have discernable properties, as do houses. When we talk of the creation of the house, we're talking of the time when the house, and the properties that define the house did not exist. The properties that defined the field are what existed on that plot of land.

When we talk of the creation of the house, we are referring to the activities and processes that took place outside what you refer to as the house.. because at the time, the properties that defined the house did not exist in that area.

To sum it all up... It is impossible to talk about the creation of a thing without making reference to what conditions existed before it was created.

Also... if you're trying to imply that the creator may be inside said universe, then the floor is yours to prove it.

Remember, you believe the creator is a super-mind capable of creating purpose. I'm curious to see how you define what a mind is, and how exactly the said mind would be clearly identified as existing within the system and not outside it.

can u help me wit any murni pls

FxMasterz:


So, why did you crop in only number 1. Why didn't you include the other points?

Are you blind to see that you're the one who is a stupid and idiotic liar? You don't even have shame. Very dull and unintelligent atheist!

I posted Key Points, the pathological liar posted only one point.

It's time to start ignoring all the stupid and unintelligent atheists on this thread!

Oga, you said your post isn't about intelligent design. Now I have proved that your post was actually about intelligent design. Now you're screaming I should have added other posts. How do I cram all your posts in one screenshot? How do you think it would fit? Are you always dense 24/7?

FxMasterz:


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!

https://www.nairaland.com/8193100/completely-destroys-atheism-renders-atheists#131647987

Above is my first mention of you. Where did I insult you this mo.. ron?
Also which insults did I crop out?

FxMasterz:


Mtcheww. Na only mouth you get. Sense no dey

You ignore posts you can't counter. Oya counter that one

FxMasterz:


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.

I thought said AI argues against creationism. Now youre saying it doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. LMAO

jaephoenix:

I thought said AI argues against creationism. Now youre saying it doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. LMAO

That it can argue doesn't mean it can believe. It's argument is knowledge based. Not because it believes anything.

jaephoenix:

You ignore posts you can't counter. Oya counter that one

Every post have been countered.

jaephoenix:

https://www.nairaland.com/8193100/completely-destroys-atheism-renders-atheists#131647987

Above is my first mention of you. Where did I insult you this mo.. ron?
Also which insults did I crop out?

Trace the post. The moment I proved that I truly floored you, what was your response?

jaephoenix:

Oga, you said your post isn't about intelligent design. Now I have proved that your post was actually about intelligent design. Now you're screaming I should have added other posts. How do I cram all your posts in one screenshot? How do you think it would fit? Are you always dense 24/7?

It's not about intelligent design. I have clarified this to you in a latter post.

You see again another fresh insult from you at the bolded. Even after I apologized for doing you absolutely nothing. I might start ignoring you. I consider you a very immature kid worthy of no response.

You will still lie that you never insulted me or that I was the first. Are you not even ashamed of yourself? Well, people like you don't actually have self worth.

Wilgrea7:


Enough in what sense? I literally talked about systems and how things aren't always the same outside a system as they are inside.

Enough because you cannot prove that there's something outside of this system.

You atheists say you believe only what you can see and be proven. Now, because you've met a superior argument, you want to start arguing based on what you cannot see and cannot be proven. We have no knowledge of any outside system. We cannot base our conclusions on what no one has ever claimed to exist.

I feel like this is pretty self explanatory. We are talking about a possible creator of the universe... where else are we supposed to look? If you're trying to find out who made a pencil.. do you search inside the pencil?

The argument has a very obvious imbalance. It is not always true that you must be outside of a thing before you create that thing.

You're the one trying to posit the existence of some external super-mind. We don't know what exists outside our universe. You're using the idea of what we've observed to try to describe what could exist outside it. I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic.

The bolded is exactly what science does. The Creator is not necessarily outside of our universe. We can use what we observe to determine the possibility of an existence of a Creator. And that's perfectly normal. It becomes abnormal when you start doing mental gymnastics to say you don't believe in the existence of a Creator simply because the rules of an imaginary outer universe could be different. Who reasons like that? Scientists or Artists? Tell me.

[quote]The person who observes that things fall down when you toss them up is 100% correct if he applies his logic to the boundaries of the system, being earth.

We're do not need to apply the logic of an imaginary universe. That's mental gymnastics.

No one is negating our observations here so far. Observations within the system do not necessarily translate to the reality outside the system. That was my point all along.

You need to first prove to us that there's a reality outside the system.

You've lost me... what do you mean?
You talk of a mind able to create purpose.... is that not something about the nature of said creator?

Yeah, if you limit it within the context of a mind only. Not trying to make it look as though I'm talking about the Creator's nature in the broader sense of the word. My position is that there is a mind. That mind can also be a creator without assuming the nature of anyone. We cannot talk about nature until we agree that there's a mind.

Before the house was created, there was no "inside" or "outside".. there was just the environment. The creation of the house and living in it doesn't negate the fact that the builders of the house were in the area that would now be considered "outside" before the house was created.

Let me give a very clear example.

A plot of land is bought in a field... A house is built there.. fields have discernable properties, as do houses. When we talk of the creation of the house, we're talking of the time when the house, and the properties that define the house did not exist. The properties that defined the field are what existed on that plot of land.

When we talk of the creation of the house, we are referring to the activities and processes that took place outside what you refer to as the house.. because at the time, the properties that defined the house did not exist in that area.

To sum it all up... It is impossible to talk about the creation of a thing without making reference to what conditions existed before it was created.

Also... if you're trying to imply that the creator may be inside said universe, then the floor is yours to prove it.

Your analogy of a house does not do justice to the point you raised. I have provided better examples to prove that a creator can actually be within what he created. You obviously ignored those and decided on a soft point.

I don't need to prove that the Creator was within the universe He created because I never said so. This is what I said, "The Creator must not necessarily be outside the universe to create it." He could be within or without because we have evidence within our own world that a Creator could be within or without his creation.

Remember, you believe the creator is a super-mind capable of creating purpose. I'm curious to see how you define what a mind is, and how exactly the said mind would be clearly identified as existing within the system and not outside it.

I don't think we should be defining a mind since we all have one. Whatever you think a mind is, it is the only known source of purpose. We all know what a mind is. We don't need to know how the said mind would be clearly identified. We're not here to discuss that. We're here to establish that the results we see in our universe are a product of a mind.

jaephoenix:

So calling someone a liar, deceitful, shameless etc isn't insult, when in fact, the person in question didn’t lie?

I actually proved the person lied.

Wilgrea7:
Apologies for the late response. It's been a busy week/weekend.

No worries my friend. We all have busy schedules.

I disagree with you. I think the purpose of nairaland was simply to make the creator money.

You should complete it. The purpose of Nairaland is to make the creator money through socialization which attracts ad revenues. But still, Nairaland has a purpose anyway. And that is just the point.

I change my mind. I think the purpose of nairaland was to have a platform where you could create as many threads as possible. Now do you get my point?

Whatever the purpose is. Nairaland has a purpose and therefore emanated from a mind. You cannot consider all the complex codes and the intricate libraries that work harmoniously on Nairaland to fulfil that purpose, and then conclude that Nairaland has no creator. The mind is the source of everything you see on Nairaland.

In what sense? How exactly?

In any sense and any how. Purpose is not the reason for the existence of things.

So a short recap so we don't go around in circles.

You believe things can exist without a purpose. You also believe the creator of a thing determines the purpose. Then without knowledge of the creator of a thing, how are you sure that something fulfils the purpose for which it was intended (by the creator)?

Should that concern me? I'm only concerned that it is fulfilling a purpose because it was made to do so by the one who designed it so. If it is not fulfilling a purpose, it would be very easy for you to argue that it has no creator. Isn't it? The argument against a creator is hard simply because you yourself know that only a mind can create things that fulfil specific purposes as could be observed in our universe.

Basically.. do you think your observation (as NOT the creator) of a thing could be wrong?

Also... I want you to answer my question regarding how something purposeless can just "exist" but something purposeful can't. I'm very very curious to know.

You'll need to point me to something purposeful in our world that has no creator. Afterwards, I'll answer your question.

FxMasterz:


That it can argue doesn't mean it can believe. It's argument is knowledge based. Not because it believes anything.

Yep. So correct yourself then. Your previous statement was wrong

FxMasterz:


Every post have been countered.

Lol. You didn't even bother to counter mine

FxMasterz:


Trace the post. The moment I proved that I truly floored you, what was your response?

That was my first post on this thread. What thread are you talking about?

FxMasterz:


It's not about intelligent design. I have clarified this to you in a latter post.

You see again another fresh insult from you at the bolded. Even after I apologized for doing you absolutely nothing. I might start ignoring you. I consider you a very immature kid worthy of no response.

You will still lie that you never insulted me or that I was the first. Are you not even ashamed of yourself? Well, people like you don't actually have self worth.

In the post I replied, you virtually insulted me. Look at the screenshots. You throw insults around and when same insult gets thrown back at you, uh pretend to be a saint

FxMasterz:


I actually proved the person lied.

Where is the proof

jaephoenix:

Where is the proof

I think you should go back to where I put screenshots and links.

jaephoenix:

In the post I replied, you virtually insulted me. Look at the screenshots. You throw insults around and when same insult gets thrown back at you, uh pretend to be a saint

Even from the post, it is clear that it was a response I gave to your insult.

jaephoenix:

That was my first post on this thread. What thread are you talking about?

And you had a first aggression that started from previous threads.

Can't you see my discussions with others! Do you see me insulting people for no reason? Even today again you have insulted me again. What's wrong with you? Among all atheists here, you're the vilest.

jaephoenix:

Yep. So correct yourself then. Your previous statement was wrong

My previous statement is based on the confessions of AIs themselves. They claim they're no sentient beings and therefore cannot believe or disbelieve. That doesn't mean they cannot argue according to the knowledge fed into them.

jaephoenix:

Lol. You didn't even bother to counter mine

Which yours? I didn't see it. Refer me to it. I've been offline. Just returned online today to answer numerous mentions.

FxMasterz:


I think you should go back to where I put screenshots and links.

The screenshots actually showed I responded to your post. Youre further showing how clueless u r

FxMasterz:


Even from the post, it is clear that it was a response I gave to your insult.

And my insult was a reply of your insults…

FxMasterz:


And you had a first aggression that started from previous threads.

Can't you see my discussions with others! Do you see me insulting people for no reason? Even today again you have insulted me again. What's wrong with you? Among all atheists here, you're the vilest.

Nope. Im not. Cant you see my chat with others? How many are vile?
If you insult me, I reply you. End of

FxMasterz:


My previous statement is based on the confessions of AIs themselves. They claim they're no sentient beings and therefore cannot believe or disbelieve. That doesn't mean they cannot argue according to the knowledge fed into them.

Yeah, so correct yourself

FxMasterz:


Which yours? I didn't see it. Refer me to it. I've been offline. Just returned online today to answer numerous mentions.

Please refer to my very first post