Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,169,767 members, 7,875,929 topics. Date: Sunday, 30 June 2024 at 02:34 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The 2nd Law (5510 Views)
Jesus Christ Will Be Born Again The 2nd Time Before Judgement Day / Public Holiday On The 2nd or 5th Of Jan??? / Pastor Adeboye Is The 2nd Most Respected Man Of God (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The 2nd Law by Nobody: 10:05pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
plaetton: MrPresident1: The bold is why I don't take them Nairaland atheists seriously! It's glaring intelligent design and nothing more.....In fact the idea that universal laws were created by purposeless, random, chance chemical events is completely absurd! Martian: Heathen, resorted to mockery as usual smdh! He is "magical" to you because you can't understand him/she/it! That delusion of disbelief has held you in prison too long....I see you've lost touch with "truth" already; you need the LORD's mercy 1 Like |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 10:11pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
doubleDx:Facts are facts, irrespective if how you and I feel, or the words we choose to describe them. 1 Like |
Re: The 2nd Law by SNCOQ3(m): 10:37pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
davien: What you mean by the bolded is not even clear enough to make any sense. Lets assume psychotherapists employ random imagery to achieve...whatever; Do they employ this random imagery in a controlled and orderly way or not? (Please also take cognizance that this random images are applied by intelligent minds for a purpose.) |
Re: The 2nd Law by wiegraf: 11:00pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
err, good genius josh, and your excellent science from answering genesis, in what universe did some scientist, a real one ie, tell you the evolution violates the second law? what of say, the formation of mountains, rivers, stars or snowflakes. do they also violate the second law? 2 Likes |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 11:12pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 11:13pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
SNCOQ3:You can look at a sand dune see a pattern, you can look at ocean waves and see a repeating pattern. Does that imply that sand dunes and ocean waves are intelligently designed and directed for a purpose? |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 11:29pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: |
Re: The 2nd Law by SNCOQ3(m): 11:43pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
plaetton: Patterns of ocean waves and sand dunes are created by forces obeying certain physical laws- just like the formation of snowflakes. Physical Laws are fixed, not arbitrary just like you have posited earlier- otherwise they won't be laws. This laws exist because their is order in the universe, order in this "complex machine" of a universe is evidence for God. 1 Like |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 11:44pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
SNCOQ3:yes ofcourse in a controlled environment(like all experiments).....orderly if you mean well presented....yes....and why are "intelligent minds" and the "purpose" of special relevance to you.....or are you trying to pull an equivocation fallacy(1 is a number and 2 is also a number therefore 2=1 ? ) |
Re: The 2nd Law by SNCOQ3(m): 11:46pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
---I rest my case--- |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 11:54pm On Oct 09, 2014 |
SNCOQ3 how do you differentiate between a universe that is intelligently designed and one that is not?....... 2 Likes |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 3:11am On Oct 10, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: With all due respect, this is sounding ridiculous. First, the laws of physics are fixed, but the processes that agglomerate around those laws are variable and always in flux. Therefore, there no fixed order in the universe. The universe is always in a state of flux. The order that you speak about are simply a matter of perspective. For example, in order for you to continue making the claim that universe is orderly and implies purposeful design, you must first see or show a universe that DOES NOT show evidence of order and design. Secondly, those of you who peddle this fallacy of orderliness in the universe are either ignorant of , or simply feigning amnesia about all that we have scientifically discovered about the birth of the universe, the early periods of our young universe and the 14 billion year evolution of our universe. Like magic ( which seem to appeal to you guys) , you think that the universe, the Earth, and the Boeing 747 just miraculously came into being in full form, ignoring, as you are all fund of, the small and incremental processes of adjustments and improvements that have occurred over the life of the universe, the Earth and aviation and aeronautics. The fallacy of the god-did-it theory is that it is not testable. It does not have any predictable qualities or attributes. It involves the invocation of magic to what is essentially are scientific, mathematically deduceable processes. It is wishy washy. It is a lazy cop-out that discourages scientific inquiry. It also opens up a pandora's box of more ridiculous theories that has to support it. For example, if a mind created the universe, then would you be open to the possibility that it might have been the mind of an inebriated Spaghetti Monster? If you think that is too ridiculous to consider, then welcome to the club. A mind that is outside the limits of the universe simply cannot exist in the universe. Mind and consciousness are by-products of the evolution of the universe, ..they are not the begetters of the universe. |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 3:12am On Oct 10, 2014 |
davien:That's the most important question.l |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 3:21am On Oct 10, 2014 |
Joshthefirst: I took my time to ponder and fully understand your question, especially in the context of evolution. But , as luck would have it, and as I am sure even you can see that from the bolded, you have actually rendered your own question null and void. It is a question that does not make any sense if you accept the bolded as true. And that is one thing I love about you Josh, .. Your last statements always seem to contradict your first. lol. 2 Likes |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 3:41am On Oct 10, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: Mathematics exists because a mind exists that understand .......? In other words, with no mind to understand it, the mathematical laws of the universe do not exist? Absurd proposition anchored on convoluted attempt at logic. SNCOQ3: This makes no sense. SNCOQ3: The laws of mathematics are fixed, but the variables that these laws act upon are not fixed, they are in a constant state of flux. Therefore, what may seem orderly are simply random processes or events that attain some degree of stability over a period of time. What did the intelligent mind interact with? What were the existing mathematical laws that intelligent mind obeyed in it's own existence? What was the template for the design? And by the way, what designed the intelligent mind that designed the universe? 2 Likes |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 3:46am On Oct 10, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: Since you are so quick to attribute mathematical laws that produce random events as proof of intelligent design, then let me repeat the question that davien asked you. Do you have any proof or examples of a universe that is not orderly and designed, so that we can compare, and then be able to say "yes, this universe is surely designed"? |
Re: The 2nd Law by SNCOQ3(m): 5:27am On Oct 10, 2014 |
1 Like
|
Re: The 2nd Law by SNCOQ3(m): 5:35am On Oct 10, 2014 |
Mental gymnastics....pull off fallacies out of thin air....quoting out of context....self-contradictions....endless shifting....pseudo-intellectual rants...what a convoluted mess. Denying God's existence by any means necessary just got even more desperate. Enjoy. 4 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: The 2nd Law by MrPresident1: 9:20am On Oct 10, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: A billion likes for you. It is shameful and disgusting, the kind of ramble these guys are putting forward all in a bid to disprove God. To even see that they are earning likes churns the stomach. Who the hell is liking the ignorant disjointed ramble of these pseudo-scientists discreditably led by Plaetton? 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: The 2nd Law by MrPresident1: 9:47am On Oct 10, 2014 |
plaetton: The bolded, it appears you are rambling. 'Spiritual konji' as I used it, is the colloquial term that describes sexual starvation in common parlance. It bears absolutely no significance to the substance of this discourse. Stop clutching at straws. According to you, snow flakes are randomly created when the conditions are right, their exactitude, symmetry, and geometry are of no use whatsoever and serve no purpose (the randomness of their creation supposes that they are not planned and so have no purpose). Since you argue that design in nature is not intelligent, the rational consequence of you argument would be that, You, Plaetton, are the product of the random mating of two adults, and that despite the complexity of your nature (DNA exactitude, symmetry, precision, coding for extremely complex functional systems), you are a product without plan and purpose, and by extension therefore, eternally useless. Do I summarize your position well, Plaetton? 3 Likes |
Re: The 2nd Law by plaetton: 1:13pm On Oct 10, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: Clever attempt at dodging importance questions. Kudos. The god-did-it proposition and the clearly absurd and upside-down mental gymnastics used to try to prove it are the stuff of great comedies. |
Re: The 2nd Law by urheme: 3:25pm On Oct 10, 2014 |
Martian: this joker is irritated, you have absolutely nothing to say. 1 Like |
Re: The 2nd Law by Nobody: 9:33pm On Oct 10, 2014 |
SNCOQ3: Gbam! The kind of desperation that stinks in their posts is alarming LOL! |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 9:56pm On Oct 10, 2014 |
The false dichotomy on this thread stinks to high heaven.....how is the rejection of "intelligent design" imply "random design"? This is a typical theist mentality...either you accept their ideas or you are the opposite ...same with how by disproving theory A means assertion B is correct ....and can someone tell me what the asteroid belt is "designed" to do?... or what the increasing entropy of the universe is good for? and why in the blazes are floaters in the eye meant to do? 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: The 2nd Law by AgentOfAllah: 10:34pm On Oct 10, 2014 |
Joshthefirst: It is possible for entropy to cause localised order. Take the galaxies for example, their symmetries look ordered, yet they emerge purely from entropy. |
Re: The 2nd Law by Joshthefirst(m): 8:10am On Oct 13, 2014 |
plaetton:please answer the questions in the last paragraph. Educate me. |
Re: The 2nd Law by Joshthefirst(m): 8:12am On Oct 13, 2014 |
davien:Lol. You are the one being hypocritical. Maybe the increasing entropy of the universe is to show people like you there must have been one to harness it into useful creation in the beginning. |
Re: The 2nd Law by Joshthefirst(m): 8:17am On Oct 13, 2014 |
plaetton:Lol. This is quite cowardly and foolish. |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 9:08am On Oct 13, 2014 |
. |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 9:08am On Oct 13, 2014 |
Joshthefirst:josh just stop....clearly you do not know the price increasing entropy costs in a scale such as the universe......because of increasing entropy energy is being re-arranged.....driving everything towards heat death..... .... and you don't just slot in your favorite myth to answer a question.....thats at best wishful thinking.....because if asked how you come about such a conclusion....you'd point me to bronze age tales.... |
Re: The 2nd Law by davien(m): 9:17am On Oct 13, 2014 |
Joshthefirst:No it is not....plaetton realizes that the things we call designed aren't termed so because of order or beauty....no... we term things designed because we have no examples of them having any natural origin.....you can hold up a clock and a twig in your hand and come to the conclusion that clocks....whether intricate or simple....do not occur naturally and then look at the twig....no matter its appearance or beauty and come to the conclusion that all examples of twigs show them to occur naturally....... so what did SNCOQ3 compare to realize everything is designed or rather what would an undesigned universe appear to be? 1 Like |
Re: The 2nd Law by Joshthefirst(m): 10:31am On Oct 13, 2014 |
davien:No Sir you are very wrong. And the example you gave is your very downfall. We call things designed because we see a plan to them, a pattern, a plot, an intention. We see them fulfilling particular roles in the universe and we realize that they must have had a maker, a mastermind, a creator with a specific purpose and intent for them You on the other hand in an effort not to be responsible or answerable to this creator and his purpose for tour life hold up a clock and acknowledge its human design and look up at the sky and orderly universe and look into the biochemistry of life as a biochemist. You look at the human mind and eye and the anatomy of living things and refuse to acknowledge their creator. You resort to foolishness and dodging. You are closeminded. And you refuse to acknowledge truth. |
Atheists Comment Required: Deliverance / I Need Your Help With This Question. It's Urgent. / The Side Effects Of Not Paying Tithes
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 73 |