UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

@ Deepsight.
I am using my smart phone to type this. When I get to my pc, I will take time to dissect every single sentence in this op to show how utterlly meaningless the entire post is,something that I expected your trained eyes to Spot right away.
I guess our biases always gets the better of us.

plaetton:


Well, for one, the op made very bold and broad statements about consciousness,

Such as. . . . . ?

I told you to reduce his argument on consciousness to one sentence for me so that I could be sure you understand it in the first place.

without defining what consciousness is.

Do I understand you as averring that consciousness requires a definition here?

I hope you are aware that many people on this board have since become wary of the sort of round-about merry-go-round debates which do nothing but demand definitions of commonly understood terms ad infinitum ad nauseum and thus say nothing and do nothing . . . .

If this is your approach my Friend, you would be better served using your time to contemplate dinner please.

He made broad and bold statements about genetic code without defining genes nor what a code is.

The last time he made this sunday school argument about nature and codes, I presented him with the SNOWFLAKES and how nature wips it up in just hours.
Proving to you that we have had this arguments before.

Pls ask him if he understands what a genetic code is.

He made statements on the existence of codes.
This does not show that you have discussed the core question of consciousness satisfactorily in the past.

I again urge you to sum up the core question of consciousness in one sentence so that I can see that you do understand the core of the question at play in terms of the consciousness issue.

Now imagine if this UyiIredia is a teacher, and happens to teach this crappy, false silliness to impressionable youth, then his own ignorance multiplies a thousand times. This is the bane of Africa's underdevelopment.

This same "silliness" was taught to generations of the Western World who still set out significant degrees of the scientific cosmogony which you now vaunt, my friend.

The minds of our people, the youth especially, are suffused with too much false, incoherent, illogical, unscientific rubbish, the type being peddled publicly here by sundayschool scholars like UyiIredia and co.
They must be mocked and shamed.

You have a long way to go my friend.

My task here will not be to argue with you.
I will limit myself to holding you to show that you understand what you are quarreling against in the first place.

For, truly, my concern at this point is no longer these sorts of empty debates.

Its time.

Its time for awakening. For Truth. For our calling.
That - I will be overjoyed to discuss.

hahn:


I thought Jesus said it would be 2000 years after his death and it still hasn't happened. He propably said that after too much wine at the last supper because its way past 2k years now. Don't you think?

Or are we going to keep on guessing the date of the rapture as well like god's existence?

Actually Jesus never said it would happen 2k years after, He actually thought it would happen during that generation.

e.g When he was addressing his disciples in Matthew 16;28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”...


Am sure we know all of them have been dead for more than 2k years now, unless somehow some are still alive till now

plaetton:


@ Deepsight.
I am using my smart phone to type this. When I get to my pc, I will take time to dissect every single sentence in this op to show how utterlly meaningless the entire post is,something that I expected your trained eyes to Spot right away.
I guess our biases always gets the better of us.

Appreciated. But I don't need you to deconstruct every single sentence in the OP.
Just deal with the issue of consciousness alone.

That will be more than enough.

Start by showing that you understand the core question at play on consciousness. Reduce that core question to a single sentence.
Danke.

KingEbukasBlog:


please if you start any form of mockery that ends the argument

2 Peter 3:4



He is giving you chance , another proof of His mercy .

Didn't Jesus tell his disciples that he will return during their life time?

22"You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. 23"When you are persecuted in one town, flee to the next. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel. Matthew 10:22-23

There are other instances.

DeepSight:


You see the problem with you? Take a look at the words in red?
These are simply logicboy-esque declarations. You have not shown them to be the case.

Declarations do not suffice for anything.

Indeed, the OP is not as well articulated as I would like. Nevertheless the substance of the points do remain inherent for the uncluttered mind to see. That substance is what you fail to challenge.

Please do not live in self-delusion. You have absolutely said nothing whatsoever sir. Not now, and not ever.
This is now your fourth post on this thread which still says nothing but repeats a most childish tantrum.

I am waiting.
And I am counting.

How do you debate statements that do not have any logical premise, considering also, that I have previously flogged him on these same topics?

Which teacher likes to teach and flog a pupil over and over again for the same simple lessons? That's why I am particularly irked by this op.

johnydon22:
. . . Ebuka are you dodging still?

Prove that Noah's flood story is a myth . And other ancient texts about a universal flood are false . Anything that proves God is regarded as assertion/myth/feeble/fairytale . But cavemen stories are regarded as fact ...

T.B joshua shenanigans

Then lets see some actions

show us where god did this?

oh sorry I forgot to show you

Luke 22:50-51

50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

plaetton:

How do you debate statements that do not have any logical premise, considering also, that I have previously flogged him on these same topics?

Which teacher likes to teach and flog a pupil over and over again for the same simple lessons? That's why I am particularly irked by this op.

Okay. We await you.
You will start with consciousness.

Danke.

johnydon22:


Actually Jesus never said it would happen 2k years after, He actually thought it would happen during that generation.

e.g When he was addressing his disciples in Matthew 16;28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”...


Am sure we know all of them have been dead for more than 2k years now, unless somehow some are still alive till now

For real? My bad then. Then he was DEFINITELY high. Never under estimate the potency of jewish weed.

DeepSight:


Appreciated. But I don't need you to deconstruct every single sentence in the OP.
Just deal with the issue of consciousness alone.

That will be more than enough.

Start by showing that you understand the core question at play on consciousness. Reduce that core question to a single sentence.
Danke.

No.
If you want to start a thread on consciouness, my favorite topic, you know I always ready. In fact, I have invited you several times to discuss consciouness.

If the op defines what he understands to be consciouness, then I can discuss or debate with him on that.

I repeat, the op is too sundayschoolish, logically inconsistent to warrant intelligent refutals.

KingEbukasBlog:


please if you start any form of mockery that ends the argument

2 Peter 3:4



He is giving you chance , another proof of His mercy .

No wonder you keep going back and forth. Its impossible for you to indulge in an intellectual "discussion" and that's why you choose to "argue".

One chance? Mercy?

Pfft. Guy, abeg allow my spaghetti digest

DeepSight:


Okay. We await you.
You will start with consciousness.

Danke.

No.
I cannot argue with op on consciouness, because the op introduced and used it broadly without defining it. I dont want to address consciouness on the ops sunday school terms. Nope.

Open a thread on consciouness, and lets take it from there.

johnydon22:


Actually Jesus never said it would happen 2k years after, He actually thought it would happen during that generation.

e.g When he was addressing his disciples in Matthew 16;28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”...


Am sure we know all of them have been dead for more than 2k years now, unless somehow some are still alive till now

He was talking to his disciples seeing Him transfigured , as He will be in the kingdom when it is set up at the second advent

smh...

mtcheew ... sorry for the typos

johnydon22:


Ebuka na like this you be? . . . No take because deepsight talk am talk your own...make e no enter word exchanges and derail the thread. . .

If someone is intelligent on nairaland, plaetton certainly is, its a fact. . Dude's a genius..

This is very true.I've been following his posts for over two years now and I can attest to that fact.The plaetton-deepsight war on nairaland is stuff of legend.Maybe they know each other personally...Him wan turn me to atheist but I no go gree.

plaetton:

No.
If you want to start a thread on consciouness, my favorite topic, you know I always ready. In fact, I have invited you several times to discuss consciouness.

If the op defines what he understands to be consciouness, then I can discuss or debate with him on that.

I repeat, the op is too sundayschoolish, logically inconsistent to warrant intelligent refutals.

plaetton:

No.
I cannot argue with op on consciouness, because the op introduced and used it broadly without defining it. I dont want to address consciouness on the ops sunday school terms. Nope.
Open a thread on consciouness, and lets take it from there.

Well I can only see this as you running away and hedging behind definitions.
Copping out.

Well have a splendid day dear.

hahn:


No wonder you keep going back and forth. Its impossible for you to indulge in an intellectual "discussion" and that's why you choose to "argue".

This is not really a discussion , its an argument . Do you guys even know what an argument is . This is the second time ... hmmm

One chance? Mercy?

Pfft. Guy, abeg allow my spaghetti digest

last time it was indomie ... stop the dead jokes

KingEbukasBlog:


This is not really a discussion , its an argument . Do you guys even know what an argument is . This is the second time ... hmmm





last time it was indomie ... stop the dead jokes

Seriously, the last time I had just finished eating indomie, prepared by my lovely wife, and I just had lunch not too long ago.

Arguing about that jewish guy gives me indigestion. Do you realise Jesus wasn't even a christian?

KingEbukasBlog:


This is not really a discussion , its an argument . Do you guys even know what an argument is . This is the second time ... hmmm





last time it was indomie ... stop the dead jokes

In an argument someone has to win. In discussions the participants end up learning. I'm here to learn. U?

Seriously, the last time I had just finished eating indomie, prepared by my lovely wife, and I just had lunch not too long ago.

Arguing about that jewish guy gives me indigestion. Do you realise Jesus wasn't even a christian?

hahn:


In an argument someone has to win. In discussions the participants end up learning. I'm here to learn. U?

Funny how I see you learning by making jest of God and other religions

Seriously, the last time I had just finished eating indomie, prepared by my lovely wife, and I just had lunch not too long ago.

ok ... I believe you

Arguing about that jewish guy gives me indigestion. Do you realise Jesus wasn't even a christian?

"Christian" is Christ-like

But lets hear what uve got

@Deepsight.

Ok, here we go.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.

See what I mean ? This an example of complex ignorance.
There is already something called science . Science is not an elite social club. Everyone freely participates in discovery of the many mysteries of the universe.
What Uyi should say is that the complexity of the universe requires vigorous investigation and enquiry.

The existence of the universe does not demand an explanation ,because we don't have, and may never have all the facts, all the mathematical corrolations that correspond to every phenomena.
BUt gosh, we can go as far as possible to establish whatever facts or truths that we can grasp, all the while refraining from invoking magic god-did-it whenever we are stuck.

You can immediately see where he is heading when he makes such obtuse statements. He is heading straight to sunday school.
Every illogical argument on this op leads straight to sunday school. That's why I considered it wasteful to indulge him.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

1) The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

The above word salad IS NOT Edible, at all.

The above has to count as the most MEANINGLESS assemblage of words I have ever encountered. Seriously.
Deeepsight, is this dude trying to be like you, creating infinite universes with mere word salads ?
Abeg, teach him better.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !


2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

Another assemblage of incongruent , non edible word salads.

Here, he uses the word " codes" to make three consecutive statements, without first telling us what exactly he means by a code.
If he defines what a code really is, then we can accept or challenge him on whether natural processes or magical processes [/b]are responsible for codes.

To be honest, it really annoys me when someone patches ups meaningless words to convey meaningless ideas.

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !


3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.

Here, he introduces consciousness, and without defining it, he boldly claims that it is not explainable by materialistic (HUH ?) means.
Again, meaningless babble.

To correct him, what we know scientifically is that consciousness is the agglomeration of interactive information , and if I may add, ..at the quantum level.
So, yes, consciousness is interaction, interactive information at the quantum level.
[b]Consciousness requires interactive information, and such , must, of necessity , have a mathematically corresponding corrollaries or properties.

Therefore, consciousness is not as immaterial as people like deepsight would like us to believe.
If it were immaterial, then it should have no material or mathematical correspondences.
If consciousness was immaterial, we would not be able to distinguish or our emotions moved by the different tones of music.
Every elementary school kid knows that musical tones have mathematical correspondences.

So, are we clear on this issue of consciousness, sir deeepsight ?
Knock , knock, anybody home ?

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !


3) This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Another juvenile sundayschool statement.
Again, see how he smuggles god into the argument without telling or showing us who or what god is supposed to be or how god affects consciousness, a term he failed define.


And as we see can clearly see from this last statement, the op is simply and desperately looking for A Good Grounds To convince Himself (and Himself only) That His Fairy God Exists.

KingEbukasBlog:

God is self-existent
When "God" is said , basic descriptions of Him should come to mind
→ Supreme Being
→ Creator
→Wonder worker
→ Highly intelligent being
If these are understood , then you have no problem . Can this be proven outside the bible? Yes and BASICALLY
→Existence , Design and Complexity of life forms
→Miracles
→Effects of His Power on Nature
→Personal Experiences

I mentioned this somewhere --- https://www.nairaland.com/2285941/atheism-religion-kolooyinbo-explains/5#33380518

As a confirmed believer I do wish it was this simple (especially in moments of misunderstanding). If the argument held, then FAITH would be irrelevant and Christianity for one would be changed massively.

Basically all these types of arguments (The first set I mean) are classified as tautological arguments (simply put - a play on words), clever but ultimately circular and invalid. The second set refer to a mishmash of arguments only accepted by those who already believe and in no manner constitute a proof.

They were among the first types of arguments rejected by scholars, philosophers and Christians themselves (not sure about the stance of other faiths vis a vis Tautological Arguments).

There is NO proof of Gods existence thus we require Faith.
Likewise there is no proof of Gods NON existence, thus requiring an equal but opposite faith.

This is why all Christians who understand their religion stress FAITH so heavily.

KingEbukasBlog:


Funny how I see you learning by making jest of God and other religions


ok ... I believe you



"Christian" is Christ-like

But lets hear what uve got

Can you honestly say that you are christ like? If yes, please explain

johnydon22:
Oh really then you need the luck....Goodluck with that.


oh yea the universe needs an explanation and this can only be achieved through study, observation and experiment, no matter how long it takes to solve this not with assumptions (a god did it).
Throwing in a god did it when you lack knowledge of how it happened;
This does not solve this problem because u are trying to explain something that is unexplained with an unexplained answer if this should hold sway then we can also say the universe doesn't need to be explained.

An infinite regress of causes is illogical since by definition it can't reach its effect. So, its either the universe has always existed in some form or it was created.

johnydon22:
This "god did it" does not answer the question it only postpones it, u have to assume a god don't need a creator, don't this show the universe too don't need a creator since u just showed something can exist without a creator

God is the First Cause, by definition He can't have a creator especially given the fact that we an infinite regress of causes is impossible. I think the order in the universe despite a tendency for chaos suggests a Creator. Why do you think the universe wasn't created ?

johnydon22:
You mention the order in the PHYSICAL universe and NATURAL laws then u assumed up a SPIRITUAL answer to something u agree is PHYSICAL this itself is a flaw to itself. (Self refuting)

Why is it self-refuting ?

johnydon22:
the bolded alone kills this argument. You distance the human genetic code from nature and claim it doesn't follow natural laws. How can genetic code/hereditary not be natural when it is still within the confine of nature and are found in natural organisms.
This is a big intellectually epileptic assertion and I have no advice than you need more studies.

Consider computers. They follow natural laws but the programming codes that computers run on don't follow natural laws, human minds determine them. The same is applicable to the genetic code.

johnydon22:
Man's consciousness cannot be explained materially when man's consciousness is still material....lol... Funny.

Consciousness is not material. Your awareness of your thoughts and environment is not a physical thing.

johnydon22:
For this to hold sway you have to then explain to us god's consciousness and bear in mind this explanation should not be spiritual since you argue that man (material entity) does not have material origin then god(spiritual entity) cannot have spiritual origin, it must be something else...
Material must have material origin cus that which is not material cannot give what it doesnt have

If you say I shouldn't give a spiritual explanation I can't give any explanation. Besides there's no third option man either 'spiritually originated' or 'materially originated'.

johnydon22:
If you assume god is self existent this is another failing in your argument because you have showed something can be self existent why then would you assume up a creator for the universe since following your argument we can rightly say it is self existent.

Again good luck

The arguments I've given here are also reasons as to why I don't think the universe is self-existent. I don't think a self-existing universe would be orderly, have life and more outrageously, have intelligent and conscious beings.

plaetton:

No.
I cannot argue with op on consciouness, because the op introduced and used it broadly without defining it. I dont want to address consciouness on the ops sunday school terms. Nope.

Open a thread on consciouness, and lets take it from there.

At least its better than your nonsense on consciousness being mere energy as you put it.

UyiIredia:


Consider computers. They follow natural laws but the programming codes that computers run on don't follow natural laws, human minds determine them. The same is applicable to the genetic code.

UyiIredia,
Will you please stop writing nonsense?

Computer programming codes don't follow natural laws?
Like, WTF?

Human mind determine them?

What are you smoking ?

I bet you have never written a computer program in your life, you have no idea how they are written and with what they are written.
What a great folly.

For your education, thank me later, computer programs can ONLY be written using the Natural laws of mathematics.
Ok?

Now, since mathematical laws are default state in nature, the genetic code is simply a store house of 4.7 billion years of nature's programming code and reprogramming . That is why, from time to time it contains errors, errors of its past passed down the generations.

Pls, do you now understand what genetic code is and what computer programming code is?
I hope so.

KingEbukasBlog:

He was talking to his disciples seeing Him transfigured , as He will be in the kingdom when it is set up at the second advent

smh...

Yes Coming In His Kingdom Means transfiguration. . You know its always funny when you people try to twist what the bible said. . No wonder George Bernard Shaw said No Man believes the bible means what it says, he is always convinced it says what they mean

We definitely are seeing it here..

KingEbukasBlog:


Prove that Noah's flood story is a myth . And other ancient texts about a universal flood are false . Anything that proves God is regarded as assertion/myth/feeble/fairytale . But cavemen stories are regarded as fact ...

Isn't it funny you are just being Childish..
Please which one is cavemen again (cus its obvious you are using it in another context)
We are talking about Noah's story boy stop running around and answer the simple question.. [size=20] Gilgamesh or Noah which was written first?[/size]

oh sorry I forgot to show you

Luke 22:50-51

Again? And you haven't read Isis healing osiris manhood when seth cut it off.. there are just fables..

It seems this one miracle is impossible eeeh?

Looks like the OP has a lot of battle within himself. He is looking for answers from non-believers in his God. He needs reasons to believe in God. When he makes up his mind to believe in God,he finds a million reasons not to. Good luck with the inner war OP.

plaetton:

UyiIredia,
Will you please stop writing nonsense?

Computer programming codes don't follow natural laws?
Like, WTF?

Human mind determine them?

What are you smoking ?

I bet you have never written a computer program in your life, you have no idea how they are written and with what they are written.
What a great folly.

For your education, thank me later, computer programs can ONLY be written using the Natural laws of mathematics.
Ok?

Now, since mathematical laws are default state in nature, the genetic code is simply a store house of 4.7 billion years of nature's programming code and reprogramming . That is why, from time to time it contains errors, errors of its past passed down the generations.

Pls, do you now understand what genetic code is and what computer programming code is?
I hope so.

Mathematics has no natural laws, since you think it does state an example. Examples of natural laws include the laws of gravity and thermodynamics. Programming codes are exempt from these laws.

ifeness:
Looks like the OP has a lot of battle within himself. He is looking for answers from non-believers in his God. He needs reasons to believe in God. When he makes up his mind to believe in God,he finds a million reasons not to. Good luck with the inner war OP.

A silly way of castigating the OP since it's false and avoids my arguments. I have never doubted God's existence and don't look to atheists for any answers on that. Address the arguments please.

UyiIredia:


Mathematics has no natural laws, since you think it does state an example. Examples of natural laws include the laws of gravity and thermodynamics. Programming codes are exempt from these laws.

WTF again?
Oh gosh!
In which school did they teach you this crap?

UyiIredia,
To be honest, I actually thought you were much more intelligent than this.
I am actually very very dissapointed.

I feel stu.pi.d for having engaged you.

I wish dumb folks would stop opening threads, that way I not have to engage them.

Then again, it's because of dumb folks making dumb claims that I find myself in this religilous section.