Anybody around here honest enough to now admit what your ol Bro prophesied here?
What a laugh.
Human beings.

DeepSight:

Anybody around here honest enough to now admit what your ol Bro prophesied here?
What a laugh.
Human beings.

After all this time, shouldn't you be more careful? Can you honestly tell us you have a case, or that your spiced up $hitte hasn't been disposed of repeatedly?

The bulala comes down, you'll cry then run for months

Take a cue from your disciple op, who's suddenly become much better behaved it's near surreal

wiegraf:


After all this time, shouldn't you be more careful? Can you honestly tell us you have a case, or that your spiced up $hitte hasn't been disposed of repeatedly?

The bulala comes down, you'll cry then run for months

Take a cue from your disciple op, who's suddenly become much better behaved it's near surreal

Crazy fella. Long time.

I have no respect for the above comment because it's simply a repeat of Plaetton's cowardice.
No point made, just wagging fingers.

PS: You should know by now I couldn't give a toss about impressing you folk with any pretence at good behaviour.
You are simply not worth it fellas.

Any bothersome good behaviour towards you folk would be casting pearls before swine.

Lol. Bulala. You honestly imagine your rank illiteracy to be intellectual bulala.
What can I say? Birds of the same feather. This is the same way Plaetton's calls the tooth fairy hard teaching.

You guys are just kids, honestly. If I didn't know better I would think you were 12 years old or so.

Kay17:


Between our reality and the ultimate reality is a chasm of illusion.

Really, how so?

We could find out at the end of the day that our reality was just an illusion.

Maybe. Maybe not

Hence the ultimate reality is still an alternate reality even though our own reality is rooted in it. Just as virtual realities despite being rooted in our reality are alternate. Do you get it?

I get what you are saying, but this doesn't necessarily make the ultimate reality beyond our perception just like how we can perceive both virtual reality and our physical reality.

Why is the ultimate reality necessarily beyond perception. Because our senses, empirical devices and reason cannot be justified by any other foundation other than themselves. 'How am I sure I see a stone or a building' there is just no way our senses can penetrate beyond our reality even if there is an ultimate reality.

Notice that you are now doubting the very reality you experience in order to help you doubt God. Hence confirming what I said earlier:

"The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself...."

https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/6#34509734

Only a fool will claim that there is no God. Even instincts will make you know that there is an unseen 'Being' that makes sure that the natural things in the world and the world at large are sustained.

Let atheists explain why there are no supporting structures that hold the heaven apart from the earth. Let them tell us how the air we breathe come about. Natural things did not come on their own. Science will only show one how some things were made from natural things, but cannot explain how these natural things were created.

Heb.11:6 For without FAITH it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

We do not need to see God, physically in order to ascertain His existence, rather we believe in FAITH in His existence. When one does that, He (God) will begin to prove to one that He really exists.

DeepSight:


Crazy fella. Long time.

I have no respect for the above comment because it's simply a repeat of Plaetton's cowardice.
No point made, just wagging fingers.

PS: You should know by now I couldn't give a toss about impressing you folk with any pretence at good behaviour.
You are simply not worth it fellas.

Any bothersome good behaviour towards you folk would be casting pearls before swine.

Lol. Bulala. You honestly imagine your rank illiteracy to be intellectual bulala.
What can I say? Birds of the same feather. This is the same way Plaetton's calls the tooth fairy hard teaching.

You guys are just kids, honestly. If I didn't know better I would think you were 12 years old or so.

Ser Pot, there is a point there. About $hitte

veldano:

Football is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion and, in that, Anfield is unbeatable. Put a $hit hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy stadium and there are people who will tell you it's a work of art. It's not: it's a shit hanging from a stick.

Now now, this is sort of contradictory. He claims it's all subjective, therefore what's $hitte to one is another's art. However, there are a few things that can be objectively verified, yes? Also, if we set our standards, we can then ascertain if a given proposal is $hitte or no, yes? So if senor veldano's subjective standard is flair, that is what he classifies as beautiful, then yes, that match was '$hit on a stick'

Here though, the op is addressing good ol' atheists. I would like to assume he has an idea of what most of us are interested in; objective truths.

Knowing this we can definitely classify the op (and just about everything you post or cheerlead) as first rate $hitte trying to pass itself off as suya. Basically, and as usual, inevitably and inexorably it will lead to your trying to pass off grand, fluffy, empty declarations with authority, about matters you cannot possibly know, as objective truths. (Hence the questions from oga kay about the metaphysical (at least I think that's why kay asks)).

In other words, $hitte on a stick as far we're concerned. Nothing near objective. In fact, a lot of it outright false sef. But all dressed up beautifully, trying to pass itself as something it's not (especially when your bardship pens it himself)



If you insist, examples from the op of your empty and/or subjective noise

op:

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.

From the very first grand assertion we note the folly.

Oya, the universe demands an explanation? Assuming I allowed that, exactly why is your god exempt?? The universe demands an explanation yet the supposedly more 'ordered' god does not?! Curious. Please apply your standards consistently.



But let's ignore the stark hypocrisy and move on, for now. Where do you even see order? Where you see the beauty and order of say childbirth you conveniently ignore the disorder of earthquakes and floods. This has pointed out to you time and again.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? All the cows that end up in that baby's bele during it's lifetime would certainly find that birth mighty ugly and disorderly.

Snoqxx was going on about being dazzled by 'code' in DNA, which you predictably cheerlead. He forgets to mention that any programmer that coded like that would literally be hanged, quartered and drawn even in this age. I highly doubt notorious pedants would stand for a codebase in which, by some estimates, over 90% is useless. How so very ordered. The nonsense in there includes bits from viruses to stuff we or our ancestors have not used in millions of years. We share 50% of our dna with bananas. Please, do tell why? Code reuse? Well, if so, I would wonder why reuse all that useless code.

If it's the process of evolution that delights, then one would then ask where's the house cleaning? The garbage collection or it's equivalent? Even your harddisk cleans up after itself (if allowed ie) so really? We mere mortals can manage that yet some supposed super-designer just mess about? If that's beautiful or orderly code, then beauty (and order in this case) truly is in the eye of the beholder.



This your order is the antrophic principle on steroids. For instance, you'll claim that I'm being shallow, that suffering is a good thing. This to counter my point about natural disasters like earthquakes. I'll point out that you're ridiculously self-centered, and you can only state this because you are not one of those billions of children who have died through history from sheer hunger. Children so hungry they do not even have the strength to swap flies right on their irises. I highly doubt they found their suffering a good thing. Nor would all the other species we lord over.

Indeed, you would miss the fact that an alien lifeform, not even neccesarily carbon based, may draw the same conclusions as you; that the universe was specially ordered just for it or it's species or its type of life. You'll miss that were the universe radically different to what we have in this one, and you happened to exist in it in some other form, you'd still draw the same conclusions; that every thing was special custom made just for you

No. There's good reason we spend untold resources on say medical sciences, trying to conquer nature; because it is ridiculously chaotic. it's a mess and we are doing our best to make sense of it and bend it to our will. It was not designed for us; we were designed by it. We now seek to conquer it. That's it. You should be proud to be a member of the one species out of the billions we have known lucky enough to have the tools that could perhaps dominate it. And that's it, that should be enough for you, instead of all the selfish mumbo jumbo


Ok, moving on to number 2....


wait...

wtf am I doing this?? Haven't we done this a million times?!

For the love of your god, do you have something reasonable, something objective?? Rather than joshthefirst with poetry??

One can stomach only so much $hit...

MrAnony1:


I get what you are saying, but this doesn't necessarily make the ultimate reality beyond our perception just like how we can perceive both virtual reality and our physical reality.

Notice that you are now doubting the very reality you experience in order to help you doubt God. Hence confirming what I said earlier:

"The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself...."

https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/6#34509734

The fact I can detect a virtual reality as an alternate reality does not mean I can detect all other alternate realities. Note that my discussions on alternate realities are speculative. If there is an ultimate reality different from our immediate reality, it is impossible to detect such with our senses because the justification for our senses is grounded in this reality. Therefore if I see a mirage, it is likely a fantasy rather than a separate reality.

Kay17:


The fact I can detect a virtual reality as an alternate reality does not mean I can detect all other alternate realities.

Neither does it mean that you cannot detect all other alternate realities.

Note that my discussions on alternate realities are speculative. If there is an ultimate reality different from our immediate reality, it is impossible to detect such with our senses because the justification for our senses is grounded in this reality.

You haven't given any sufficient reason to justify this claim. How do you know that it is impossible to detect the ultimate reality with your senses when you have clearly shown that it is not impossible to detect other realities with your senses?

Therefore if I see a mirage, it is likely a fantasy rather than a separate reality.

A mirage is by definition an illusion and hence is unlike anything that can be classified as a reality.

wiegraf:


Ser Pot, there is a point there. About $hitte



Now now, this is sort of contradictory. He claims it's all subjective, therefore what's $hitte to one is another's art. However, there are a few things that can be objectively verified, yes? Also, if we set our standards, we can then ascertain if a given proposal is $hitte or no, yes? So if senor veldano's subjective standard is flair, that is what he classifies as beautiful, then yes, that match was '$hit on a stick'

Here though, the op is addressing good ol' atheists. I would like to assume he has an idea of what most of us are interested in; objective truths.

Knowing this we can definitely classify the op (and just about everything you post or cheerlead) as first rate $hitte trying to pass itself off as suya. Basically, and as usual, inevitably and inexorably it will lead to your trying to pass off grand, fluffy, empty declarations with authority, about matters you cannot possibly know, as objective truths. (Hence the questions from oga kay about the metaphysical (at least I think that's why kay asks)).

In other words, $hitte on a stick as far we're concerned. Nothing near objective. In fact, a lot of it outright false sef. But all dressed up beautifully, trying to pass itself as something it's not (especially when your bardship pens it himself)



If you insist, examples from the op of your empty and/or subjective noise



From the very first grand assertion we note the folly.

Oya, the universe demands an explanation? Assuming I allowed that, exactly why is your god exempt?? The universe demands an explanation yet the supposedly more 'ordered' god does not?! Curious. Please apply your standards consistently.



But let's ignore the stark hypocrisy and move on, for now. Where do you even see order? Where you see the beauty and order of say childbirth you conveniently ignore the disorder of earthquakes and floods. This has pointed out to you time and again.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? All the cows that end up in that baby's bele during it's lifetime would certainly find that birth mighty ugly and disorderly.

Snoqxx was going on about being dazzled by 'code' in DNA, which you predictably cheerlead. He forgets to mention that any programmer that coded like that would literally be hanged, quartered and drawn even in this age. I highly doubt notorious pedants would stand for a codebase in which, by some estimates, over 90% is useless. How so very ordered. The nonsense in there includes bits from viruses to stuff we or our ancestors have not used in millions of years. We share 50% of our dna with bananas. Please, do tell why? Code reuse? Well, if so, I would wonder why reuse all that useless code.

If it's the process of evolution that delights, then one would then ask where's the house cleaning? The garbage collection or it's equivalent? Even your harddisk cleans up after itself (if allowed ie) so really? We mere mortals can manage that yet some supposed super-designer just mess about? If that's beautiful or orderly code, then beauty (and order in this case) truly is in the eye of the beholder.



This your order is the antrophic principle on steroids. For instance, you'll claim that I'm being shallow, that suffering is a good thing. This to counter my point about natural disasters like earthquakes. I'll point out that you're ridiculously self-centered, and you can only state this because you are not one of those billions of children who have died through history from sheer hunger. Children so hungry they do not even have the strength to swap flies right on their irises. I highly doubt they found their suffering a good thing. Nor would all the other species we lord over.

Indeed, you would miss the fact that an alien lifeform, not even neccesarily carbon based, may draw the same conclusions as you; that the universe was specially ordered just for it or it's species or its type of life. You'll miss that were the universe radically different to what we have in this one, and you happened to exist in it in some other form, you'd still draw the same conclusions; that every thing was special custom made just for you

No. There's good reason we spend untold resources on say medical sciences, trying to conquer nature; because it is ridiculously chaotic. it's a mess and we are doing our best to make sense of it and bend it to our will. It was not designed for us; we were designed by it. We now seek to conquer it. That's it. You should be proud to be a member of the one species out of the billions we have known lucky enough to have the tools that could perhaps dominate it. And that's it, that should be enough for you, instead of all the selfish mumbo jumbo


Ok, moving on to number 2....


wait...

wtf am I doing this?? Haven't we done this a million times?!

For the love of your god, do you have something reasonable, something objective?? Rather than joshthefirst with poetry??

One can stomach only so much $hit...

Ahhh !
So refreshing.
Fresh air.
You make me so proud of having a mind, of seeing the universe beyond my closet space.
I pity those who do not.

Barnabaseloka:
Only a fool will claim that there is no God. Even instincts will make you know that there is an unseen 'Being' that makes sure that the natural things in the world and the world at large are sustained.

Let atheists explain why there are no supporting structures that hold the heaven apart from the earth. Let them tell us how the air we breathe come about. Natural things did not come on their own. Science will only show one how some things were made from natural things, but cannot explain how these natural things were created.

Heb.11:6 For without FAITH it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

We do not need to see God, physically in order to ascertain His existence, rather we believe in FAITH in His existence. When one does that, He (God) will begin to prove to one that He really exists.

Lol.

" No supporting structures that hold the heaven apart from earth".
.
There we go again.
Another one of Deepsight's acolytes or proteges.

This is exactly the kind of sunday school thinking that Deepsight encourages and promotes on this forum.

Kudos Depardo. We see your handworks.

DeepSight:


Crazy fella. Long time.

I have no respect for the above comment because it's simply a repeat of Plaetton's cowardice.
No point made, just wagging fingers.

PS: You should know by now I couldn't give a toss about impressing you folk with any pretence at good behaviour.
You are simply not worth it fellas.

Any bothersome good behaviour towards you folk would be casting pearls before swine.

Lol. Bulala. You honestly imagine your rank illiteracy to be intellectual bulala.
What can I say? Birds of the same feather. This is the same way Plaetton's calls the tooth fairy hard teaching.

You guys are just kids, honestly. If I didn't know better I would think you were 12 years old or so.

My sensors tell me that ButtHurt missiles are heading your way.
You have better take cover.

MrAnony1:

Neither does it mean that you cannot detect all other alternate realities.


You haven't given any sufficient reason to justify this claim. How do you know that it is impossible to detect the ultimate reality with your senses when you have clearly shown that it is not impossible to detect other realities with your senses?


A mirage is by definition an illusion and hence is unlike anything that can be classified as a reality.

Yes it does not mean I cannot detect other alternate realities. It can go either ways.

I believe i have already answered why the ultimate reality is unreachable and impossible to access by our senses, mainly because our senses are rooted and justified in our reality. And mirages further prove this point. Mirages although defined as illusions are still experiences which our senses are subjected to.

DeepSight:


Crazy fella. Long time.

I have no respect for the above comment because it's simply a repeat of Plaetton's cowardice.
No point made, just wagging fingers.

PS: You should know by now I couldn't give a toss about impressing you folk with any pretence at good behaviour.
You are simply not worth it fellas.

Any bothersome good behaviour towards you folk would be casting pearls before swine.

Lol. Bulala. You honestly imagine your rank illiteracy to be intellectual bulala.
What can I say? Birds of the same feather. This is the same way Plaetton's calls the tooth fairy hard teaching.

You guys are just kids, honestly. If I didn't know better I would think you were 12 years old or so.

My dear friend, jokes apart, stop scuffing at the toothfairy.
Attune your mind and harken your heart the Toothfairy. It will set you free.

This is not just humor or comedy, this is sublime wisdom that I am passing on to you.
Think about the toothfairy. Do simple substitution whenever and wherever you use the words self-begotten, self-existent, eternal, first cause,that which is reffered to as god,etc.
Try it , and see how it will hit you light thunder.
Next, you will be singing "Ode To The Toothfairy " .

I have suggested this to you , Anony and Uyi, but you all ignored it. I supposed the league of centurions guarding the left hemispheres of your primordial brains would not allow you to do such a thing. Too risky. Might upset the mental status quo .

Essentially, this is what all these debates are all about. Trying to outsmart and override the guardians of the gates, the gates of your left hemisphere, the domain of fight and flight, fear, selfishness .
The toothfairy is the key.
Trust me.

Kay17:

Yes it does not mean I cannot detect other alternate realities. It can go either ways.

Good. So you admit that detecting other realities is not an impossibility.

I believe i have already answered why the ultimate reality is unreachable and impossible to access by our senses, mainly because our senses are rooted and justified in our reality.

No you haven't. You are still merely assuming that the ultimate reality is impossible to perceive. This is odd seeing that it contradicts your previous assertion above which is that it is not impossible to detect other realities with the same senses.

And mirages further prove this point. Mirages although defined as illusions are still experiences which our senses are subjected to.

No they don't. Experiencing an illusion does not prove that you cannot experience reality.

plaetton:


Lol.

" No supporting structures that hold the heaven apart from earth".
.
There we go again.
Another one of Deepsight's acolytes or proteges.

This is exactly the kind of sunday school thinking that Deepsight encourages and promotes on this forum.

Kudos Depardo. We see your handworks.

And what is your post supposed to mean?

Weah96:



OK. I agree. Let's use the word God to refer to the point where there is something that nothing predates. In fact, the word serves as an excellent replacement because this something is actually a special something for it to simply pop out of nowhere.

I'm willing to concede to all of the above. But your claim is way BIGGER than that. You say that this something communicated with Jews and instructed them to write a book. That's the lie. How do we get from talking about the first something to the holy book? The first something was alive?

My great grandfather and his people could tell you when it will rain a day before. There are many natural pathways we as human beings have forgotten.

Is it so hard to reason that ancient people had a pathway to this eternal being?

@ Deepsight,

Could you stop fooling around and get more involved in the topic of discussion?

MrAnony1:

Good. So you admit that detecting other realities is not an impossibility.


No you haven't. You are still merely assuming that the ultimate reality is impossible to perceive. This is odd seeing that it contradicts your previous assertion above which is that it is not impossible to detect other realities with the same senses.


No they don't. Experiencing an illusion does not prove that you cannot experience reality.

With the obvious exception of the ultimate reality. Virtual reality for example is rooted in our reality hence we can perceive it, but the ultimate reality if it exists is not rooted is ours because ours will be subsumed in it. Yet both are alternate realities. Ours is an alternate reality as well. Again, I repeat, our senses are founded, rooted and justified within our reality hence we cannot reach out beyond it. Even if we did, we will doubt it.

AllNaijaBlogger:



My great grandfather and his people could tell you when it will rain a day before. There are many natural pathways we as human beings have forgotten.

Is it so hard to reason that ancient people had a pathway to this eternal being?

.

Pathway or book? People have all sorts of personal ways to communicate with their idea of God. That's none of my business. I'm more concerned with the books that I'm supposed to read. It defies logic that a deity with common sense will leave messages for me with a third party.

[quote author=Weah96 post=34729756].

Pathway or book? People have all sorts of personal ways to communicate with their idea of God. That's none of my business. I'm more concerned with the books that I'm supposed to read. It defies logic that a deity with common sense will leave messages for me with a third party. [/q uote]

Exactly.
I always ask Christian evangelists why god is afraid to call me personally .

AllNaijaBlogger:
@ Deepsight,

Could you stop fooling around and get more involved in the topic of discussion?

I really dont know you, so I will continue to be respectful and give the benefit of the doubt until I understand what you are really on about.
I strongly believe that if you read properly the discussion, and if you are intuitive enough, you will understand where I am coming from.

But I dont know you yet, so even that is a presumption.

You see, the gentlemen talking above are persons I have gisted here with for years. I know them, and I dont have time for their nonsense. Any Human being who is not intuitive enough to sense God without even the need for argument is quite sorry and dead. I am sure you know this.

Look, I may have come across as brash in my posts on this thread: but believe me there is a reason for it.

Intuition is life. Intellect is Matter. And Insensitivity to reality is death.
I don't know if you get that.

I will hope you do.

If you are serious about a serious conversation, I will be happy to have one.

I have no respect for Plaetton and Wiegraff and Co. They are little more than animals - and I mean no insult there.

Plaetton is a notch better than Wiegraff, But souless creatures both.

I relate with souls. Not with mindless intellects.
Nuff said.

If you want to discuss seriously, I will be happy to engage.
Good Afternoon.

@ Deepsight.

It's time to take a much closer look at the op. Time to deconstruct this rubbish, and sanction you for ever supporting this type of intellectual mediocrity.

UyiIredia:

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.

Please dwell on this carefully.

Demands an Explanation or demands an Investigation ?

An Explanation can be in the form of an ignorant statement, deliberate falsehood, legend or superstition, fantasy or half-truths.

Yes, so Uyi's Explanation can come from any of the above-mentioned.
Infact, Uyi's explanation comes from all of the above.

I would like to remind Uyi that ancient people Demanded an Explanation [/b]for thunder, lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes,floods and disease epidemics. Their priests did indeed give them the [b]Demanded Explanations. It was Angry gods. imagine how many million babies may have been sacrificed because ancient people, just like Uyi here, Demanded an Explanation.

This is why we are here arguing about his Explanations.

An investigation, on the other hand, is different. Investigation involves asking questions and seeking facts and truths. An investigation is far more tedious and time consuming than throwing up quick explanations.

So, obviously, Uyi, Deepsight and co and I are very different in the manner in which we approach existential issues . They prefer ready-made answers, legends and superstitions, fantasies,etc, while I prefer the long tedious road to facts.

UyiIredia:

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

This is Meaningless either due to bad grammar or just ignorance.
But, I will try to deconstruct it.

First, there is only one universe that we know for sure. There is no non-physical universe. To use the term physical universe would imply that there is a known non-physical universe. A non-physical universe is purely speculative.
The universe operates on mathematical laws. Simple.
For example,
Speed = Distance/Time is an expression a mathematical law. The universe expresses or speaks the laws of mathematics .

To infer than an extraneous intelligence manufactured this equation in this universe is childish and silly, because, first you must show an alternate universe where this law does not apply.

Looking at this, we can see that once again, Uyi and his gang, in demand of an explanation, simply cooked up a phantom intelligence to give them their much needed explanation.

UyiIredia:


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.

Here we go again.
Another assemblage of ignorant and false statements.

First, I would like to ask UYI and Deepsight if the words Code, Law, Arrangement all mean the same or have different meanings.
For example, is a natural Law a code?
Are patterned arrangements codes ?
Are mathematical equations codes ?

Speed = distance /time a code, a law ?

The reason I ask is that natural processes are patterned in tandem with the natural laws being expressed .
The genetic code does not violate any natural laws. Therefore, we can say that the genetic code, just like every other patterned processes in nature is an expression of natural laws, using , of course, the language of mathematics.

Therefore, to infer , as before, that the genetic code DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY is very very silly.
What makes this op soo sad is that we have known how the genetic arose for nearly a century now. Is the op stuck in a time loop?

UyiIredia:
. 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.

As humans ?
If by humans, you are referring to stone-age humans, then I agree. But not me.

What humans and all other animals do is pattern recognition. Infact, many animals do it much more better than humans.

what you meant to say is that it takes a conscious effort to recognize patterns and codes in nature.
Since we are products of the very same nature, we too are able to make patterns, the very same patterns that we recognize in nature.

So, once again, pattern recognition and creation is not a good enough reason to infer a magic toothfairy, sorry, god.

Read this link.
https://www.nairaland.com/2152446/much-ado-human-intelligence-rat

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

My first question is : Is consciousness in man unique or different from consciousness in animals ?

Second question is : Is the consciousness of a cockroach different from the consciousness of man ?
If yes, then, do you think that the difference might have something to do with the size of the brain, the neural networks , brain chemistry or environmental adaptability ?

If the answer is yes to the last question, then BINGO!
Daahhhhh !
Then consciousness corrolates ,and is explainable by materialistic means.

UyiIredia:


Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions.

Lol.

Pls Uyi, Deepsight and Anony1 should read this statement over and over again to see what is wrong with this statement.

Let me help out.

The above argument is a perfect argument for evolution. LOL.

Evolution doesn't deal with emergence. Creationism does.
Evolution is about slow complex interactive processes that take a long time to take root, grow and mature.

Consciousness could not have instantaneously emerged from creation because consciousness requires interactive information, instincts honed and perfected over eons and eons of time .
You see?

UyiIredia:

But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness.

Physical things lack consciousness ?
Are you serious ?

I guess you and Deep Sigh are either non-physical or that you both lack consciousness ?
That might explain a lot.

UyiIredia:

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

Obviously, all these falshoods and half-baked crap can give anyone any number of grounds to believe in the Toothfairy that affects consciousness. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE HERE.
Self-massage is what this op is all about.

Well , since you desperately demand an explanation for the mysteries of existence, I give you the toothfairy .

God and the toothfairy, give 4 ways that they are different.

^^^ Haven't read what you have written above, except the first line, and I see you are finally ready to engage. I will read it. And I hope the proper discussion will start.

Good afternoon bro.

Eating and having some wine now with family. Will revert shortly.

It should be noted how many very very wrong , very very silly statements that Uyi has made on this thread.

1. The genetic is not natural, does not follow natural laws.
2. Physical things do not have consciousness
3. Mathematics does not contain natural laws
4. Computer codes and program are not mathematical ( and therefore do not follow natural laws )
5. Quantum Physics is mumbo jumbo which he does not accept ( another way of saying that he does not understand it )
6. And to show that he does not understand it, to highlight his complete ignorance of the subject ,he compresses the entire field of quantum physics into whether we are holograms or not, a Notion that Deepsight, his cheerleader, endorses, even on this thread.
Talk about contradictions

Rejecting something because you don't understand it.
Simply brilliant.

This is the type of intellectual mediocrity that Deepsight promotes and cheerleads.
To him, I hold solely responsible.

wiegraf:


Ser Pot, there is a point there. About $hitte



Now now, this is sort of contradictory. He claims it's all subjective, therefore what's $hitte to one is another's art. However, there are a few things that can be objectively verified, yes? Also, if we set our standards, we can then ascertain if a given proposal is $hitte or no, yes? So if senor veldano's subjective standard is flair, that is what he classifies as beautiful, then yes, that match was '$hit on a stick'

Here though, the op is addressing good ol' atheists. I would like to assume he has an idea of what most of us are interested in; objective truths.

Knowing this we can definitely classify the op (and just about everything you post or cheerlead) as first rate $hitte trying to pass itself off as suya. Basically, and as usual, inevitably and inexorably it will lead to your trying to pass off grand, fluffy, empty declarations with authority, about matters you cannot possibly know, as objective truths. (Hence the questions from oga kay about the metaphysical (at least I think that's why kay asks)).

In other words, $hitte on a stick as far we're concerned. Nothing near objective. In fact, a lot of it outright false sef. But all dressed up beautifully, trying to pass itself as something it's not (especially when your bardship pens it himself)



If you insist, examples from the op of your empty and/or subjective noise



From the very first grand assertion we note the folly.

Oya, the universe demands an explanation? Assuming I allowed that, exactly why is your god exempt?? The universe demands an explanation yet the supposedly more 'ordered' god does not?! Curious. Please apply your standards consistently.



But let's ignore the stark hypocrisy and move on, for now. Where do you even see order? Where you see the beauty and order of say childbirth you conveniently ignore the disorder of earthquakes and floods. This has pointed out to you time and again.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? All the cows that end up in that baby's bele during it's lifetime would certainly find that birth mighty ugly and disorderly.

Snoqxx was going on about being dazzled by 'code' in DNA, which you predictably cheerlead. He forgets to mention that any programmer that coded like that would literally be hanged, quartered and drawn even in this age. I highly doubt notorious pedants would stand for a codebase in which, by some estimates, over 90% is useless. How so very ordered. The nonsense in there includes bits from viruses to stuff we or our ancestors have not used in millions of years. We share 50% of our dna with bananas. Please, do tell why? Code reuse? Well, if so, I would wonder why reuse all that useless code.

If it's the process of evolution that delights, then one would then ask where's the house cleaning? The garbage collection or it's equivalent? Even your harddisk cleans up after itself (if allowed ie) so really? We mere mortals can manage that yet some supposed super-designer just mess about? If that's beautiful or orderly code, then beauty (and order in this case) truly is in the eye of the beholder.



This your order is the antrophic principle on steroids. For instance, you'll claim that I'm being shallow, that suffering is a good thing. This to counter my point about natural disasters like earthquakes. I'll point out that you're ridiculously self-centered, and you can only state this because you are not one of those billions of children who have died through history from sheer hunger. Children so hungry they do not even have the strength to swap flies right on their irises. I highly doubt they found their suffering a good thing. Nor would all the other species we lord over.

Indeed, you would miss the fact that an alien lifeform, not even neccesarily carbon based, may draw the same conclusions as you; that the universe was specially ordered just for it or it's species or its type of life. You'll miss that were the universe radically different to what we have in this one, and you happened to exist in it in some other form, you'd still draw the same conclusions; that every thing was special custom made just for you

No. There's good reason we spend untold resources on say medical sciences, trying to conquer nature; because it is ridiculously chaotic. it's a mess and we are doing our best to make sense of it and bend it to our will. It was not designed for us; we were designed by it. We now seek to conquer it. That's it. You should be proud to be a member of the one species out of the billions we have known lucky enough to have the tools that could perhaps dominate it. And that's it, that should be enough for you, instead of all the selfish mumbo jumbo


Ok, moving on to number 2....


wait...

wtf am I doing this?? Haven't we done this a million times?!

For the love of your god, do you have something reasonable, something objective?? Rather than joshthefirst with poetry??

One can stomach only so much $hit...

And plaetton hailed you for this garbage ... ... seriously ??

wiegraf:


Ser Pot, there is a point there. About $hitte



Now now, this is sort of contradictory. He claims it's all subjective, therefore what's $hitte to one is another's art. However, there are a few things that can be objectively verified, yes? Also, if we set our standards, we can then ascertain if a given proposal is $hitte or no, yes? So if senor veldano's subjective standard is flair, that is what he classifies as beautiful, then yes, that match was '$hit on a stick'

Here though, the op is addressing good ol' atheists. I would like to assume he has an idea of what most of us are interested in; objective truths.

Knowing this we can definitely classify the op (and just about everything you post or cheerlead) as first rate $hitte trying to pass itself off as suya. Basically, and as usual, inevitably and inexorably it will lead to your trying to pass off grand, fluffy, empty declarations with authority, about matters you cannot possibly know, as objective truths. (Hence the questions from oga kay about the metaphysical (at least I think that's why kay asks)).

In other words, $hitte on a stick as far we're concerned. Nothing near objective. In fact, a lot of it outright false sef. But all dressed up beautifully, trying to pass itself as something it's not (especially when your bardship pens it himself)



If you insist, examples from the op of your empty and/or subjective noise



From the very first grand assertion we note the folly.

Oya, the universe demands an explanation? Assuming I allowed that, exactly why is your god exempt?? The universe demands an explanation yet the supposedly more 'ordered' god does not?! Curious. Please apply your standards consistently.



But let's ignore the stark hypocrisy and move on, for now. Where do you even see order? Where you see the beauty and order of say childbirth you conveniently ignore the disorder of earthquakes and floods. This has pointed out to you time and again.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? All the cows that end up in that baby's bele during it's lifetime would certainly find that birth mighty ugly and disorderly.

Snoqxx was going on about being dazzled by 'code' in DNA, which you predictably cheerlead. He forgets to mention that any programmer that coded like that would literally be hanged, quartered and drawn even in this age. I highly doubt notorious pedants would stand for a codebase in which, by some estimates, over 90% is useless. How so very ordered. The nonsense in there includes bits from viruses to stuff we or our ancestors have not used in millions of years. We share 50% of our dna with bananas. Please, do tell why? Code reuse? Well, if so, I would wonder why reuse all that useless code.

If it's the process of evolution that delights, then one would then ask where's the house cleaning? The garbage collection or it's equivalent? Even your harddisk cleans up after itself (if allowed ie) so really? We mere mortals can manage that yet some supposed super-designer just mess about? If that's beautiful or orderly code, then beauty (and order in this case) truly is in the eye of the beholder.



This your order is the antrophic principle on steroids. For instance, you'll claim that I'm being shallow, that suffering is a good thing. This to counter my point about natural disasters like earthquakes. I'll point out that you're ridiculously self-centered, and you can only state this because you are not one of those billions of children who have died through history from sheer hunger. Children so hungry they do not even have the strength to swap flies right on their irises. I highly doubt they found their suffering a good thing. Nor would all the other species we lord over.

Indeed, you would miss the fact that an alien lifeform, not even neccesarily carbon based, may draw the same conclusions as you; that the universe was specially ordered just for it or it's species or its type of life. You'll miss that were the universe radically different to what we have in this one, and you happened to exist in it in some other form, you'd still draw the same conclusions; that every thing was special custom made just for you

No. There's good reason we spend untold resources on say medical sciences, trying to conquer nature; because it is ridiculously chaotic. it's a mess and we are doing our best to make sense of it and bend it to our will. It was not designed for us; we were designed by it. We now seek to conquer it. That's it. You should be proud to be a member of the one species out of the billions we have known lucky enough to have the tools that could perhaps dominate it. And that's it, that should be enough for you, instead of all the selfish mumbo jumbo


Ok, moving on to number 2....


wait...

wtf am I doing this?? Haven't we done this a million times?!

For the love of your god, do you have something reasonable, something objective?? Rather than joshthefirst with poetry??

One can stomach only so much $hit...

And plaetton hailed you for this garbage ... ... seriously ?? ...

DeepSight:



Intuition is life. Intellect is Matter. And Insensitivity to reality is death.
I don't know if you get that.

Have i been promoted from 'moral slime' to 'soulless moral slime'? High praise indeed

That asides, look at this. I doubt even $hitte from an Ebola ward could be this perverse

You also seem to be admitting you've nothing but 'intuition' going on for you. This sounds mightily like some feeling to me...

So, is that all you have? Some feeling and some poetry? And you expect to be taken seriously?

Why aren't you a Muslim sef? Plenty feeling, poetry, appeals to emotion and - most importantly - unbridled, arrant nonsense in the Koran. You should feel at home there



And please stop pretending you've a decent counter to the toothfairy, FSM, Santa etc analogies we use. You've never once shown how the great cassava isn't analogous to the infinite finite oneness everythingness nothingnessess.

Once...


Why do you insist on believing in nonsense in order to accommodate this your need for 'spirituality'? There are many creeds and people that live 'spiritual' lives without the bs. Why do you need to add the toothfairy into the mix?

Weah96:
.

Pathway or book? People have all sorts of personal ways to communicate with their idea of God. That's none of my business. I'm more concerned with the books that I'm supposed to read. It defies logic that a deity with common sense will leave messages for me with a third party.

The bible is written by humans. There is a limit to human language. Just as we find it lacking and difficult to describe the colour blue, it would have been difficult for them to describe the powerful being in words in a book.

These ancient scribes did their best to describe what they experienced with this being.

Take an aeroplane to a remote village and tell them to describe it. You will see all manner of hilarious descriptions- "flying iron box" etc

AllNaijaBlogger:



The bible is written by humans. There is a limit to human language. Just as we find it lacking and difficult to describe the colour blue, it would have been difficult for them to describe the powerful being in words in a book.

These ancient scribes did their best to describe what they experienced with this being.

Take an aeroplane to a remote village and tell them to describe it. You will see all manner of hilarious descriptions- "flying iron box" etc

Thumbs up. We are getting somewhere. But Plaetton and Wiegraff know this elementary fact Watson.

AllNaijaBlogger:



The bible is written by humans. There is a limit to human language. Just as we find it lacking and difficult to describe the colour blue, it would have been difficult for them to describe the powerful being in words in a book.

These ancient scribes did their best to describe what they experienced with this being.

Take an aeroplane to a remote village and tell them to describe it. You will see all manner of hilarious descriptions- "flying iron box" etc

Wait, I've been under the impression that the being instructed the so called scribes to write something down. Am I wrong? The being was the creator of the universe, allegedly, so I'm guessing that it considered every difficulty. Btw, the entire story makes ZERO sense. I was created by the being who also left a message for me with some of his other products?

Kay17:


With the obvious exception of the ultimate reality. Virtual reality for example is rooted in our reality hence we can perceive it, but the ultimate reality if it exists is not rooted is ours because ours will be subsumed in it. Yet both are alternate realities. Ours is an alternate reality as well. Again, I repeat, our senses are founded, rooted and justified within our reality hence we cannot reach out beyond it. Even if we did, we will doubt it.

You are confusing many things my friend. Let me see if I can help you

1. The ultimate reality by definition is the absolute nature of all things i.e. things as they really are.

2. It may or may not be an alternate reality.

3. There is nothing is it's definition that suggests that it cannot be known with our senses.

The fallacy you are committing with your argument is petito principe. You have assumed that the ultimate reality has certain properties in order to argue that it has same assumed properties. Circular reasoning.

DeepSight:


Thumbs up. We are getting somewhere. But Plaetton and Wiegraff know this elementary fact Watson.

Lol Sherlock, our dear Watson is new here. He'll soon come to realize with time that those two are not arguing in the hope of actually learning anything or even reaching a logical conclusion.