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

It's unlikely that you will. But let's go try and see what happens.

UyiIredia:

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.

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Because there are scientific explanations and hypotheses available. The order of the physical universe says nothing about an intelligence behind the universe.

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.

We've been through this before. Genes do follow natural laws. The fact that they can be represented as symbols seems to be what confuses you. Actually as humans, what we know is that other humans use symbols so, unless you're saying your God is a human, then you're making a fallacious argument.

UyiIredia:

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.

Why do you think consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon? Secondly, the fact that a phenomenon hasn't been fully explained doesn't mean your God did it. That is another fallacious argument.

MrAnony1:


Dear Uyi,

The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself.

Is it really? Which God and what feature of this God is obvious to you that should also be obvious to me?

MrAnony1:

Interestingly what I have never heard are reason's to doubt God's existence.

Then you've not been paying attention. The fact that there's no good reason to believe your God is out there is a very good reason to doubt his existence.

MrAnony1:

It is wearisome to argue with people who have no reasons for their positions but would rather argue for the sake of arguing and not for the sake of arriving at truth.

Coming from someone who is unable to present and defend his reasons for believing in the particular God he believes in is just ridiculous. It is also wearisome trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't know how to speak about whether or not something is obvious.

Who says consciouness is nonphysical?

Hhhhmm!

I see 3 hands raised : UyiIredia, Deepsight and Anony1.
OK.

Pls try to answer these questions?

Why are the chemical molecules of Alcohol, opiates and other class of mood altering drugs not only able to affect and impair consciouness, but can also transform it completely?

We know that molecules contain physical atoms arranged in geometrical shapes.
We also know that the geometry of a molecule ( the mathematical property) determines the basic bonding properties of a molecule .

Therefore, if the geometrical property (its essential mathematics) of a molecule is critical in how it affects, even reshapes consciouness, then that is solid proof that consciousness is subject to, and obeys the laws of mathematics of the physical universe.

How then can anyone, Deepsight especially, continue to speak of consciouness as being too unique and outside the boundaries of simple chemistry, physics and mathematics?

And I was really excited to see where MrAnony1's points would have ended.

Kay17:
And I was really excited to see where MrAnony1's points would have ended.

Just watch him cut and run.

undercat:


That's okay. Man must wack.

I find it extraneous. What is it needed for? I see it as a mere transfer of inexplicability.

Intelligent beings can and do create order out of chaos. The same could apply to the universe.

undercat:
True. The problem is that you also know what to expect from the universe you regard as random. It's just the degree of predictability that differs. For example, you expect a "random" universe to continue existing, which implies a certain stability or order in its fundamental laws.

A random universe may just as well cease existing or exist in a flux (that it is repeatedly created and destroyed)

undercat:
The laws themselves are not physical. Also, what genetic codes do are outside our control. Are you giving codes a special status because you say they are about how systems represent other systems?

Yes. BTW it is possible to control how genetic codes work. Genetic engineers do this.

undercat:
You can not identify the mass or momentum of the force gravity this minute, if asked. Besides, physical laws would also fit your definition of immaterial. That hasn't stopped people from coming up with theories involving them. You need a better basis for your objection to a theory of consciousness.

Of course, physical laws are immaterial. They are products of our consciousness which is also immaterial. You have a material natural world and immaterial minds and concepts which observe and explain them. Matter is fundamentally mindless (or unconscious) so it makes no sense within a materialistic framework that it would effect consciousness of any sort at any level.

thehomer:


It's unlikely that you will. But let's go try and see what happens.



What sort of explanation are you looking for? Because there are scientific explanations and hypotheses available. The order of the physical universe says nothing about an intelligence behind the universe.

I have doubts about the BB. One question regarding this would be of what nature was the singularity that supposedly cause our universe. Was it material ? Or not ? By the way, don't you think order in the universe is sufficient to infer God ?

thehomer:

We've been through this before. Genes do follow natural laws. The fact that they can be represented as symbols seems to be what confuses you. Actually as humans, what we know is that other humans use symbols so, unless you're saying your God is a human, then you're making a fallacious argument.

No they don't. Genes follow the genetic code. OTOH the materials that comprise genes follow natural laws. Likewise, all the materials in computers follow natural laws. The codes as stored on the various drives and chips don't, they were decided by programmers.

Since humans are part of organisms and its their existence we need to explain we can't posit humans. Neither can we posit aliens, that will only shift the question backwards as to whether the aliens evolved naturally or were created by God. My argument holds no fallacy.

thehomer:

Why do you think consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon? Secondly, the fact that a phenomenon hasn't been fully explained doesn't mean your God did it. That is another fallacious argument.

That's just how it is. One's awareness of their thoughts and environment is not a material thing. Consciousness can never be fully explained from a materialistic viewpoint. Materialists frequently confuse explaining how the brain affects consciousness means consciousness has been explained but that's not true. They are different and matter certifiably lacks consciousness as a property so its existence in the brain begs the question.

plaetton:
Who says consciouness is nonphysical?

Hhhhmm!

I see 3 hands raised : UyiIredia, Deepsight and Anony1.
OK.

Pls try to answer these questions?

Okay.

plaetton:
Why are the chemical molecules of Alcohol, opiates and other class of mood altering drugs not only able to affect and impair consciouness, but can also transform it completely?

So what ? Does that mean consciousness is a physical thing with mass and speed like physical objects ? Everything we observe affects our consciousness, not only drugs.

plaetton:
We know that molecules contain physical atoms arranged in geometrical shapes.
We also know that the geometry of a molecule ( the mathematical property) determines the basic bonding properties of a molecule .

Okay.

plaetton:
Therefore, if the geometrical property (its essential mathematics) of a molecule is critical in how it affects, even reshapes consciouness, then that is solid proof that consciousness is subject to, and obeys the laws of mathematics of the physical universe.

It isn't for two reasons. 1) The molecule can still exist in corpses and yet have no effect on consciousness since corpses are unconscious. 2) There are no laws of math only physical laws expressed using math. Even then, if you took an aspect of consciousness (eg seeing beauty) and described it mathematically, the mathematical equation will tell you nothing whatsoever about how beauty feels like.

plaetton:
How then can anyone, Deepsight especially, continue to speak of consciouness as being too unique and outside the boundaries of simple chemistry, physics and mathematics?

See above.

UyiIredia:


So what ? Does that mean consciousness is a physical thing with mass and speed like physical objects ? Everything we observe affects our consciousness, not only drugs.

Lol.
First, we don't observe drugs. Our neural cells bond and interact with drugs to affect consciousness.
The drug molecules cannot bond, let alone have an effect on consciousness, if the molecular geometry ( the mathematical property ) does not align and sync with neural cells.

UyiIredia:


Even then, if you took an aspect of consciousness (eg seeing beauty) and described it mathematically, the mathematical equation will tell you nothing whatsoever about how beauty feels like.

Lol again.

Beauty is 100% mathematical .
YES.
Infact, nature even gave us a mathematical formula for beauty.

Do you wish that I educate you on the mathematics of beauty ?.

UyiIredia:
Intelligent beings can and do create order out of chaos. The same could apply to the universe.

What chaos? Isn't it your argument that the universe is ordered? And if it were true that order was created out of chaos at a universal level, then it would mean that chaos precedes God. Perhaps the God you speak of isn't the first cause.

A random universe may just as well cease existing or exist in a flux (that it is repeatedly created and destroyed)

I don't think that any given universe can exist in a flux (unless one believes in the reincarnation of universes, like ogbanje children).

A random universe may equally continue existing. Do you concede as much?

Yes. BTW it is possible to control how genetic codes work. Genetic engineers do this.

I don't see how that is sufficient basis for the distinction. What is special about what genetic codes do?

Genetic engineers do with genetic codes what physicists do with physical laws, such as create synthetic elements.

Of course, physical laws are immaterial. They are products of our consciousness which is also immaterial. You have a material natural world and immaterial minds and concepts which observe and explain them. Matter is fundamentally mindless (or unconscious) so it makes no sense within a materialistic framework that it would effect consciousness of any sort at any level.

This is muddled up.

If the physical laws are the product of our consciousness, that makes us God, since we would have created ourselves by producing the physical laws (big banging the universe and all of that). That makes no sense, if I understand you correctly.

Also, the unbridgeable gap between matter and mind ought to be inaccessible to mind too, and not just matter. Thus, mind, being fundamentally immaterial, cannot make sense in any non materialistic framework which proposes that it affects matter.

You really need firm footing for your objection.

UyiIredia:


Intelligent beings can and do create order out of chaos. The same could apply to the universe.

This statement above is one created out of experience. It is observed from human interaction with the environment. It then extrapolated to apply to the Universe. Don't you see this as a limit and a flaw in your theistic arguments?

plaetton:


About quantum physics mumbo jumbo.


Quantum physics deals with the behaviour of subatomic particles, the smallest conceivable particles in the universe, and of course, the building blocks of atoms.

It is these small particles that we have the greatest confidence of precise and accurate predictions of reality.

There is no doubts that quantum physics holds the keys to life and the universe.

Quantum mechanics is essential in exploring many of the important processes in life, especially consciousness, and may even underpin the very existence of life itself.

For example, very much and intriguing is that when plants capture sunlight, their cells are invaded by waves of photons that could be everywhere at the same time.

even our human senses, our consciousness are perpetually tuning in to strange vibrations of quantum dynamics.

A certain species of birds, the Robin, and perhaps all birds, utilizes a trick of science, a quark of quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, to navigate during their migrations.
Therefore, quantum mechanics, or quantum mumbo jumbo, are already embedded in the very core of life processes.

But then, of course, all this is mumbo jumbo , because , the toothfairy, sorry, god did it.


On The Genetic Code


DNA is not a code in the real sense of the word, talkless of being similar to a computer code.
DNA is called the genetic code because it is an archive of 4.7 billion years of evolutionary information, arranged in molecular(geometrical) sequences of protein molecules with biochemical doors and locks, passwords, activators and shutters. Hence ,the term code.
It is a chemical library of life information, accumulated for over 4 billion years. It is not a written code.
If it was a code, were mere codes, then all the errors contained within the DNA would have inevitably caused the entire sequence to crash and self-destruct, and of course, the cessation of life, all life , would have occurred way back in its nascent satges in the first few million years.

So, stop with this god the toothfairy code writing nonsense.

one thing I understand is that science does NOT “explain” anything except in terms of its own non-intuitive
concepts . science is ultimately a
description of the physical universe not an “explanation”. That being the case science can never “explain away” the existence of a Creator because by definition its only tools are the laws of nature whose origin they cannot explain
It is impossible for this law of nature e.g law of gravity to be in existence in a none material universe, don't you think ?

So be careful about using arguments based on the explanatory power of science … that power has limits that seriously confine science’s ability to account for origins.

undercat:


What chaos? Isn't it your argument that the universe is ordered? And if it were true that order was created out of chaos at a universal level, then it would mean that chaos precedes God. Perhaps the God you speak of isn't the first cause.

Chaos can't precede God since He is the first cause. God made an orderly universe out of nothing.

undercat:

I don't think that any given universe can exist in a flux (unless one believes in the reincarnation of universes, like ogbanje children).

Agreed.

undercat:

A random universe may equally continue existing. Do you concede as much?

Yes.

undercat:

I don't see how that is sufficient basis for the distinction. What is special about what genetic codes do?

They represent proteins. Natural processes don't involve representation, they treat things as is.

undercat:

Genetic engineers do with genetic codes what physicists do with physical laws, such as create synthetic elements./quote]

And one can infer from the necessity of intelligence in both cases to a God who established the universe amenable to laws.

[quote author=undercat post=34888661]
This is muddled up.

It is not.

undercat:

If the physical laws are the product of our consciousness, that makes us God, since we would have created ourselves by producing the physical laws (big banging the universe and all of that). That makes no sense, if I understand you correctly.

No, it doesn't. It just means we need consciousness to infer natural laws from nature. It does not mean we made ourselves and/or nature.

undercat:

Also, the unbridgeable gap between matter and mind ought to be inaccessible to mind too, and not just matter. Thus, mind, being fundamentally immaterial, cannot make sense in any non materialistic framework which proposes that it affects matter.

Good point. However, since mind possesses the ability to concieve of matter this isn't a problem for me. Authors and artists regularly demonstrate this when they concieve of things not existent in nature eg unicorns, dragons etc.

Look at it this way. Physical things are unaware of their existence (and of material universe) without a mind. So from their vantage point, nothing exists.

However, with the mind, not only the material world exists but things we don't see in the material world can be imagined and in some cases made and we can ascribe or infer properties such as beauty, morality, mass and speed which aren't material things. This should tell you that mind is greater than matter not the other way around.

undercat:

You really need firm footing for your objection.

I do.

plaetton:


Lol.
First, we don't observe drugs. Our neural cells bond and interact with drugs to affect consciousness.
The drug molecules cannot bond, let alone have an effect on consciousness, if the molecular geometry ( the mathematical property ) does not align and sync with neural cells.

We see, smell and taste drugs so how can we not ibserve this. You are being stupid.

plaetton:
Beauty is 100% mathematical .
YES.
Infact, nature even gave us a mathematical formula for beauty.

There's no mathematical formula for beauty even if there was it can never convey the feeling of beauty.

plaetton:
Do you wish that I educate you on the mathematics of beauty ?.

You are a confused person who thinks highly of himself.

UyiIredia:


We see, smell and taste drugs so how can we not ibserve this. You are being stupid.

I don't know why you love making a public fool of yourself.

When was the last you isolated a piece of smell, a piece of taste of a drug for observation ?

When you taste or smell a substance, you already interacting with the molecules of that substance. The mathematical dynamics of such interactions are well known.

UyiIredia:



There's no mathematical formula for beauty even if there was it can never convey the feeling of beauty.

Now, are you making this statement based on known facts, or is this just the typical motor-park knee-jerk reaction, and pontification from dumb fella ?

UyiIredia:


You are a confused person who thinks highly of himself.

Psychological projection ?

Well, to answer you.
I am not really a smart fella.
But in the midst of ignorant, mal-educated and hauty dumbfcks like you, I have no choice but to think higher of myself.

malvisguy212:
one thing I understand is that science does NOT “explain” anything except in terms of its own non-intuitive
concepts . science is ultimately a
description of the physical universe not an “explanation”. That being the case science can never “explain away” the existence of a Creator because by definition its only tools are the laws of nature whose origin they cannot explain
It is impossible for this law of nature e.g law of gravity to be in existence in a none material universe, don't you think ?

So be careful about using arguments based on the explanatory power of science … that power has limits that seriously confine science’s ability to account for origins.

Lol.

Yes indeed, science can never explain away the toothfairy.

If we can agree to that, there is no argument.

Now, please tell me sir, of an example of a non-physical universe that you know.
Thank you.
Lol.

Kay17:


This statement above is one created out of experience. It is observed from human interaction with the environment. It then extrapolated to apply to the Universe. Don't you see this as a limit and a flaw in your theistic arguments?

It is. No arguments doesn't have its flaws.

All I see is 11 pages of hypocrisy from the other side

plaetton:


Lol.

Yes indeed, science can never explain away the toothfairy.

If we can agree to that, there is no argument.

Now, please tell me sir, of an example of a non-physical universe that you know.
Thank you.
Lol.

in Stephen hawking book title "the grand design"he concludes that physics has eliminated the need for God to have created the universe. Instead, he claims,the universe(or multiuniverse) was created from nothing by the laws of science (e.g. the law of gravity). In what matrix, did these laws exist in the absence of the material universe?

malvisguy212:
in Stephen hawking book title "the grand design"he concludes that physics has eliminated the need for God to have created the universe. Instead, he claims,the universe(or multiuniverse) was created from nothing by the laws of science (e.g. the law of gravity). In what matrix, did these laws exist in the absence of the material universe?

First, did you read his book?
I doubt that you did.
But as usual, here you are, publicly critiquing a book that you have not read.
What a grand folly.

Secondly, are you sure you want to discuss astrophysics here?

UyiIredia:


I have doubts about the BB. One question regarding this would be of what nature was the singularity that supposedly cause our universe. Was it material ? Or not ?

What do you mean? What do you wish to compare it to in order to decide what its nature was? How exactly would this question help you in any way?

UyiIredia:

By the way, don't you think order in the universe is sufficient to infer God ?

No I don't. Why should I?

UyiIredia:

No they don't. Genes follow the genetic code. OTOH the materials that comprise genes follow natural laws. Likewise, all the materials in computers follow natural laws. The codes as stored on the various drives and chips don't, they were decided by programmers.

You're still confused. How can the nucleotides follow natural laws but the genes that they make up not? Computer codes follow natural laws. That is why its actions are predictable.

UyiIredia:

Since humans are part of organisms and its their existence we need to explain we can't posit humans. Neither can we posit aliens, that will only shift the question backwards as to whether the aliens evolved naturally or were created by God. My argument holds no fallacy.

Humans are organisms. Why don't we explain the existence of bacteria and elephants? Why can't we posit humans or aliens? Saying that it is humans that we need to explain doesn't mean humans couldn't have been created by more advanced humans. Your argument is fallacious because you're leaping from the knowledge that humans use symbols to making the claim that some unknown creature also uses human symbols.

UyiIredia:

That's just how it is. One's awareness of their thoughts and environment is not a material thing.

Neither is hunger a material thing.

UyiIredia:

Consciousness can never be fully explained from a materialistic viewpoint.

So what?

UyiIredia:

Materialists frequently confuse explaining how the brain affects consciousness means consciousness has been explained but that's not true. They are different and matter certifiably lacks consciousness as a property so its existence in the brain begs the question.

Supernaturalists confuse our incomplete understanding of how the brain works with their assertion that their God does everything. Begs what question?

malvisguy212:
in Stephen hawking book title "the grand design"he concludes that physics has eliminated the need for God to have created the universe. Instead, he claims,the universe(or multiuniverse) was created from nothing by the laws of science (e.g. the law of gravity). In what matrix, did these laws exist in the absence of the material universe?

You again with these your nonsense logic.

Questions for you:

Can you debunk an idea you understand well?
Do you know how science works?
Are a physicist?
What are those criteria that can compel you to see an idea to be true?

UyiIredia:
Chaos can't precede God since He is the first cause. God made an orderly universe out of nothing.

In other words, there has never been chaos.

Yes.

So order would be present to some degree in such a universe?

They represent proteins. Natural processes don't involve representation, they treat things as is.

What is so unusual about this?

And one can infer from the necessity of intelligence in both cases to a God who established the universe amenable to laws.

Let's first settle whether there can be a universe that is not amenable to laws, or if we can even find ourselves in one.

No, it doesn't. It just means we need consciousness to infer natural laws from nature. It does not mean we made ourselves and/or nature.

Hm. We need consciousness to infer. We need sharp objects to cut. We need phones to make phone calls.

Good point. However, since mind possesses the ability to concieve of matter this isn't a problem for me. Authors and artists regularly demonstrate this when they concieve of things not existent in nature eg unicorns, dragons etc.

Look at it this way. Physical things are unaware of their existence (and of material universe) without a mind. So from their vantage point, nothing exists.

However, with the mind, not only the material world exists but things we don't see in the material world can be imagined and in some cases made and we can ascribe or infer properties such as beauty, morality, mass and speed which aren't material things. This should tell you that mind is greater than matter not the other way around.

This is curious. What you have said in essence is that "because mind conceives, mind is better than matter, and therefore matter cannot explain mind."

I'm not sure that it is better to conceive than not. This is mostly because I don't think it makes any more sense to say "mind is better than matter" than to say "mind is more pointy than matter". Mind is only better than matter to the mind. To mindless matter, there is no such thing as better or worse. So when you say mind is better, for whom or for what is it better? The supposed better-ness of mind is subjective.

Even if it were objectively better, that should not have any effect on reality. Things do not become real simply because they are better, otherwise we would not have things like cancer.

plaetton:

First, did you read his book?
I doubt that you did.
But as usual, here you are, publicly critiquing a book that you have not read.
What a grand folly.

Secondly, are you sure you want to discuss astrophysics here?

do you agree with Stephen? Enlightened me a little.

malvisguy212:
do you agree with Stephen? Enlightened me a little.

I have not read the book in question.

But I certainly pay much more attention to the scientific ideas of an accomplished scientists than to the LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES of stone-age people who sacrificed their children to sky gods.
It is really as simple as asking yourself about the sources of your information.
A scientific journal does a lot better for my mind in terms of understanding reality than stone-age fables written by cannibals.

Now, if you read his book or any scientific journals, they peddle and comtemplate ideas, theories about the mathematical underpinnigs of the universe, and then use what is already known to make further projections.
Stephen Hawkins does not pontificate. He can revise and change his theories as more knowledge comes forth.

This is the way science has uplifted humanity.

malvisguy212:
do you agree with Stephen? Enlightened me a little.

Absolutely.
Science killed God.
Knowledge kills ignorance.
Knowledge kills fear.
A tiny speck of light illuminates a dark room.

Ever wonder why demons are afraid of atheists?

plaetton:

Lol.
Yes indeed, science can never explain away the toothfairy.
If we can agree to that, there is no argument.
Now, please tell me sir, of an example of a non-physical universe that you know.
Thank you.
Lol.

plaetton:


Absolutely.
Science killed God.
Knowledge kills ignorance.
Knowledge kills fear.
A tiny speck of light illuminates a dark room.

Ever wonder why demons are afraid of atheists?

first, science cannot explained God and secondly science kill God, how is this possible?

If I should agree with you, demon are afraid of atheists, does that mean they exist?

plaetton:


Absolutely.
Science killed God.
Knowledge kills ignorance.
Knowledge kills fear.
A tiny speck of light illuminates a dark room.

Just as it killed the knowledge of great religious scientists , business men , entertainers , footballers , great academicians right?
Its really funny how highly smart and more accomplished people are still religious ... ever wondered why?

Ever wonder why demons are afraid of atheists?

The supernatural works with your belief , mind and actions ... why trouble you when you have been "dealt with" or "silenced" spiritually
I don't want to go deep since you cant even handle the rudiments


.... I'm sure that white shooter that killed 9 innocent people felt that he was an animal that got rid off other animals in his habitat (that's an example of the crap atheism begets)

But hey guys I'm enjoying the thread tho

undercat:


In other words, there has never been chaos.

Before God created the universe.

undercat:
So order would be present to some degree in such a universe?

Yes.

undercat:
What is so unusual about this?

Again, natural processes treat things as is. If rain falls on a book it won't know what it represents it will only wet it.

undercat:
Let's first settle whether there can be a universe that is not amenable to laws, or if we can even find ourselves in one.

Unnecessary. Since the universe we are in follows natural laws.

undercat:
Hm. We need consciousness to infer. We need sharp objects to cut. We need phones to make phone calls.

What's your point ?

undercat:
This is curious. What you have said in essence is that "because mind conceives, mind is better than matter, and therefore matter cannot explain mind."

No, what I've said is that because mind observes and imagines and matter can do neither, mind is greater.

undercat:
I'm not sure that it is better to conceive than not. This is mostly because I don't think it makes any more sense to say "mind is better than matter" than to say "mind is more pointy than matter". Mind is only better than matter to the mind. To mindless matter, there is no such thing as better or worse. So when you say mind is better, for whom or for what is it better? The supposed better-ness of mind is subjective.

It is better to concieve and percieve than not. This should be self-evident as much as the fact that knowledge is better than ignorance, and as such the conclusion that mind is greater than matter is not subjective. To mindless matter, nothing exists and so ignorance lingers. To the mind, existence is known and so knowledge begins.

undercat:
Even if it were objectively better, that should not have any effect on reality. Things do not become real simply because they are better, otherwise we would not have things like cancer.

This is just a means of avoiding the conclusion I've made. Without the mind we wouldn't know cancer exists, and without the mind we won't be able to find its cure. Reality can only be known through the mind, matter is ignorant of reality. And that makes the mind greater.

thehomer:


What do you mean? What do you wish to compare it to in order to decide what its nature was? How exactly would this question help you in any way?

Answer the question and we'll take it from there.

thehomer:
No I don't. Why should I?

Don't intelligent people create order or laws and rules that prescribe how systems should be run ?

thehomer:
You're still confused. How can the nucleotides follow natural laws but the genes that they make up not? Computer codes follow natural laws. That is why its actions are predictable.

No, you're the confused one. ASCII codes, Morse codes and the genetic code don't follow natural laws. They are decided upon. The materials that implement the codes follow natural laws. The codes don't.


Not all natural laws have predictable outcomes (eg Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) so just because a thing is predictable doesn't mean it's a natural law. A computer's actions can be predicted because of the code it follows.

thehomer:
Humans are organisms. Why don't we explain the existence of bacteria and elephants? Why can't we posit humans or aliens? Saying that it is humans that we need to explain doesn't mean humans couldn't have been created by more advanced humans. Your argument is fallacious because you're leaping from the knowledge that humans use symbols to making the claim that some unknown creature also uses human symbols.

You can't posit humans or aliens since the came after world existed and need to have their existence explained. The genetic code isn't a human symbol. It's just a symbol. And God is not an unknown creature.

thehomer:
Neither is hunger a material thing.

Of course, it isn't. Only conscious beings feel hunger.

thehomer:
So what?

So a materialistic viewpoint is useless at best. This question simply shows willful ignorance on your part.

thehomer:
Supernaturalists confuse our incomplete understanding of how the brain works with their assertion that their God does everything. Begs what question?

No, supernaturalists (from Descartes) acknowledge the mind is the effected by the brain. But, unlike materialists they see a clear inconsistency in physical activities (specifically chemical reactions in brains) effecting a consciousness that is inexplicable as a new compound or as a form of energy. It is a quality entirely unique and isn't found in far more numerous examples of chemical reactions outside the context of a brain, that begs the question. Materialists like you can only give a fake promissory note that we will know how the brain makes the mind.

plaetton:


I don't know why you love making a public fool of yourself.

I wonder which is more tragic, that you wrote this crap or that people as foolish as you liked and shared it.

UyiIredia:


Answer the question and we'll take it from there.

It was physical.

UyiIredia:

Don't intelligent people create order or laws and rules that prescribe how systems should be run ?

Sure they do. But that can also occur naturally. Unless you think your God is simply an intelligent person, then you've still not made a proper argument.

UyiIredia:

No, you're the confused one. ASCII codes, Morse codes and the genetic code don't follow natural laws. They are decided upon. The materials that implement the codes follow natural laws. The codes don't.

Once again, you've confused several things. ASCII and Morse are generally symbolic representations of human text. The genetic code is a representation of physical nucleotides that act and interact in a physical way following laws of physics, chemistry and biology. This is the same error you've made over and over again.

UyiIredia:

Not all natural laws have predictable outcomes (eg Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) so just because a thing is predictable doesn't mean it's a natural law. A computer's actions can be predicted because of the code it follows.

I've already told you why genes follow natural laws and that computers don't act in a supernatural manner.

UyiIredia:

You can't posit humans or aliens since the came after world existed and need to have their existence explained. The genetic code isn't a human symbol. It's just a symbol. And God is not an unknown creature.

If you're making an argument from analogy using human intelligence, then you have to conclude with humans or something very much like humans. The genetic code is a human symbol representing the physical nucleotides. What is God? How many people is it?

UyiIredia:

Of course, it isn't. Only conscious beings feel hunger.

And they feel it because of its physical nature.

UyiIredia:

So a materialistic viewpoint is useless at best. This question simply shows willful ignorance on your part.

Can you fully explain consciousness from your point of view and be actually correct? Humbly accepting limitations in our knowledge isn't willful ignorance. A materialistic viewpoint is what makes science work. Your supernaturalistic viewpoint is actually worse than useless.

UyiIredia:

No, supernaturalists (from Descartes) acknowledge the mind is the effected by the brain. But, unlike materialists they see a clear inconsistency in physical activities (specifically chemical reactions in brains) effecting a consciousness that is inexplicable as a new compound or as a form of energy. It is a quality entirely unique and isn't found in far more numerous examples of chemical reactions outside the context of a brain, that begs the question. Materialists like you can only give a fake promissory note that we will know how the brain makes the mind.

Again, begs what question? Can you actually phrase this question? Those of us who don't believe in the supernatural don't explain consciousness as a new compound. I don't know we ever will but simply asserting God did it is even worse.