UyiIredia:
Not if by nothingness we mean the absence of the material universe.

Absence of universe = chaos. Oh dear.

Wrong. The more consistent a given universe is with its laws the more regular its order can be said to be. I would expect random universes to be far less regular, since there's no one or no cause that ensures it follows its laws consistently.

The issue is how to determine the point at which God is needed (not that I agree with anything you've said up there).

Why is it so ? It doesn't make sense to have to know the origin of nature and its laws to know an entirely different genetic code.

You can't say there are two kinds of things without knowing what the two kinds are. If you say there are two kinds of origins, you must know both of them. It is your knowledge of the one that you compare with your knowledge of the other in order to make distinctions.

And you are yet to rebut my first premise that the natural processes (and laws) don't
account for the genetic code. You can't give me a natural law that the genetic code follows and yet you still have the audacity to say that my claim lacks a sufficient basis.

I'm saying your premise is based on the distinction between natural and unnatural which you have created. Justify the assumption that such a distinction exists.

I'm not going to push it. You are free to believe or disbelieve what you want.

Good for you.

Is this even a point ?

It's practically the same thing you said about matter and ignorance:

Ignorance is not a property anymore than cold or death are. Like death (lack of life) and cold (lack of heat), ignorance is the LACK OF a property, knowledge. Since matter lacks the ability to know anything, matter is ignorant. That is not a category error.

In order words, consciousness lacks the ability to be hot, consciousness is cold. Not category error.

This doesn't make matter any more conscious since it isn't.

Material human beings are conscious.

Even when I've told you that humans themselves rae contingent on matter. Even though its clear that humans can only work within the ambits of natural law in a material world they met. And even though its clear we created new configurations of matter from elements to compounds.

Contingency is irrelevant here. Besides, the human mind is a part of God's mind, being sourced therefrom.

Consciousness is not within the ambit of natural laws, if I understand you correctly. Your claim is that no natural process is responsible for it.

Reconfiguration is not creation.

It isn't. If matter can only be reconfigured into new material forms then it's impossible for it to be fashioned into an immaterial consciousness.

This is a recap of what I said.

I actually meant that natural processes couldn't make material forms humans make such as clothes, phones, cars etc. But there's no problem, I do believe God made matter.

That depends on if you consider humans to be a natural process or not.

Why single out genetic code?

It's meant to make my arguments more poignant.

Of course it is. You don't think your arguments are poignant enough.

timonski:
I have been following this tooic for days, and it seems like this argument is leading no where

lol...i've been following it since its inception.It's going nowhere.They all keep repeating the same thing.I don tire.

thehomer:


Huh? What evidence do you have of these "thoughtwaves"? Or are you just making stuff up? Water can carry thoughts? Please can I have some of what you're smoking?

You really and truly don't know anything.

Really and truly.

Kay17:


Then why do we have to go further and continue with GODdidIT?! The fundamental premise you rely on, is inductive and incapable of applying to the Universe.

Why not ? I think it does. I think one must go further because no natural process at the moment is capable of even making a coin and is certainly incapable of making a code.

thehomer:


No they do not represent an amino acid, they are "translated" into amino acids when proteins are being synthesized. Please can you state what was wrong and why it was wrong?

The phrase I posted clearly states codons representing amino acids. Besides, they can't be translated_and they are translated in every sense of the word_if they don't already represent what they are being translated into.

thehomer:

It follows laws of chemical bonding i.e covalent and hydrogen bonding among others. Now what is the name of the thing that isn't physical? Do you agree that the table is a human abstraction?

This is you mistaking the genetic code for the chemicals through which it is implemented. The chemicals follow the laws of chemical bonding. But you don't show how the genetic code (codon-amino acid relationship) is specified by chemical bonding.

Don't you think it will be silly if I said human language follows laws of wave propagation because of how words are conveyed through air ? Is understanding the laws of waves
sufficient to understand human speech ? Is understanding the laws of chemical bonding sufficient to explain the genetic code ?

thehomer:

Present the premises and the conclusions.

I'll summarize my arguments again.

In the argument from order in the universe I infer God from order in the universe. One can base this on the fact that intelligent agents work with order.

In the argument from life, I note that genetic codes which almost all life is based isn't explainable by natural processes based on how they codes don't follow natural laws. I state how codes are usually made by conscious effort (ostensibly by humans) and so on this note I deduce that A conscious God made lifeforms.

Arguing from consciousness, I note how it is inexplicable from a purely materialistic viewpoint. Chemical reactions and physical events at various levels have material effects alone. In brains, materialists face a dilemma where the effects are not only not material, but have a unique property: a mental property which can't be defined in purely material terms. This is a good reason to conclude that a God exists.

undercat:


Absence of universe = chaos. Oh dear.

"Chaos (Greek χάος, khaos) refers to the formless or void
state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in the Greek creation myths, or to the initial "gap" created by the original separation of heaven and earth."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

undercat:

The issue is how to determine the point at which God is needed (not that I agree with anything you've said up there).

You could as well have said God isn't needed. No need dancing around the point.

undercat:

You can't say there are two kinds of things without knowing what the two kinds are. If you say there are two kinds of origins, you must know both of them. It is your knowledge of the one that you compare with your knowledge of the other in order to make distinctions.

A very silly point. Man didn't need to know how the universe began before they figured out that life evolved. They didn't haven't even figured out how life started and yet I'm sure you don't doubt that you evolved.

undercat:

I'm saying your premise is based on the distinction between natural and unnatural which you have created. Justify the assumption that such a distinction exists.

If this was necessary you would have clearly stated the need from the start, therefore, it stands to reason that this is a ruse to cover up the fact that you couldn't state which natural laws a code follows.

Not to mention how utterly ridiculous it is for me to have to school you on what is supernatural and what isn't. Even illiterates know the difference.

undercat:

It's practically the same thing you said about matter and ignorance:In order words, consciousness lacks the ability to be hot, consciousness is cold. Not category error.

Good point. Cold has heat to a lesser degree, it isn't entirely lacking of it. In fact, it's impossible for a material to absolutely lack heat. But its very possible for a material to absolutely lack life, and absolutely lack knowledge.

undercat:

Material human beings are conscious.

Dead material human beings aren't. In fact, things such as intestines and hearts in living human beings aren't conscious.

undercat:

Contingency is irrelevant here. Besides, the human mind is a part of God's mind, being sourced therefrom.

It is relevant. If humans need matter to exist they couldn't have made it. Also, if matter existed before humans, which everybody belives, they couldn't have made it.

undercat:

Consciousness is not within the ambit of natural laws, if I understand you correctly. Your claim is that no natural process is responsible for it.

Yes. But the brain is within the ambit of natural laws and it is the seat of consciousness.

undercat:

Reconfiguration is not creation.

It is. It is the creation of new forms of matter that did not exist before. You don't need to create from nothingness like God did to be a creator.

undercat:

This is a recap of what I said.

How so ?

undercat:

That depends on if you consider humans to be a natural process or not.

Why single out genetic code?

Because, its existence categorically makes it impossible for humans to have arisen by purely natural means.

undercat:

Of course it is. You don't think your arguments are poignant enough.

Obviously, not enough to change your mind. Which isn't surprising.

DeepSight:


You really and truly don't know anything.

Really and truly.

Since you're so knowledgeable, please inform me.

UyiIredia:


The phrase I posted clearly states codons representing amino acids. Besides, they can't be translated_and they are translated in every sense of the word_if they don't already represent what they are being translated into.

They don't represent amino acids because amino acids are different physical structures. "Translation" when talking about genes is a shorthand for the physical process that actually happens. Take the time to read up on it and compare it to languages to understand the huge different. Just so you know, in English, a single word can have multiple meanings.

UyiIredia:

This is you mistaking the genetic code for the chemicals through which it is implemented. The chemicals follow the laws of chemical bonding. But you don't show how the genetic code (codon-amino acid relationship) is specified by chemical bonding.

What do you mean? The code table is a human abstraction. That relationship is specified by chemical bonding. Look it up. That is why gene translation works the way it does.

UyiIredia:

Don't you think it will be silly if I said human language follows laws of wave propagation because of how words are conveyed through air ? Is understanding the laws of waves
sufficient to understand human speech ? Is understanding the laws of chemical bonding sufficient to explain the genetic code ?

Human language is a different type of thing from the genetic code. You're making a category error in trying to compare them both.

UyiIredia:

I'll summarize my arguments again.

In the argument from order in the universe I infer God from order in the universe. One can base this on the fact that intelligent agents work with order.

You can't make that inference. You started by saying humans work with order and say therefore God exists. Is God a human? Or are humans God? Secondly, isn't order necessary for a universe with humans to function? How is God needed?

UyiIredia:

In the argument from life, I note that genetic codes which almost all life is based isn't explainable by natural processes based on how they codes don't follow natural laws. I state how codes are usually made by conscious effort (ostensibly by humans) and so on this note I deduce that A conscious God made lifeforms.

Since the genetic code is explained by natural processes and does follow natural laws, your God isn't needed. An argument from ignorance. You don't know how genes work therefore God did it.

UyiIredia:

Arguing from consciousness, I note how it is inexplicable from a purely materialistic viewpoint. Chemical reactions and physical events at various levels have material effects alone. In brains, materialists face a dilemma where the effects are not only not material, but have a unique property: a mental property which can't be defined in purely material terms. This is a good reason to conclude that a God exists.

What is the relevance of God here? This a classic argument from ignorance. You don't know how consciousness works therefore God did it?

So far, you've made several arguments of irrelevance simply tacking on God at the end but you've not shown what God has to do with anything other than simply asserting that he is there and has something to do with everything.

UyiIredia:


Why not ? I think it does. I think one must go further because no natural process at the moment is capable of even making a coin and is certainly incapable of making a code.

I agree with you that no coin nor a car nor a ship has naturally occurred but you deliberately ignoring trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas; which are more superior and complex to a coin.

Here is a bind you are in. Every example you have of a code is in nature, and you would be laying a contradictory foundation that the code found in nature is not naturally occurring. And then build on this foundation your proof that such code is made by a divine intelligence.

UyiIredia:



In the argument from order in the universe I infer God from order in the universe. One can base this on the fact that intelligent agents work with order.

In the argument from life, I note that genetic codes which almost all life is based isn't explainable by natural processes based on how they codes don't follow natural laws. I state how codes are usually made by conscious effort (ostensibly by humans) and so on this note I deduce that A conscious God made lifeforms.

Arguing from consciousness, I note how it is inexplicable from a purely materialistic viewpoint. Chemical reactions and physical events at various levels have material effects alone. In brains, materialists face a dilemma where the effects are not only not material, but have a unique property: a mental property which can't be defined in purely material terms. This is a good reason to conclude that a God exists.

"Codes do not follow natural law" how do you establish that?!

Why are we to believe that codes which are found in nature and exist prior to man's existence on earth without an extrapolation with human intelligence and divine intelligence?

Why does THC a chemical compound have an altering effect on human consciousness?

Given human understanding of the memory and its location in the brain, how do you reconcile the immaterial functions of the brain with its physical presence in the brain.

DeepSight:


You really and truly don't know anything.

Really and truly.

It was a justified question! But you are refusing the opportunity to set things right.

UyiIredia:
"Chaos (Greek χάος, khaos) refers to the formless or void
state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in the Greek creation myths, or to the initial "gap" created by the original separation of heaven and earth."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

Lol. Classic appeal to authority.

You could as well have said God isn't needed. No need dancing around the point.

Come on. I must have said so at least twice by now.

A very silly point. Man didn't need to know how the universe began before they figured out that life evolved. They didn't haven't even figured out how life started and yet I'm sure you don't doubt that you evolved.

You conveniently missed the silly point.

If this was necessary you would have clearly stated the need from the start, therefore, it stands to reason that this is a ruse to cover up the fact that you couldn't state which natural laws a code follows.

Not to mention how utterly ridiculous it is for me to have to school you on what is supernatural and what isn't. Even illiterates know the difference.

I already told you that I don't know. My ignorance is not an excuse to make unjustifiable claims. Besides, I even asked you this question before you asked me for the natural law a code follows.

You are confused, understandably. According to you, God made physical laws, then he made genetic code, and both were designed for our universe, yet one has natural origins and the other is supernatural. I merely want you to acknowledge this confusion in claiming that all of existence has two mutually exclusive sources, which is central to your argument.

You cannot explain the natural origin of physical laws mainly because you don't think that anything has a natural origin, even though you claim for the sake of argument that there are natural and supernatural origins.

Good point. Cold has heat to a lesser degree, it isn't entirely lacking of it. In fact, it's impossible for a material to absolutely lack heat. But its very possible for a material to absolutely lack life, and absolutely lack knowledge.

?? ??

Dead material human beings aren't. In fact, things such as intestines and hearts in living human beings aren't conscious.

So it is the brain that is conscious?

It is relevant. If humans need matter to exist they couldn't have made it. Also, if matter existed before humans, which everybody belives, they couldn't have made it.

They can make the matter which they don't need to exist, and of course any matter they make is one which cannot predate them.. I'm not saying they made matter, I'm saying they should make some.

Yes. But the brain is within the ambit of natural laws and it is the seat of consciousness.

Consciousness is subject to physics, then.

It is. It is the creation of new forms of matter that did not exist before. You don't need to create from nothingness like God did to be a creator.

It's ex nihilo or nothing bro. Otherwise stars are also creators.

How so ?

I said matter can give rise to immaterial consciousness if it can be reconfigured into anything other than more matter. You said matter cannot give rise to immaterial consciousness if it can only be reconfigured into more matter. Same thing.

Because, its existence categorically makes it impossible for humans to have arisen by purely natural means.

Since you believe everything is from God, what do you mean by "arise by purely natural means"?

plaetton:
Is that Muskeeto I see in the background?

I see you Sir.

musKeeto:

I see you Sir.

Haba.
Long time, buddy.
We missed you around here.
I especially, missed the scriptural support you offer on vexing existential issues.

How have you been?
I hope all is good.

thehomer:
It follows laws of chemical bonding i.e covalent and hydrogen bonding among others. Now what is the name of the thing that isn't physical? Do you agree that the table is a human abstraction?

Uyi Iredia:

This is you mistaking the genetic code for the chemicals through which it is implemented. The chemicals follow the laws of chemical bonding. But you don't show how the genetic code (codon-amino acid relationship) is specified by chemical bonding.

Don't you think it will be silly if I said human language follows laws of wave propagation because of how words are conveyed through air ? Is understanding the laws of waves
sufficient to understand human speech ? Is understanding the laws of chemical bonding sufficient to explain the genetic code ?

thehomer:

What do you mean? The code table is a human abstraction. That relationship is specified by chemical bonding. Look it up. That is why gene translation works the way it does.

Human language is a different type of thing from the genetic code. You're making a category error in trying to compare them both

No, thehomer. You are wrong. Human language and the genetic code are the same type of thing as they both fall under the category of information. Therefore they are very comparable.

It is either you truly lack the ability to distinguish between information and matter or you are merely pretending to do so.

UyiIredia:

Why not ? I think it does. I think one must go further because no natural process at the moment is capable of even making a coin and is certainly incapable of making a code.

Kay17:

I agree with you that no coin nor a car nor a ship has naturally occurred but you deliberately ignoring trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas; which are more superior and complex to a coin.

Here is a bind you are in. Every example you have of a code is in nature, and you would be laying a contradictory foundation that the code found in nature is not naturally occurring. And then build on this foundation your proof that such code is made by a divine intelligence.

Interesting. You seem to be saying that nature is capable of more creating more complex design than human beings? Yet you don't seem to think that nature possesses intelligence. How so?

thehomer:
Hunger pangs.

Lol no, hunger pangs are not a physical property of hunger in the strict sense of the word because they do not describe hunger in any objectively/independently measurable way. Rather they are synonymous. i.e. both hunger and hunger pangs are defined as discomfort/pain in the abdomen caused by a lack of food.

What you did wasn't very clever. It is rather like saying that the physical property of a rock is that it is rocky....or that the physical property of joy is elation.

Physical properties are by definition properties of matter and since hunger is not matter (according to you) it cannot have physical properties. To say that something is non-material yet has physical properties demonstrates that you are ignorant of the meaning of the terms you are using.

You were wrong there.

Please point out the contradiction.

Done

thehomer:

What evidence are you referring to?

The fact that there exists complex specified information carried by dna that instructs the development and functioning of thehomer (who is a complex specific arrangement of components such that they can perform specific functions)

1. Information is by definition specific and organized for a purpose.
2. Information is the creation of minds. Nothing that lacks a mind can create information
3. Minds are non-material and therefore have no physical properties.
4. The functioning and organization of nature and thehomer are complex and specified.
5. Therefore since information exists in nature and defines the functioning of thehomer as well as other aspects of nature, we have evidence that ultimately you were mindfully created. i.e. God created you.

A good reason for not believing in your God is the fact that there is no good reason to believe he is out there.

Again, what would a good reason look like?

MrAnony1:


No, thehomer. You are wrong. Human language and the genetic code are the same type of thing as they both fall under the category of information. Therefore they are very comparable.

Please explain how they are comparable in this instance and how that leads to your God. Do objects like the earth, granite and microprocessors also fall under the category of information and thus also become comparable?

MrAnony1:

It is either you truly lack the ability to distinguish between information and matter or you are merely pretending to do so.

The above statement is another example of confusion. Assume that I lack this ability that you think is so important. Please can you make the distinction between them?

MrAnony1:




Interesting. You seem to be saying that nature is capable of more creating more complex design than human beings? Yet you don't seem to think that nature possesses intelligence. How so?

Well nature isn't the sort of thing that has the property of intelligence attributed to it. Trying to do that is to make a category mistake.

thehomer:


Well nature isn't the sort of thing that has the property of intelligence attributed to it. Trying to do that is to make a category mistake.

Yet he has pointed to more complex design in nature. What intelligence then is creating these more complex and superior designs? Or perhaps you don't think that the superiority of a design indicates the superiority of the authoring intelligence?

MrAnony1:

Lol no, hunger pangs are not a physical property of hunger in the strict sense of the word because they do not describe hunger in any objectively/independently measurable way. Rather they are synonymous. i.e. both hunger and hunger pangs are defined as discomfort/pain in the abdomen caused by a lack of food.

Strict sense of which word? Who says hunger pangs aren't measurable? You should have tried to look this up. In fact there's a Wikipedia article on it. You should have looked it up. Hunger is the subjective sensation. Hunger pangs are the physical contractions felt in the stomach.

MrAnony1:

What you did wasn't very clever. It is rather like saying that the physical property of a rock is that it is rocky....or that the physical property of joy is elation.

Your response isn't clever at all. It is nothing like the rock thing joy is more nebulous. We can use something clearer like sexual attraction. One physical property in men would be an erection. One is a subjective non-material component, the other is a material component.

MrAnony1:

Physical properties are by definition properties of matter and since hunger is not matter (according to you) it cannot have physical properties. To say that something is non-material yet has physical properties demonstrates that you are ignorant of the meaning of the terms you are using.

You were wrong there.

Done

Looks to me like you've simply revealed that you've not thought things through and that is why you're confused and have conflated the subjective sensation of hunger with the physical manifestation of hunger pangs.

Since you think you're right, would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature?

thehomer:


Please explain how they are comparable in this instance and how that leads to your God. Do objects like the earth, granite and microprocessors also fall under the category of information and thus also become comparable?

I have already told you how they are both comparable. Human language and genetic codes are both information. And no, objects such as the earth, granite and microprocessors do not fall under the category of information rather they fall under the category of matter.

The above statement is another example of confusion. Assume that I lack this ability that you think is so important. Please can you make the distinction between them?

How am I the one confused when you are the one who can't tell that objects like granite are matter and not non-material information?

Seeing as you were the same guy who earlier argued about hunger being non-material. What do you think "non-material" means?

MrAnony1:

The fact that there exists complex specified information carried by dna that instructs the development and functioning of thehomer (who is a complex specific arrangement of components such that they can perform specific functions)

The fact that I exist means that I exist. This isn't new.

MrAnony1:

1. Information is by definition specific and organized for a purpose.

What is the actual definition you're using?

MrAnony1:

2. Information is the creation of minds. Nothing that lacks a mind can create information

Okay.

MrAnony1:

3. Minds are non-material and therefore have no physical properties.

Minds develop within a physical substrate and they're affected by the physical realm so this premise is questionable.

MrAnony1:

4. The functioning and organization of nature and thehomer are complex and specified.

What do you mean by "specified"?

MrAnony1:

5. Therefore since information exists in nature and defines the functioning of thehomer as well as other aspects of nature, we have evidence that ultimately you were mindfully created. i.e. God created you.

You mean that information is an abstraction generated by minds based on what they observe in nature. Information does not "define" my functioning or other aspects of nature, the relationship is the other way round. Nature is what determines the information we generate.

What is this evidence that I was mindfully created? Is it simply the fact that I exist? I can tell you that I exist but this minfully created business is questionable.

What exactly is God and how does God creep in? Is God simply a mind that is floating around without a body?

MrAnony1:

Again, what would a good reason look like?

A good reason for not believing in your God is like the good reason we have for not believing in faeries. i.e the reasons for believing in faeries are as good as the reasons for believing in your God.

MrAnony1:

I have already told you how they are both comparable. Human language and genetic codes are both information. And no, objects such as the earth, granite and microprocessors do not fall under the category of information rather they fall under the category of matter.

What is the comparison you're making that leads to your God? After all, the Pythagorean theorem and Newton's law of universal gravitation are also information.

MrAnony1:

How am I the one confused when you are the one who can't tell that objects like granite are matter and not non-material information?

Granite actually can be considered as both matter and information so can the other things I listed. Whether or not it is non-material is to me a minor issue.

MrAnony1:

Seeing as you were the same guy who earlier argued about hunger being non-material. What do you think "non-material" means?

And the poor evasions begin. I asked you a direct question. You can answer and then ask me your question. Please give your answer then ask your question. After all, my question would help reveal your confusion.

thehomer:

What is the comparison you're making that leads to your God?

I never claimed that the comparison leads to God. My point was that both human language and the genetic code fall into the category of information. So how is this your question supposed to be relevant to the point I was making?

After all, the Pythagorean theorem and Newton's law of universal gravitation are also information.

Yes they too fall into the category of information. Seems you know what information is after all.

Granite actually can be considered as both matter and information so can the other things I listed. Whether or not it is non-material is to me a minor issue.

How so? Please define what you think information is and explain how granite, the earth and microprocessors fit.

And the poor evasions begin. I asked you a direct question. You can answer and then ask me your question. Please give your answer then ask your question. After all, my question would help reveal your confusion.

Nonsense, do you also lack comprehension? I actually did point out in my answer that one is material and the other isn't. You are the one here who has been talking about non-material things yet you pretend not to know the distinction between information which is non-material and matter. So please what did you mean by the phrase "non-material"?

thehomer:
The fact that I exist means that I exist. This isn't new.

That reply is unrelated to what I said.
I said that you are a specified complex arrangement of components such that you can perform specific functions and this is because specified information carried by your dna instructs the development and functioning of all the components that combine to form you.

What is the actual definition you're using?

Information is the specific and organized arrangement of data for the purpose of instruction and creating meaning.

Okay.

Good, so you admit that only mind can create information.

Minds develop within a physical substrate and they're affected by the physical realm so this premise is questionable.

Can you list some physical properties of minds that you know of?

What do you mean by "specified"?

By specified, I mean that the information carried by your dna is not random rather it relays very specific instructions so as to form your physical body precisely the way it is. If this information were to be changed in any way by rearranging the molecules, the resultant person would have a different body form.

You mean that information is an abstraction generated by minds based on what they observe in nature. Information does not "define" my functioning or other aspects of nature, the relationship is the other way round. Nature is what determines the information we generate.

No sir, information defines your form and function as any alteration in the information contained in your dna will result in a totally different you.

What is this evidence that I was mindfully created? Is it simply the fact that I exist? I can tell you that I exist but this minfully created business is questionable.

The fact that information defines you and information can only be created mindfully shows that you are indeed mindfully created.

What exactly is God and how does God creep in? Is God simply a mind that is floating around without a body?

I have already told you what God is: The ultimate creator of all things that exist.

A good reason for not believing in your God is like the good reason we have for not believing in faeries. i.e the reasons for believing in faeries are as good as the reasons for believing in your God.

You keep evading my question. What would a good reason for believing in God look like? How do you know that such a reason doesn't exist if you don't have any idea of what such a reason ought to look like?

thehomer:

Strict sense of which word? Who says hunger pangs aren't measurable? You should have tried to look this up. In fact there's a Wikipedia article on it. You should have looked it up. Hunger is the subjective sensation. Hunger pangs are the physical contractions felt in the stomach.

My mistake, I got the definitions wrong. . . .But then, in that case, what you are really saying is that hunger is actually the feeling of the contractions hence hunger would be how stomach contractions are described and not the other way round.
It's a bit like saying that one of the properties of pain are electric impulses running from the nerve endings to the brain and back. You cannot describe a full physical event as the property of a thing. At best it is an effect NOT a property. Physical properties are things like length, temperature, weight e.t.c.

Your response isn't clever at all. It is nothing like the rock thing joy is more nebulous. We can use something clearer like sexual attraction. One physical property in men would be an erection. One is a subjective non-material component, the other is a material component.

Once again, you are confusing an effect with a property. Sexual attraction can cause an erection. An erection is not a property of sexual attraction rather it is an effect. There is a causal relationship. Secondly impotent men can feel sexual attraction without erections.

Looks to me like you've simply revealed that you've not thought things through and that is why you're confused and have conflated the subjective sensation of hunger with the physical manifestation of hunger pangs.

Yes I was wrong with how I used the definitions but you still haven't told us a physical property of hunger.

Since you think you're right, would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature?

Hunger is non-material and therefore, it has no physical properties.

MrAnony1:

My mistake, I got the definitions wrong. . . .But then, in that case, what you are really saying is that hunger is actually the feeling of the contractions hence hunger would be how stomach contractions are described and not the other way round.
It's a bit like saying that one of the properties of pain are electric impulses running from the nerve endings to the brain and back. You cannot describe a full physical event as the property of a thing. At best it is an effect NOT a property. Physical properties are things like length, temperature, weight e.t.c.



Once again, you are confusing an effect with a property. Sexual attraction can cause an erection. An erection is not a property of sexual attraction rather it is an effect. There is a causal relationship. Secondly impotent men can feel sexual attraction without erections.



Yes I was wrong with how I used the definitions but you still haven't told us a physical property of hunger.

Hunger is non-material and therefore, it has no physical properties.

BS.
If one considers all manifest actions of the universe in terms of vibrations and frequencies (which is essentially what they are), then distinction between physical and non physical become blurry and nothing more than convenient labelling.
Feelings like hunger, pain, joy etc are not as non physical as we think. Infact, they all have mathematical corrolaries .
Anything that has a mathematical corrolary, can be observed, measured, manipulated and even artificially simulated.

MrAnony1:

I never claimed that the comparison leads to God. My point was that both human language and the genetic code fall into the category of information. So how is this your question supposed to be relevant to the point I was making?

It is relevant because you're trying to make arguments for your God's existence. Lots of things fall into the category of information if you're going to be using things as distinct as language and the genetic code.

MrAnony1:

Yes they too fall into the category of information. Seems you know what information is after all.

I know what it is. It is a very broad concept.

MrAnony1:

How so? Please define what you think information is and explain how granite, the earth and microprocessors fit.

Wikipedia:
Things that are or can be known about a given topic; communicable knowledge of something. [from 14th c.]

Granite gives you information about the temperatures that were once in the environment where it was originally located, the earth gives you information about its contents, microprocessors give you information about its speed, designs and what not.

MrAnony1:

Nonsense, do you also lack comprehension? I actually did point out in my answer that one is material and the other isn't. You are the one here who has been talking about non-material things yet you pretend not to know the distinction between information which is non-material and matter. So please what did you mean by the phrase "non-material"?

Looks like you actually lack comprehension and as usual, you're failing to be evasive. Please if you have answered this question, simply provide a link to your answer. Here's the question again. Would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature? I'll tell you what I meant by the word non-material when you've answered my question.

MrAnony1:

That reply is unrelated to what I said.
I said that you are a specified complex arrangement of components such that you can perform specific functions and this is because specified information carried by your dna instructs the development and functioning of all the components that combine to form you.

You're saying that I exist and I'm made up of certain physical structures. This isn't new. Tell me something new. The fact that you used many words doesn't impress me.

MrAnony1:

Information is the specific and organized arrangement of data for the purpose of instruction and creating meaning.

Information has to be for instruction and creating meaning. Got it.

MrAnony1:

Good, so you admit that only mind can create information.

No. Computers can also generate information but I won't say they currently have minds.

MrAnony1:

Can you list some physical properties of minds that you know of?

I didn't say minds were physical but that they have a physical basis.

MrAnony1:

By specified, I mean that the information carried by your dna is not random rather it relays very specific instructions so as to form your physical body precisely the way it is. If this information were to be changed in any way by rearranging the molecules, the resultant person would have a different body form.

This is actually incorrect. Lots of the arrangements of DNA won't have an effect on the body form. Lots of mutations are neutral. There is a lot of randomness when it comes to the arrangement of DNA. Certain parts are more conserved than others. Secondly, the information you're referring to is the human abstraction of the physical molecule.

MrAnony1:

No sir, information defines your form and function as any alteration in the information contained in your dna will result in a totally different you.

And this is where your confusion is clear. Take a look at the definition you presented as information. You said it is the arrangement of data for instruction and creating meaning. These are all abstractions. DNA is a physical molecule that humans have been able to represent in an abstract manner.

MrAnony1:

The fact that information defines you and information can only be created mindfully shows that you are indeed mindfully created.

Wrong again. Information doesn't define me. Information is secondary to the physical structures of the DNA and the environment. The information about me comes after my actual presence. This is why I said you have your relationship backwards.

MrAnony1:

I have already told you what God is: The ultimate creator of all things that exist.

That wasn't what I asked. Is God a mind floating around without a body? If you think he is, please can you show me a mind without a body?

MrAnony1:

You keep evading my question. What would a good reason for believing in God look like? How do you know that such a reason doesn't exist if you don't have any idea of what such a reason ought to look like?

This is a different question. You're asking me for a good reason to believe in your God. Well one good reason to believe in him would be if he were to reveal himself to me just as my friends have revealed themselves to me.

MrAnony1:

My mistake, I got the definitions wrong. . . .But then, in that case, what you are really saying is that hunger is actually the feeling of the contractions hence hunger would be how stomach contractions are described and not the other way round.

Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat. You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

MrAnony1:

It's a bit like saying that one of the properties of pain are electric impulses running from the nerve endings to the brain and back. You cannot describe a full physical event as the property of a thing. At best it is an effect NOT a property. Physical properties are things like length, temperature, weight e.t.c.

Actually, one of the components of pain is the transmission of those signals carried by the nerves. Different nerves give different perceptions of pain. Hunger pangs have properties of length since contractions involve a change in length.

MrAnony1:

Once again, you are confusing an effect with a property. Sexual attraction can cause an erection. An erection is not a property of sexual attraction rather it is an effect. There is a causal relationship. Secondly impotent men can feel sexual attraction without erections.

An effect can also be a property.

MrAnony1:

Yes I was wrong with how I used the definitions but you still haven't told us a physical property of hunger.

Hunger pangs.

MrAnony1:

Hunger is non-material and therefore, it has no physical properties.

I asked whether or not it has a physical nature. Should I take this as you saying that hunger has no physical nature?