thehomer:


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.

The statement I quoted makes it clear that codons represent amino acids. It is foolish to deny this.

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.

This would be true if the codons showed preferential bonding to their respective amino acids, they don't.

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

Yes, there are differences but the genetic code and human language are fundamentally similar in their use of symbols which may represent objects, actions and concepts.

thehomer:
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?

I think God is needed to explain the order in the universe. I don't think order is uncaused. I won't expect a godless universe to be consistent in its orderliness, I won't expect it to display regularity as seen in the planetary motions of our solar system, in fact, without God I don't see how the universe could exist since out of nothing, nothing comes.

thehomer:
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.

No, I'm working from what we do know. Natural factors and activities such as storms, minerals, soil, oceans, sunlight etc are highly constrained in what they can effect. They certainly can't effect objects that require finesse eg sculptures and furniture. And it is impossible, in principle, for them to result in systems which require a precise arrangement of specific materials to work eg bicycles, phones, fans etc. since natural processes lack the foresight and finesse required to effect them. The same certainly applies to living things.

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

On the contrary, I don't argue from what I don't know but from what I do know. Chemical reactions are constrained to effect chemical products and release energy. A chemical reaction (in brains) effecting an awareness of self, thoughts and one's environments runs contrary to this principle and this is why consciousness been a scientific mystery. It still is never mind advances in neuroscience which typically presume explaining the mind-body connection resolves the mystery of the mind.

thehomer:
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.

The same can be said of natural forces like gravity which are tacked on to the behaviour of objects. This doesn't make them less of an explanation to you. If you think my arguments are irrelevant you have either misunderstood them or are simply blinded by your bias.

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.

You agree that natural processes can't make less complex coins and cars. Yet somehow it can make trees which are far more complex. Assuming for a moment that the universe could have existed without God I wouldn't expect living things to exist, since natural events lack the know-how, and consciousness would most surely not exist since it is not a property of matter, in fact we can't understand it in strictly material terms.

That said, not every examples of codes are in nature. Morse codes and programming languages for instance, are artificial not natural. One could say codes are naturally occuring as things found in the context of the natural world around us but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the natural factors and activities that existed before life began had the ability to result in life and its genetic code (without God's divine hand).

A honest and proper look at the problem would show that this is impossible. The first thing to be kept in mind is that nature lacks foresight or will and so will not favor any event that could lead to a living thing or precursor. The next thing that precludes this is the problem of synthesis and organization, which are the making of materials used in lifeforms and the correct arrangement of such materials into an organism. Consciousness, simply deals the coupe de grace because it is absurd that material activities (in a brain) will effect a mind. Material activities, specifically chemical reactions are limited to physical effects such as the making of a new object and a release of energy. So why would a conscious mind exist ?

Kay17:


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

Within the context, of a cell codons represent amino acids and the action of starting and stopping the making of amino acids. The rule which governs how codons represent amino acids and start and stop isn't dependent on natural law.

Kay17:
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?

Natural processes lack the ability to make such things. In fact, we have no single instance of natural processes making codes. But we know humans make codes and we know they need intelligence to do so, hence the inference to a Creator God.

Kay17:
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.

I think these are diversionary tactics. THC in a dead body won't affect any consciousness. It needs a conscious being to affect consciousness. I stated the problem consciousness poses for materialists. Answer it.

undercat:


Lol. Classic appeal to authority.

Definitions are an appeal to authority. That's a first.

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

Okay.

undercat:
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

.

I've never said physical laws have natural origins and I don't believe so. Your point here is moot. One doesn't need to explain how natural laws existed to explain the origin of the genetic code.

undercat:
?? ??

Make your point.

undercat:
So it is the brain that is conscious?

Yes. Even then, dead brains aren't conscious, which shows that consciousness isn't a primary (or essential) property of brains, it is a secondary one.

undercat:
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.

This is a silly request. Humans make new materials from existing ones. You don't expect them to poof up new matter that didn't exist.

undercat:
Consciousness is subject to physics, then.

Wrong. Physics only applies to matter, not consciousness. Consciousness OTOH is crucial for physics, physics is the product of man's conscious mind.

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

In a sense, stars could be said to be creators but they, as well as other natural processes, are highly constrained in what they can create. Humans are less so. It's absurd to ask that humans create matter out of noth
ing when they are material beings.

undercat:
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.

I'll just let smart people spot the difference.

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

To originate from only natural factors and processes eg clouds, sunlight, snow, minerals, air, naturally occuring compounds etc In short, any natural factor that must have existed prior to living things.

UyiIredia:
Definitions are an appeal to authority. That's a first.

The link was simply a restatement of your claim that the state of existence consisting of God without a universe is chaos. The ancient Greeks agree with you, so what?

I've never said physical laws have natural origins and I don't believe so. Your point here is moot. One doesn't need to explain how natural laws existed to explain the origin of the genetic code.

Your premise is hinged on such a distinction in origin between genetic code and physical law. Without it, you can't correctly distinguish between both of them in terms of their origins.

Make your point.

I couldn't make out what you were trying to say.

Yes. Even then, dead brains aren't conscious, which shows that consciousness isn't a primary (or essential) property of brains, it is a secondary one.

Matter is various things at various times. Sometimes it's liquid, sometimes it's crystalline, sometimes its radioactive, and other times its conscious.

This is a silly request. Humans make new materials from existing ones. You don't expect them to poof up new matter that didn't exist.

You're the one that says mind can create matter. Now you're creating all sorts of objections to mind creating matter.

Wrong. Physics only applies to matter, not consciousness. Consciousness OTOH is crucial for physics, physics is the product of man's conscious mind.

There would be physics even if there was no consciousness. Any universe that ranks at 1 on your scale of orderliness shouldn't have consciousness. It would however have physics.

In a sense, stars could be said to be creators but they, as well as other natural processes, are highly constrained in what they can create. Humans are less so. It's absurd to ask that humans create matter out of nothing when they are material beings.

Think of it as a sort of recursion.

I'll just let smart people spot the difference.

So I'm not a smart person? Oh well.

To originate from only natural factors and processes eg clouds, sunlight, snow, minerals, air, naturally occuring compounds etc In short, any natural factor that must have existed prior to living things.

Everything originates from God, remember?

undercat:


The link was simply a restatement of your claim that the state of existence consisting of God without a universe is chaos. The ancient Greeks agree with you, so what?

So absence of the universe can be defined as chaos.

undercat:
Your premise is hinged on such a distinction in origin between genetic code and physical law. Without it, you can't correctly distinguish between both of them in terms of their origins.

I can since their origins are different.

That said, this argument started when I said codes are laws too. You asked me what made codes different from natural laws and I stated it. You simply disagreed with it and made this absurd request after I stated you were being wilfully ignorant. I recall using the example of how rain would wet a book without giving heed to its contents to show that natural laws as exhibited in natural processes don't discern codes.

undercat:
I couldn't make out what you were trying to say.

I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler than that.

undercat:
Matter is various things at various times. Sometimes it's liquid, sometimes it's crystalline, sometimes its radioactive, and other times its conscious.

Arrange atoms in a given manner and you've got a crystal, make atoms emit fast-moving helium nuclei, electron streams and gamma rays and you've got a radioactive substance. I've just described crystalline and radioactive states in purely physical terms. Humor me by doing the same for consciousness.

undercat:
You're the one that says mind can create matter. Now you're creating all sorts of objections to mind creating matter.

You are being decietful. I said the new forms of matter eg phones, cars etc are created by human minds. You OTOH stubbornly maintain humans must create matter out of nothing. Let me make it clear again. Human minds can and do create new material forms from existing matter. Humans cannot make matter out of nothing, only God can.

undercat:
There would be physics even if there was no consciousness. Any universe that ranks at 1 on your scale of orderliness shouldn't have consciousness. It would however have physics.

No, it won't. Such a universe would simply only have matter and nothing more. Physics is the STUDY of the nature of matter and energy; that requires a conscious mind.

undercat:
Think of it as a sort of recursion.

A lame excuse.

undercat:

Everything originates from God, remember?

That doesn't in any way mean one can't consider a universe without God, where the universe is all that exists and where life and consciousness are thought to have arisen by natural events without divine intervention. This is the world you and other atheists believe in, no ?

UyiIredia:
So absence of the universe can be defined as chaos.

Oh dear.

I can since their origins are different.

That said, this argument started when I said codes are laws too. You asked me what made codes different from natural laws and I stated it. You simply disagreed with it and made this absurd request after I stated you were being wilfully ignorant. I recall using the example of how rain would wet a book without giving heed to its contents to show that natural laws as exhibited in natural processes don't discern codes.

You don't believe physical laws have natural origins. You don't believe genetic code has a natural origin either. You can however make a distinction between their origins. Fine, I won't push it.

You stated the basis of your distinction and when I asked what was unusual about it, you said the origin of genetic code could not be explained naturally. In other words, you stopped explaining and just restated your OP. I decided to come out with my objection at that point, since you had run out of explanation.

I remember your book example and i remember what was unusual about it.

I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler than that.

How convenient.

Arrange atoms in a given manner and you've got a crystal, make atoms emit fast-moving helium nuclei, electron streams and gamma rays and you've got a radioactive substance. I've just described crystalline and radioactive states in purely physical terms. Humor me by doing the same for consciousness.

Arrange atoms in a given manner and you've got consciousness. I don't know the manner, of course, so God did it.

You are being decietful. I said the new forms of matter eg phones, cars etc are created by human minds. You OTOH stubbornly maintain humans must create matter out of nothing. Let me make it clear again. Human minds can and do create new material forms from existing matter. Humans cannot make matter out of nothing, only God can.

Reconfiguration is not creation, in case you didn't hear me the first time. I don't know how you managed to conclude that mind can create matter when the only minds you have observed cannot create matter. I don't accept this conclusion and we've been through the arguments for and against already. What to do?

No, it won't. Such a universe would simply only have matter and nothing more. Physics is the STUDY of the nature of matter and energy; that requires a conscious mind.

I meant physical laws, sorry. Of course, any sort of study requires a mind.

A lame excuse.

It was an illustration. If you don't get it, that's okay.

That doesn't in any way mean one can't consider a universe without God, where the universe is all that exists and where life and consciousness are thought to have arisen by natural events without divine intervention. This is the world you and other atheists believe in, no ?

It is the sort of world I believe exists. You can attempt to consider such a universe. The problem is that if you are right about God then you can't say that anything should be able to exist without God. Not even one planck length of empty space. Everything you know only exists because God exists, so any universe whose Godless existence you want to consider would have to contain things you are not familiar with.

undercat:



You don't believe physical laws have natural origins. You don't believe genetic code has a natural origin either. You can however make a distinction between their origins. Fine, I won't push it.

Good.

undercat:

You stated the basis of your distinction and when I asked what was unusual about it, you said the origin of genetic code could not be explained naturally. In other words, you stopped explaining and just restated your OP. I decided to come out with my objection at that point, since you had run out of explanation.

I remember your book example and i remember what was unusual about it.

This is a gross misstatement of what occurred. When asked for the distinction between natural laws and the genetic code, I pointed out that natural laws describe phenomena outside man's control while the genetic code describes how some physical objects represent others.

undercat:

Arrange atoms in a given manner and you've got consciousness. I don't know the manner, of course, so God did it.

No, you've got a brain. Brains are an arrangement of atoms. The same can't be said of consciousness.

undercat:

Reconfiguration is not creation, in case you didn't hear me the first time. I don't know how you managed to conclude that mind can create matter when the only minds you have observed cannot create matter. I don't accept this conclusion and we've been through the arguments for and against already. What to do?

It is if the reconfigured material did not exist before. I already explained that given the fact that humans can make new materials or it is evident that the mind is a creative force. I used this to infer that God (who has a mind) created the universe, unlike humans God isn't constricted by natural laws, He made them.

undercat:


It was an illustration. If you don't get it, that's okay.

Saying it was a recursion is an illustration !? How so ?

undercat:

It is the sort of world I believe exists. You can attempt to consider such a universe. The problem is that if you are right about God then you can't say that anything should be able to exist without God. Not even one planck length of empty space. Everything you know only exists because God exists, so any universe whose Godless existence you want to consider would have to contain things you are not familiar with.

Actually, I can very well imagine this universe to be godless as you do. I don't think the facts support such a conclusion though. At this point, I have a few questions I would like you to answer. Please indulge me.

1) Do you think consciousness is immaterial ?

2) Do you believe life was created or it evolved ?

3) What do you think is the best argument against God's existence ?

UyiIredia:


The statement I quoted makes it clear that codons represent amino acids. It is foolish to deny this.

What is foolish is that you're trying to argue a point that you do not understand. Codons are "translated" into various things including "STOP TRANSLATION".

UyiIredia:

This would be true if the codons showed preferential bonding to their respective amino acids, they don't.

They actually do. This is why I say you're too ignorant to be trying to make this argument.

UyiIredia:

Yes, there are differences but the genetic code and human language are fundamentally similar in their use of symbols which may represent objects, actions and concepts.

Humans made the symbols for the genetic code table. The genetic code table represents actual molecules. It is humans generating the symbols not the molecules that are represented.

UyiIredia:

I think God is needed to explain the order in the universe. I don't think order is uncaused. I won't expect a godless universe to be consistent in its orderliness, I won't expect it to display regularity as seen in the planetary motions of our solar system, in fact, without God I don't see how the universe could exist since out of nothing, nothing comes.

Well I simply don't share your assumptions. If out of nothing, nothing comes, yet we have something, then that means something has always existed. Again, no God needed. There's an aspect of the universe that is also chaotic so . . . .

UyiIredia:

No, I'm working from what we do know. Natural factors and activities such as storms, minerals, soil, oceans, sunlight etc are highly constrained in what they can effect. They certainly can't effect objects that require finesse eg sculptures and furniture. And it is impossible, in principle, for them to result in systems which require a precise arrangement of specific materials to work eg bicycles, phones, fans etc. since natural processes lack the foresight and finesse required to effect them. The same certainly applies to living things.

Living things are also natural objects. After all, living things are also highly constrained in what they can affect. Is that a long winded way of saying that human artifacts aren't created by e.g the weather? You merely listed things that humans use or think are important. who says pulsars and the sun aren't important?

UyiIredia:

On the contrary, I don't argue from what I don't know but from what I do know. Chemical reactions are constrained to effect chemical products and release energy. A chemical reaction (in brains) effecting an awareness of self, thoughts and one's environments runs contrary to this principle and this is why consciousness been a scientific mystery. It still is never mind advances in neuroscience which typically presume explaining the mind-body connection resolves the mystery of the mind.

Runs contrary to what principle? Who says the brain doesn't generate energy from chemical processes? You're saying that consciousness is a scientific mystery and that you therefore have the answer. That is an argument from ignorance.

UyiIredia:

The same can be said of natural forces like gravity which are tacked on to the behaviour of objects. This doesn't make them less of an explanation to you. If you think my arguments are irrelevant you have either misunderstood them or are simply blinded by your bias.

You don't think gravity has an effect on physical objects? I'm sorry but this ridiculousness needs to end somewhere.

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?

This is a tricky question because I cannot deny the complexity in the Universe and at the same time, complexity and design seem to go together but 'design' does suggest a respective 'designer' alongside complexity. Is nature literally intelligent? no. But in any other sense yes.

Mistake made here.

thehomer:


What is foolish is that you're trying to argue a point that you do not understand. Codons are "translated" into various things including "STOP TRANSLATION"

And they are translated since they represent amino acids. You are being foolish.

thehomer:

They actually do. This is why I say you're too ignorant to be
trying to make this argument.

They don't. This is evidenced by the fact that two or more codons can represent the same amino acid. This point is buttressed by the fact that DNA codons have to translated into RNA codons which differ by the use of uracil instead of guanine. You are the ignorant one here.

thehomer:

Humans made the symbols for the genetic code table. The genetic code table represents actual molecules. It is humans generating the symbols not the molecules that are represented.

The actual molecules in the DNA are symbolic. They represent certain actions and objects.

thehomer:

Well I simply don't share your assumptions. If out of nothing, nothing comes, yet we have something, then that means something has always existed. Again, no God needed. There's an aspect of the universe that is also chaotic so . . . .

. . . it all comes down to one's assumptions on the matter. One may or may not presume that God created the universe.

thehomer:

Living things are also natural objects. After all, living things are also highly constrained in what they can affect. Is that a long winded way of saying that human artifacts aren't created by e.g the weather? You merely listed things that humans use or think are important. who says pulsars and the sun aren't important?

By definition, living things are a part of nature. This does not mean that they were made by natural processes that predated them. You completely evaded my point which challenged the ability of abiotic natural processes to have made and evolved living things.

thehomer:

Runs contrary to what principle? Who says the brain doesn't generate energy from chemical processes? You're saying that consciousness is a scientific mystery and that you therefore have the answer. That is an argument from ignorance.

Given, laws of chemistry that is all the brain should generate, energy, along with chemical products. Consciousness is an extra that can't be explained in terms of the former.

thehomer:

You don't think gravity has an effect on physical objects? I'm sorry but this ridiculousness needs to end somewhere.

No, gravity is not some thing or essence that attracts physical objects. The term gravity describes the attraction between objects, it isn't cause of that attraction.

UyiIredia:


You agree that natural processes can't make less complex coins and cars. Yet somehow it can make trees which are far more complex. Assuming for a moment that the universe could have existed without God I wouldn't expect living things to exist, since natural events lack the know-how, and consciousness would most surely not exist since it is not a property of matter, in fact we can't understand it in strictly material terms.

Uyi, your assumption is too convenient and unconvincing especially when I am already arguing that despite Nature's apparent intelligence, Nature has arrived at this point. We did not witness God planting trees and etc, so stop acting like we saw God do that' I am not going to follow your assumption that intelligence is fundamental in the beginning of the Universe. Which You have zero proof for but endless assumptions which I do not subscribe to.

Now to consciousness as a property of matter. Consciousness is self awareness of a subject of itself. he fact you being an entity that occurs space, isn't it an innate property of a human to be self aware?! Assuming consciousness is not a property of humans (matter) then what is it a property of:? Uyi you are really attracted to absurd positions.

That said, not every examples of codes are in nature. Morse codes and programming languages for instance, are artificial not natural. One could say codes are naturally occuring as things found in the context of the natural world around us but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the natural factors and activities that existed before life began had the ability to result in life and its genetic code (without God's divine hand).

This is the part you ignore the genetic code and 'talk' in long stretches about codes being languages etc. But the genetic code is natural and naturally occurring. Then you take us back to your fundamental assumption -- intelligence. BUT where you there when the genetic code was written?! And you assume how life arose.

A honest and proper look at the problem would show that this is impossible. The first thing to be kept in mind is that nature lacks foresight or will and so will not favor any event that could lead to a living thing or precursor. The next thing that precludes this is the problem of synthesis and organization, which are the making of materials used in lifeforms and the correct arrangement of such materials into an organism. Consciousness, simply deals the coupe de grace because it is absurd that material activities (in a brain) will effect a mind. Material activities, specifically chemical reactions are limited to physical effects such as the making of a new object and a release of energy. So why would a conscious mind exist ?

Isn't the consciousness similar to sight? The images and shapes that constitute sight are not pari material, hence the eye (being a physical entity) does not produce sight

UyiIredia:


Within the context, of a cell codons represent amino acids and the action of starting and stopping the making of amino acids. The rule which governs how codons represent amino acids and start and stop isn't dependent on natural law.




Natural processes lack the ability to make such things. In fact, we have no single instance of natural processes making codes. But we know humans make codes and we know they need intelligence to do so, hence the inference to a Creator God.




I think these are diversionary tactics. THC in a dead body won't affect any consciousness. It needs a conscious being to affect consciousness. I stated the problem consciousness poses for materialists. Answer it.

Don't you think there is no consciousness left in the dead body for it to have an effect?

UyiIredia:
This is a gross misstatement of what occurred. When asked for the distinction between natural laws and the genetic code, I pointed out that natural laws describe phenomena outside man's control while the genetic code describes how some physical objects represent others.

The precise wording is there for all to see.

It is if the reconfigured material did not exist before. I already explained that given the fact that humans can make new materials or it is evident that the mind is a creative force. I used this to infer that God (who has a mind) created the universe, unlike humans God isn't constricted by natural laws, He made them.

Stars can make new materials too. I can equally validly infer a star unconstrained which created everything.

Actually, I can very well imagine this universe to be godless as you do.

You can only imagine it if you don't believe that God is the source.

I don't think the facts support such a conclusion though. At this point, I have a few questions I would like you to answer. Please indulge me.

1) Do you think consciousness is immaterial ?

2) Do you believe life was created or it evolved ?

3) What do you think is the best argument against God's existence ?

Certainly

I think consciousness can be explained materially due to how inextricable from and dependent on the brain it is.

I think life arose from non life. I think it is meaningless to say life was created if the thing that did the creating is also alive. Therefore the only options I see are life arising from non life and life being eternal. The sort of life that we know cannot be eternal because we see it cease after a while, we know it wasn't always here on earth, and in whatever form it takes, virus or whale, it requires a body. Nothing with a body can be eternal in a universe where the big bang model applies, since there weren't always molecules. So i expect that life can from non life.

Arguments against the existence of God are dependent on arguments for God's existence. Each argument against can only be used to respond to a specific argument for. I find it impossible to compare the strength of one argument to another, since the arguments do not all respond to the same claim. However we can compare the strength of one argument for God to the strength of another, and the strongest argument would naturally require a stronger rebuttal.

I used to have difficulty with Anselm's ontological proof and it's modern variants by Godel and Plantinga. It's a bit of a task to figure out for yourself what is wrong with it. I like the kalam cosmological argument too. It forces you to really think.

UyiIredia:


And they are translated since they represent amino acids. You are being foolish.

This is another example of your stupidity. They aren't "translated" because they represent amino acids, they are "translated" because that is how the physical molecules interact.

UyiIredia:

They don't. This is evidenced by the fact that two or more codons can represent the same amino acid. This point is buttressed by the fact that DNA codons have to translated into RNA codons which differ by the use of uracil instead of guanine. You are the ignorant one here.

Again you're reading up stuff and trying to make an argument based on what you don't understand. Different codon sequences can be translated into an amino acid but multiple amino acids can't be interpreted from the same codon. That is because of the actual chemical interaction. Seriously, go back to school or take an online course rather than just saying rubbish.

UyiIredia:

The actual molecules in the DNA are symbolic. They represent certain actions and objects.

You are very very confused. A DNA molecule, a physical structure is symbolic of an action and a different object? Please what action and object does your chromosome 1 represent?

UyiIredia:

. . . it all comes down to one's assumptions on the matter. One may or may not presume that God created the universe.

If you're going to presume God did it, where is this God and why the presumption?

UyiIredia:

By definition, living things are a part of nature. This does not mean that they were made by natural processes that predated them. You completely evaded my point which challenged the ability of abiotic natural processes to have made and evolved living things.

You can challenge all you want but you've not actually presented evidence of a God and that he actually did anything at all. This is why I say you're making an argument from ignorance. You don't know how something happened therefore God did it. Even though we've not seen this God of yours.

UyiIredia:

Given, laws of chemistry that is all the brain should generate, energy, along with chemical products. Consciousness is an extra that can't be explained in terms of the former.

Economic theory can't be explained in terms of quarks so what is your point?

UyiIredia:

No, gravity is not some thing or essence that attracts physical objects. The term gravity describes the attraction between objects, it isn't cause of that attraction.

And you don't think that attraction has an effect on physical objects?

Do you need large, cheap expanse of lands for your religious purposes, like camping, convention grounds,

plz check this thread for it..

https://www.nairaland.com/2405069/big-deal-check-it-out

thehomer:


This is another example of your stupidity. They aren't "translated" because they represent amino acids, they are "translated" because that is how the physical molecules interact.

Translation of codes by humans and by computers involve the interaction of molecules. This doesn't change the codes represent something else. The same applies to the genetic code.

thehomer:
Again you're reading up stuff and trying to make an argument based on what you don't understand. Different codon sequences can be translated into an amino acid but multiple amino acids can't be interpreted from the same codon. That is because of the actual chemical interaction. Seriously, go back to school or take an online course rather than just saying rubbish.

That is by design. A system where multiple amino acids can be made from a codon is much more prone to error that one where multiple codons refer to the same amino acid. Again, you are being evasive my last post showed there's no preferential bonding between codons and amino acids, you failed to refute that.

thehomer:
You are very very confused. A DNA molecule, a physical structure is symbolic of an action and a different object? Please what action and object does your chromosome 1 represent?

Sequences of nucleobases (ie codons) in the DNA represent a start/stop action or various amino acids.

thehomer:
If you're going to presume God did it, where is this God and why the presumption?

You don't have to see God to be sure it's there. Order in the universe, life and consciousness suggests there is a God.

thehomer:
You can challenge all you want but you've not actually presented evidence of a God and that he actually did anything at all. This is why I say you're making an argument from ignorance. You don't know how something happened therefore God did it. Even though we've not seen this God of yours.

Actually, I have. Life isn't eternal. It was either created by a God or evolved by natural processes. If you can't defend your position that life originated naturally then my case is made more tenable.

thehomer:
Economic theory can't be explained in terms of quarks so what is your point?

The conceptual can't be explained in terms of the physical and your statement here simply strengthens that argument. The conclusion that it is a dilemma for materialism and that it shows there must be a God are appropriate.

thehomer:
And you don't think that attraction has an effect on physical
objects?

Objects attract. Attraction describes an action by objects. It isn't an effect of its own.

undercat:


Stars can make new materials too. I can equally validly infer a star unconstrained which created everything.

An amusing parody. Stars are material so their existence also demands an explanation. And as I've said earlier, humans create more than stars do, to deny that would be foolish.

undercat:

You can only imagine it if you don't believe that God is the source.

You don't have to believe in something to imagine it. Otherwise, authors of fictional entities would have to believe they actually exist.
You were silly to write this and that's putting it mildly.

undercat:

Certainly

I think consciousness can be explained materially due to how inextricable from and dependent on the brain it is.

At least, you agree that consciousness is immaterial. How would this material explanation of consciousness look like ?

undercat:

I think life arose from non life. I think it is meaningless to say life was created if the thing that did the creating is also alive. Therefore the only options I see are life arising from non life and life being eternal. The sort of life that we know cannot be eternal because we see it cease after a while, we know it wasn't always here on earth, and in whatever form it takes, virus or whale, it requires a body. Nothing with a body can be eternal in a universe where the big bang model applies, since there weren't always molecules. So i expect that life can from non life.

What is the evidence that shows that non-living things resulted in living things ?

undercat:

Arguments against the existence of God are dependent on arguments for God's existence. Each argument against can only be used to respond to a specific argument for. I find it impossible to compare the strength of one argument to another, since the arguments do not all respond to the same claim. However we can compare the strength of one argument for God to the strength of another, and the strongest argument would naturally require a stronger rebuttal.

I used to have difficulty with Anselm's ontological proof and it's modern variants by Godel and Plantinga. It's a bit of a task to figure out for yourself what is wrong with it. I like the kalam cosmological argument too. It forces you to really think.

Funny. I think it's the weakest argument. The argument from design is the strongest.

Kay17:

Don't you think there is no consciousness left in the dead body for it to have an effect?

Typical evasion. So, of all the points I made it was only that you responded to.

Kay17:


Uyi, your assumption is too convenient and unconvincing especially when I am already arguing that despite Nature's apparent intelligence, Nature has arrived at this point. We did not witness God planting trees and etc, so stop acting like we saw God do that' I am not going to follow your assumption that intelligence is fundamental in the beginning of the Universe. Which You have zero proof for but endless assumptions which I do not subscribe to.

Your bias blinds you. Nature made bacteria, it wasn't enough, it made fishes and reptiles while making plants, but that wasn't enough, it had to make mammals and humans with their minds. Meanwhile, a simple cup can nature not make. I don't think you see how much assumptions your position requires.

Kay17:

Now to consciousness as a property of matter. Consciousness is self awareness of a subject of itself. he fact you being an entity that occurs space, isn't it an innate property of a human to be self aware?! Assuming consciousness is not a property of humans (matter) then what is it a property of:? Uyi you are really attracted to absurd positions.

Consciousness is a property of humans, not the materials of which the humans are made of. You are making a fallacy of composition where you assume the parts have the property of the whole.

Kay17:

This is the part you ignore the genetic code and 'talk' in long stretches about codes being languages etc. But the genetic code is natural and naturally occurring. Then you take us back to your fundamental assumption -- intelligence. BUT where you there when the genetic code was written?! And you assume how life arose.

SMH. An atheist asking where you there. As if I must be there, were you there to see that natural activities made life ?

Kay17:

Isn't the consciousness similar to sight? The images and shapes that constitute sight are not pari material, hence the eye (being a physical entity) does not produce sight

How can images and shapes not be material ? They are. In any case, you evaded my point again. Don't expect any response for me here.

UyiIredia:


Translation of codes by humans and by computers involve the interaction of molecules. This doesn't change the codes represent something else. The same applies to the genetic code.

What else do they represent?

UyiIredia:

That is by design. A system where multiple amino acids can be made from a codon is much more prone to error that one where multiple codons refer to the same amino acid. Again, you are being evasive my last post showed there's no preferential bonding between codons and amino acids, you failed to refute that.

I'm telling you that you are wrong. That statement is false. A certain sequence of codons is translated into an amino acid. That is a chemical reaction thus the codon sequences aren't arbitrarily translated into any random amino acid.

UyiIredia:

Sequences of nucleobases (ie codons) in the DNA represent a start/stop action or various amino acids.

What action and object does your chromosome 1 represent?

UyiIredia:

You don't have to see God to be sure it's there. Order in the universe, life and consciousness suggests there is a God.

I have to detect him somehow. I disagree that they suggest there is a God.

UyiIredia:

Actually, I have. Life isn't eternal. It was either created by a God or evolved by natural processes. If you can't defend your position that life originated naturally then my case is made more tenable.

That is a classic argument from ignorance. Whether or not I'm able to defend my position doesn't make yours true. You have to show that your position is actually true. Firstly, life is a natural process and it is what happens to natural biological organisms. Secondly, how can you show that life was created by a God?

UyiIredia:

The conceptual can't be explained in terms of the physical and your statement here simply strengthens that argument. The conclusion that it is a dilemma for materialism and that it shows there must be a God are appropriate.

So a God is needed to explain economic theory? Are you serious?

UyiIredia:

Objects attract. Attraction describes an action by objects. It isn't an effect of its own.

I recall explaining that distinction to you and here you seem unable to understand or appreciate the fact that gravity is a natural phenomenon. I can be pedantic if I want but that isn't needed here. You think gravity is "tacked on" to the behaviour of objects. You don't seem to realize that it is the term we've given to the phenomenon observed.

When you have an actual explanation rather than simply asserting God, let me know.

thehomer:


What else do they represent?



I'm telling you that you are wrong. That statement is false. A certain sequence of codons is translated into an amino acid. That is a chemical reaction thus the codon sequences aren't arbitrarily translated into any random amino acid.



What action and object does your chromosome 1 represent?



I have to detect him somehow. I disagree that they suggest there is a God.



That is a classic argument from ignorance. Whether or not I'm able to defend my position doesn't make yours true. You have to show that your position is actually true. Firstly, life is a natural process and it is what happens to natural biological organisms. Secondly, how can you show that life was created by a God?



So a God is needed to explain economic theory? Are you serious?



I recall explaining that distinction to you and here you seem unable to understand or appreciate the fact that gravity is a natural phenomenon. I can be pedantic if I want but that isn't needed here. You think gravity is "tacked on" to the behaviour of objects. You don't seem to realize that it is the term we've given to the phenomenon observed.

When you have an actual explanation rather than simply asserting God, let me know.

I'll simply end things here. You are simply too ignorant, stubborn, deceptive and evasive.

UyiIredia:


Typical evasion. So, of all the points I made it was only that you responded to.

Uyi, I don't get what you are getting at. Alcohol and drugs have an effect on human consciousness when such consciousness is present. This statement, you disagreed to. But dragging a dead body along, without consciousness does not disprove how drugs and alcohol affect the human consciousness. EXCEPT you think I'm trying to say drugs creates consciousness WHICH will be very ridiculous.

Kay17:


Uyi, I don't get what you are getting at. Alcohol and drugs have an effect on human consciousness when such consciousness is present. This statement, you disagreed to. But dragging a dead body along, without consciousness does not disprove how drugs and alcohol affect the human consciousness. EXCEPT you think I'm trying to say drugs creates consciousness WHICH will be very ridiculous.

I didn't disagree with it, in fact, THC affects human consciousness.

UyiIredia:


Your bias blinds you. Nature made bacteria, it wasn't enough, it made fishes and reptiles while making plants, but that wasn't enough, it had to make mammals and humans with their minds. Meanwhile, a simple cup can nature not make. I don't think you see how much assumptions your position requires.

Consciousness is a property of humans, not the materials of which the humans are made of. You are making a fallacy of composition where you assume the parts have the property of the whole.

Why must intelligence be responsible for the beginning of the Universe?!

UyiIredia:


I didn't disagree with it, in fact, THC affects human consciousness.

So what was the gist of the dead body if not to derail the discussion?

thehomer:

You can challenge all you want but you've not actually presented evidence of a God and that he actually did anything at all. This is why I say you're making an argument from ignorance. You don't know how something happened therefore God did it. Even though we've not seen this God of yours.

The problem is that you have not provided actual evidence that the codons you mention just occurred out of thin air.

Kay17:


Why must intelligence be responsible for the beginning of the Universe?!

Kay17:

So what was the gist of the dead body if not to derail the discussion?

I think we should end the discussion here. Your questions avoid my point and are another invitation to back-and-forth statements that lead nowhere.

UyiIredia:
An amusing parody. Stars are material so their existence also demands an explanation. And as I've said earlier, humans create more than stars do, to deny that would be foolish.

The existence of an immaterial thing does not require explanation? What if I said the star is immaterial?

You don't have to believe in something to imagine it. Otherwise, authors of fictional entities would have to believe they actually exist.
You were silly to write this and that's putting it mildly.

Perhaps my point is a bit abstract. I'm sure you've heard someone say that "god" is not a concept that has any meaning. If they are correct, then you can not be said to imagine what "god" is. I'm making a similar point here. If you believe that God exists, and he is necessary for the world you are in to exist, then you cannot mean anything when you speak of a world without God, and you can't imagine it either.

For example, if you try to give properties to your godless world, the only properties you can give it are ones which you have already seen in the world with God, and since you can't have those properties if you don't have God, those properties cannot be given to a godless world. Properties include things like fundamental particles, waves, fields, etc. If you cannot give any properties you know of to a godless world, what then do you imagine a godless world will look like?

At least, you agree that consciousness is immaterial. How would this material explanation of consciousness look like ?

I don't agree. I can't say what the explanation will end up being, but there have been attempts in that direction with examples like the integrated information theory and the electromagnetic theory of consciousness.

What is the evidence that shows that non-living things resulted in living things ?

I don't understand what you mean by evidence.

Funny. I think it's the weakest argument. The argument from design is the strongest.

The argument from design is okay. It's very easy to attack though, since it's quite obvious that accepting that there is design inevitably leads to the designer. One simply has ask what is meant by design. The argument also leaves you with the big question of who designed the designer, which makes it unsatisfactory for atheists who typically want as many answers as possible.

UyiIredia:




I think we should end the discussion here. Your questions avoid my point and are another invitation to back-and-forth statements that lead nowhere.

It is better we go to the roots of your arguments. Otherwise we will keep missing each other on the way and keep going back and forth.

Again I repeat, you believe that intelligence is the necessary cause of all complexities (including the Universe). The natural question I'd ask is, is it in all cases. And you would as usual say yes. In reply, the particular experience you have humans of exercising their intelligence, is not the same as a universal experience. Therefore the conclusions you can make out of it, is at best inductive.