UyiIredia:

Why do you say that ?

UyiIredia:


This really doesn't work out for you. I can spin it against you by asking why somehow a complex universe and even more complex life don't have a designer.

(this will be the first assumption)
First you will have to determine what an undesigned universe will look like, point out the factors that you think helps your case that the universe is designed. . .we'll see how good that will help you

I would tell you that designer doesn't have to be complex, being non-physical it isn't composed of various parts.

Finally, I can simply assert that this even-more complex entity always existd just as you assume of the complex universe.

So you see, this really is not an good argument at all, unless you are dishonest.

By the way, saying houses are inanimate, or that 'organic matter are known to reproduce' doesn't help your case. It simply shows how much more complex living things are compared to houses.

UyiIredia:


No, God is eternal. He has always existed.

Brown47:

thats if you can explain eternal for me.

frank317:

Pls kindly tell me how you got to know this. Thank you

frank317:


Pls kindly tell me how you got to know this. Thank you

johnydon22:
(this will be the first assumption)
First you will have to determine what an undesigned universe will look like, point out the factors that you think helps your case that the universe is designed. . .we'll see how good that will help you

johnydon22:
(second assumption)
And then your designer claim simply would be dismissed because non-physical and has no parts amounts to NOTHING. . .it really isn't worth arguing over

johnydon22:
(third assumption)
It is settled then, the universe can always have existed infinitely backwards and therefore doesn't need this your complex entity to exist. . . . and this part eliminates your designer entity entirely...

johnydon22:
Yeah everything you just stated up there ranging from things you may come up to argue for your designer is clear enough to show everyone that its all a blatant show of ASSUMPTIONS. . .and am sure that assumptions is the greatest form of delusion .

johnydon22:
It shows organic matters are able to develop, multiply and evolve without this your designer being in the picture.

lets assume a designer actually designed the universe, first there is no way you could know anything about it only assumptions, thats why i took time to give a detailed labeled tag of assumptions to all the points you thought you could assume up to argue for your designer hypothesis.

Very funny you really need to step up your game because with all this you mentioned its not hard to discern you are still learning.

UyiIredia:


This is bollocks. Do you know how a designed universe must look to determine that this one was not designed ?

Nonsense. Just because it's non-physical doesn't man it's nothing. Time, love and beauty are non-physical, they aren't nothing.

Hahahahahaha i am damned. .

TIME is a human concept that determines duration not an entity. . just a concept (an idea)

LOVE is an emotion and not an entity..

BEAUTY is a concept to depict a view that is pleasurable to the eyes, views are physical and therefore beauty is dependent on the physical and again beauty is not an entity..

Have you seen why i said you are still young at this? when you start comparing human ideas like time, love and beauty to a supposed living entity (GOD) shows you are still new to the world of logic. . unless you would say your concept of god is not a living entity but just an idea after all

This shows how your bias clouds your judgement. You believe that the universe could always have existed. When I assert the same of God you insist He must have had a designer.

Actually, assumptions aren't delusional. Science itself typically involves assumptions. We also assume many things in everyday life.

What is the evidence that shows life arose and evolved naturally ?

Everything around the universe and the universe itself is nature. life is part of nature and so is nature..every PROCESS in the dimension of nature is nature. . .You live in a natural universe and ask how NATURAL life sprang forth in a NATURAL universe... Thats a huge cognitive blunder if you ask me... Since you agree life is NATURAL, your question already is self answered unless you would like to argue life isn't natural

johnydon22:
Since you do not know your criteria that determines a designed universe, isn't it better you just drop the argument to avoid more of your assumptions

johnydon22:
[quote author=johnydon22 post=35618663]
Hahahahahaha i am damned. . TIME is a human concept that determines duration not an entity. . just a concept (an idea)

LOVE is an emotion and not a entity..

BEAUTY is a concept to depict a view that is pleasurable to the eyes, views are physical and therefore beauty is dependent on the physical and again beauty is not an entity..

Have you seen why i said you are still young at this? when you start comparing human ideas like time, love and beauty to a supposed living entity (GOD) shows you are still new to the world of logic. . unless you would say your concept of god is not a living entity but just an idea after all

johnydon22:
Nope the universe is the combination of everything there is and to assert a source for the universe still means that source is part of the universe.

By employing an independent source which by definition there is no way you could have known brings the chain of infinite regress into play. . since an entity independent of the universe made the universe, it must also mean an entity independent of that entity made that entity and so it spans into the chain of infinite regress.

But since the universe is EVERYTHING in existence, it takes only common sense to know whatever was, is and will be still are part of the universe.

johnydon22:
Scientific method: Study, experiment and observations. . . its blatantly distinct from this your ASSUMPTIVE method which is plain delusion. . there you go, you just agreed all your assertions and claims of a designer are just assumptions

johnydon22:
Everything around the universe and the universe itself is nature. life is part of nature and so is nature. . .You live in a natural universe and ask how NATURAL life sprang forth in a NATURAL universe... Thats a huge cognitive blunder if you ask me... Since you agree life is NATURAL, your question already is self answered unless you would like to argue life isn't natural

UyiIredia:
There are actually reasons to believe this universe is designed.

timonski:
So what are your reasons for believing that the Universe was designed?

UyiIredia:


That is how God is by definition. If God is not eternal, that means He isn't omnipresent since He hasn't always existed and one of God's qualities is in question.

UyiIredia:


http

frank317:


What? thats not an answer to mo my question. How did you know God is eternal and that he has no body parts? and you give me that poo?

i even thought you weren't joking. thanks for wasting my time.

timonski:

Look, 'design' is an illusion of the senses. We always know a phenomenal reality- a reality of apperances. We know reality as it appears to us by the categories of our knowledge. We never know the noumenic aspect of reality- reality as it is in itself.
When we apply our knowledge to matters beyond experience, we fall into antinomies of reason.

UyiIredia:


Design is not an illusion. If we don't know reality as it is then science is a waste of time. Through reason, we can actually know reality in itself.

timonski:

Science can only study the phenomenal reality, dude.
So what kind of design is found in sand dunes? If so, who designed them?

UyiIredia:


It's probably best you think it's not an answer. Going by your reaction any answer I give will be lost on you. Good day.

UyiIredia:


No, God is eternal. He has always existed.

UyiIredia:

Eternal means that something has always existed.