Gracealone:
Thank you for this question. I pray that your hunger transcends the knowledge about God, but may it become a burning desire to encounter His person and power, in the mighty name of Jesus.

When God revealed His name “I AM” to Moses at the burning bush, He was revealing something very important about Himself, namely, that He is self-existent; He has the power of being in and of Himself. He depends on nothing and no one for His existence.

This is the idea of self-existence, or what is called in theology the concept of aseity. This attribute captures all of the glory of the perfection of God’s being. What makes God different from people, from the stars, from earthquakes, and from any other creaturely thing is that God—and God alone—has aseity; He alone exists by His own power. No one made Him or caused Him. He exists in and of Himself. This is a quality that no creature shares. People are not self-existent; neither are cars or stars. Only God has the concept of self-existence.

God bless you, in the mighty name of Jesus.

Just taable ke a look at the rubbish this one is spewing here ..

All your claims can't even pass scrutiny.
And you are making use of the bible . If you decide to go that way I'm going to tell you about the flaws of the bible also

God.

LordReed:


Well the failure will be yours. How do you believe a god that has no verifiable evidence? How are you better than those who believed in Thor and Ogun until we saw there was no god in the skies hurling thunder?

How is it my fault if your senses are dead?
How does one convey to the blind the evidence of colour?
How does one convey to the deaf the evidence of quietness?

How does one explain Stammering to the deaf?
How does one explain the idea of ugly to the blind?

My God can't be brought into the laboratory: unfortunately for you.

About other gods like Thor, Vishnu, Amadioha and Ogun; I've never denied their existence. Their idols are simply what their adherents use as a physical representation of them. Any demon can claim to be Thor or Vishnu

dragonflyy:

to answer your first question, hera qualifies as much as a true god as any of the other 4000 odd deities that mankind has, and does, revere. tell me why she is not a god please. she has as much evidence 4 existence as ur chosen deity.

I am not concerned about the question of Hera's existence at the moment, just about your claim that she is a god by definition. So, I must repeat my question:

what qualifies Hera as a god? By what definition is Hera a god?

dragonflyy:

to answer ur second question, yahweh, the xtian god had a beginning in d sumerian pantheon, and was a minor war god with his wife asherah in the babylonian pantheon. asherah was worshipped in home hearths 4 many centuries by the "israelites" as archeology has confirmed. both were appropriaties (as were the tales of noah) by the hebrews and later the israelites and formed d origins of d pentateuch/torah. a quick trip or survey of d tel aviv university dept of archeology will bear out everything i've written down but then again, truth is often elusive for most theists.

Given that these claims are quite outlandish, even if I could afford to travel to Israel, I would need more reason to than what you have provided here to justify such expense. Why do you make the claims that you do?

First, the fact that the Christian God was ever considered part of a pantheon does not in any way at all give Him a beginning. The first time that you hear of something or begin to acknowledge something is not when it begins to exist. That is exactly the same as thinking that the sun began to exist when you first noticed it. That the Christian God may have been worshipped as part of a pantheon then does not mean that He began to exist when that worship began to be given to Him. That is basic common sense.

Second, that Asherah was worshiped by the ancient Israelites is no proof of any kind that the Lord was ever Asherah's consort. That would be the same as saying that Anna Kendrick must be Ryan Reynolds' wife just because we like them both married to each other. They're not though, regardless how much we want that to be the case. Furthermore, the Bible does teach that the ancient Israelites did worship Asherah while pretending to themselves that they worshipped the Lord as well. That was madness since the Lord is the only God and He is opposed to worship of any other thing pretending to be God as well.

Third, none of this in any way shows how the Lord had a beginning. All you have actually said is that a trip to a university's department of archaeology would make anyone who took it see that the Lord was part of a pantheon in which He was worshiped as a minor God by ancient Israelites. If that is an acceptable proof, then it is even more acceptable that an ancient collection of books says that the Lord was the self-existent Creator of the Universe Who is actively confronting and soundly crushing the rebellion of a third of His angels, who now masquerade as gods in His Earth, as well as the rebellion of many of the human beings that He created to replace them, but then Truth is exceptionally elusive to all atheists.

Fourth, archaeology is an imprecise affair. That something old was found someplace does not necessarily say anything about anything way back when. We can tell far more about ancient history by reading things written back then than by discovering objects that we can date to this or that era. Imagine learning about this period in history by finding a non-stick pan a thousand years from now. That would tell you that we had such tools, but it won't tell you just what kind of gods we worshipped. So, while we can learn a few things from the old things we find buried in the sands of time, it is pretty arrogant to assume that we can tell everything about a people just by finding their pots and pans and whatnot.

Finally, I don't see any proof for what you claim about the production of the Torah or any part of the Bible. Lots of people pretend and claim all kinds of things, but whether it is all true remains to be seen.

shadeyinka:
It is impossible for order to come out of chaos

Explain Snowflakes, crystals, flowers, the golden ratio, Planck Time and the evolution of order from chaos. Why would our physics break down at Planck Time if order continued?

Yes, simply because God has never been described as "hard"!

Then how would you know? What valid, logical proof can you possibly use to determine the existence of a god that isn't empirical? I, personally, would love to hear about this new field of inquiry. Or are you just making an inane assertion?

The big bang actually proves that the universe has a beginning: so, it couldn't have created itself

How can you prove this? This is a fallacious God of the Gaps argument. All you've done is insert your god at the origin of everything! If you can do it, well so can I!

Thus, the blue universe-creating pixies and the Big Yellow Banana are the actual creators of your god! Proof? Sorry. They defy science!

shadeyinka:

How is it my fault if your senses are dead?
How does one convey to the blind the evidence of colour?
How does one convey to the deaf the evidence of quietness?

How does one explain Stammering to the deaf?
How does one explain the idea of ugly to the blind?

My God can't be brought into the laboratory: unfortunately for you.

About other gods like Thor, Vishnu, Amadioha and Ogun; I've never denied their existence. Their idols are simply what their adherents use as a physical representation of them. Any demon can claim to be Thor or Vishnu

Oh yeah, the imaginary sense of seeing spirits, right? Angels performed all manner of things in the bible quite physically, now that we are in the day and age of the ubiquitous camera no angel has been recorded, not even once. There are thousands of churches holding several services per week which are recorded, not one angel has showed up. The pastors tell their congregations, there are angels all around, yet not 1 time is there a video record of an angel. Then we get people like you telling us we can't see them because we don't have a special sense. LoL. Scam artistes used to use that line in the ancient time to deceive people, you choosing such tactics only makes you appear like a jester.

Who cares if your god cannot be brought into the laboratory? How does that affect the price of garri in the market? Your god is irrelevant in any thing that actually matters.

Other gods are just as fictitious as yours that's why when we looked, they all disappeared.

XxSabrinaxX:

Explain Snowflakes, crystals, flowers, the golden ratio, Planck Time and the evolution of order from chaos. Why would our physics break down at Planck Time if order continued?

Snowflakes and crystals are not caused by chaos but by order in the arrangement of the H-O-H bond in water molecules (109.5 degrees). The fractals you see are from this. This apply to every atomic or molecular crystals.

All Physical laws breakdown as we approach time t=0 of the big bang simply because virtually all the constants you know are tied to the existence of mass.

I don't understand what you mean by
"Why would our physics break down at Planck Time if order continued?"

But, can one discuss planks time without reference to Planck mass?
At time t=0 mass doesn't exist.

Order in flowers!? I don't understand!

XxSabrinaxX:

Then how would you know? What valid, logical proof can you possibly use to determine the existence of a god that isn't empirical? I, personally, would love to hear about this new field of inquiry. Or are you just making an inane assertion?

1. The impossibility of an infinite regression of "cause and effect". At a point, you must arrive at a "First Cause": this "First Cause" as a necessity cannot be made of atoms or the things that were "caused".
God as the First Cause cannot be made of physics and chemistry.
2. Impossibility of a computer code self existing.
The DNA is more than a code, it is a library of codes that builds and make an organism. If you can show that given 26 letters of the alphabet and the numerals one can perform random permutations and arrive at a logic code then you win.
A code need a Programmer!

3. Origin of consciousness and self awareness. If you can show how chemical reactions can produce molecules with irritability (irritability is a function of sensory receptors linked with identity).

Have I proved God? No!
I can't. But I've given you issues to think about (if you want)

XxSabrinaxX:

How can you prove this? This is a fallacious God of the Gaps argument. All you've done is insert your god at the origin of everything! If you can do it, well so can I!

Thus, the blue universe-creating pixies and the Big Yellow Banana are the actual creators of your god! Proof? Sorry. They defy science!

Everyone has his/her own God.
Yours is the God of self.

And, there are millions of god's, your addition to the list is amusing though!
The pixes have colour= blue
And edible! Yum Yum!!!!

LordReed:


Oh yeah, the imaginary sense of seeing spirits, right? Angels performed all manner of things in the bible quite physically, now that we are in the day and age of the ubiquitous camera no angel has been recorded, not even once. There are thousands of churches holding several services per week which are recorded, not one angel has showed up. The pastors tell their congregations, there are angels all around, yet not 1 time is there a video record of an angel. Then we get people like you telling us we can't see them because we don't have a special sense. LoL. Scam artistes used to use that line in the ancient time to deceive people, you choosing such tactics only makes you appear like a jester.

Who cares if your god cannot be brought into the laboratory? How does that affect the price of garri in the market? Your god is irrelevant in any thing that actually matters.

Other gods are just as fictitious as yours that's why when we looked, they all disappeared.

I couldn't help but smile at your "naivity". Angels on camera!! Does it look to you like in the scriptures angels appeared every day to people even in the synagogues? I am sure you are thinking of angels as humanoids with big wings! LOL!!

Only the blind will describe the description of colour RED as imaginary!

Only the deaf would describe the explanation of "quietness" as scam!

Irrespective of all denials, the TRUTH is invariant! At the end of the day, it's your choice to shut God out of your existence or not: it's your right (you have the gift of free will)

shadeyinka:

I couldn't help but smile at your "naivity". Angels on camera!! Does it look to you like in the scriptures angels appeared every day to people even in the synagogues? I am sure you are thinking of angels as humanoids with big wings! LOL!!

Only the blind will describe the description of colour RED as imaginary!

Only the deaf would describe the explanation of "quietness" as scam!

Irrespective of all denials, the TRUTH is invariant! At the end of the day, it's your choice to shut God out of your existence or not: it's your right (you have the gift of free will)

Yes they had big wings when they sat and ate with Abraham and when they visited Lot that's why the bible doesn't record it. Your sarcasm falls flat.

Any truth that can't withstand scrutiny is fake.

LordReed:


Yes they had big wings when they sat and ate with Abraham and when they visited Lot that's why the bible doesn't record it. Your sarcasm falls flat.

Any truth that can't withstand scrutiny is fake.

And how different from humans were these angels who visited Abraham? It's exactly why the bible records it (three men) you wouldn't have known that unless your senses are alive.

Gen 18:2: "and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,"

Even when you see them on camera, they'll be ordinary men to you.

You got your evidence!

The TRUTH will always stand in the face of scrutiny

shadeyinka:

And how different from humans were these angels who visited Abraham? It's exactly why the bible records it (three men) you wouldn't have known that unless your senses are alive.

Gen 18:2: "and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,"

Even when you see them on camera, they'll be ordinary men to you.

You got your evidence!

The TRUTH will always stand in the face of scrutiny

LMFAO! At last you admit that they don't require special senses to be seen. Now how are these being known? They preform or say extraordinary things. If these so called angels present themselves in any church or congregation of people being recorded on film then they should be recorded doing extraordinary things. It's that simple.

Any truth that cannot withstand scrutiny is fake, like sky based gods.

.

LordReed:


LMFAO! At last you admit that they don't require special senses to be seen. Now how are these being known? They preform or say extraordinary things. If these so called angels present themselves in any church or congregation of people being recorded on film then they should be recorded doing extraordinary things. It's that simple.

Any truth that cannot withstand scrutiny is fake, like sky based gods.

So, you see a man amongst hundreds in a church from your TV set, how does that prove anything to you?

The Truth isn't always revealed with science. What instrument is there to verify that "I dreamt of eating pounded yam with Donald Trump"?
How would you objectively scrutinize this Truth?
How do you objectively scrutinize my claim of loving my wife?

Different tools for different things my dear. You cannot measure electromagnetic energy with weighing balance: not possible!!

God cannot be brought to your laboratory. Open your Spiritual eyes!

ok

shadeyinka:

So, you see a man amongst hundreds in a church from your TV set, how does that prove anything to you?

The Truth isn't always revealed with science. What instrument is there to verify that "I dreamt of eating pounded yam with Donald Trump"?
How would you objectively scrutinize this Truth?
How do you objectively scrutinize my claim of loving my wife?

Different tools for different things my dear. You cannot measure electromagnetic energy with weighing balance: not possible!!

God cannot be brought to your laboratory. Open your Spiritual eyes!

Are you skipping where I said they need to be recorded doing extraordinary things? Maybe you need to open your physical eyes.

Who said anything about truth being revealed by science?

Yes we cannot scrutinise what type of dream you had so therefore you cannot make a truth claim based on your dream. You can't claim that you eating pounded yam with Donald Trump is true, your dream is an illusion. We can only accept the possibility that you did indeed dream because it is well established that human beings dream.

Internal mental states can be scrutinised in the effects they produce or else therapy would never work. You claim you love your wife, we can scrutinise that claim by your actions and mannerisms. Unless you don't understand the meaning of the word or you are merely giving platitudes, the effect of your mental state of loving will be congruent with the expected effects of loving.

This is not fairytales from an ancient book, this is real life.

LordReed:


Are you skipping where I said they need to be recorded doing extraordinary things? Maybe you need to open your physical eyes.

Please call them down if you have that authority. I believe you can do that just as well you can call down Buhari to prove to you he is the president of Nigeria.

LordReed:


Who said anything about truth being revealed by science?

That is what you've always insinuated. You want the camera to show them perform physical see-able things.

LordReed:

Yes we cannot scrutinise what type of dream you had so therefore you cannot make a truth claim based on your dream. You can't claim that you eating pounded yam with Donald Trump is true, your dream is an illusion. We can only accept the possibility that you did indeed dream because it is well established that human beings dream.

You didn't read my post.
A dream is true if it is faithful related. It has nothing to do with with the physical.
"I dreamed I ate pounded yam with Donald Trump may be true"
"I ate pounded yam with Donald Trump will need a verification"

LordReed:

Internal mental states can be scrutinised in the effects they produce or else therapy would never work. You claim you love your wife, we can scrutinise that claim by your actions and mannerisms. Unless you don't understand the meaning of the word or you are merely giving platitudes, the effect of your mental state of loving will be congruent with the expected effects of loving.

This is not fairytales from an ancient book, this is real life.

No!
I could act love to my wife because her father is Dangote and I don't want to be cut out of his will. Every act you see would look like love BUT it isn't. It is a pretense!

Actions and Mannerism do not prove love!

shadeyinka:

Please call them down if you have that authority. I believe you can do that just as well you can call down Buhari to prove to you he is the president of Nigeria.

And so we reach the absurd.

That is what you've always insinuated. You want the camera to show them perform physical see-able things.

How is wanting a video record of angels the same as saying science reveals truth?

You didn't read my post.
A dream is true if it is faithful related. It has nothing to do with with the physical.
"I dreamed I ate pounded yam with Donald Trump may be true"
"I ate pounded yam with Donald Trump will need a verification"

Look up the meaning of truth.

No!
I could act love to my wife because her father is Dangote and I don't want to be cut out of his will. Every act you see would look like love BUT it isn't. It is a pretense!

Actions and Mannerism do not prove love!

A psychologist can evaluate your claim and reveal your deception.

LordReed:


And so we reach the absurd.


How is wanting a video record of angels the same as saying science reveals truth?



Look up the meaning of truth.



A psychologist can evaluate your claim and reveal your deception.

You want a video evidence!?
Look for it!
For he who seeks find.

I remember, people like you once asked my Master for a sign.

Look at the meaning of "Lie"!

A video is just an instrument of documentation.

And you believe a Psychologist cannot be fooled!? Even lie detectors have been fooled.

shadeyinka:

You want a video evidence!?
Look for it!
For he who seeks find.

I remember, people like you once asked my Master for a sign.

LMFAO! Story!

Look at the meaning of "Lie"!

Deflection

A video is just an instrument of documentation.

So?

And you believe a Psychologist cannot be fooled!? Even lie detectors have been fooled.

So?

LordReed:


LMFAO! Story!

Deflection

So?

So?

It means you don't have any case of defense!

shadeyinka:

It means you don't have any case of defense!

It is you defending the indefensible.

shadeyinka:

Snowflakes and crystals are not caused by chaos but by order in the arrangement of the H-O-H bond in water molecules (109.5 degrees). The fractals you see are from this. This apply to every atomic or molecular crystals.

All Physical laws breakdown as we approach time t=0 of the big bang simply because virtually all the constants you know are tied to the existence of mass.

I don't understand what you mean by
"Why would our physics break down at Planck Time if order continued?"

But, can one discuss planks time without reference to Planck mass?
At time t=0 mass doesn't exist.

Order in flowers!? I don't understand!

All living systems (including our own human systems, as much as we may deceive ourselves to the contrary) emerge naturally with chaos as the over-riding organising force. You see order, you are quite simply not moving far enough down the ladder of atomic structures
=> https://thenatureofbusiness.org/2012/07/12/chaos-is-not-order-it-is-the-highest-form-of-order/

1. The impossibility of an infinite regression of "cause and effect". At a point, you must arrive at a "First Cause": this "First Cause" as a necessity cannot be made of atoms or the things that were "caused".
God as the First Cause cannot be made of physics and chemistry.

1> If a god has always existed, how is it not in itself any infinite regress?
2> If there is no infinite regress, you don't get to create an exception with your imaginary god. What created this particular "god"? Either it was created or an infinite regress is possible
3> Even if you and I agree that the universe has a cause and was not self contained, how do you get to a "god" VS any billions of natural causes (Blue Universe-creating Pixies topping my list)? So given there was a first cause, how do you arrive at a "god"? What if a magical rock initiated the universe?

Postulating a primordial source as a remedy against infinite regression is not a solution. The concept of a primordial source prompts, at once, the question for its cause. To say it is "causa sui" - the usual answer of Christian Philosophy - does not answer the question but rejects it. This is still a fallacious argument where something is an exception to a general rule, while the exception is not justified. The crux of any theoritical postulation is that you can talk all day, but any intellectual conclusion you reach is absolutely worthless if cannot be tested. And if we cannot test a proposition and produce results, the intellectually honest thing to do is admit "I do not know".

2. Impossibility of a computer code self existing.
The DNA is more than a code, it is a library of codes that builds and make an organism. If you can show that given 26 letters of the alphabet and the numerals one can perform random permutations and arrive at a logic code then you win.
A code need a Programmer!

LOL. You are using this logic: "DNA acts much like a code, therefore it is a code, and the only thing that can create code is an intelligent being".

Well sorry mate, but using an analogy to attempt to prove something is not only fallacious, but intellectually dishonest. Analogies are only metaphorical representations to clarify a statement or something complex that it is. Prove what you are trying to prove without using an analogy. Calling DNA "code" or "a library of codes" makes things easier for many people to understand. All DNA is is deoxyribose backbone with nucleotides on it. They are chemicals!

Nevertheless, if you think that DNA contains information, then information can be created by nature (via evolution). The problem is that you deny evolution and hence deny that nature can create DNA. Or don't you, shadeyinka? Regardless of the mental masturbation you and your ilk do with word games, hmm?

3. Origin of consciousness and self awareness. If you can show how chemical reactions can produce molecules with irritability (irritability is a function of sensory receptors linked with identity).

If this was thousands of years ago, we might say that thunder and lightning proves the existence of god(s) because then, we'd be at a complete loss as to how the f*ck thunder and lightning works. Yes. There was a time we could not explain thunder! Whatever created consciousness might be the christian god, or some god-like entity (intelligent or unintelligent), or multiple things... however, a god really doesn't fill the gap because now you have to explain god. God or gods are not some innocuous thing. What is god's consciousness like? What is shadeyinka's? Why does he get to be a male and I don't? Why does god get to be god? If he created us, what created him? Why does he have the ability to not be created, but our consciousness doesn't? What about spiders? They can't perceive close to what we can. Does that mean they're less alive? But they do have some specific perceptions that we don't. If both our respective realities are created by the brain, is the brain just clock work?

Inserting a god offers no solution. Only convolution

Everyone has his/her own God.
Yours is the God of self.

And, there are millions of god's, your addition to the list is amusing though!
The pixes have colour= blue
And edible! Yum Yum!!!!

I keep trying to tell people that it was my Divine Invisible Universe-creating Pixies and Immaculate Unicorns that created Yahweh out of non-corporeal semi-antimatter that is neither atomic nor chemical. But does anyone ever listen to me?.... NOOOOooooo.....

Oh. By the way, Yahweh appeared to me in the shape of a turd inside my toilet bowl. He told me to warn you to stop crediting him with random occurences so as not annoy his master, the Big Yellow Banana!

LordReed:


It is you defending the indefensible.

It's you bro defending the indefensible! (The universe created itself; DNA came about by random permutations to make proteins; etc etc)

Before I say anythingnow, you'll be screaming "God of Gaps fallacy!"

Unfortunately, even science has shown that it is impossible to unravel the mystery of the creation of time and matter!

You sound more like "four legs good...two legs bad!" of the animal farm. Anything else will do as long as that thing isn't God!

shadeyinka:

It's you bro defending the indefensible! (The universe created itself; DNA came about by random permutations to make proteins; etc etc)

Before I say anythingnow, you'll be screaming "God of Gaps fallacy!"

Unfortunately, even science has shown that it is impossible to unravel the mystery of the creation of time and matter!

You sound more like "four legs good...two legs bad!" of the animal farm. Anything else will do as long as that thing isn't God!

Can you show where I defended any of the strawmen that you just dreamed up?

You who joyfully appropriate the appallation sheep, are attempting to point fingers? Bwahahahaha how so very rich.

When you have evidence for your god then it will be better than anything else. Till then, sayonara.

I almost thought you disappeared!

XxSabrinaxX:

All living systems (including our own human systems, as much as we may deceive ourselves to the contrary) emerge naturally with chaos as the over-riding organising force. You see order, you are quite simply not moving far enough down the ladder of atomic structures
=> https://thenatureofbusiness.org/2012/07/12/chaos-is-not-order-it-is-the-highest-form-of-order/

Are you aware that this your statement violates the Law of Entropy?
It is impossible for chaos to cause an order without an external energy applied in a controlled manner.

XxSabrinaxX:

1> If a god has always existed, how is it not in itself any infinite regress?

An infinite regression is a never ending re-initiation of change. If God had always existed, it implies a termination of regression projected into the past. It implies that God is the origin of every change. The irreducible factor of existence.

XxSabrinaxX:

2> If there is no infinite regress, you don't get to create an exception with your imaginary god. What created this particular "god"? Either it was created or an infinite regress is possible

If God was material, we can speak of His creation. But God isn't made of material matter and energy. God is SPIRIT (Conscious Immaterial Self-existing Identity).

XxSabrinaxX:

3> Even if you and I agree that the universe has a cause and was not self contained, how do you get to a "god" VS any billions of natural causes (Blue Universe-creating Pixies topping my list)? So given there was a first cause, how do you arrive at a "god"? What if a magical rock initiated the universe?

Interestingly, theoretically, there could be several "gods" rather than ONE single creator God. But, I know only ONE Creator God and several other gods. You don't believe any God/gods, so how I got to know just one Creator God is of no use to you.

XxSabrinaxX:

Postulating a primordial source as a remedy against infinite regression is not a solution. The concept of a primordial source prompts, at once, the question for its cause. To say it is "causa sui" - the usual answer of Christian Philosophy - does not answer the question but rejects it. This is still a fallacious argument where something is an exception to a general rule, while the exception is not justified. The crux of any theoritical postulation is that you can talk all day, but any intellectual conclusion you reach is absolutely worthless if cannot be tested. And if we cannot test a proposition and produce results, the intellectually honest thing to do is admit "I do not know".

If God isn't the Origin or termination of "infinite regression" with respect to the origin of things, then what is it? (for since an infinite regression is impossible, one must certainly have a Primary Source of all things.)

With which instrument do you think you will need to test/evaluate/quantify/detect/measure God if He is the maker of all Physical Laws, Constants, Matter and their interactions? All these things came to being at/after the Big Bang.

The answer is certainly NOT "I don't know!": For such is an escapist answer. There is certainly at least a Creator God: however, we can argue about His nature, ability, name etc. But there must be a SOURCE: this source I call GOD.

XxSabrinaxX:

LOL. You are using this logic: "DNA acts much like a code, therefore it is a code, and the only thing that can create code is an intelligent being".

Well sorry mate, but using an analogy to attempt to prove something is not only fallacious, but intellectually dishonest. Analogies are only metaphorical representations to clarify a statement or something complex that it is. Prove what you are trying to prove without using an analogy. Calling DNA "code" or "a library of codes" makes things easier for many people to understand. All DNA is is deoxyribose backbone with nucleotides on it. They are chemicals!

Nevertheless, if you think that DNA contains information, then information can be created by nature (via evolution). The problem is that you deny evolution and hence deny that nature can create DNA. Or don't you, shadeyinka? Regardless of the mental masturbation you and your ilk do with word games, hmm?

An analogy is a perfect way of presenting or explaining a new phenomenon using already established knowledge. In that sense, it is perfectly logical and sensible.

1. Do you have an objection to the fact that the DNA is a library of codes?
2. Do you think given an unlimited number of trials (of throwing alphanumerics on the ground) with the 26 letters and numerals a computer code can write itself?

If your answer to these questions are NO, why do you think given a long enough time, atoms can arrange themselves in such a way as to convey data, instructions and logics?

XxSabrinaxX:

If this was thousands of years ago, we might say that thunder and lightning proves the existence of god(s) because then, we'd be at a complete loss as to how the f*ck thunder and lightning works. Yes. There was a time we could not explain thunder! Whatever created consciousness might be the christian god, or some god-like entity (intelligent or unintelligent), or multiple things... however, a god really doesn't fill the gap because now you have to explain god. God or gods are not some innocuous thing. What is god's consciousness like? What is shadeyinka's? Why does he get to be a male and I don't? Why does god get to be god? If he created us, what created him? Why does he have the ability to not be created, but our consciousness doesn't? What about spiders? They can't perceive close to what we can. Does that mean they're less alive? But they do have some specific perceptions that we don't. If both our respective realities are created by the brain, is the brain just clock work?

Inserting a god offers no solution. Only convolution

Unfortunately, the fact that you seem yourself to be conscious suggests that you aren't the only one who could be conscious.
The question to ask is how can a collection of "unconscious" atoms suddenly acquire "consciousness"?

Is consciousness just about chemicals acting on other chemicals?

If we are to project backwards, we must arrive at the FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS in the universe: as Christians, we call Him the SOURCE.

Do you think you that cannot unravel the mystery of your own Consciousness can dissect that of the SOURCE?

You worship the brain as if it is the giver of Consciousness neglecting the software that controls the brain and make it function. It's simply like exalting the CPU and Memory of a computer without referencing the SOFTWARE that make it function.

I submit that Consciousness isn't about chemicals interacting with atoms BUT the SOFTWARE that is written by the SOURCE Himself.

XxSabrinaxX:

I keep trying to tell people that it was my Divine Invisible Universe-creating Pixies and Immaculate Unicorns that created Yahweh out of non-corporeal semi-antimatter that is neither atomic nor chemical. But does anyone ever listen to me?.... NOOOOooooo.....

Oh. By the way, Yahweh appeared to me in the shape of a turd inside my toilet bowl. He told me to warn you to stop crediting him with random occurences so as not annoy his master, the Big Yellow Banana!

It's either you are communicating with demons or you don't even believe yourself of what you've just written.

LordReed:


Can you show where I defended any of the strawmen that you just dreamed up?

You who joyfully appropriate the appallation sheep, are attempting to point fingers? Bwahahahaha how so very rich.

When you have evidence for your god then it will be better than anything else. Till then, sayonara.

Your claim of disbelief in the SOURCE of everything is a silly Joke.

Until you can proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation.

Until you can proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.

Until you can show how chaos can result into order.

Until you can show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.

When you have a physical evidence for these, stop saying "bla black black God of gaps..."

shadeyinka:

Your claim of disbelief in the SOURCE of everything is a silly Joke.

Until you can proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation.

Until you can proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.

Until you can show how chaos can result into order.

Until you can show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.

When you have a physical evidence for these, stop saying "bla black black God of gaps..."

Bwahahahaha! You just went full strawman. What is silly is a person who never learns no matter how many times you tell them they are building strawmen. LMFAO!

LordReed:


Bwahahahaha! You just went full strawman. What is silly is a person who never learns no matter how many times you tell them they are building strawmen. LMFAO!

This your strategy of escapism by trivialising issues doesn't work! Put answers to the issues presented and be free.

shadeyinka:

Your claim of disbelief in the SOURCE of everything is a silly Joke.

Until you can proof that an infinite regression is logically possible with creation.

But infinite regression is logically possible. In fact, it seems a more likely conclusion to come to by inductive reasoning, considering the law of conservation. We have never witnessed anything resulting from nothing, therefore, we have no reason to believe that something can result from nothing, when it could be concluded that something has changed from one thing into another. The argument against infinite regression is that the universe can be dated, therefore, we have arrived at the beginning, and must insert the "uncaused cause" at this point. I'm arguing that the origin of the universe does not necessarily lead to the origin of existence and an uncaused cause. It, rather, could be a point of change; and it could be opening us up to an even larger cosmos than we realized. And I come to this conclusion based on the fact that, by everything we know, change is more likely than creation/destruction. The fact that a person can be dated, for example, doesn't negate the fact that there was an interaction between sperm and ovum prior to his "existence".

Who's to say how large the cosmos really is. The Earth orbits the sun. Our solar system orbits the centre of the Milky Way. And We have no reason to believe that the Milky Way does not orbit the centre of something bigger. And on it goes. The path doesn't necessarily lead to an uncaused cause because the idea of infinity could be explained by imagining a non-liner entity, solely in terms of cause and effect. This idea would be supported by hard determinism, or at least a compatibilist notion, where every event (perceived as past and future) has been predetermined to exist; and that events may have plural determinants across the space-time fabric. The unpredictability observed at the subatomic level does not rule out that every event has a cause. It only shows that no cause could be identified. Not at the time; not with the available instruments.

Until you can proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone.

What is consciousness? When non-materialists contemplated that the "Human soft-ware" must be proof of the existence of God, they implied thinking and feeling were both a part of this non-material substance. But thinking and feeling aren't so much a substance as they are a series of cause-effect reactions. As we have learned, prior to the creation of artificial intelligence, every event can ultimately be isolated and simplified into a response to a yes/no question. Binary. One stimulus triggers a specific response. On a macro-level, this would manifest as thought, feeling, free-will and action.

Eckhart Tolle - the hippie new-age religionist - made me rethink the idea of consciousness. Or rather, presence (according to him). And maybe, awareness (according to me). He suggested that the unchangeable element about a person was his being - the fact that a person would always feel like himself, regardless of time. The notion of "I" or ego. I think that this might be an identical concept, irrespective of person, animal, or plant (maybe even inanimate objects). I feel every bit as me as you would feel as you. And the awareness of the self manifests itself in our tendency to self-preserve. Consider phototropism in plants, for instance; a plant in a dark room curves towards the light to enable itself make food through photosynthesis. This behaviour demonstrates that the plant is 'aware' of the sun. And in order for anything to be aware of a next thing, it must first be aware of itself. If a ball is thrown against a wall, the wall interrupts its projection. That's a reaction between two things 'aware' of each other, even if it is simply a reaction to mass and density. The point here is to separate the 'thinking-self' and 'feeling-self' (which are series of cause-effect reactions, and a quality, in varied proportions, of living things) from the being. The "I" or ego is an attribute of everything that exists. And it simply means that everything is its own centre - a unique point of view - its own source of morality. It is a quality that is inseparable from a thing. The formation of anything naturally results in the formation of its being.

In the Freudian model of the human psyche/Soul, this entity would correspond to the Ego; where the id is biological component, and the Superego is the sociological component. Freud defined the Ego as the psychological component, of course, and claimed that the Ego was the decision-maker. He also claimed the Id was incapable of learning and holding memories, but we know that children can burn their fingers and become smarter through that experience which is remembered, therefore, Freud is not irrefutable. And I argue that the Ego is not a decision-maker but simply a witness to itself - the experiencer - the presence - the being.

All this to say that consciousness, as popularly defined, isn't a monolith of non-matter. The part that requires 'creation' (being) is an inseparable quality of matter. Thinking and feeling are merely results of interaction between matter. Therefore, consciousness does not necessarily require a God to exist.

Until you can show how chaos can result into order.

Is this a push for intelligent design and fine-tuning? Chaos is only chaos because it appears random. But I made a case earlier for hard determinism - every event has a cause. If every event has a cause, then nothing is random. And if nothing is random, then there is never objective chaos, is there? Human beings may perceive an environment which isn't fine-tuned to our existence as chaotic, but this just may prove that we aren't supposed to be the most vital beings of the cosmos. At least not across the space-time fabric. This may be the "Age of Man" but who's to say that the future won't be "The Age of Ants." And then the ants would assume that the universe was fine-tuned to their existence, and decide to call everything preceding that time, chaos. Fine-tuning is an illusion. What is really going on is natural selection. As the environment changes, the fittest thrive.

Until you can show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters.

The technology is, apparently, still in its infancy, but artificial intelligence can be used to write code. You can do further research on that, I just checked it out for the purpose of this reply, so I really don't know much about it. To be honest, it won't be all that surprising since AI possess the laws of logic.

When you have a physical evidence for these, stop saying "bla black black God of gaps..."

In answer to the thread, "Who created God?" I'd say Man. Man created this God in response to his fears of the finality of death, the apparent meaninglessness of life, the need for protection from conflicting moralities, and the ignorance of the workings of his environment. This isn't to say that an ultimate being does not exist. In fact, I strongly believe in an ultimate being. But such a being would constitute everything that exists. It would be amoral from our own perspective, simply because (like everything else that exists) it serves its own ego to preserve itself in its unique nature.

shadeyinka:

This your strategy of escapism by trivialising issues doesn't work! Put answers to the issues presented and be free.

I refrain from answering strawman arguments about what I think. If you want to know what I think about a subject ask me a direct question, don't put words in my mouth.

MissWrite:


But infinite regression is logically possible. In fact, it seems a more likely conclusion to come to by inductive reasoning, considering the law of conservation. We have never witnessed anything resulting from nothing, therefore, we have no reason to believe that something can result from nothing, when it could be concluded that something has changed from one thing into another. The argument against infinite regression is that the universe can be dated, therefore, we have arrived at the beginning, and must insert the "uncaused cause" at this point. I'm arguing that the origin of the universe does not necessarily lead to the origin of existence and an uncaused cause. It, rather, could be a point of change; and it could be opening us up to an even larger cosmos than we realized. And I come to this conclusion based on the fact that, by everything we know, change is more likely than creation/destruction. The fact that a person can be dated, for example, doesn't negate the fact that there was an interaction between sperm and ovum prior to his "existence".

Who's to say how large the cosmos really is. The Earth orbits the sun. Our solar system orbits the centre of the Milky Way. And We have no reason to believe that the Milky Way does not orbit the centre of something bigger. And on it goes. The path doesn't necessarily lead to an uncaused cause because the idea of infinity could be explained by imagining a non-liner entity, solely in terms of cause and effect. This idea would be supported by hard determinism, or at least a compatibilist notion, where every event (perceived as past and future) has been predetermined to exist; and that events may have plural determinants across the space-time fabric. The unpredictability observed at the subatomic level does not rule out that every event has a cause. It only shows that no cause could be identified. Not at the time; not with the available instruments.




What is consciousness? When non-materialists contemplated that the "Human soft-ware" must be proof of the existence of God, they implied thinking and feeling were both a part of this non-material substance. But thinking and feeling aren't so much a substance as they are a series of cause-effect reactions. As we have learned, prior to the creation of artificial intelligence, every event can ultimately be isolated and simplified into a response to a yes/no question. Binary. One stimulus triggers a specific response. On a macro-level, this would manifest as thought, feeling, free-will and action.

Eckhart Tolle - the hippie new-age religionist - made me rethink the idea of consciousness. Or rather, presence (according to him). And maybe, awareness (according to me). He suggested that the unchangeable element about a person was his being - the fact that a person would always feel like himself, regardless of time. The notion of "I" or ego. I think that this might be an identical concept, irrespective of person, animal, or plant (maybe even inanimate objects). I feel every bit as me as you would feel as you. And the awareness of the self manifests itself in our tendency to self-preserve. Consider phototropism in plants, for instance; a plant in a dark room curves towards the light to enable itself make food through photosynthesis. This behaviour demonstrates that the plant is 'aware' of the sun. And in order for anything to be aware of a next thing, it must first be aware of itself. If a ball is thrown against a wall, the wall interrupts its projection. That's a reaction between two things 'aware' of each other, even if it is simply a reaction to mass and density. The point here is to separate the 'thinking-self' and 'feeling-self' (which are series of cause-effect reactions, and a quality, in varied proportions, of living things) from the being. The "I" or ego is an attribute of everything that exists. And it simply means that everything is its own centre - a unique point of view - its own source of morality. It is a quality that is inseparable from a thing. The formation of anything naturally results in the formation of its being.

In the Freudian model of the human psyche/Soul, this entity would correspond to the Ego; where the id is biological component, and the Superego is the sociological component. Freud defined the Ego as the psychological component, of course, and claimed that the Ego was the decision-maker. He also claimed the Id was incapable of learning and holding memories, but we know that children can burn their fingers and become smarter through that experience which is remembered, therefore, Freud is not irrefutable. And I argue that the Ego is not a decision-maker but simply a witness to itself - the experiencer - the presence - the being.

All this to say that consciousness, as popularly defined, isn't a monolith of non-matter. The part that requires 'creation' (being) is an inseparable quality of matter. Thinking and feeling are merely results of interaction between matter. Therefore, consciousness does not necessarily require a God to exist.



Is this a push for intelligent design and fine-tuning? Chaos is only chaos because it appears random. But I made a case earlier for hard determinism - every event has a cause. If every event has a cause, then nothing is random. And if nothing is random, then there is never objective chaos, is there? Human beings may perceive an environment which isn't fine-tuned to our existence as chaotic, but this just may prove that we aren't supposed to be the most vital beings of the cosmos. At least not across the space-time fabric. This may be the "Age of Man" but who's to say that the future won't be "The Age of Ants." And then the ants would assume that the universe was fine-tuned to their existence, and decide to call everything preceding that time, chaos. Fine-tuning is an illusion. What is really going on is natural selection. As the environment changes, the fittest thrive.



The technology is, apparently, still in its infancy, but artificial intelligence can be used to write code. You can do further research on that, I just checked it out for the purpose of this reply, so I really don't know much about it. To be honest, it won't be all that surprising since AI possess the laws of logic.





In answer to the thread, "Who created God?" I'd say Man. Man created this God in response to his fears of the finality of death, the apparent meaninglessness of life, the need for protection from conflicting moralities, and the ignorance of the workings of his environment. This isn't to say that an ultimate being does not exist. In fact, I strongly believe in an ultimate being. But such a being would constitute everything that exists. It would be amoral from our own perspective, simply because (like everything else that exists) it serves its own ego to preserve itself in its unique nature.

Another bright star raises. Excellent answers.

LordReed:


There is nothing "spectacular" about have an NDE or OBE, oxygen starved brains have wierd experiences. In fact, back in secondary school we used to induce fainting in ourselves and everytime I went under I saw wierd stuff. In one case we were at the football field watching a match, when I went under I saw a goal being scored and just as i woke up a goal celebration was underway. It looked like i saw a prophetic dream when i was under but the fact is my brain was still receiving input even though I was not conscious and managed to interpolate the sensory input and still be correct. There is nothing about this process that is supernatural.

You think you have Answer to everything? What u narrated was not properly baked. There are so many things i would have liked to tell you but I feel it's better to free you with your reprobate mind than drag me down to that level.