Total Posts:401|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Three Arguments For God's Existence

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:20:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Those three arguments don't prove the existence of any deity!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:22:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:20:05 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Those three arguments don't prove the existence of any deity!

Back it up.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 11:54:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Rebuttals........

1) Yes....scientific Laws DO demand explanations. And we have them. It's just that, unfortunately for your argument, there is no need for a God or a Creator in them. Natural and materialistic processes are quite enough, thank you.

Let's look at a couple of examples of this, shall we? How about the Law of Gravity? As an object's mass increases, so does it's gravitational pull. Isaac Newton figured this our and the former theory has since been so continually and irrefutably substantiated that it is now a Law. The entire cosmos follows it, from planetary orbits to black holes to space travel, to you falling down a flight of stairs. LOL. But look! No God needed!

Or Einstein's E=MC^2. Energy is equal to its mass, multiplied by the speed of light squared. Law. Proven in nuclear energy. And in stars. (which are fusion and not fission, btw.) Again...no need for God here.

Evolution is also accepted by 98% of all trained and college-educated Biologists and Anthropologists. We has already created amino acids and proteins (the building blocks of DNA) in lab settings, using the same natural and non-living substances and conditions that we think prevailed on Earth some four billion years ago. The inter-action of lighting and electromagnetic fields on single-celled non-living proteins in the warm primordial ooze seems to be enough to begin the Evolutionary Processes.

2) You basic premise here is flawed. See my previous post---and this link--in order to refute your claim that DNA cannot arise naturally. And as humans we most certainly DO NOT KNOW that codes are made by "conscious effort" as you claim. Who are you speaking of here? Oh..that's right, only people who believe as you do. Not the vast majority of Biologists who adhere to natural and un-guided Evolution.

Here is that link. You need to read this and then return to your arguments, sir.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

3--Consciousness is ENTIRELY explainable by natural means and by means of the neuro-circuitry of the brain. We have replicated any sort of emotion you wish to name in lab settings with the subjects' brains either stimulated by electrodes, to the relavent areas, or by drugs. We can even make somebody have a "religious" type of an experience. We have mapped the part of the brain--through computer-aided imagery such as PET scans--where the "God Feeling" is seated. (It's in the Amgyddala, of the Limbic Center, BTW).

The fact that being able to do this should eradicate any notions of a required supernatural entity or soul. Here is the link for that.............

http://www.slate.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 12:15:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:54:04 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Rebuttals........

Counter rebuttals


1) Yes....scientific Laws DO demand explanations. And we have them. It's just that, unfortunately for your argument, there is no need for a God or a Creator in them. Natural and materialistic processes are quite enough, thank you.

Let's look at a couple of examples of this, shall we? How about the Law of Gravity? As an object's mass increases, so does it's gravitational pull. Isaac Newton figured this our and the former theory has since been so continually and irrefutably substantiated that it is now a Law. The entire cosmos follows it, from planetary orbits to black holes to space travel, to you falling down a flight of stairs. LOL. But look! No God needed!

Or Einstein's E=MC^2. Energy is equal to its mass, multiplied by the speed of light squared. Law. Proven in nuclear energy. And in stars. (which are fusion and not fission, btw.) Again...no need for God here.

Evolution is also accepted by 98% of all trained and college-educated Biologists and Anthropologists. We has already created amino acids and proteins (the building blocks of DNA) in lab settings, using the same natural and non-living substances and conditions that we think prevailed on Earth some four billion years ago. The inter-action of lighting and electromagnetic fields on single-celled non-living proteins in the warm primordial ooze seems to be enough to begin the Evolutionary Processes.

Physical laws suggest a lawmaker. Why does the universe follow natural laws with such precision ? Why isn't it chaotic ?


2) You basic premise here is flawed. See my previous post---and this link--in order to refute your claim that DNA cannot arise naturally. And as humans we most certainly DO NOT KNOW that codes are made by "conscious effort" as you claim. Who are you speaking of here? Oh..that's right, only people who believe as you do. Not the vast majority of Biologists who adhere to natural and un-guided Evolution.

Here is that link. You need to read this and then return to your arguments, sir.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Humans make a lot of codes so we know codes are indicative of conscious activity. Codes involve symbolic representation something natural processes cannot possibly comprehend. Codes don't follow natural laws so how can natural processes make 'em ?


3--Consciousness is ENTIRELY explainable by natural means and by means of the neuro-circuitry of the brain. We have replicated any sort of emotion you wish to name in lab settings with the subjects' brains either stimulated by electrodes, to the relavent areas, or by drugs. We can even make somebody have a "religious" type of an experience. We have mapped the part of the brain--through computer-aided imagery such as PET scans--where the "God Feeling" is seated. (It's in the Amgyddala, of the Limbic Center, BTW).

The fact that being able to do this should eradicate any notions of a required supernatural entity or soul. Here is the link for that.............

http://www.slate.com...

On the contrary, it strengthens it because we know how the mind works in relation to the body something dualists have always known. The problem is this, components of the brain are themselves unconscious, how can their activity then give rise to a consciousness that itself not physical ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 12:31:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.

Oh, I see how you want it to work, shift the burden of proof onto me.

So far, you have only made claims and offered no explanations. You need to do that first, we need to critique your explanations and your evidence in order to respond in kind.

If you need help in specific areas, you can first explain what you mean with the following terms or statements:

1. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws
2. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws
3. the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 12:31:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.

Oh, I see how you want it to work, shift the burden of proof onto me.

So far, you have only made claims and offered no explanations. You need to do that first, we need to critique your explanations and your evidence in order to respond in kind.

Short explanations have been given.


If you need help in specific areas, you can first explain what you mean with the following terms or statements:

1. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws

The universe is not chaotic. It follows natural laws which scientists describe.

2. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws

Codes are rules by which symbolic representations are made. You have the ASCII and Morse codes for example. Symbolic representation makes a given thing refer to something other than itself. Natural processes can't possibly do such.

3. the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means

Physical and chemical processes typically effect results that are physical. But in brains we have chemical and physical processes resulting in consciousness, a sense of self and ability to conceptualize that isn't physical. How does such follow given the laws of physics and chemistry ? Why would the action of a given group of material lead to a sense of self that can't be described in terms of natural laws and isn't subject to them ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:04:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.

Oh, I see how you want it to work, shift the burden of proof onto me.

So far, you have only made claims and offered no explanations. You need to do that first, we need to critique your explanations and your evidence in order to respond in kind.

Short explanations have been given.


If you need help in specific areas, you can first explain what you mean with the following terms or statements:

1. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws

The universe is not chaotic. It follows natural laws which scientists describe.

While the universe does indeed follow natural laws, that doesn't mean the universe is not chaotic, quite the contrary, from weather patterns to water boiling on a stove, there is chaos everywhere, because there are complex systems everywhere in the universe that contain many moving elements. The result of which is chaos.

Read about it here:

http://www.abarim-publications.com...

Now, that we've established that, your first argument is invalid.

2. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws

Codes are rules by which symbolic representations are made. You have the ASCII and Morse codes for example.

The problem here is that you're under the delusion that the word "code" MUST be defined as made by some intelligence, it is not defined that way at all.

Symbolic representation makes a given thing refer to something other than itself.

What does that have to do with anything?

Natural processes can't possibly do such.

Where is your evidence for that claim?

"The genetic code by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of "codons" of three nucleotides. The functional segments of DNA which code for the transfer of genetic information are called genes"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

There is nothing intelligent about the storing of information in a codon that simply transfers that information.

Your second argument is entirely moot.


3. the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means

Physical and chemical processes typically effect results that are physical. But in brains we have chemical and physical processes resulting in consciousness, a sense of self and ability to conceptualize that isn't physical. How does such follow given the laws of physics and chemistry ? Why would the action of a given group of material lead to a sense of self that can't be described in terms of natural laws and isn't subject to them ?

The brain IS physical and any representation of consciousness is a result of the brains activity, therefore it is also physical, as well, as the firing of electromagnetic neurons within the brain. This is how physics and chemistry explains it.

Your third is now done.

Anything else?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:44:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:04:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.

Oh, I see how you want it to work, shift the burden of proof onto me.

So far, you have only made claims and offered no explanations. You need to do that first, we need to critique your explanations and your evidence in order to respond in kind.

Short explanations have been given.


If you need help in specific areas, you can first explain what you mean with the following terms or statements:

1. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws

The universe is not chaotic. It follows natural laws which scientists describe.

While the universe does indeed follow natural laws, that doesn't mean the universe is not chaotic, quite the contrary, from weather patterns to water boiling on a stove, there is chaos everywhere, because there are complex systems everywhere in the universe that contain many moving elements. The result of which is chaos.

Read about it here:

http://www.abarim-publications.com...

Now, that we've established that, your first argument is invalid.

2. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws

Codes are rules by which symbolic representations are made. You have the ASCII and Morse codes for example.

The problem here is that you're under the delusion that the word "code" MUST be defined as made by some intelligence, it is not defined that way at all.

Symbolic representation makes a given thing refer to something other than itself.

What does that have to do with anything?

Natural processes can't possibly do such.

Where is your evidence for that claim?

"The genetic code by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of "codons" of three nucleotides. The functional segments of DNA which code for the transfer of genetic information are called genes"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

There is nothing intelligent about the storing of information in a codon that simply transfers that information.

Your second argument is entirely moot.


3. the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means

Physical and chemical processes typically effect results that are physical. But in brains we have chemical and physical processes resulting in consciousness, a sense of self and ability to conceptualize that isn't physical. How does such follow given the laws of physics and chemistry ? Why would the action of a given group of material lead to a sense of self that can't be described in terms of natural laws and isn't subject to them ?

The brain IS physical and any representation of consciousness is a result of the brains activity, therefore it is also physical, as well, as the firing of electromagnetic neurons within the brain. This is how physics and chemistry explains it.

Your third is now done.

Anything else?

The brain IS physical and any representation of consciousness is a result of the brains activity, therefore it is also physical, as well, as the firing of electromagnetic neurons within the brain. This is how physics and chemistry explains it.



False analogy and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that consciousness is an emergent of the brain.

Daniel hasn't got a clue but he will spew out any nonsense as long as it fits his meaningless ideology.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

The fact that such arguments exist in the first place is a pretty good argument against god's existence. Then you start reading and invariably the arguments for god all end up being pretty bad. The only thing that such arguments prove is that religion makes people stupid.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:05:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:44:18 PM, johnlubba wrote:

False analogy and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that consciousness is an emergent of the brain.

Daniel hasn't got a clue but he will spew out any nonsense as long as it fits his meaningless ideology.

Hey John, back for another a$$kicking? Can I assume that when you say you're never going to respond to me, "never" is considered the time frame of a week or two?

As well, where is your usual "Shut up, troll!" rant?

Anyways John, here is just a tiny portion of the 120K recent peer reviewed abstracts that correlate the physical activity of consciousness with the brain.

http://psycnet.apa.org...
http://europepmc.org...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://archotol.jamanetwork.com...

Queue "Shut up, troll!" LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:18:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.

Assertion #1

The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

Assertion #2

Why should I believe either of these assertions. The former seems to be an implicit *you* demanding an explanation, it doesn't follow that there is an inherent explanation. The latter is not an argument, "suggest" is not an argument. I could just as easily assert the order of the universe "suggests" a metaphysical naturalistic universe.

You would prefer your assertion to mine, but that would be borne purely form your prior stance.


2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws.

Assertion #3

As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

Assertion #4

Again, give an explicit definition of "code" and a reason to believe assertion #3 based on that definition. I see nothing inherent with "codes" which prevents naturalistic processes to give rise to "coded systems" such as is present in cells. Again, suggestions are not evidence. Defining things doesn't change the fact that the cell is a physical system, as well as it's reproductive mechanism.

Further, even if we disprove metaphysical naturalism, you stillneed to prove assertion #4. Since you have not demonstrated that "codes" (yet to be defined) in principle require intelligence. Simply asserting that humans (which are intelligent) are the only source of codes doesn't do anything to further this since it commits the hasty generalisation fallacy, and also affirming the consequent fallacy.

Further, I can take exactly the same arguments to argue that "only humans can create codes, therefore life must have been created by humans". Obviously this is absurd, but this is what your methodology of reasoning entails - hence there is an inherent problem with your methodology of reasoning and inferrence.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.

Assertion #5

Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness.

Assertion #6&7

This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

This isn't an argument for the existence of God. Even if physicalism is false, you have a crevice to cross to demonstrate God exists. It's not a true dichotimy (God or materialism), and you haven't even begun to refute physicalism, let alone proving your preferred ontology of mind.

We have three non-arguments for God. Why not just present one argument and actually justify your assertions, rather than three scantly-clad arguments. I know you believe your premises, but it those premises that atheists need to see proven. Good luck.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

Why? It seems like you are trying to say everything with order needs a designer. The problem there is God has order so it too would need a designer.

Your best bet here is to read about the history of cosmological arguments (basically what you are trying to make) and learn the creative ways people have tried to make this argument. I think it might give you a better basis moving forward to present a general, well rounded framework for attempting to make this argument.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

How do you know all of this? This seems like something you are just making up.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

The problem with this argument is that while consciousness is an amazing thing, a few things seem readily apparent:

We can't detect consciousness outside of the brain. Damaging the brain or rendering it inoperable can alter or remove consciousness. So from all data points we have it appear consciousness is strictly tied to and exists as part of the brain which is a physical thing.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:08:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:04:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.

Oh, I see how you want it to work, shift the burden of proof onto me.

So far, you have only made claims and offered no explanations. You need to do that first, we need to critique your explanations and your evidence in order to respond in kind.

Short explanations have been given.


If you need help in specific areas, you can first explain what you mean with the following terms or statements:

1. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws

The universe is not chaotic. It follows natural laws which scientists describe.

While the universe does indeed follow natural laws, that doesn't mean the universe is not chaotic, quite the contrary, from weather patterns to water boiling on a stove, there is chaos everywhere, because there are complex systems everywhere in the universe that contain many moving elements. The result of which is chaos.

Read about it here:

http://www.abarim-publications.com...

Now, that we've established that, your first argument is invalid.

It isn't. Even chaos follows natural laws. Chaos theory deals with such.


2. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws

Codes are rules by which symbolic representations are made. You have the ASCII and Morse codes for example.

The problem here is that you're under the delusion that the word "code" MUST be defined as made by some intelligence, it is not defined that way at all.

It isn't BUT it's definition shows that it can only be made by intelligence.


Symbolic representation makes a given thing refer to something other than itself.

What does that have to do with anything?

Do natural processes involve symbolic represntation ?


Natural processes can't possibly do such.

Where is your evidence for that claim?

The lack of evidence showing natural processes making codes and the very nature of codes which as I've explained rules out a natural origin for them.


"The genetic code by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of "codons" of three nucleotides. The functional segments of DNA which code for the transfer of genetic information are called genes"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

There is nothing intelligent about the storing of information in a codon that simply transfers that information.

But computers also store information. And intelligence is responsible for them.


Your second argument is entirely moot.


3. the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means

Physical and chemical processes typically effect results that are physical. But in brains we have chemical and physical processes resulting in consciousness, a sense of self and ability to conceptualize that isn't physical. How does such follow given the laws of physics and chemistry ? Why would the action of a given group of material lead to a sense of self that can't be described in terms of natural laws and isn't subject to them ?

The brain IS physical and any representation of consciousness is a result of the brains activity, therefore it is also physical, as well, as the firing of electromagnetic neurons within the brain. This is how physics and chemistry explains it.

Your third is now done.

Anything else?

Let's take this piece by piece: Can we agree that consciouness is not a physical object ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:13:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:03:19 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

The fact that such arguments exist in the first place is a pretty good argument against god's existence. Then you start reading and invariably the arguments for god all end up being pretty bad. The only thing that such arguments prove is that religion makes people stupid.

No. Such arguments are necessary to show that God exists even though He isn't amenable to empirical validation. If you think my arguments are bad then state why and let's discuss it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 3:08:55 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:04:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:23:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:11:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

LOL. Those aren't arguments, they're fallacious assertions that have no basis in fact.

What's up with the LOL ? If they are fallacious explain why and I'll explain why they aren't.

Oh, I see how you want it to work, shift the burden of proof onto me.

So far, you have only made claims and offered no explanations. You need to do that first, we need to critique your explanations and your evidence in order to respond in kind.

Short explanations have been given.


If you need help in specific areas, you can first explain what you mean with the following terms or statements:

1. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws

The universe is not chaotic. It follows natural laws which scientists describe.

While the universe does indeed follow natural laws, that doesn't mean the universe is not chaotic, quite the contrary, from weather patterns to water boiling on a stove, there is chaos everywhere, because there are complex systems everywhere in the universe that contain many moving elements. The result of which is chaos.

Read about it here:

http://www.abarim-publications.com...

Now, that we've established that, your first argument is invalid.

It isn't. Even chaos follows natural laws. Chaos theory deals with such.

No, each individual moving object in a complex system follows natural laws of motion, but their paths are chaotic and not ordered in any way. Do you understand this?

Hence, there is no evidence for any intelligence, number one is invalid.


2. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws

Codes are rules by which symbolic representations are made. You have the ASCII and Morse codes for example.

The problem here is that you're under the delusion that the word "code" MUST be defined as made by some intelligence, it is not defined that way at all.

It isn't BUT it's definition shows that it can only be made by intelligence.

You're obviously lying. There is no such definition.


Symbolic representation makes a given thing refer to something other than itself.

What does that have to do with anything?

Do natural processes involve symbolic represntation ?

Wtf does that mean?



Natural processes can't possibly do such.

Where is your evidence for that claim?

The lack of evidence showing natural processes making codes and the very nature of codes which as I've explained rules out a natural origin for them.

you've explained nothing,clearly, you're just making idiotic assertions from ignornace.


"The genetic code by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of "codons" of three nucleotides. The functional segments of DNA which code for the transfer of genetic information are called genes"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

There is nothing intelligent about the storing of information in a codon that simply transfers that information.

But computers also store information. And intelligence is responsible for them.

LOL. So what? Is that the best argument you can come up with? Pathetic.


Your second argument is entirely moot.


3. the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means

Physical and chemical processes typically effect results that are physical. But in brains we have chemical and physical processes resulting in consciousness, a sense of self and ability to conceptualize that isn't physical. How does such follow given the laws of physics and chemistry ? Why would the action of a given group of material lead to a sense of self that can't be described in terms of natural laws and isn't subject to them ?

The brain IS physical and any representation of consciousness is a result of the brains activity, therefore it is also physical, as well, as the firing of electromagnetic neurons within the brain. This is how physics and chemistry explains it.

Your third is now done.

Anything else?

Let's take this piece by piece: Can we agree that consciouness is not a physical object ?

You are an idiot.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:53:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Iredia just does not seem to be able to believe that no Creator or "lawmaker" as he calls it, is required to begin a Universe or any type of a system in which physical and orderly processes and laws are begun and then maintained.

I don't suppose then, that it would help for me to explain that EVERYTHING, including Space and Time, was created with the Big Bang, some 15 billion years ago. Once that happened, everything unfolded in the orderly fashion of physical laws in the disciplines of Cosmology; Thermodynamics;Astrophysics, and then finally Biology--which was driven by Evolution, which in turn was fueled by selective inheritance.

Do you REALLY think think that everything that happens via physics needs a creator? Or what some call a Prime Mover?

If there WAS a God, a Prime Mover, let me ask you: why did he wait so long to begin life on Earth? Even though the Earth is some 4.6 Billion years old, primordial single-cell microbes (your ancestors, amigo!) did not start percolating for some 1 billion years!

That's Billion with a B. One million times One thousand years.

Hmm..seems this lengthy span would suggest that the slow and arduous process of evolution was ramping-up. And not that some supernatural diety were at work. If so, why was he so slow?

Why is there so much killing and dying in nature? There are insects that plant their spawn seeds in another species and then they grow from within and erupt and cause the unwilling host to dies horrible deaths. As you read this, millions of animals are being eaten alive and killed and starved and maimed and hunted.

Does this not seem to be a result of a cold, purposeless, evolutionary free-for-all? Rather than the divine and glorious process that was began by a supernatural diety?

Just because you cannot fathom how something works, or is fomented--in this case, life and the Evolutionary process--does not mean it does not exist. You simply need to read more science, Iredia. I say this not as a jab, but just so you can get brought up to speed a bit. All the info you need is out there. In droves.

I also notice you never provide links. Like another member said, you merely state your opinions as if they are Laws. This does not fly in debate or rhetoric circles. Extraordinary claims--and yes, claims of a God ARE extraordinary--demand at least a bit of proof.

Or even sources.

Lastly..here are some questions anyone who believes in Creationism might want to chew on.

http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:18:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.

Assertion #1

The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

Assertion #2

Why should I believe either of these assertions. The former seems to be an implicit *you* demanding an explanation, it doesn't follow that there is an inherent explanation. The latter is not an argument, "suggest" is not an argument. I could just as easily assert the order of the universe "suggests" a metaphysical naturalistic universe.

It's human nature to seek for causality, hence assertion 1. Besides isn't astrophysics mean to explain how the universe arose. Saying the universe suggests a naturalistic universe is a tautology. It's like saying the universe suggests the universe.


You would prefer your assertion to mine, but that would be borne purely form your prior stance.

True.



2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws.

Assertion #3


It's a fact. Codes involve symbolic representation and natural processes can't possibly know that a given thing refers to something other than it natural processes always treats things as they are.

As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

Assertion #4

All codes, humans make involve conscious effort. Given the nature of codes which involve symbolic representation, we know intelligence is crucial to making codes. Smarter people are better at working with codes. We know of know natural process that makes codes. So the genetic code is evidence of intelligent activity at the very least.


Again, give an explicit definition of "code" and a reason to believe assertion #3 based on that definition. I see nothing inherent with "codes" which prevents naturalistic processes to give rise to "coded systems" such as is present in cells. Again, suggestions are not evidence. Defining things doesn't change the fact that the cell is a physical system, as well as it's reproductive mechanism.

Code: a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy. (from Google)

In natural processes, things don't represent other things. A glass of water can't possibly know that ink on a paper represents the water itself, another object or some abstract concept. It would only react with that ink based on natural laws. But within the context of the cell it's clear that the codons are stored, read and modified to represent amino acids. Natural processes don't act in such a manner.


Further, even if we disprove metaphysical naturalism, you stillneed to prove assertion #4. Since you have not demonstrated that "codes" (yet to be defined) in principle require intelligence. Simply asserting that humans (which are intelligent) are the only source of codes doesn't do anything to further this since it commits the hasty generalisation fallacy, and also affirming the consequent fallacy.

I didn't say humans are the only source of codes. Lesser animals also use codes (given their languages) but don't show the same level of skill with it as humans do. Even among humans smarter people are better working with codes. Clearly, intelligence is sine qua non to making codes, that's my point.


Further, I can take exactly the same arguments to argue that "only humans can create codes, therefore life must have been created by humans". Obviously this is absurd, but this is what your methodology of reasoning entails - hence there is an inherent problem with your methodology of reasoning and inferrence.

I never said that only humans make codes.


3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.

Assertion #5

On this I agree.


Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness.

Assertion #6&7

It's a fact. Emergence typically deals with new PHYSICAL properties. Why will this fly over your head ?


This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

This isn't an argument for the existence of God. Even if physicalism is false, you have a crevice to cross to demonstrate God exists. It's not a true dichotimy (God or materialism), and you haven't even begun to refute physicalism, let alone proving your preferred ontology of mind.

What's the third option if it's not a true dichotomy ?


We have three non-arguments for God. Why not just present one argument and actually justify your assertions, rather than three scantly-clad arguments. I know you believe your premises, but it those premises that atheists need to see proven. Good luck.

I think your rebuttals has been one of ignoring simple explanations. Mistaking facts for assertions along with a confusion as to the place of the term 'suggest' in presenting evidence. Given my prior experience with you (which I can't forget) I'm hardly surprised.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:59:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.
Vanity demands instant and binding answers on questions that are hard to frame and explore.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally.
Ignorance of advanced sciences makes it hard to understand how systems of replicative order can arise spontaneously.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.
It is hard to make any sense of consciousness if we can't define it, and have very little understanding of the sciences that explore reflection and self-modification.

These are arguments of vanity and ignorance, Iredia.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:13:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:24:00 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

Why? It seems like you are trying to say everything with order needs a designer. The problem there is God has order so it too would need a designer.

And if that designer and the designer's designer has order too where do we stop. Too avoid an infinite regress we stop at God.


Your best bet here is to read about the history of cosmological arguments (basically what you are trying to make) and learn the creative ways people have tried to make this argument. I think it might give you a better basis moving forward to present a general, well rounded framework for attempting to make this argument.

I have. The Kalam cosmological argument is a good one.



2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

How do you know all of this? This seems like something you are just making up.

Can we first agree that codes involve symbolic representation (ie a given thing referring to something other than itself).



3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

The problem with this argument is that while consciousness is an amazing thing, a few things seem readily apparent:

We can't detect consciousness outside of the brain. Damaging the brain or rendering it inoperable can alter or remove consciousness. So from all data points we have it appear consciousness is strictly tied to and exists as part of the brain which is a physical thing.

NDE's and OBE's suggest that consciousness can actually exist outside of the brain. But even more fundamental than that is the fact that as a quality consciousness is essentaly different from the physical things that give rise to it. Do you agree ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 3:59:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.
Vanity demands instant and binding answers on questions that are hard to frame and explore.

Wisdom demands that one asks of the universe one finds one's self in.


2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally.
Ignorance of advanced sciences makes it hard to understand how systems of replicative order can arise spontaneously.

But organisms don't replicate based on purely physical parameters. They reproduce based on a genetic code.


3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.
It is hard to make any sense of consciousness if we can't define it, and have very little understanding of the sciences that explore reflection and self-modification.

We don't even need to define it to make any sense of it. I think it's enough that it's a shared experience fundamental to who humans are, so when one says consciousness it's known what's being said.


These are arguments of vanity and ignorance, Iredia.

I think not.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 3:55:20 PM, Iredia wrote:

It's a fact. Codes involve symbolic representation and natural processes can't possibly know that a given thing refers to something other than it natural processes always treats things as they are.

That is just drivel. You're just making up nonsense as you go along, nothing to do with genetics or anything else remotely concerning the subject. Wishy washy gibberish.

As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

Assertion #4

All codes, humans make involve conscious effort. Given the nature of codes which involve symbolic representation, we know intelligence is crucial to making codes. Smarter people are better at working with codes. We know of know natural process that makes codes. So the genetic code is evidence of intelligent activity at the very least.

You're just pulling words out of thin air and tossing them into a salad of incomprehension and nonsense. You really have no idea what you're talking about.


Again, give an explicit definition of "code" and a reason to believe assertion #3 based on that definition. I see nothing inherent with "codes" which prevents naturalistic processes to give rise to "coded systems" such as is present in cells. Again, suggestions are not evidence. Defining things doesn't change the fact that the cell is a physical system, as well as it's reproductive mechanism.

Code: a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy. (from Google)

You are deliberately being stupid. Those are not the same as genetic codes, which has been explained to you all ready, dumba$$.

In natural processes, things don't represent other things. A glass of water can't possibly know that ink on a paper represents the water itself, another object or some abstract concept. It would only react with that ink based on natural laws. But within the context of the cell it's clear that the codons are stored, read and modified to represent amino acids. Natural processes don't act in such a manner.

Sorry, but your denials of things you have no comprehension of are must mindless nonsense and irrelevant chattering of teeth.


Further, even if we disprove metaphysical naturalism, you stillneed to prove assertion #4. Since you have not demonstrated that "codes" (yet to be defined) in principle require intelligence. Simply asserting that humans (which are intelligent) are the only source of codes doesn't do anything to further this since it commits the hasty generalisation fallacy, and also affirming the consequent fallacy.

I didn't say humans are the only source of codes. Lesser animals also use codes (given their languages) but don't show the same level of skill with it as humans do. Even among humans smarter people are better working with codes. Clearly, intelligence is sine qua non to making codes, that's my point.

You have no point whatsoever, you have gibberish. Mind numbing nonsense from an uneducated fool.


Further, I can take exactly the same arguments to argue that "only humans can create codes, therefore life must have been created by humans". Obviously this is absurd, but this is what your methodology of reasoning entails - hence there is an inherent problem with your methodology of reasoning and inferrence.

I never said that only humans make codes.


3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.

Assertion #5

On this I agree.



Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness.

Assertion #6&7

It's a fact. Emergence typically deals with new PHYSICAL properties. Why will this fly over your head ?


This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

This isn't an argument for the existence of God. Even if physicalism is false, you have a crevice to cross to demonstrate God exists. It's not a true dichotimy (God or materialism), and you haven't even begun to refute physicalism, let alone proving your preferred ontology of mind.

What's the third option if it's not a true dichotomy ?


We have three non-arguments for God. Why not just present one argument and actually justify your assertions, rather than three scantly-clad arguments. I know you believe your premises, but it those premises that atheists need to see proven. Good luck.

I think your rebuttals has been one of ignoring simple explanations. Mistaking facts for assertions along with a confusion as to the place of the term 'suggest' in presenting evidence. Given my prior experience with you (which I can't forget) I'm hardly surprised.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:46:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:33:00 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 3:59:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.
Vanity demands instant and binding answers on questions that are hard to frame and explore.
Wisdom demands that one asks of the universe one finds one's self in.
That's called curiosity. Wisdom is knowing when the answers people give you are guesses and postures, rather than solutions.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally.
Ignorance of advanced sciences makes it hard to understand how systems of replicative order can arise spontaneously.
But organisms don't replicate based on purely physical parameters. They reproduce based on a genetic code.
Iredia, you construe code because humans use code for language. But that's anthropomorphising. Many nonliving systems in nature are self-ordering and self-replicative, and almost nothing we invent as a technology doesn't exist in nature first.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.
It is hard to make any sense of consciousness if we can't define it, and have very little understanding of the sciences that explore reflection and self-modification.
We don't even need to define it to make any sense of it. I think it's enough that it's a shared experience fundamental to who humans are, so when one says consciousness it's known what's being said.
Sharing an experience isn't the same as understanding it. The great problem with religious explanations is that they lack transparency (how did they arise), falsifiability (what do they predict that can ever be tested) or accountability (how can errors be detected, and how did they occur?)

So they don't result in knowledge, only fatuous pontifications. And from those pontifications come pompous edicts telling us how to live, how to oppress one another and whom to hate.

And for what? To ensure the vain, the ignorant and the sanctimonious are suitably pandered to.

No thank you.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:50:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 3:53:20 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Iredia just does not seem to be able to believe that no Creator or "lawmaker" as he calls it, is required to begin a Universe or any type of a system in which physical and orderly processes and laws are begun and then maintained.

I was hoping we could have a rational discussion but you just had to say this.


I don't suppose then, that it would help for me to explain that EVERYTHING, including Space and Time, was created with the Big Bang, some 15 billion years ago. Once that happened, everything unfolded in the orderly fashion of physical laws in the disciplines of Cosmology; Thermodynamics;Astrophysics, and then finally Biology--which was driven by Evolution, which in turn was fueled by selective inheritance.

How can the BB make space when space is nothing ?


Do you REALLY think think that everything that happens via physics needs a creator? Or what some call a Prime Mover?

I think something needs to explain the physics.


If there WAS a God, a Prime Mover, let me ask you: why did he wait so long to begin life on Earth? Even though the Earth is some 4.6 Billion years old, primordial single-cell microbes (your ancestors, amigo!) did not start percolating for some 1 billion years!

I don't believe in evolution.


That's Billion with a B. One million times One thousand years.

Hmm..seems this lengthy span would suggest that the slow and arduous process of evolution was ramping-up. And not that some supernatural diety were at work. If so, why was he so slow?

Ask Ken Miller.


Why is there so much killing and dying in nature? There are insects that plant their spawn seeds in another species and then they grow from within and erupt and cause the unwilling host to dies horrible deaths. As you read this, millions of animals are being eaten alive and killed and starved and maimed and hunted.

Unfortunately, on that, we must accept things as they are.


Does this not seem to be a result of a cold, purposeless, evolutionary free-for-all? Rather than the divine and glorious process that was began by a supernatural diety?

You're looking at one side of the coin.


Just because you cannot fathom how something works, or is fomented--in this case, life and the Evolutionary process--does not mean it does not exist. You simply need to read more science, Iredia. I say this not as a jab, but just so you can get brought up to speed a bit. All the info you need is out there. In droves.

I have read the science, I don't agree with it.


I also notice you never provide links. Like another member said, you merely state your opinions as if they are Laws. This does not fly in debate or rhetoric circles. Extraordinary claims--and yes, claims of a God ARE extraordinary--demand at least a bit of proof.

I only give links when I deem it very important.


Or even sources.

Lastly..here are some questions anyone who believes in Creationism might want to chew on.

http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com...

The usual rhetoric one sees in debate. In any case, I'm not a YEC.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:46:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:33:00 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 3:59:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.
Vanity demands instant and binding answers on questions that are hard to frame and explore.
Wisdom demands that one asks of the universe one finds one's self in.
That's called curiosity. Wisdom is knowing when the answers people give you are guesses and postures, rather than solutions.

Agreed.


2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally.
Ignorance of advanced sciences makes it hard to understand how systems of replicative order can arise spontaneously.
But organisms don't replicate based on purely physical parameters. They reproduce based on a genetic code.
Iredia, you construe code because humans use code for language. But that's anthropomorphising. Many nonliving systems in nature are self-ordering and self-replicative, and almost nothing we invent as a technology doesn't exist in nature first.

But living systems aren't self-replicative. No, one's anthropomorphising, it is called the genetic code, is it not ?


3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means.
It is hard to make any sense of consciousness if we can't define it, and have very little understanding of the sciences that explore reflection and self-modification.
We don't even need to define it to make any sense of it. I think it's enough that it's a shared experience fundamental to who humans are, so when one says consciousness it's known what's being said.
Sharing an experience isn't the same as understanding it. The great problem with religious explanations is that they lack transparency (how did they arise), falsifiability (what do they predict that can ever be tested) or accountability (how can errors be detected, and how did they occur?)

You're being too pedantic about the matter. Experiencing a thing is the first step to understanding it, no ?


So they don't result in knowledge, only fatuous pontifications. And from those pontifications come pompous edicts telling us how to live, how to oppress one another and whom to hate.

And for what? To ensure the vain, the ignorant and the sanctimonious are suitably pandered to.

No thank you.

It's seems it's difficult to have a dicussion about God's existence barring religion. I'm arguing for God as generically understood, I'm not forwarding any religion so I don't see the need this.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:16:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:38:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/14/2015 3:55:20 PM, Iredia wrote:

It's a fact. Codes involve symbolic representation and natural processes can't possibly know that a given thing refers to something other than it natural processes always treats things as they are.

That is just drivel. You're just making up nonsense as you go along, nothing to do with genetics or anything else remotely concerning the subject. Wishy washy gibberish.

As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

Assertion #4

All codes, humans make involve conscious effort. Given the nature of codes which involve symbolic representation, we know intelligence is crucial to making codes. Smarter people are better at working with codes. We know of know natural process that makes codes. So the genetic code is evidence of intelligent activity at the very least.

You're just pulling words out of thin air and tossing them into a salad of incomprehension and nonsense. You really have no idea what you're talking about.


Again, give an explicit definition of "code" and a reason to believe assertion #3 based on that definition. I see nothing inherent with "codes" which prevents naturalistic processes to give rise to "coded systems" such as is present in cells. Again, suggestions are not evidence. Defining things doesn't change the fact that the cell is a physical system, as well as it's reproductive mechanism.

Code: a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy. (from Google)

You are deliberately being stupid. Those are not the same as genetic codes, which has been explained to you all ready, dumba$$.

In natural processes, things don't represent other things. A glass of water can't possibly know that ink on a paper represents the water itself, another object or some abstract concept. It would only react with that ink based on natural laws. But within the context of the cell it's clear that the codons are stored, read and modified to represent amino acids. Natural processes don't act in such a manner.

Sorry, but your denials of things you have no comprehension of are must mindless nonsense and irrelevant chattering of teeth.


Further, even if we disprove metaphysical naturalism, you stillneed to prove assertion #4. Since you have not demonstrated that "codes" (yet to be defined) in principle require intelligence. Simply asserting that humans (which are intelligent) are the only source of codes doesn't do anything to further this since it commits the hasty generalisation fallacy, and also affirming the consequent fallacy.

I didn't say humans are the only source of codes. Lesser animals also use codes (given their languages) but don't show the same level of skill with it as humans do. Even among humans smarter people are better working with codes. Clearly, intelligence is sine qua non to making codes, that's my point.

You have no point whatsoever, you have gibberish. Mind numbing nonsense from an uneducated fool.

SMH. What's up with the mood swings ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:37:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 5:06:18 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:46:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:33:00 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 3:59:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation.
Vanity demands instant and binding answers on questions that are hard to frame and explore.
Wisdom demands that one asks of the universe one finds one's self in.
That's called curiosity. Wisdom is knowing when the answers people give you are guesses and postures, rather than solutions.
Agreed.
Cool. :)
2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally.
Ignorance of advanced sciences makes it hard to understand how systems of replicative order can arise spontaneously.
But organisms don't replicate based on purely physical parameters. They reproduce based on a genetic code.
Iredia, you construe code because humans use code for language. But that's anthropomorphising. Many nonliving systems in nature are self-ordering and self-replicative, and almost nothing we invent as a technology doesn't exist in nature first.
But living systems aren't self-replicative.
Of course they are. Living things are built on a chemical system which, under the right conditions, makes more of itself. That's a freak of carbon chemistry, which is also known for its ability to make polymers, plastics, nanotubes, and other weird allotropes. Organic chemistry is so freaky it's considered a speciality in Chemistry, and chemists have recognised this freakiness for some two centuries.

The interesting thing about organic chemistry is that it has a rare mix of adaptability and resilience. Often if you mess with a chemical reaction too much, the reaction stops or goes in some other direction. But with carbon chemistry you can mess with it in a range of ways, and get the same sort of reaction but slightly different product. This allows a profusion of diversity, and amid that diversity arise molecules that can reproduce themselves, and thus change the probabilities in the reaction in chaotic ways.

This is an active research area, and producing some fascinating results.

No, one's anthropomorphising, it is called the genetic code, is it not ?
That's an etymological fallacy, Iredia. It wasn't called a code because we knew someone encoded it. It was called a code because we had codes before we discovered DNA, so it produced an analogy for understanding it intuitively.

But as far back as ancient Egyptians, notions of generational inheritance were recognised, and biologists such as Buffon and Darwin were forming inferences about inheritance even before they'd identified a mechanism for transmitting it.

Anthropomorphism frequently occurs when we invent something, only to discover that nature did it first. It's like we'll invent a spanner, only to discover that crab-claws work the same way. So then we falsely imagine God created crab-claws like spanners, without recognising that crab-claws predate spanners by a billion years or so. :) It's a piece of self-flattery since it imagines we're quite clever, and God's just like us. :)

Sharing an experience isn't the same as understanding it. The great problem with religious explanations is that they lack transparency (how did they arise), falsifiability (what do they predict that can ever be tested) or accountability (how can errors be detected, and how did they occur?)
You're being too pedantic about the matter. Experiencing a thing is the first step to understanding it, no ?
Yes -- it's a first step, but not the last step. Yet claims of revelation and other unsupported claims to authority insist there are no further steps. Way to kill the inquiry.

It's seems it's difficult to have a dicussion about God's existence barring religion. I'm arguing for God as generically understood,
But God is not generically understood, and that's the point. There are tens of thousands of Christian doctrines alone. Everyone fights over the right to claim the trademark of the generic name 'god' capitalised -- which act itself normally connotes a person, therefore a personal god, therefore the Abrahamic monotheism that lays claim to the name.

If you mean a Deist creator, why not say so? A Deist creator is a philosophical proposition which doesn't invalidate atheism, or validate a single religion.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 8:13:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 3:13:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:03:19 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 5/14/2015 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

The fact that such arguments exist in the first place is a pretty good argument against god's existence. Then you start reading and invariably the arguments for god all end up being pretty bad. The only thing that such arguments prove is that religion makes people stupid.

No. Such arguments are necessary to show that God exists even though He isn't amenable to empirical validation. If you think my arguments are bad then state why and let's discuss it.

Why does the existence of the universe demand an explanation? The only thing that can demand an explanation is your brain. If there were no people nothing would demand anything.

The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally? No it does not, the only people that think this is true are religious people. You are asking us to take a huge leap of faith that many people are not willing to take. It's just dumb to even say such a thing.

Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means? That's just not true. Once again you presuppose everybody else is on board with your ridiculous religious reasoning.

For the most part what you are is just a very small thing that thinks so highly of itself that it demands a creator.