1 Like
Philosopher.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
“Artificial intelligence” is not a precusory requirement for evolution. It certainly does exist, but only as a very late single step in the process of evolution, and it is happening right now as an extension of the evolution of human intelligence, information gathering and processing as expressed in computerised circuitry, motherboards, programming languages and robotics. There was never any artificial intelligence before the evolution of Homo sapien sapiens. It only exists because we developed the intelligence to invent it.
No-one who has any idea about how evolution works even remotely thinks information transfer happens magically. Every step and component of biological evolution involves chemical and physical actions and reactions right down to the quantum level. The pathways you might indentify as “proof of a designer” do not rely on supernatural influence but on independent physical biochemical dynamics as demonstated in countless experiments, observations, recordings and writings, all of which counts as solid irrefutable, repeatable and consistent evidence, of which. by the way, you have none.
The genetic material that occupies every one of the estimated 50 billions cells of the human body has enough “folded” DNA in the form of chromosome strands which laid out flat, end to end, would produce a single strand of DNA that could reach from the Earth to the Sun over 300 times. This phenomenal folding is not “learned” and is devoid of a conscious “will to learn” in DNA. Its “ability” to do so is accomplished by chemical and physical dynamics of the component nucleic acids, amino acids, the histone family of postively charged proteins and the negatively charged structure of DNA. A full (and breathtaking) description requires more space than this forum permits, but you might benefit from reading about it. Just enter any of the relevant words above into your browser and follow the information of any reputable scientific site.
Now this is not to say the god of your personal cosmos does not exist or operate the way you believe. Science makes no theological claims one way or the other. You are perfectly free to insist that your god is magically responsible for the activities of the chemical and physical elements involved in the phenomenon of genetic “folding”, but you just have no rationally varifiable method or evidence nor philosophical reasoning that will prove what you say is irrefutably true. I understand the Islamic beleif that no event can take place without Allah’s direct involvement, but I don’t accept that either.
And on the point of truth, I suggest you read up on the science of evolutionary theory and not sprout your ill-informed half understood presumptions about a subject you obviously know little about. I am sure your god would want you to be perfectly informed before you started making inaccurate public declarations about the nature of reality. It reflects poorly on ‘him’.
In the meantime you can be sure I rationally think you are just making things up.
4 Likes
Ka-boooooooooom! Tsh.
Some understand subjective bias, others do not understand subjective bias. The latter tend to think vapid tautologies like that have some deeper meaning.
1 Like
Where you are losing us, is how knowing the complex mathematics that determines the quantity of sides a triangle has, somehow means torturing children is not just moral, but involves limitless kindness?
2 Likes
Well, you know…contradictions are logic gold when you try to prove a god. Earlier, @Philosopher assigned two contradicting attributes to his “perfectly existing” god (emphasis is mine):
I’m at a loss as to what the meaning behind this was, but there it is, in all its glory.
3 Likes
The arrogance and ignorance is astounding to even attempt to attribute “qualities” to a something that is not even demonstrable in reality.
I’d settle for a theist or deist demonstrating something approaching objective evidence, or even anything tangible or rational, that a deity is even possible.
They tend to leap to unevidenced assertions that is a more probable explanation that as yet unknown natural phenomena, and skip that pretty important step.
Well, Philosopher surely seems to think his/her “proof” is objective, so I think you should specify it more clearly. It doesn’t matter how good of a theoretical god-proof one presents, it’s still just a theoretical/hypotetical construction. If it’s not falsifiable, it is not worth one iota of thought. The real test is therefore in the form of an empirically falsifiable theory or hypothesis that can be tested with actual experiments that are bias-free (or as bias-free as you can get it), repeatable and controllable. That’s why I keep on insisting to see empirical evidence.
In fact, come to think of it…noone have so far asked about the falsifiability of the “god-proof” of Philosopher.
Hey, @Philosopher, regarding your hypothesis on the existence of God – is it falsifiable, and how would you go about to test it empirically?
2 Likes
Which begs the question: if something assumed to be perfect creates something that is not perfect, is that assumed perfect creator thus flawed and not perfect?
That’s where the subjective meaning of “perfect” comes in. “Perfect” as applied to the god is something entirely different compared to the “perfect” as applied to earthly things, like humans. Although that does not prevent creationists from claiming that humans must have been created by a creating creator-god because e.g. the human eye is “perfect”.
Demonstrate a life form that does not have this “ability to learn.” All you are saying is that life has the ability to live. You have made an arbitrary distinction. Learning begins as an autonomic. A plant ‘learns’ to follow the sunlight and its roots learn to seek out water. It does this without an identifiable brain. The first replicating molicule had the ability to learn. It learned to replicate.
no no no no no … 'We don’t believe something magically learned to recognize things." On the other hand, you do. You are the one talking about a God magically popping things into existence. Not us.
You have not demonstrated a designer. To even begin getting to a designer, you must first demonstrate a designer exists. "AI requires a designer because “we design AI.” All ‘AI’ we are aware of has been designed. We know how to tell what is designed by contrasting it with those things which occur naturally. In your world there is no ‘AI’. By your own admission, our brains are just another form of AI. Well if we can create ‘AI’ what use is there for a god? None at all. Everything is AI and we are no closer to discovering the original source that when everything was not AI. You have not moved us forward even a fraction of a hairsbreath.
That which is designed, requires a designer. (No argument here.) How did you get to God? You do not get to assert a god into existence. You don’'t get to call a naturally occuring process “design.” You need to demonstrate design and not assert it. You need to demonstrate God and not assert it.
All you have here is one big “Argument from Ignorance.” No one knows how things came to be, how the first lifeform actually formed, so I will just assert that it was a product of a thinking god. Talk about creating something from nothing! Why not a thinking unicorn? A troop of wandering space fairies? A giant yellow intelligent Univers Creating banana? Each of these assertions has as much a possibility of beign true, and of being the ultimate creator of the universe, as does your version of god. Any attribute you can ascribe to your god, I can ascribe to my Big Yellow Banana.
Do you have any Apologetic arguments that are not based on silly fallacious reasoning? I would love to hear something new that takes a little effort to debunk. This bullshit is just boring. And you call yourself a Philosopher… Ha ha ha ha ha haha ha
You know, you should just skil through the baby shit and just hop up to “Presuppositionalism.” You are so good at making inane assertions, why not simply take your ability to the most arbitrary position possible and simply assert “God is real and we all know it.” Fuck you are lame!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha … Demonstrate anything good, right or true exists in the universe. Ha ha ha ha … these are merely attributes we describe to things and events. The universe, absent thinking beings, has no such concept. Good and evil are ideas you impose on the universe around you. Again you have made an inane and non-falsifiable assertion. “Demontstrate the existence of evil as an entity independent of a judging mind.” That which I like is good and that which I do not like is bad. It’s that simple.
One bullshit assumption after another… Seriously dude, why not just skip up to Presuppositionalsim. You already sound like a quack, why not shoot for the gold medal of quackery?
Did you really suppose you would come on here with all these outdated bullshit apologetics and have some sort of impact? All this bullshit has been debunked for centuries. Just how lame are you?
1 Like
@Philosopher Obviously this isn’t a debate for you. At this point you’re just preaching at all of us. We get a lot of theist members like you. I’ve disagreed with you. Everyone in this thread has disagreed with you. You keep trying to force your silly assertions and claims down our throats without any evidence at all. You ignore our posts and keep on. I’ll tell you what you are. You’re a fucking troll.
Arguing with you is pretty pointless now. You’ve lost this entire argument and you’re still arguing a daft and silly point and kicking a dead horse all at the same time. You’re just another crazy religious idiot who just wants to force preach at everyone without any evidence.
It’s sad that these theists come on here with these tired and worn out apologetics. Wouldn’t you just like to have one honestly admit the reason he or she really believes and then make a legitimate intuiry into the truth of the claim?
I can’t imagine someone believing in a god based on the inane bullshit @philosopher is using. Why not just be honest and make an honest inquiry?
Agreed, at this point @philosopher is just trolling with worn out tired and used up apologetics which we have all heard countless times before.
2 Likes
Pretty much and they think the best idea is to come on here and sell us their bullshit claims without bringing any physical evidence to back it up. They think writing their beliefs in big shiny words in long paragraphs is evidence enough. Just like @Philosopher does. He’ll keep making a fool out of himself until he gets tired of it. He likes being treated like a dumb ass by everyone on here. Must not get any attention back at home.
It’s so simple:
If your empirical standards are such that you think x is designed, and you see that y is clearly more advanced in design and function than x, then consistency with your empirical standards would have you conclude y had a designer. In any case, the OP is a matter of pure reason and the authority of pure reason is irrefutable. But I even reminded of the need to be consistent with one’s own empirical observations and interpretations of the world and their experiences. Past a certain point, you stop telling x you’re gonna get diabetes if you continue living like this. He may get it, he may not. Given the perfection of existence, he’ll only get it if he deserves to get it. Past a certain point, you stop telling x you’re gonna end up in Hell if you continue to choose to be this way.
With regards why it’s perfection for Existence (that which perfectly/completely/truly exists) to Sustain us:
Per the dictates of pure reason, perfection is such that everyone gets what they truly deserve. It’s perfection to create beings and then put some in Heaven and put some in Hell, precisely because it’s perfection for everyone to get what they deserve. To omit perfection is imperfection. Imperfection is only possible of imperfect beings. It is not possible of that which perfectly exists (Existence/God). God does whatever He Wants. This includes Punishing and Rewarding. Punishing evil is a perfection. It is satisfying.
Since imperfection is only possible of imperfect beings, only imperfect beings possibly deserve to suffer. If they recognise that they are imperfect and depend on God and seek refuge in God and strive in the cause of God/Perfection/Truth/Justice (a truly perfect existence/being), then they deserve to enjoy life and be in awe of God/Existence. Since God is Almighty, this (being in awe of God/Existence) is what they are given if they are fair/reasonable in relation to God. Thus, genuine worship of God (as opposed to pretend worship as seems to be the case with some “religious” people) is a privilege and good for the self-aware being. God does not wrong Himself or anyone else. If x is unfair or insincere to God/Truth/Good, then x deserves to suffer (this is what x is good for. This is what evil is good for). As in it’s perfection for him to suffer and God would wrong Himself to omit this perfection. Again, God never does wrongly because God is Perfect (as proven in the OP).
Pain, pleasure, and domination, is perfection in only one context (God’s/Good’s absolute Domination over evil). In comparison to this context, pain, pleasure, and domination is perverted in all other contexts. In some contexts, it is richly perverted (and perfection is satisfied by having those perverts suffer richly). Where x seeks to sacrifice good for evil, or betray good for evil, x deserves to be sacrificed for good. Again, pain, pleasure and domination is only perfection in one context.
If you look at an imperfect triangle and call it a perfect triangle, then your standards of triangularity are perverted/flawed/imperfect. If you reject God’s existence and goodness, then your reasoning is flawed/perverted (as demonstrated by the OP). You being unreasonable, is bad for you. You’re better off being reasonable. Such is the nature of Existence (that which perfectly exists: God).
And with that, I think I’ll stop posting here (I might reply if I see something that warrants replying to, though I think this unlikely given all that I’ve already said).
I don’t believe you.
Heaven, hell, your stubborn attachment to being that has NO DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE!!!
If you said:
I can MEASURE IT in reality! Wow! Repeatable! I can then determine what you are determining the “perfection” of the triangle to be. Also the triangle has real-life use and effects in reality.
NO!
I don’t believe you.
Heaven???
I don’t believe you!
Hell!!!
Hahahaha - I don’t believe you!
Your claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Simple. Logical.
1 Like
What if one says, “My God is more perfect than your God”. What happens to your God and how you defined it then?
You rationalized what a perfect God is. I can do that as well and make your God look like a fumbling scientist without a degree. What then, or will your God be the only option?
All you did was give us your meaning of what perfection is. I’m asking for something more concrete. but I don’t think you have it.
In your perfect world people deserve to suffer. WOW !!! In my perfect world they would receive all the things they lack to improve their lives. Would you punish the hungry for stealing? Would you punish the needy for stealing clothes? Would you punish the less fortunate for being too busy to survive having no time for your God?
Quoting Chief Pontiac 1769: They came with a bible and their religion stole our land, crushed our spirit and now tell us we should be thankful to the lord for being saved.
If there is any salvation needed it is yours from the poison in your mind.
How did you fail to understand what some people having repeated to you here?
Are you a perfect human being?
1 Like
It is not, because it is based on subjective ideas, undefined terms, and informal logical fallacies. Using the same method as you, I could “prove” Russel’s teapot, if I really wanted to. Of course that is silly, but so is your method of argumentation.
Besides, for your hypothesis to have any value, it must be falsifiable and it must be possible to either confirm (confirm in the Popperian sense, not prove) or disprove the hypothesis. This is freshman philosophy of science; one of the first things a university student learns. Therefore:
- Is your hypothesis falsifiable?
- How can we obtain empirical data to either confirm or falsifiy your hypothesis?
- Do you have such empirical data?
- And as a bonus: does your hypothesis have any descriptive or predictive power?
No one sees it your way. They’re the ramblings of a religious mad fool who is basically saying we’re stupid for not agreeing with YOU.
It sounds like you’re trying to force your warped religion on everyone here. The whole “BELIEVE IN JESUS OR BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY” is a pretty weak argument. That you have going on.
What it really sounds like is you being an asshole about it.
Please provide EVIDENCE. Trust me. You won’t.
Claim. This isn’t a Christian forum. We rely on the following in this forum. It operates much like a court system which you fail to understand or you’re just ignoring my posts. This is what you need to drive your point home.
- Real evidence;
- Demonstrative evidence;
- Documentary evidence; and.
- Testimonial evidence.
Another Claim. Provide EVIDENCE.
Claim. Again provide evidence.
None of it is proven. You refuse to provide evidence even to this point. You’re repeating yourself.
Sure. It sounds like you need a lobotomy.
Do you say that to Muslims and other people who are of a different religion too… or do you just harass atheists like me and everyone else on here with your petty insults?
I won’t hold my breath. You have no friends here. You just post your beliefs here to harass everyone.
You really think you made a “difference” on here with your posts?