Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2022 09:03 am
@Jasper10,
I would suggest that logically if belief or non belief in a God is not enough then there must be another factor at play.
NealNealNeal
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2022 09:39 am
@Jasper10,
Jasper10 wrote:

I would suggest that logically if belief or non belief in a God is not enough then there must be another factor at play.


It is revelation and illumination which both come from God.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2022 10:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:


Quote:
I want to concentrate on the first one...the one to which you returned.

There was a time when I used to handle the "there is no way to know" comment differently from the way I deal with it now. I used to differentiate between "Can one know that there is a GOD?" from "Can one know that there are no gods?"

I remain consistent on the latter. There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods...because in order to KNOW that, one would have to be a GOD. An assertion, "There are no gods"...MUST be a blind guess. There is no way to arrive at that using logic, reason, science, or math. In order to do so, one would have to be EVERYWHERE...and would have to be EVERYWHERE at the same instance to know there are no gods. (Even that assumes that gods can be detected, which I am willing to concede, because I can think of no way any human could possibly be EVERYWHERE.).

As for the former (Can one KNOW that there IS at least one GOD?)...well, I have never really insisted that one CANNOT KNOW it, but that if one asserts there is at least one god...an obligation to provide a reasonable explanation for how that knowledge came into being...and to provide absolute proof that one is not simply deluding one's self.

I've never had anyone come even close to meeting either one of those two provisos...but that is not to say that it will never happen.

I am suggesting here that one CANNOT KNOW there are no gods...so any assertion that there are no gods is a blind guess. I am also suggesting that if one asserts "There is at least one GOD (at least one maker of what we humans call the physical universe)...then one has an obligation to providing a reasonable explanation for how that knowledge came into being...and provide proof that one is not simply deluding one's self.


In the context of what you have said so far, that leaves me confused about your position. You say you USED to differentiate between those two propositions implying that now you do not. And then you build a very good case for NOT seeing them as equally difficult/impossible.

The case of 'there is no God or gods' is as you say, impossible to ever prove. Perfectly logical, and I am in agreement. Whereas now you concede that in the case of 'there is at least one God/god', it is not necessarily impossible to know. By your own declaration, the two propositions are clearly not equal, thus making the latter an infinitely more logical and potentially beneficial pursuit and eliminating the need to even bother with the former. I never do, other than to occasionally point out the absurdity of it when some nitwit makes that claim.

You asserted that making the claim that at least one God exists obligates the claimant to provide absolute proof of that. The only one that is true for is the claimant himself, if he is intellectually honest and not just going on 'faith'. It does obligate him to offer what does convince him of that if asked however. But There is no universal objective proof that satisfies every man on any significant question. Insisting on such a thing seems like an excuse to dismiss the subject rather than engage with it.

True, no one else can know for certain whether I am delusional or not, nor could I ever furnish absolute proof that I am not. But since my claim is so extraordinary, I take that possibility very seriously and devote a lot of time proving that I’m not, at least to myself. I realize the difficulties of self diagnosis, but that too is not impossible.

I have already given one my personal absolute proofs (protein argument) of why I know an intelligence was involved in the origin of biological life (part of the physical universe) so unless you want it again, I won’t Repeat it here. I have yet to find anyone, even among professional biologists, with a counter argument that addresses it, other than to divert the discussion to my presumed religious bias. I saw no sign that they even understood the core of the argument (it was not mere complexity as often claimed).

Neal said that you make it difficult for Christians to prove the existence of God, but your definition is by far the easier of the two 'Gods' to 'prove'. The one in the Bible is far more difficult. There is nothing BUT a scientific argument for yours, and those are readily available if one is not predisposed to reject them out of hand. Physicists know this very well, it’s why they seriously postulate the absurd 'multiverse' without a shred of evidence. If this is/were the only one, there is no alternative to 'your' God.

Quote:
Are you asserting that there IS at least one GOD? I've provided my position on the question...and I am now asking you to provide your position. Then we can get to the obligations I suggest accrue.


Yes, I am 'asserting' that there is at least one preexisting intelligence/God necessary to explain the existence of the physical universe including us. But that requires a pretty deep understanding of at least one and preferably several science disciplines.

I’ve offered you my simplest, easily understood 'proof' and for reasons that were not clear, you discounted it without any counter argument. If you like, we can go on to other scientific arguments for 'God'. You probably know in general what they are, so I’m open to any of those that you may wish, as there are no other kind for the God in your definition.

I haven’t yet gotten to my real objection to your position but I’ve run out of time. It’s time for my weekly sanity preserving flight. More later, but that should provide at least a little grist for the mill.


Dealing with as many things as you do at one time is a recipe for getting nothing settled.

The only way it makes sense to argue an issue of this complexity is to take constituent parts and deal with each separately...resolving one before going to another.

You here claim you have offered proof that a god is needed to explain the existence of the physical universe...and that I have rejected it without counter argument.

That does not sound like me at all. Please reference where it happened so I can check that it actually happened...and remedy it. I would be MORE THAN AMAZED if you came up with a coherent proof that a god is needed to explain (what we humans call) the physical universe. But I will keep an open mind.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2022 04:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Dealing with as many things as you do at one time is a recipe for getting nothing settled.

The only way it makes sense to argue an issue of this complexity is to take constituent parts and deal with each separately...resolving one before going to another.

You here claim you have offered proof that a god is needed to explain the existence of the physical universe...and that I have rejected it without counter argument.

That does not sound like me at all. Please reference where it happened so I can check that it actually happened...and remedy it. I would be MORE THAN AMAZED if you came up with a coherent proof that a god is needed to explain (what we humans call) the physical universe. But I will keep an open mind.


Hmmm.. so you really don’t remember.

Our previous conversation on the topic took place on the ‘Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion' topic thread. It starts on page 1197, post 7,222,929. So far, this conversation parallels that one.

Two things you said make me doubtful about the possibility of your following the argument. First, and probably the bigger obstacle is your detail analytical style that you feel is the only way to approach a subject as 'deep' as this one.

My approach is almost the opposite. My first impulse is to form the problem into a 'gestalt', a pattern that encompasses the concept in its entirety before looking at each detail. Once that is done, when the details are examined in the context of the gestalt, erroneous values of them become obvious, and the required correction or need to outright reject them is clear.

If you have no conceptual model that the details fit within, you will waste an enormous amount of time trying to prove or debunk the details. And even if you reach an acceptable verdict on the detail, it may not fit the rest of the pattern when you finish with the last detail.
This approach is extremely difficult to describe to one who approaches things in the opposite way. I am not saying the opposite way is wrong, just incredibly inefficient to the point of being impractical for complex scenarios. It is exactly like the biological problem of protein folding that has been in the science press lately. Alpha Fold, the program for computing the proper folding of proteins running on the worlds fastest super computer, MUST use the context of the finished protein function because if it didn’t, we would not be alive when the computer finished with the answer.

I have had several conversations where this was an impasse, even with those that agree with me. They find a need to inject faith to fill in the picture that they cannot grasp in full. They find comfort in bullshit 'axioms' like 'We can never comprehend God' fed to them by religion. Or in the alternative case, decide that 'God' or whatever the argument at hand, is total bullshit because they can’t grasp it. My ability to think in gestalts is the thing my 20 year career as a Principal design engineer (highest non management position) at Lockheed Martin was built upon. And I am 'undocumented', no college degree in anything. If you know anything about corporate culture, maybe you know what that says.

But if you want to do it your way, I’m willing. What detail would you like to start on?

Here is my latest version of the protein argument. It has been refined a little since I last posted it.

————————————

WHY ABIOGENESIS REQUIRED INTELLIGENT DESIGN

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'natural abiogenesis' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual and functional illustrations of proteins such as dynine, myosin or kinesin.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I and many molecular biology scientists use the term 'machine' for proteins because of their interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that its construction is very specific and functional. Remove or change even a single part and it will not work.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab (see Miller - Urey experiment) is as close to creating 'life' as we have come. Even though amino acids can potentially form naturally, that in no way proves that they are capable of assembling themselves into biological life. But because amino acids can be found in nature, one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

The fact that amino acids have been found on meteorites is often cited as evidence for extraterrestrial life. This is equivalent to assuming you can get New York City by dumping a load of building blocks on the banks of the Hudson River and waiting long enough. That will not happen even if you wait for the entire 13.8 billion year age of the universe. 'Time' is not a magic ingredient that can build anything. 'Time' is actually a deterrent to life forming because the necessary molecular chains are broken down just as fast as they can form by earth’s environment. Water itself is a solvent to them. Making first life naturally under those conditions would be like trying to build a house during a hurricane.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein starts out as a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. (See 'Undeniable', Douglas Axe, 2016) For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different functional proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Conclusion:

Keep in mind that there were not billions of years for this to happen. Every year there seems to be a new finding that pushes back the origin of life further all the time. The latest estimate (2022) barely gives the planet time to cool off before life started.The origin had only a few hundreds of millions of years to happen, not billions. And that basic template of DNA/protein based biological life has not changed in the following four billion years.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds of that string of amino acids being functional are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a functional protein by accident is impossible, in spite of the incredible odds.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein based machine in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 02:00 am
@Jasper10,
I would suggest that there is a discrepancy between secular science’s philosophical logic and natures logic.

Secular science logic claims that -=+ and +=- ,in other words they are the same.

If that were the case then nature would agree with it but it doesn’t.

The magnetic pole interactions confirm this as NN,NS,SN,NN should give either 4 attractions or 4 repulsions and they don’t.

Therefore a + and - cannot be the same.

2 identical poles repel and 2 non identical poles attract.In other words there is a difference between a + and -

What that difference is or what causes that difference is the interesting question.

I would suggest that this confirms that the formula +=- and -=+ is not an accurate statement.

I would suggest that +/- = +/- and -/+=-/+ is the accurate statement which I would suggest can only come about due to electromechanical processes which result in the “toggling” of electromagnetic waveforms which change a + to a - and a - to a +

In other words a + and - “toggles” on both sides of the fence.I would suggest that natures science is amazing and bears no relationship to secular science whatsoever.

The “toggling” nature of + and - on both sides of the fence cause the push/pull magnetic vibratory effect which holds all matter together.

All matter vibrates.

The “I am” which is separate from the 2 consciousness states of in the moment and out of the moment is aware of this.

Awareness/Unawareness sits above the 2 consciousness states and is separate from them.

The “I am” sits above awareness/unawareness and either has awareness or doesn’t have awareness.Darkness/Light divided.

The “I am” forms part of the three part make up.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 02:23 am
@Jasper10,
Unawareness/Unawareness (0,0)
Unawareness/Awareness (0,1)
Awareness /Unawareness (1,0)
Awareness/Awareness (1,1)

Awareness sits on both sides of the fence (Light) and Unawareness (Darkness) which also sits on both sides of the fence as well has not overcome it.

Maybe this is what the christian scripture John 1:5 is referring to?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 04:15 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:


Hmmm.. so you really don’t remember.


That is correct, I do not. If that "Hmmm" was meant to denote your doubt of that...it is inappropriate. I participate in several fora; you are one of many people with whom I engage on these topics; and I am 86 years old and forget where I put my keys at times. Try to forebear.

Quote:
Our previous conversation on the topic took place on the ‘Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion' topic thread. It starts on page 1197, post 7,222,929. So far, this conversation parallels that one.


Thank you. You could have provided a link, but I found the thread and the discussion.

I am not sure how you can characterize our conversation there as me "(rejecting your arguments) without counter argument." I gave many counter arguments as did so many others. Your characterization that others reject your "assertions" (I feel they do not rise to actual arguments) because they are not up to understanding what you are saying...is gratuitous.

You seem to be wanting us all to accept your rejection of the possibility of their being no gods for no other reason than the fact that you have made it.

Are we to suppose that although the finest minds that have ever lived have pondered this problem and come up short, but we here in A2K have stumbled upon the one person capable of showing conclusively that an "intelligent designer" is required in you? And if we do not do so...it is because we simply are not intelligent enough to see the light?

You say that you have proven that an intelligent designer is necessary. I am not arguing the opposite (that intelligent design is NOT necessary)...but I AM ARGUING THAT YOU HAVE NOT OFFERED SUCH A "PROOF." You have just given an opinion and expect us to accept that opinion as a proof.

Try this: Give a P1 and a P2 that arrives at a C of: Therefore there must be an intelligent designer.

Nearly as I can tell, it cannot be done. You have, in effect, used tons and tons of words to obscure the fact that YOU cannot do it.

Give it a try. Allow us the opportunity to evaluate what you come up with.

Quote:
Two things you said make me doubtful about the possibility of your following the argument. First, and probably the bigger obstacle is your detail analytical style that you feel is the only way to approach a subject as 'deep' as this one.

My approach is almost the opposite. My first impulse is to form the problem into a 'gestalt', a pattern that encompasses the concept in its entirety before looking at each detail. Once that is done, when the details are examined in the context of the gestalt, erroneous values of them become obvious, and the required correction or need to outright reject them is clear.

If you have no conceptual model that the details fit within, you will waste an enormous amount of time trying to prove or debunk the details. And even if you reach an acceptable verdict on the detail, it may not fit the rest of the pattern when you finish with the last detail.
This approach is extremely difficult to describe to one who approaches things in the opposite way. I am not saying the opposite way is wrong, just incredibly inefficient to the point of being impractical for complex scenarios. It is exactly like the biological problem of protein folding that has been in the science press lately. Alpha Fold, the program for computing the proper folding of proteins running on the worlds fastest super computer, MUST use the context of the finished protein function because if it didn’t, we would not be alive when the computer finished with the answer.

I have had several conversations where this was an impasse, even with those that agree with me. They find a need to inject faith to fill in the picture that they cannot grasp in full. They find comfort in bullshit 'axioms' like 'We can never comprehend God' fed to them by religion. Or in the alternative case, decide that 'God' or whatever the argument at hand, is total bullshit because they can’t grasp it. My ability to think in gestalts is the thing my 20 year career as a Principal design engineer (highest non management position) at Lockheed Martin was built upon. And I am 'undocumented', no college degree in anything. If you know anything about corporate culture, maybe you know what that says.

But if you want to do it your way, I’m willing. What detail would you like to start on?

Here is my latest version of the protein argument. It has been refined a little since I last posted it.

————————————

WHY ABIOGENESIS REQUIRED INTELLIGENT DESIGN

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'natural abiogenesis' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual and functional illustrations of proteins such as dynine, myosin or kinesin.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I and many molecular biology scientists use the term 'machine' for proteins because of their interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that its construction is very specific and functional. Remove or change even a single part and it will not work.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab (see Miller - Urey experiment) is as close to creating 'life' as we have come. Even though amino acids can potentially form naturally, that in no way proves that they are capable of assembling themselves into biological life. But because amino acids can be found in nature, one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

The fact that amino acids have been found on meteorites is often cited as evidence for extraterrestrial life. This is equivalent to assuming you can get New York City by dumping a load of building blocks on the banks of the Hudson River and waiting long enough. That will not happen even if you wait for the entire 13.8 billion year age of the universe. 'Time' is not a magic ingredient that can build anything. 'Time' is actually a deterrent to life forming because the necessary molecular chains are broken down just as fast as they can form by earth’s environment. Water itself is a solvent to them. Making first life naturally under those conditions would be like trying to build a house during a hurricane.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein starts out as a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. (See 'Undeniable', Douglas Axe, 2016) For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different functional proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Conclusion:

Keep in mind that there were not billions of years for this to happen. Every year there seems to be a new finding that pushes back the origin of life further all the time. The latest estimate (2022) barely gives the planet time to cool off before life started.The origin had only a few hundreds of millions of years to happen, not billions. And that basic template of DNA/protein based biological life has not changed in the following four billion years.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds of that string of amino acids being functional are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a functional protein by accident is impossible, in spite of the incredible odds.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein based machine in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.



That is what I am talking about. Most of that is supposition and opinion on your part...and a total rejection of "it is POSSIBLE that it did happen without intelligent help (by force of circumstance) no matter how unlikely YOU want to think that could be."

Simply supposing something to be unlikely IS NOT an argument that it did not happen.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 06:02 am
@Jasper10,
Vibration or “toggling” occurs on both sides of the fence.I would suggest that one (the “I am”) is either aware (light) of it or unaware (dark) of it.

All matter vibrates in the cosmos and ALL sciences are interconnected.

I would suggest that natures science is based upon electromechanical processes and explains perfectly the workings of the cosmos and the psychological make up with a common and united science.

Experience and Observations confirm this.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 07:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
That is what I am talking about. Most of that is supposition and opinion on your part...and a total rejection of "it is POSSIBLE that it did happen without intelligent help (by force of circumstance) no matter how unlikely YOU want to think that could be."

Simply supposing something to be unlikely IS NOT an argument that it did not happen.

I was afraid you would take it that way.

As I’ve said before, every fact in that protein argument is 100% accepted mainstream biological science. Only the conclusion contains my 'opinion'. My challenge now is for you to prove one single fact in the argument is not true. You said you like grinding on detail first, knock yourself out. If you can, I will leave this forum and never darken its portal again.

One of the standard atheist/agnostic arguments against theists is the hackneyed line of 'Your incredulity at the complexity of life is not evidence of a God.' They think that's such a killer argument. It merely shows their own credulity and willingness to accept the philosophical error of 'argument from authority', the false charge you flung at me. I have given you numerous supporting arguments for my position, you have given me nothing but:

I do not know….
I see no reason…
I see no reason…
I do not see…


As if that proves anything more than Jasper's
Quote:
I would suggest that this confirms natures full logic of:

+=+
+=-
-=+
-=-

Do you see the resemblance.

Quote:
Are we to suppose that although the finest minds that have ever lived have pondered this problem and come up short, but we here in A2K have stumbled upon the one person capable of showing conclusively that an "intelligent designer" is required in you?

According your own 'argument', of course. That is far more mathematically likely than undesigned abiogenesis. If you are unable to 'suppose' something, you will never know anything.

Search your own words and logic for inconsistencies. You are welcome to point out mine.


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 08:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
That is what I am talking about. Most of that is supposition and opinion on your part...and a total rejection of "it is POSSIBLE that it did happen without intelligent help (by force of circumstance) no matter how unlikely YOU want to think that could be."

Simply supposing something to be unlikely IS NOT an argument that it did not happen.

I was afraid you would take it that way.

As I’ve said before, every fact in that protein argument is 100% accepted mainstream biological science. Only the conclusion contains my 'opinion'. My challenge now is for you to prove one single fact in the argument is not true. You said you like grinding on detail first, knock yourself out. If you can, I will leave this forum and never darken its portal again.

One of the standard atheist/agnostic arguments against theists is the hackneyed line of 'Your incredulity at the complexity of life is not evidence of a God.' They think that's such a killer argument. It merely shows their own credulity and willingness to accept the philosophical error of 'argument from authority', the false charge you flung at me. I have given you numerous supporting arguments for my position, you have given me nothing but:

I do not know….
I see no reason…
I see no reason…
I do not see…


As if that proves anything more than Jasper's
Quote:
I would suggest that this confirms natures full logic of:

+=+
+=-
-=+
-=-

Do you see the resemblance.

Quote:
Are we to suppose that although the finest minds that have ever lived have pondered this problem and come up short, but we here in A2K have stumbled upon the one person capable of showing conclusively that an "intelligent designer" is required in you?

According your own 'argument', of course. That is far more mathematically likely than undesigned abiogenesis. If you are unable to 'suppose' something, you will never know anything.

Search your own words and logic for inconsistencies. You are welcome to point out mine.





Leadfoot…if your argument were “I am convinced an intelligent designer is necessary” (which is what it actually is) I would have no trouble accepting it. But you seem to want to argue that you are convinced an intelligent designer is necessary for us to be where we are…and anyone who does not agree with you is just not very bright.

Under any circumstances, we seem to be in agreement on one thing (a very important one thing!)…that it IS POSSIBLE that there is no intelligent designer…that things COULD HAVE (MIGHT HAVE) simply happened without one. YOU are, wisely, not saying that is impossible…just that it is, in your opinion, unlikely.

I quote A2K’s foremost authority on your opinion in support of that…YOU:

Let’s say that in spite of the odds…

If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77…

But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds of that string of amino acids being functional are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a functional protein by accident is impossible, in spite of the incredible odds.

Secondly, if there is intelligent design…that infers an Intelligent Designer (of some sort)…and we are then faced with the same problem…whence cometh the ID? The ID would be an even more complex product…so the chances of IT HAPPENING are even greater than the chances of “what we are” happening without a ID. (The ultimately ends up in infinite regression.)

Thirdly, you use terms like “believe” in a way that makes no sense to this discussion.

“What cannot be reasonably believed is…”

ANYTHING can be “reasonably believed” by anyone who wants to say they “believe” it and feel it is “reasonable.”


“But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:”

Nonsense. If a thing IS…it IS without regard to whether anyone “believes” it or “believes it not to be so.”

You are doing nothing but asserting your guesses and opinions about what can and cannot happen. You may be wrong. (Which, I acknowledge, is to say you may be correct.)

But for you to assert that you ARE correct…and that you are offering your guesses and opinions about things as FACTS and PROOFS of your assertions…is an absurdity.

If a one in a gazillion chance of happening…happens…it happens, despite the long odds.

You have proved absolutely nothing so far…despite the fact that you earlier asserted that you CAN offer proof.

So, I again offer you the opportunity to give a P1 and P2 that results in a C of: Therefore there MUST be intelligent design.

Have at it.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 08:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
Goodbye Frank, happy trails.
Jasper10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 08:27 am
@Leadfoot,
I have only suggested the mechanisms for the workings of the physical cosmos and physical body Leadfoot which has nothing to do with the "I am".

I would suggest that the "I am" does play on the hamsters wheel yes, but can also jump off. One goes inward and then one comes back out again.

I have merely pointed out secular science/philosophy HALF logic as opposed to natures science/philosophy FULL logic.

Secular science is not Natures science. The failure of secular sciences single big bang theory should be telling you that.
Jasper10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 09:31 am
@Jasper10,
I thought this topic was about the practicalities of the trinity and how it pans out for all?

How can we be separate from the trinity if a God exists and is everything?

Surely we are embroiled within it all.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2022 09:47 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Goodbye Frank, happy trails.


Good-bye, Leadfoot.

Happy trails to you, too.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2022 12:40 am
@Jasper10,
I would suggest that everything vibrates in the cosmos and this is down to push/pull (vibrating/toggling) MAGNETIC charges within neutral particles.

I would suggest that neutral particles contain matter that constantly “toggles” its polarity state from + to -

This “toggling” charge effect within neutral particles would create the magnetic vibration between neutral particles.

I would suggest and maintain that these “toggling” charges are created due to the spin of the neutral particles within the electromagnetic fields that saturate the cosmos at both the macro/micro levels and these electromagnetic fields were around at the same time as the multiple big bangs and big crunches.

0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2022 04:08 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot,

I would suggest that secular science and philosophy’s starting point for its theories is good=bad and bad = good or 0=1 and 1=0 if you factor in the possibility of a God whom it doesn’t believe exists or it would adopt natures logic.

I would suggest that natures science does not claim with its logic that good is bad and bad is good.It claims possibilities with it logic of good is good…good is bad …bad is good…bad is bad.

I would suggest that this principle is confirmed with the 4 off magnetic interactions of NN,NS,SN,SS on the basis that all sciences are interconnected and follow the same logic principles.

I would suggest that as none of these interactions provide a balance, they only provide attraction or repulsion outputs then in order to achieve a balance a + and - need to be on both sides of the fence which results in a vibration effect across the fence and is the reason matter stays together.

I would suggest that all matter in the cosmos vibrates.They know this already anyway.

So I would suggest that the correct formula is: toggling + and - = toggling + an -

I would suggest that the above is the balanced part of nature.

I would suggest that there is also a moving part of nature which results in multiple BB and BC’s which is as a result of all the spinning electromagnets within the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels interactions within the electromagnetic fields which saturate the cosmos at the macro/micro levels.

I would suggest that these principles match at the psychological level as well.


Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2022 10:47 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:
I would suggest that secular science and philosophy’s starting point for its theories is good=bad and bad = good or 0=1 and 1=0…

It’s fine to suggest that, but what exactly makes you think it is so?

The written history of logic suggests the opposite.
Aristotle started even more basic than your 'truth table'. He started with A is A. Followed by B is B, and then A is not B. Logic went on from there with that as its foundation. You may adjust the variables to whatever symbol suites you, but the logic remains the same.

There does not seem to be a path from there to: A is B, which is what you are suggesting that secular science/philosophy asserts.

Logic is not where science fails. It fails when it refuses to follow its own logic. But that was not its starting point as you say.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2022 01:16 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot,

Mainstream science claims that as good and bad cannot be defined then they must be the same.This is its moral cancellation stance.i.e.. it states that there are no absolutes.Hence they claim that good and bad are the same or good is bad and bad is good logic (0=1 and 1=0) applies.

Nature says fair enough but the above is a guess and might be incorrect because if there is God, good and bad are different hence +=+ and -=- thus a + and - are not the same.Both sides of the debate have no obligation to prove their stance either way because no definitive proof is given and therefore all that remains is a HOPE in a stance one way or the other.

With natures science, in order to get a magnetic balance you need a + and - on both sides of the fence because the 4 off possible magnetic interactions of -/-….-/+….+/-…+/+ only provide attractions or repulsions.You therefore need “toggling” + and - magnetic charges on both sides of the fence to get the vibration effect that is observed in nature.This “toggling” effect is created by electromechanical process and not gravitational processes.

Hence natures formula states: “toggling” +/- magnetic forces = “toggling” +/- magnetic forces.

The above proves logically that +=- and -=+ logic is incorrect when applied to natures KNOWN forces (forgetting that mythical flowery atheist force gravity).

All sciences are interconnected and I would suggest that their logic is identical.

Therefore + and - or awareness and unawareness or darkness and light are separate.

Which bit of the above SOUND logic do you disagree with? Please be clear.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2022 02:14 am
@Jasper10,
Why are the above "toggling" principles important to grasp? I would suggest that it is important because all sciences are interconnected and the "I am" experiences the same "toggling" principles with consciousness at the psychological level.

Atheistic science doesn't explain this stuff. Only natures science can explain it because it doesn't take sides.

Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2022 03:33 am
@Jasper10,
Atheism is unable to challenge the above because it knows its moral logic starting point of +=- and -=+ for its science is based upon the assumption that good is bad and bad is good.

I would suggest again that NATURE does not agree with this logic if you take known magnetic force interactions which do not provide balance unless a + AND - are present on both sides of the equation.

Natures balanced formula is therefore.

+/-=+/-

based upon SOUND logic.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/02/2022 at 11:13:53