It's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the Universe

originally posted by: neoholographic
Nope, I'm saying it's God because without intelligence determining what possible outcomes can occur, it makes no sense.

Intelligence doesn't determine what outcomes can occur. What our intelligence has done is calculate what possible outcomes can occur if we happen to toss dice of x sides. Since we don't know the number of dice, the number of sides and the number of tosses, we don't have an answer.

Science doesn't tell us why a universe is even possible because it doesn't know. It is on you if you want to fill that gap with god, but it doesn't make it true. Even if their is a creator the god you put in that gap might not be it.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: neoholographic
Nope, I'm saying it's God because without intelligence determining what possible outcomes can occur, it makes no sense.

Intelligence doesn't determine what outcomes can occur. What our intelligence has done is calculate what possible outcomes can occur if we happen to toss dice of x sides. Since we don't know the number of dice, the number of sides and the number of tosses, we don't have an answer.

Science doesn't tell us why a universe is even possible because it doesn't know. It is on you if you want to fill that gap with god, but it doesn't make it true. Even if their is a creator the god you put in that gap might not be it.

It's funny how people say when you mention God, it's the God of the gaps, but then say this:

Science doesn't tell us why a universe is even possible because it doesn't know.

It doesn't know because it can't occur randomly or naturally. You can't just say the universe is large or you're looking at billions of years. That means nothing. That doesn't say how information is encoded on the sequence of a storage medium and also encoded with information to build machinary to decode the information.

It's the job of science to say how anything natural or random can accomplish what we've only seen intelligence accomplish.

Materialism is the no god of the gaps. They tell us that consciousness must emerge from the material brain and they don't even know what consciousness is. You said:

Intelligence doesn't determine what outcomes can occur. What our intelligence has done is calculate what possible outcomes can occur if we happen to toss dice of x sides. Since we don't know the number of dice, the number of sides and the number of tosses, we don't have an answer.

This makes no sense. How did the pair of dice come to be without intelligence? How did the rules to a game of dice come to be without intelligence? Yes, intelligence decided which outcomes can occur. Just like with cards or most things we think of as random. The outcomes that can occur are designed by intelligence.

a reply to: neoholographic
No, science doesn't know because it can't figure it out. Has nothing to do with whether it can or can't occur randomly or naturally.

The pair of dice is a metaphor for matter. Don't ask me how it came to be, I don't know, but neither do you.

a reply to: cooperton

Good points!

They can't even grasp the basics of probability and possibility. It goes to show you that atheist and materialist run the scientific establishment and when anything goes against the materialist paradigmn, it's marginalized.

originally posted by: neoholographic
They can't even grasp the basics of probability and possibility. It goes to show you that atheist and materialist run the scientific establishment and when anything goes against the materialist paradigmn, it's marginalized.

Weak, I don't run anything and it is just that your arguments don't cut the mustard with me.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neoholographic
No, science doesn't know because it can't figure it out. Has nothing to do with whether it can or can't occur randomly or naturally.

The pair of dice is a metaphor for matter. Don't ask me how it came to be, I don't know, but neither do you.

It has everything to do with if something can happen randomly and naturally. The whole idea behind SETI is knowing the difference between a random signal and a non random signal. So science has to explain how a supercomputer crawled out of the mud that coded it's sequence with information and encoded it sequence to make molecular machines with a modular design to decode the information.

I have seen intelligence create modular designs like with modular homes. How can anything natural or random create a machine with 20 different parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and come together at the right angle to carry out different tasks? If you're going to say this happened without intelligence, you have to explain how this is even possible.

So it isn't god of the gaps, it's illogical and impossible without the intelligence of God. We don't even hear from Darwinist how this is possible. You said:

Don't ask me how it came to be, I don't know, but neither do you.

You can't speak for me. You can only say you don't know. It's your problem if you think it's possible for a storage medium to encode it's own sequence with information and build the machinary to decode that information. That's like a snowflake encoded with information to build a snowman and with information to build machinary to build the snowman.

I know this is the domain of intelligence. In the Bible, God says, Come Now, Let Us Reason Together. I serve a God of reason and logic so I can't accept something so illogical as a universe created without intelligence and reason.

a reply to: neoholographic
Actually they can say we don't know, which is the truth. Don't know why you think you can demand an answer, either way you are not getting one.

I can speak to your answer, because it isn't much of an answer. I understand that you think you have an answer but I can see that you really don't.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neoholographic
Actually they can say we don't know, which is the truth. Don't know why you think you can demand an answer, either way you are not getting one.

I can speak to your answer, because it isn't much of an answer. I understand that you think you have an answer but I can see that you really don't.

What? I think Cooperton was right. You haven't refuted or responded to anything with any evidence. You keep saying anything can happen and nobody knows without providing basic evidence that anything can happen if it's large enough. That's pure nonsense and without any logic or reason.

You seem to think because you don't know because you don't want to use basic logic and reason, that everyone has to look at the evidence devoid of logic and reason.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neoholographic
Actually they can say we don't know, which is the truth. Don't know why you think you can demand an answer, either way you are not getting one.

I can speak to your answer, because it isn't much of an answer. I understand that you think you have an answer but I can see that you really don't.

No I actually understand everything neo says. So do many other people. It's because we are all searching diligently without bias, and we can relate to eachother being on a similar place along the way..

There is an answer to be had, and it is obtainable, and it is most certainly not illogical. The first step is admitting this is a logical world. This is why me, neo, and the others harp on the fact that evolution is nonsense, because if you believe evolution it warps your entire grasp on the logical world, because evolution insists on an illogical forthcoming of all things.

When Grenade says something, I understand what he means before even finishing his sentence, whereas others try to convolute the things he says into obscurity because they don't understand the point he is trying to convey. All it takes is an objective, rational, unbiased mind to begin the hunt for the logical discernment of the meaning of life.

This thread is going nowhere... especially when few to no one really wants to examine their cards...

I’m out. ✌🏻😎

originally posted by: neoholographic
What? I think Cooperton was right. You haven't refuted or responded to anything with any evidence.

Because my point is that there isn't any and filling in that void with fairy tales isn't really evidence either.

You seem to think because you don't know because you don't want to use basic logic and reason, that everyone has to look at the evidence devoid of logic and reason.

No, I'm saying that people's thought process is influenced by our limited capacity and their conclusions by their biases.

For example, why the biblical god? Why not one of the gods and creation myths from some other part of the world? Not that it would make it any more true but it does show a bias.

a reply to: cooperton
But you don't have the answers, you have deductions according to your logic and reasoning, which you end up wrapping in religion.

All I'm saying is that you could leave it unwrapped but you really can't because that is where you want to go. You want to capitalize all the mentions of the creator and point out their "magnificence". That is not being unbiased.

originally posted by: PaPaTaco
This thread is going nowhere... especially when few to no one really wants to examine their cards...

I’m out. ✌🏻😎

They are all like this.

ETA: You don't really want to examine your cards either.

a reply to: daskakik

More nonsense. You said:

Because my point is that there isn't any and filling in that void with fairy tales isn't really evidence either.

First you said there isn't any. This is because you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying while others have. Next, you say filling the void with a fairy tale. First you say you don't know, well how do you know it's a fairy tale? Give me evidence that it's a fairy tale. You said:

No, I'm saying that people's thought process is influenced by our limited capacity and their conclusions by their biases.

Again, Gobbledy Gook! Limited capacity to understand what? How can a conclusion be based on a bias? What's there to be biased about exactly when you look at a storage medium like DNA whose sequence is encoded with information and the sequences are also encoded with information to build modular machines that decode the information? Explain how it's biased to look at the evidence as intelligent design. There's no natural alternative to explain this. You only hear nonsense like, if there's billions of years... No, that's not explaining how it's possible without intelligence.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Again, you keep saying nobody knows but you know god is a fairytale, provide some evidence of a natural explanation of how a supercomputer came out of the mud that encodes it's own sequence with information. You said:

For example, why the biblical god? Why not one of the gods and creation myths from some other part of the world? Not that it would make it any more true but it does show a bias.

As the Bible tells us, Salvation is a gift from God. You can't earn it. You can't pray 5 times a day. You can't follow the law and all the festivals and feast. You can't restrain from everything to reach Nirvana. This is the difference. It's by Grace ye are saved. When you give your life to Christ, the Spirit begins to transform you.

The Resurrection of Jesus. Tell me why the Apostles would continue to risk their lives if Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Why didn't Peter go back to being a fisherman and Matthew a tax collector? When other leaders of a religion died back then, the followers went away or followed someone else. Why did Christianity continue while all of these other religions died out?

You start to hear about followers of Chrestus in the historical record and people saw them as peculiar because they were willing to die or be tortured for Chrestus who died. Why did their resolve get even stronger after Jesus died if he didn't rise from the dead?

Why would Paul, a guy who was in the Jewish power structure and had a comfortable life as a Pharisee and who persecuted Christians abandon his life to be shipwrecked, beaten, jailed and killed if Jesus didn't appear to him?

Why did God carry out a modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve when he didn't have to?

Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

God didn't have to Create Eve this way. He could've Created her from the dust of the ground like He did Adam. He carried out a modern day surgery on Eve for our benefit. You can look at any surgical procedure and see the same steps.

Deep Sleep(anesthesia)
He opened him up(surgery)
He CLOSED UP THE FLESH(end of surgery)

You can simply watch a medical drama on TV and here the words "Close him up" "Close her up" or "Let's close." Why did God close up the flesh and put Adam in a deep sleep when he didn't have to? He did that for our benefit.

If you really want to know more, then read the Bible and check out my threads and threads from others. If you really want to know these things, God said,"Come Now, Let US REASON TOGETHER."

a reply to: neoholographic
You wrote so much and didn't say anything worthwhile.

You nor anyone else has provided any evidence to support your OP. You have made logical arguments based on old hebrew stories. Yeah, those type of stories are fairy tales.

The reason I mentioned other stories from other parts of the world is because many of those are fairy tales as well. You might even consider them as such, since you don't cite them as proof of anything. Well, the only thing that makes these hebrew stories different is your faith and that makes you bias.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neoholographic
You wrote so much and didn't say anything worthwhile.

You nor anyone else has provided any evidence to support your OP. You have made logical arguments based on old hebrew stories. Yeah, those type of stories are fairy tales.

The reason I mentioned other stories from other parts of the world is because many of those are fairy tales as well. You might even consider them as such, since you don't cite them as proof of anything. Well, the only thing that makes these hebrew stories different is your faith and that makes you bias.

Checkmate! Cooperton had it exactly right. You don't provide a shred of evidence to support anything you say. You haven't refuted any evidence presented in the OP. Everything I say is backed up by links from videos, papers and articles. If you look at your post there's nothing but vacuous opinion. I debated you some because I thought you would provide some counter evidence, but... NOTHING!

Anyone can go back and look at the OP or any of my threads and I back everything up with evidence. Sadly for materialist, there's no evidence except when you said:

What is logical and illogical in a universe so large we can't really wrap our heads around it?

LOL! This is the extent of your counterargument. That it's so large even the illogical can happen.

Give me an example of what's illogical about the constants of nature and the laws of physics.

You said, WHAT IS LOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL in a universe so large. This is an asinine statement but I'm willing to let you back it up. So tell me:

Give me an example of what's illogical about the constants of nature and the laws of physics.

Waiting....

a reply to: neoholographic
You didn't checkmate anything. You don't provide a shred of proof, just philosophical arguments based on old stories and some new theories that have not been proven to be true either.

That is you and cooperton going on about logical and illogical, I never said the constants of nature and the laws of physics are illogical so why are you waiting for me to give you an example?

a reply to: daskakik

You said:

What is logical and illogical in a universe so large we can't really wrap our heads around it?

The whole point of the thread is that it's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the universe. I keep talking about reason and logic and how the universe should be logical and understood by us. You said WHAT IS LOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL in a universe so large. What exactly is illogical? You said it I didn't.

Show me how something illogical gave birth to something logical like the constants of nature. You said it:

What is logical and illogical in a universe so large we can't really wrap our heads around it?

My point is, nothing is illogical unless you think reason, logic and awareness came from non reason, logic and awareness. Again, these are your words!

originally posted by: neoholographic
The whole point of the thread is that it's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the universe.

And my point is that this conclusion is based on what you think is logical.

Given what we don't know it might be perfectly logical that god didn't create the universe.

Aside from that, it is even more probable that the god you are talking about doesn't even exist, because people throughout history made god stories up for whatever reason, and even if there is a creator, they might be nothing like the god you are talking about.

a reply to: daskakik

Your response is full of contradictions. You said:

Aside from that, it is even more probable that the god you are talking about doesn't even exist, because people throughout history made god stories up for whatever reason, and even if there is a creator, they might be nothing like the god you are talking about.

You say the God I'm talking about doesn't exist, then you say if there is a Creator they might be nothing like the God I'm talking about. How do you know this? Also, it's more probable that god doesn't exist? What is this probability based on? You said:

And my point is that this conclusion is based on what you think is logical.

No, that's not the point. You said:

What is logical and illogical in a universe so large we can't really wrap our heads around it?

What's illogical is a universe Created without intelligence. You said WHAT IS LOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL in a universe so large. It's the same silly argument from Darwinist who say anything is possible over billions of years even things that may seem illogical. This is why you added in a universe so large.

I'm simply asking you, how can the illogical give rise to the logical in a universe so large?

These are your words! So I ask again:

I'm simply asking you, how can the illogical give rise to the logical in a universe so large?