Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[Philip]

Ken knows this, I am not sure what he is trying to pull to be honest.

Because there's nothing quite as effective as self delusion - and he's mastered it! And it takes constant effort because he knows the ridiculously impossible odds of a universe instantly appearing with just the necessary things and then beginning to brilliantly self assemble itself, "as if" there were a massive intelligence guiding it. And so he has to constantly tell himself and also claim absurdities, so he won't have any anxiety about what he asserts to be an alternative. And because he well knows the consequences of his will "if" he's wrong!

[Kenny]

You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

Back on post #82 (which is what we are responding to) I used the term “create” to mean bring into existence from nothing; after all according to the creation story, God more than just “bring forth something “NEW” that didn’t exist before, he created something from nothing. God didn’t create things from existing materials whose existence he had nothing to do with, like the painter in your analogy; right? That is the point I was addressing.

[Kenny]

Ken knows this, I am not sure what he is trying to pull to be honest.

Because there's nothing quite as effective as self delusion - and he's mastered it! And it takes constant effort because he knows the ridiculously impossible odds of a universe instantly appearing

As many discussions as we've had, you still think that is what I believe? Amazing!

[PaulSacramento]

You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

Back on post #82 (which is what we are responding to) I used the term “create” to mean bring into existence from nothing; after all according to the creation story, God more than just “bring forth something “NEW” that didn’t exist before, he created something from nothing. God didn’t create things from existing materials whose existence he had nothing to do with, like the painter in your analogy; right? That is the point I was addressing.

We were talking about cells Ken.
No one was talking about God.

[Philip]

Ken: As many discussions as we've had, you still think that is what I believe? Amazing!

Ken, you believe in some kind of explanation for the universe that does not require God - that is my point about your self-delusion! I could care less whether, for you, that manifests itself as some kind of eternal existing causes / things, or whether there was nothing and then suddenly, an incredible universe beginning. And you appear to reject the idea that any intelligence was necessary in what occurred - another delusion.

[Kenny]

You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

Back on post #82 (which is what we are responding to) I used the term “create” to mean bring into existence from nothing; after all according to the creation story, God more than just “bring forth something “NEW” that didn’t exist before, he created something from nothing. God didn’t create things from existing materials whose existence he had nothing to do with, like the painter in your analogy; right? That is the point I was addressing.

We were talking about cells Ken.
No one was talking about God.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

[Kenny]

Ken: As many discussions as we've had, you still think that is what I believe? Amazing!

Ken, you believe in some kind of explanation for the universe that does not require God

True. So why did you speak of the odds of the Universe instantly appearing; despite the countless other options one could believe that doesn't include God or the Universe instantly appearing, and the fact that I've mentioned many times that the idea of something coming from nothing, or the idea of the Universe just popping into existence makes no sense to me?

[RickD]

You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

Back on post #82 (which is what we are responding to) I used the term “create” to mean bring into existence from nothing; after all according to the creation story, God more than just “bring forth something “NEW” that didn’t exist before, he created something from nothing. God didn’t create things from existing materials whose existence he had nothing to do with, like the painter in your analogy; right? That is the point I was addressing.

We were talking about cells Ken.
No one was talking about God.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

[Kenny]

You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

Back on post #82 (which is what we are responding to) I used the term “create” to mean bring into existence from nothing; after all according to the creation story, God more than just “bring forth something “NEW” that didn’t exist before, he created something from nothing. God didn’t create things from existing materials whose existence he had nothing to do with, like the painter in your analogy; right? That is the point I was addressing.

We were talking about cells Ken.
No one was talking about God.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

[RickD]

Back on post #82 (which is what we are responding to) I used the term “create” to mean bring into existence from nothing; after all according to the creation story, God more than just “bring forth something “NEW” that didn’t exist before, he created something from nothing. God didn’t create things from existing materials whose existence he had nothing to do with, like the painter in your analogy; right? That is the point I was addressing.

We were talking about cells Ken.
No one was talking about God.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

[Kenny]

We were talking about cells Ken.
No one was talking about God.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

[Philip]

Ken: As many discussions as we've had, you still think that is what I believe? Amazing!

Ken, you believe in some kind of explanation for the universe that does not require God

True. So why did you speak of the odds of the Universe instantly appearing; despite the countless other options one could believe that doesn't include God or the Universe instantly appearing, and the fact that I've mentioned many times that the idea of something coming from nothing, or the idea of the Universe just popping into existence makes no sense to me?

Because, Ken, ALL of those options you insist upon would rely upon NO intelligence in designing and assembling the universe - which goes against the fact that we have zero evidence of even very simple things being newly created and designed or controlled by non-intelligent things. And because the only option of characteristics of sources for the universe are from some kind of eternal thing or things. Yes, you're correct, things don't just pop into place without a source - but they sure as heck can't be designed and orchestrated on the level of the early universe without great intelligence! But you are so off into your fantasy assumptions that you don't even appear to accept the teachings of general physics - for which there are now exhaustive evidences - thus you go on about already existing cells. So you continue to talk nonsense that I don't even believe YOU truly believe is possible.

Even in our conjecture of you finding a fairly simple machine on an unvisited planet, you said you would assume that somewhere there was an INTELLIGENT, already existing source that created it. With the key being you recognize that even a simple machine in design and function requires an intelligent designer!

[RickD]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

No Ken, I was responding to what YOU said.

[Kenny]

Ken: As many discussions as we've had, you still think that is what I believe? Amazing!

Ken, you believe in some kind of explanation for the universe that does not require God

True. So why did you speak of the odds of the Universe instantly appearing; despite the countless other options one could believe that doesn't include God or the Universe instantly appearing, and the fact that I've mentioned many times that the idea of something coming from nothing, or the idea of the Universe just popping into existence makes no sense to me?

Because, Ken, ALL of those options you insist upon would rely upon NO intelligence in designing and assembling the universe - which goes against the fact that we have zero evidence of even very simple things being newly created and designed or controlled by non-intelligent things.

We have zero evidence of the Universe actually being “designed and assembled” either! If the singularity that eventually expanded was eternal, that would exempt it from design and assembly won't it.

And because the only option of characteristics of sources for the universe are from some kind of eternal thing or things. Yes, you're correct, things don't just pop into place without a source - but they sure as heck can't be designed and orchestrated on the level of the early universe without great intelligence!

Again; if the Singularity that expanded had an eternal existence, that would dispel the “design and orchestrated” idea as well won’t it.

Even in our conjecture of you finding a fairly simple machine on an unvisited planet, you said you would assume that somewhere there was an INTELLIGENT, already existing source that created it. With the key being you recognize that even a simple machine in design and function requires an intelligent designer!

I said that because you insist on using the term “machine” to describe what I found on said planet in your scenario. Only humans make machines, there is no evidence of them being made by anything else! So if I came upon something that I recognized as a machine, I would not only assume it was intelligently designed, but that it was designed by a human being.

[Kenny]

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:


This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

No Ken, I was responding to what YOU said.

So again; if God created materials from nothing, and used those materials to assemble cells, that would be the same as God creating cells from nothing.