... on Flood and Mind, part 3

1) ... on Flood and on Mind, part 1, 2) ... on Flood and Mind, part 2 , Interlude: ... on Flood with GreedyCapybara7 (snappy version), 3) ... on Flood and Mind, part 3

Video commented on:

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
"We never ever see order coming out of chaos without a mind getting involved. NEVER!"

Really? Let's see...

Magma is, basically, molten rock, ie. an amorphous blob of mineral molecules with no order or pattern of any kind. The molecules are all randomly distributed. It's completely chaotic.

Then a volcano erupts and some ejected magma starts to slowly cool off somewhere (thermodynamics in action.) Sometimes something peculiar happens: Crystals form inside this blob of cooling lava.

A crystal is a mineral where the molecules are extremely ordered and form clear patterns (which is the reason why crystal have such peculiar properties.)

So first there was an amorphous blob of chaotically placed molecules, and now there's a highly-ordered patterned structure of those molecules. Order has come out of chaos. So, which mind, exactly, was involved in this process? Magical magma fairy pixies from outer space?

jbooks888

+WarpRulez
OK - We never see intelligence come from non-intelligence.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
Moving goalposts now, are we?

Define "intelligence".

jbooks888

+WarpRulez
Not moving goal posts - restating my thoughts in a better way. I still stand by order out of chaos only comes about by intelligent application of energy. This is not my invention, but scientists say this. Are you trying to pick a fight, you idiot? Coz now you're fighting with your own people, those you hold in high esteem - the scientific community.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888
Let me guess: "Order does not come out of chaos because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics"? Did I guess right?

Firstly, nowhere do the laws of thermodynamics talk about "intelligence". You (like all creationists) are pulling that from your ass. An "intelligence" in this universe is exactly as much bound by the laws of thermodynamics as anything else, and it cannot break those laws. The famous 2nd law applies to "intelligence" like to everything else.

The 2nd law does not say "entropy never decreases except if affected by an intelligence". Or can you point me to the part that says anything like that?

Secondly, the laws of thermodynamics do not forbid order increasing locally. The only thing that the 2nd law says is that the total entropy of a closed system never decreases. This means that if entropy decreases in one part of the system, it increases by at least that much in another part. There's nothing forbidding this from happening.

My crystallization of rock example is a perfect demonstration of this. Thermodynamics happens, and order increases significantly. What the 2nd law is telling us is that entropy increased by at least as much as a consequence (typically in the form of released heat.) "Intelligence" has absolutely nothing to do with this.

If you refuse to understand this, then you are just being dishonest.

I have a question for you: If you think that "intelligence" can only come from another intelligence, then what do you suggest is the source of our intelligence?

jbooks888

+WarpRulez God is the source of our intelligence.

BTW I never brought up the 2nd Law of dynamics. You guessed wrong, sucker.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 If intelligence can only come up from a higher intelligence, then where did God's intelligence come from?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I expect jbooks888 to agree with my answer:

If intelligence COMES FROM anywhere, it must come from a higher one. Not from matter.

But the intelligence that God is, does not come from elsewhere to Him.

jbooks888

+WarpRulez Stupid question. you might as well ask where God came from or why is the sky blue.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 It's not a stupid question. Your premise was that intelligence cannot appear on its own, that it has to come from somewhere. You then say that our intelligence comes from God. The natural question is to ask where did God get it from. Your premise says that it has to come from somewhere and cannot appear on its own.

jbooks888

+WarpRulez It is indeed a stupid question. A very stupid question. Do you really expect to be able to understand God?

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 Oh, so that's your answer to a logical contradiction? "We just can't understand God." Then you have the guts to say that it was my question that was stupid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

jbooks sorry for interrupting, but you are not answering very well, mind if I bump in?

Warp, the premise "intelligence cannot APPEAR on its own, but if it appears it needs to come from a higher one" is correct.

The premise "EVERY intelligence needs a higher one" is not correct.

Your supposed logical contradiction is none such, since the two premisses are not synonymous.

There are indeed things where we must say we do not understand God, but this is not one of them.

WarpRulez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl That didn't really answer the question of where God's intelligence came from.

(And this isn't even going to the fact that "intelligence can only come from intelligence" is demonstrably untrue. It's a complete ass-pull.)

jbooks888

+WarpRulez God's intelligence didn't come from anywhere. It always was, just as He always was. God invented time and space. And everything we know. How can you ask such questions.

WarpRulez

+jbooks888 And your evidence for this is... what, exactly?

Or at the very least could you explain to me how information and intelligence can "always exist"? What exactly is the process or phenomenon that allows it to "always exist"? Can you describe it to me?

"How can you ask such questions"? Why shouldn't I be asking such questions? You are making rather extraordinary claims. Why wouldn't I ask what the basis is for such claims? How do you know that your claims are true? Are you telling me that I should simply accept what you are saying without any inquiry? Tell me one single reason why I shouldn't be asking such questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[@Warp]

"where God's intelligence came from."

Is a question based on a premise I have already said is false, namely that every intelligence comes FROM some other thing.

"the fact that 'intelligence can only come from intelligence' is demonstrably untrue."

If your demonstration, so called, is that our intelligence comes from brain matter or comes from instincts of our not yet human ancestors, I hold that to be an unproven and even impossible myth of materialists as such in the one case of brain matter and evolutionists as such in the case of the supposed ancestors in biology but not intelligence.

If you want to base that on any evidence, or try to, do so.

"Or at the very least could you explain to me how information and intelligence can 'always exist'?"

Because SOME intelligence has to have always existed. Because if ANY particular intelligence came from something other than itself (as we know to be tha case of our own), then that other than itself must also have been an intelligence. But you cannot have an infinite series of intelligence after intelligence depending on the previous one, so you must have a first eternal one, which is called God.

Or since our experience of having an intelligence and what in it proves this to have had in our case a beginning are two distinct aspects.

Understanding a thing does not equate to begin to understand it, we understand it equally well second, third, fourth etc time we go back to an understanding. As long as it was really such.

"What exactly is the process or phenomenon that allows it to 'always exist'?"

Self subsistence. As in what you think that "matter and energy" or simply "energy" has. "Can neither be created nor destroyed" I think one of your own thinkers expressed it as.

We affirm that of mind. But NOT of matter.

Now, if you affirm that mind arose out of matter, I call THAT a very extraordinary claim.

[@jbooks]

"God invented time and space. And everything we know. How can you ask such questions."

He can ask such questions because he is not starting as a Christian. Neither did I even if I got them answered pretty early.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You still have assume the role of a believer - in other words you have to hypothetically say that IF God exists, and start from there. You have to put yourself in the position of a believer. If God is who the Bible says He is, then those questions are ridiculous, childish - naive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is of course one way of looking at the debate. It assumes the atheist opponent is knowledgeable about the Bible. Can that be hoped for these days?

Even if it can be hoped for that some are, can that be assumed of everyone?

Besides, you were defending "existence of God" on a philosophical plane, i e as discoverable through common human experience even without the Bible (as Romans chapter 1 indeed confirms He is), and so must take the debate without assuming Bible knowledge in the opponent, because even if he has such, he would not be ready to accept its relevance for the philosophical question.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
God is only knowable in as much as He makes Himself known.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

True.

He does so in two ways. Clearest one in Revelation. Most widespread one as to access to starting points in Creation.

When we discuss whether a mind can come from something other than a mind, we are discussing God as revealing Himself by the minds He gave us. Minds that are themselves finite but cannot be tracked to a merely finite mind as origin (one man's mind coming from another man's mind is clearly both on same level and does not adress the basic question) nor to a merely material infinite (since the mindless matter cannot explain the mind). This reasoning is not a Bible text. It is a piece of philosophy and should be conducted so, that is it should not presume familiarity with the Bible in the one one is adressing.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually, this reasoning is in the Bible. Jesus said:

Matthew 10
24 "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is a parallel to the argument, but not identical.

Matthew 10:24-25 is about mind CONTENT, the reasoning here is about mind AS A CAPACITY

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, OK. But I don;t think Jesus needed to use reasoning. He knows truth absolutely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He knows and knew truth absolutely, he also needed to reason. He is true God and true man. Knowing truth absolutely belongs to His being God, reasoning to get it anyway belongs to His being Man. True God, true Man.

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whatever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+jbooks888
That is also a response to good Theology ...

jbooks888

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is a response to you always having to prove you know more than me.

[He is not the first working class man I have ticked off like that.]

Hal Barbour

Your post is interesting to say the least, I would have to say since you are engaging with admitted atheists what possible worth is it to quote bible myth to them, most have bibles that they have read over and over again. You still have not explained what a "kind" is, say a lion and a tiger? an eagle and a sparrow? a snake and a lizard? The bible explaines this kind thing by saying "each kind" but a tiger and a lion are seperate "kinds" even though they are both cats.

And yes the study of what has happened and how it relates to the species and beings alive then benefits the beings and species alive today. DNA, the same science that cures genetic diseases is the one who conclusively linked our genome to that of the great apes, you can't site the science of DNA as real without it's contributions to the genetic linking to ALL living things on the planet.

I am surprised that you would ask such a question, it is easily answered by googling the link between evolution and medical breakthroughs, simple.

jbooks888

+Hal Barbour
I want to set this straight once and for all, because it drives me up the fecking wall when mindless bullshit like you've just posted goes unchallenged. I'm sick of it!

Because DNA has similarities amongst all kinds of creatures does not mean that they are related or share common ancestry. It merely means that God used the same method of design in all His creatures, because it is a powerful and versatile mechanism. Just because all cars have wheels, does that imply they were all made by the same manufacturer and came from the same factory? DO YOU GET THAT? Hmmm - do you get it?

You cannot draw any conclusions about heritage, going back in time, on the grounds of DNA. It is mere speculation and completely unprovable. It may be true, but then again, Genesis 1:1 may be true, right? They are equally untestable, unprovable, hypotheses.

Besides, how much DNA do scientists actually have of earlier species? Isn't it non-existent? Does DNA survive millions of years?

I quote the Bible passages to anyone and everyone because it is the truth.

I don't care if atheists don't believe it. They are fools, and the only way for them to be elevated from their folly is by hearing the truth, even though most of them won't respond to it.

Just google it, you say? Then I would get a plethora of sites that push the 'scientific' evolutionist agenda. The schools indoctrinate students with it, the media supports it fully and promotes it, and anyone who tries to challenge it with legitimate questions or problems with evolution are immediately and publicly lambasted and lampooned, or fired from their academic positions. This is fact and can be proven, unlike the evolution theory. Just because a theory is useful and explains certain things and may be able to make certain predictions does NOT mean it is what actually happened! There could be alternate explanations. And evolution has many areas that it's predictions were false and many things it simply cannot explain. It is far-fetched. it is unscientific in the sense it cannot be repeated, cannot be observed and it cannot be falsified. Evolution is, by that criteria, just another man-made religion.

Accept this or shut up. I am not interested in any further debate about it. I have argued the issue for years. The facts remain. There is not one iota of evidence that one kind of animal changed into another kind through evolution. And besides all of that, you expose yourself as ignorant when you even use the term evolution without qualifying it. There are several kinds of evolution. Cosmological, chemical, biological and finally, adaptation. Only adaptation, or variation with a kind is demonstrated to be true.

As for the Big Bang and abiogenesis - I'll leave that to another time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+jbooks888
I am not trying to prove I know more than you, I am trying to give a better answer than you. WHEN I think yours fails, which is not always. 

+jbooks888
For instance I liked your answer to Hal thoroughly.