Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[RickD]

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

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”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

[Kenny]

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

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”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

[RickD]

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

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”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

[Kenny]

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

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”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

How does a rock change? And as far as what is said to be unchanging, I couldn't care less; people say all sorts of things, I'm talking about that which is proven to be unchanging.

[PaulSacramento]

Wow....Geologists are having a fit right now...

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/e ... /rock.html

[RickD]

From post #82

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”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

How does a rock change? And as far as what is said to be unchanging, I couldn't care less; people say all sorts of things, I'm talking about that which is proven to be unchanging.

Asking you to accept the immutability of God, is like asking someone to believe that 2+2=4, when he doesn't believe that numbers exist.

Even basic logic escapes those who refuse to see.

[Kenny]

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

How does a rock change? And as far as what is said to be unchanging, I couldn't care less; people say all sorts of things, I'm talking about that which is proven to be unchanging.

Asking you to accept the immutability of God, is like asking someone to believe that 2+2=4, when he doesn't believe that numbers exist.

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

[Kenny]

Wow....Geologists are having a fit right now...

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/e ... /rock.html

Interesting; thanks.

[PaulSacramento]

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

[Kenny]

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

[PaulSacramento]

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

Wow.

[RickD]

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

You have nothing, because numbers don't exist.




Apparently.

[Philip]

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

Wow.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a great example of the bizarro world that is Ken's mind!

[Kenny]

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

Wow.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a great example of the bizarro world that is Ken's mind!

Are you under the impression that numbers have a physical existence?

[Philip]

Seems we're hitting rock bottom here. Pretty soon, we'll be debating whether reality isn't all an illusion that only exists in our minds. Uh, but someone would have to have a mind that was real for THAT to happen. What was it Descartes said?