Originally posted by squiz

That is one point of view, but once upon a time science called the cell a simple blob of protoplasm so the origin of life was considered not a big deal, perhaps as simple as a few quick chemical reactions away. When DNA was discovered, Crick once proclaimed how inconceivable it was to generate even a simple protein by chance, but rest assured it would be solved in a few short years. That was about 60 years ago.

Now what has been discovered in the era of micro-biology and the molecular machine paradigm is that science has only deepened the mystery and has not closed the gap in an explanation only widened it by many many magnitudes. The same holds true for the very fundamental level of reality in quantum physics and even nuero science in regards to consciousness.

What is being revealed is not the clean tidy materialistic view, but an even greater unimaginable mystery. The more we learn the more we realise how much we don't know is what I'm saying. I don't see the chain of evidence leading supporting materialism at all.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, this is my view.

Originally posted by squiz
Turns out your wrong about me being wrong.

Originally posted by dusty1
Understanding how a mechanism works does not diminish the inventor of the mechanism.

What is natural?

If man is natural and he uses natural elements, then isn't his technology natural as well?

Originally posted by vasaga
It's right there in your face. Your failure to understand the point is a sign of your blindness.

Aren't they? Awareness is presumed to be generated by the brain, and information is presumed to be possible to arise from inanimate matter, or purely physical properties, even though there is no evidence for it.

We have information science, but it's completely neglected when it comes to things like biology, where they constantly violate the rules of information science.

You're saying there are no taboos or limits in science?

You think I'm proposing intelligent design in the sense that some man with a beard we call God made the universe. That is not the case. Your whole reply is a full-blown strawman

Ok. Tell me where the evidence is that you yourself are aware. Should I conclude you don't exist? Jokes aside, for there to be evidence, one has to look for it first, instead of dismissing things beforehand. Don't tell me that doesn't happen in science, because it does.

What part of 'philosophy is used in science' don't you understand? Every interpretation of any evidence is philosophy. Philosophy invented the scientific method in the first place. And detecting fallacies is possible because of philosophy. Tough luck that you don't like philosophy, but every time you accuse someone of a fallacy, you are using it.

If rational thought is required by philosophy, then I apologize, you were not philosophizing, you were guessing and expressing your faith.

What a pathetic low blow of an argument. I'm expressing problems with your views, not expressing my faith. But what else can be expected? You are known for doing this. Assigning all the baggage, being unable to have a proper conversation. Too busy pretending you already know what others think.

Originally posted by Barcs

They ARE 2 different things.

No. Knowledge is a belief that conforms to so-called reality.

Originally posted by vasaga
It's also used to form a conclusion. And philosophy definitely holds merit. If your argument is sound, and your premises are true, then the conclusion is true. In some cases, premises do not need to be verified experimentally. Example? The premise that we exist.
And I find it funny how you criticize Occam's razor in the article, while that represents the position that intelligence did not initiate the universe in that article. In other words, it was representing your position. The fact that you argued against yourself shows that you didn't even read the article. Maybe you should. You'd learn something. And until you do and address what's presented in there, there is no reason to continue this 'conversation'.

Originally posted by Barcs
So I guess it's not a fact then, that something like language (aka code, descriptive and prescriptive information) has only been observed to arise from intelligence. And yeah.. There is belief everywhere, including in you. Even though you like to pretend that what you're saying is purely knowledge not and belief.

No. Not 'complex'. DNA has properties that have only been observed to arise from intelligence and never have been observed to arise from purely physical properties.

then how come we can connect man-made chips to cells and let them work together?

Nonsense. I believe there is a necessity for a fundamental basic intelligence in nature because it is a requirement for logical consistency. That is not the same as "we don't know, therefore higher power". You're trying to put me in the god of the gaps argument, while you yourself just used a similar argument, remember? All your 'higher power' nonsense is to portray me as religious, but that's not what this is about.

Originally posted by BarcsIf there is no intelligent arrangement in the universe, then how come we consider ourselves intelligent?

Are we separate from the universe?

If so, you must accept that something transcends nature and can not be reached by science since science limits itself to nature.

If we do not transcend nature and we are subject to it, and nature can produce intelligence, then by default nature must contain and transcend intelligence. What could you possibly have to bring in against this?

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.