Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
A brick is designed to be a perfect rectangle for the specific purpose of being used to build something. That is why a brick is designed and different to a rock that was formed by random erosion for no specific function. So where is your perfectly rectangular rock? Can random erosion form a perfectly rectangular rock?

No, a brick is designed, because it is designed, not because of its shape. Bricks some in all sorts of shapes and sizes. A brick is also very similar to a rock. Your argument was flawed. You were wrong. Live with it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you have evidence of one feel free to share it.

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/

Perfectly rectangular? Nope.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, a brick is designed, because it is designed, not because of its shape. Bricks some in all sorts of shapes and sizes. A brick is also very similar to a rock. Your argument was flawed. You were wrong. Live with it.

Even if a brick were shaped like rock (which it isn't precisely), a building cannot built itself.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Even if a brick were shaped like rock (which it isn't precisely), a building cannot built itself.

It is irrelevant whether a brick is shaped like a rock or whether or not a building can build itself. It remains the case that bricks are similar to rocks demonstrating your original argument is not only flawed, but you don't believe it yourself.
Brains are not exactly the same shape as computers, and computers (currently) cannot build themselves. In no way does this imply or suggest that brains are designed. Similarity of some properties does not guarantee similarity of all properties.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I was saying mind to avoid the word brain, but entity is fine. This just a matter of putting all
the building blocks together to form something that can think, reason, and have moral ideas?

We can explore the Lego metaphor and see if it is useful. If not is there another one that works better? Does Lego imply Lego designer/builder?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is irrelevant whether a brick is shaped like a rock or whether or not a building can build itself. It remains the case that bricks are similar to rocks demonstrating your original argument is not only flawed, but you don't believe it yourself.
Brains are not exactly the same shape as computers, and computers (currently) cannot build themselves. In no ...[text shortened]... ins are designed. Similarity of some properties does not guarantee similarity of all properties.

How can you know for sure that the brain was not designed? You may believe that it wasn't. But that is your choice. All evidence points towards design. Is there anything with remotely as much functionality as the brain that you know for sure was not designed?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Are you making a positive truth claim that the brain was not designed ?
Or are you making an agnostic statement that you don't know that it was and do not know who designed it in case it was designed ?

If you are making the truth claim that the brain was not designed, consistent to your own attitude here over the years, you should take up the burden of proof that the brain was not designed.

I believe I am on the right track to assume it WAS designed. And such a belief is not at all unreasonable.

Atheists say to me concerning Zeus and Odin and etc. "We disbeleive in one more God than you do. That's all."

Well, as a Theist concerning Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell etc. , "We believe in one more Designer than you do. That's all."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How can you know for sure that the brain was not designed?

I never said I could. What I said, was that your argument that it was similar to a computer and computers are designed is obviously a bad argument. Your ridiculous followup attempts demanding that a stone be found in the shape of a brick or that houses build themselves just demonstrated how desperate you were.

You may believe that it wasn't. But that is your choice.
No, actually, belief is not a matter of choice. My beliefs are based on evidence - which clearly points to brains evolving. Your beliefs are based on religion. Neither of us chose what to believe.

All evidence points towards design.
No, it doesn't. You only point towards design because your religion tells you it was designed, so you make up ridiculous arguments because you know perfectly well that there are no rational arguments.

Is there anything with remotely as much functionality as the brain that you know for sure was not designed?
No. That doesn't, however, support your claim that 'all the evidence points towards design'. It isn't evidence of design. It is evidence of your ignorance and desperation.
Do you have any actual evidence pointing towards the brain being designed?
I on the other hand have plenty of evidence that life, brains included, evolved.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are of the opinion the mind's ability to think and reason is just a matter of proper hardware setup and nothing more?

I don't see any reason why not. If a soul as some sort of additional metaphysical object, rather than as another word for mind, is not necessary it probably isn't there. In which case any "life everlasting" would involve reconstructing the mind which shouldn't be a problem for an omniscient God. I don't think the notion of a soul as a separate metaphysical object is particularly crucial to Christianity.

Originally posted by JS357
We can explore the Lego metaphor and see if it is useful. If not is there another one that works better? Does Lego imply Lego designer/builder?

I'm not following you, not trying to be difficult just not following can you explain.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't see any reason why not. If a soul as some sort of additional metaphysical object, rather than as another word for mind, is not necessary it probably isn't there. In which case any "life everlasting" would involve reconstructing the mind which shouldn't be a problem for an omniscient God. I don't think the notion of a soul as a separate metaphysical object is particularly crucial to Christianity.

How do you know it isn't necessary?

Life everlasting isn't the discussion it is life right here right now with the ability to reason,
think, and come up with judgement calls on morals. As was pointed out before just having
parts around doesn't mean they will continue to work, people die with all of their parts in
place. They stop working even though all the chemicals are still there and were
functioning properly moments before, but a change that didn't have anything do with all
of the proper chemicals being present occurred. I'm not talking about someone bleeding
out that has chemicals leaving the body so the proper amounts are not there.

Christianity has God shaping the entire universe not just a few chemicals for life here to
occur. An Atheistic view I suppose has a grand lucky break that gravity due to the make
up of our solar system and all of the other details for this planet to support life just happen
to properly setup, all the necessary chemicals were in the right place, under the proper
macro and micro conditions, and every thing was flung together just at the right time in
the right amounts, under the continuing conditions favorable for life to survive and thrive.

Why not seems odd to me since the shear amounts of variables all correctly in play is
mind numbing when you look at the full picture.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you know it isn't necessary?

Life everlasting isn't the discussion it is life right here right now with the ability to reason,
think, and come up with judgement calls on morals. As was pointed out before just having
parts around doesn't mean they will continue to work, people die with all of their parts in
place. They stop working even though a ...[text shortened]... r amounts of variables all correctly in play is
mind numbing when you look at the full picture.

Your comments in this post sound like an argument from incredulity.

https://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity

Originally posted by JS357
Your comments in this post sound like an argument from incredulity.

https://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity

Ouch. You just broke one of Kellys favourite arguments. How can you be that mean?

Now see if you can get him on 'argument by vagueness'.

Or his other favourite: we both have faith so our beliefs are equivalent.

Originally posted by JS357
Your comments in this post sound like an argument from incredulity.

https://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity

Hardly, it isn't because it is difficult to understand it is seer numbers and math.
If it only took 1000 pieces of material to make life, then having all of that in one place is
just one little piece of the puzzle for life.
If say 300 of those pieces of material had to be joined together in a sequence or changes
occur that would render some of the 1000 void that is just one little piece of the puzzle.
If the temperature had to within a specific range for life to form and maintain life that
would just be one little piece of the puzzle.
If gravity could render all of that useless if it was to strong or weak that would be just one
little piece of the puzzle.
We could go on and on about what else would be required to form life and just important
to maintain it over time, but I hope you get the picture. It isn't incredulity is simply looking
at all the parts and acknowledge the sheer scope of how many things had to happen and
then continue to occur over time.