Natural Order and Science

[Harris]

Harris Wrote: 3. Models with predictive capabilities useful than models without predictive capabilities. I see most of you are favouring models without predictive capabilities by supporting the ideas that processes can be self-subsistent and that things can pop out from nowhere. The interesting point here is that none of the proponents of these absurd ideas have any evidence to support their absurdity. These two ideas if become the reality then they have potential to transform universe into most unpredictable place that means total anarchy.
Jörmungandr Wrote: This is bullshit. The laws of nature as such are descriptive of the way things behave universally. That is not chaos but a maximum of order and predictability. You're just spewing word salad here.

Have you any understanding of what you are writing?

Harris Wrote: Initially I have raised few question the essence of which was: What is the source of that intelligent code that is controlling all the events in the universe in intelligent way? Alas! No one has come up with a decent philosophical or scientific response.
Jörmungandr Wrote: That's because you stuck your fingers in your ears and went, "la la la, I can't hear you." But more on this later.

Simply admit that you do not have the answers because “God” is the only logical source of the intelligent coding systems that control all events in the universe in intelligent way.

Harris Wrote: 5. If universe does not depend on God then whatever it depends upon is God
Jörmungandr Wrote: The word God here is just a placeholder for a necessary first cause. That first cause could be a god, or another universe, or something we are completely unaware of. In no sense does it imply the traditional God of the JudeoChristian traditions. It need not be conscious or a being of any kind. You could just as easily have written, "If universe does not depend on X then whatever it depends upon is X." It means the same thing either way. X is unspecified.

I am happy because you at least you have admitted that uncaused cause is the necessity of all causes. Things would not be different if you call that uncaused cause “X” because in reality that very “X” is God.

Harris Wrote: Whether genetic instructions produce specific proteins or gravitation controls cosmic balance, every event is controlled by some system of coding which cause all events to happen on specific and predictable pattern and thus making the universe predictable and intelligible for human intellect.
Jörmungandr Wrote: This is just a bare assertion without support. It and the rest of this spiel can be dismissed with just cause. There is no evidence that gravity represents a "coding system" and the only thing that suggests it does is your bare assertion. Surely you can do better than suggesting that everything is a result of systems of coding "because I said so." That's worthless and is no justification for accepting your statement as true.

Do you have any alternate that may replace my “so called” Assertion?

Harris Wrote: However, invention of any coding system always requires an intelligent origin and matter as such is unable to generate any code. Humans on the other side are the only agent who have the capacity to produce code however code of nature is not written by humans. As matter cannot generate code on its own and human is not the author therefore there should be some author, a thinking being, who voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity in writing code for the conduct of every single object in the universe. An intelligent activity always requires an intelligent source. Whoever or whatever is controlling all the activities through systematic coding system in the universe is God.
Jörmungandr Wrote: Since you've not demonstrated that there is or are such coding systems other than a bare assertion that there are, your conclusion here is nothing more than the product of bare assertion and is easily dismissed. You assert there is a God. I assert that there is no God. The assertions cancel each other out.

I think you are writing without reading or understanding. I suggest you to study the basics of genes and I assure you that would give you a substantial understanding about which coding system I am talking.