“Give me one instance where information as known in the universe did not come from a source other than the information itself.”
Water.
The chemical formula for water is H2O, which is to say that each of its molecules contains one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Fine. But is there anything “outside” of this information that would yield water as an eventual fact in the world? In other words, if water didn’t exist, would anyone know prior to bringing those atoms together that doing so would give us water? I don’t know, but it might be accurate for me to say that water is new “information” as a result of bringing those atoms together. In other words, one can’t claim water is the source of itself because water only exists when those aforementioned atoms are brought together. If that explanation doesn’t work for you, and you’d like to move on to something else, you might find this insightful: “How evolution builds genes from scratch.”
Also, be careful with the word “information.” As Richard Dawkins explains in this lengthy essay (I’m not going to revisit what he wrote) the word “information” can take on different meanings. But whatever mystery you want to refer to, the burden remains with you to show that the mystery in question has a super-natural cause (once again, a deliberate hyphen for emphasis). For me, “I don’t know” works every time. That’s my response when a religious person wants to know what caused the Big Bang or how life first appeared on Earth (but how life evolves is understood) or how the mind “emerges” from the brain. “God did it” is never an answer to anything.
You say I’m in “opposition to God.” How can I be opposed to something I don’t believe in? It’s like saying I’m “angry” at God (I’ve had this said to me as well). How can I be angry at something I don’t believe in?
I’m not employing “semantics” when noting the difference between the religious use of “faith’ and the colloquial (secular) use of the word. The problem rests with your apparent inability to grasp the difference between how believers use the word “faith” in a religious manner from how everyone else uses it in a non-religious manner. This isn’t “semantics.” It’s just language — and how certain words or expressions can be employed for different reasons or purposes. When asking someone to undertake a task of great importance, “I have faith that Joe will do the right thing” doesn’t express a religious sentiment.
By the way, looking again at your first reply, you wrote this: “You believe that God does not exist but offer no evidence for the same.” That’s a strange thing to request. I have no idea how to show the nonexistence of something. If you have an example of how this remarkable feat is achieved, I’d like to see it.
Something else that you wrote previously: “Yet a jet fighter isn’t half as complex as your eye which according to your brilliant atheists evolved from primordial soup all on it’s own.” Yes, that is correct. Without the need to resort to your tired and empty cliché (“primordial soup”), it is indeed correct to say that the eye evolved without the help from any so-called “Designer.” If you were to take the time to understand how eyes evolved (I doubt that you will), you might stop attributing eyes to a “Designer” (and a stupid designer at that because of the backward “wiring” of eyes among other problems). Do a search for “how eyes evolved.” You’ll find lots of good stuff.
Finally, let the record show that you didn’t respond to any of my ten questions.
