I'm still arguing with a scientifically illiterate clown who thinks that elements and even light have properties called meaning or function.
Here was his latest idiotic retort:
"And I will repeat, the properties of a substance determine its function in nature. Its function in nature is its meaning. And I will ask you again, why do you have so much difficulty with this? "
He cannot get his head around the fact that without living organisms to give elements and light function, there can be no function/use for anything. And that organism requires an intelligent mind to attach meaning to anything.
Function and meaning and use are subjective and require a purpose giving organism to give it purpose/function/use.
For instance, in regards to Light.
What is the meaning of light?
The only answer could be, is it is the sensory perception of living organisms that give light meaning to those organisms only, thus it is subjective and differs from organism to organism.
Without our eyes, light has no meaning to us.
Which brings me to the stupidity of Genesis 1:3. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Essentially, since there were no living creatures at that stage, there were no eyes to perceive light, so essentially, light still did not exist.
Light only existed after the development of sensory organs and then eyes, to perceive a tiny sub-range of this radiation which spans from audible to microwave frequencies.
Otherwise it should read And "God created a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation"
Since there was nothing to perceive any of it and it was essentially useless at the time.
A better line would be God created the stars, which is more practical. but these didn't arrive until after he created the earth, so again, Genesis got it wrong.
My scientifically challenged opponent cannot grasp where he is so stupidly wrong.
He considers that all natural elements and even the universe have meaning.
This is a symptom of Cognitive Dissonance.
Where people attribute human perceptions onto objective reality as if those subjective perceptions are part of reality itself, because it is comforting to perceive there is meaning to everything.
Essentially it is projection, where many, like my opponent, project human values and concepts onto inanimate objects.
When, in reality, use, function, meaning all have no significance to stark objective reality.
The universe exists without those perceptions.
Your opposition needs to understand that his way of believing this would be like doing a magic act inside a dark room. What would be that purpose?
When god said "let there be light" we have to ask if god himself could see. If the answer is "yes" then maybe god didn't want to work in the dark. If the answer is "no" or it doesn't matter, then who is god making the light for? There's nobody else there to notice the difference. God would have appeared to make light way in advance of anything that could percieve it. Leave it to the Bible to make this kind of sense.
Problem there is one of omnipotence, since in a blank cosmos if a god existed, then it would not require light in order to perform anything, as light is not necessary for sight to a bat, the concept that light is necessary for perception of objects an to manipulate them is a misconception of humans.
For an omnipotent being, such a limited concept of vision is unnecessary for such a being to perform.
Besides, there is no source of light produced in Genesis as the light this god creates, exists before even the first sun/star is created, it is light from nothing and without purpose.
The genesis line is a human misconception of how a universe could be perceived, if a god existed, it could perceive and manipulate things in the cosmos without light as light is limited and slow, taking millions of years to reach between galaxies.