God is not intelligent

I'd call it a postulate, because a predicate depends on that which it predicates.

This:

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable

Could be used to predicate 'God is an abstraction, not an intelligence', but it's not specific to it.

It's more specific, but not absolutely so, to the notion of that existence occurs in randomity.

However, I would like to make a subtle distinction between 'randomity' and ''chance'.

In the context of randomity, things arise in chance.

But, in the context of ultimate truth, the ultimate source, arising from what I assert is a spiritual basis to life, a force, of sorts, but one that does not exist in the physical realm, only in the abstract, I would assert that it occurs in randomity, but, given infinity, since all that is possible, it is inevitable, the concept of 'chance' is removed from the ultimate truth or existence's creation, given that because it's possible, because of infinity, it is inevitable. When it occurs is chance, but that it will inevitably occur is not chance. Thus, the distinction between randomity and chance.

Since, it stands alone, it is a postulate, not a predicate.

I postulate that God = infinity.

It exists in the abstract.

 

Go pester someone else, Mr. Pettifogger, Bombast, extraordinaire.

I've never met a bombast who was intelligent, and you are no exception.

 

Nope. It's philosophy.

Anyone can be a philosopher, especially those with an abundance of armchairs at their disposal.

What, you didn't get the memo?

 

Let me address this one point. There are volumes of books which debate the idea of God, it has been debated for hundreds of years, no doubt, by persons far more erudite, knowledgeable, than myself.

And, I've read a few of them. I think Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not A Christian" is a good one.

If you think my mission in this thread was to prove, of disprove, the existence of God, that wasn't my point.

It was only to consider what was offered in this thread. Of course, I'd like feedback, but don't expect me to dive as deep into the subject has history has.

If you believe that existence did not occur by chance, I agree what that, but in the narrowest sense. I only stipulate it happened in the context of randomity.

Because it's randomity, for me, that proves God is not an intelligence. It's infinity that proves for me that it's not chance, because, given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

We know life is possible, do we not?

We know infinity, which, at the minimum, exists in the abstract, do we not?

So, if infinity is true, and that life is possible is true, would it not be inevitable?

That it's inevitable tells us it's not chance, that it is assured. Not when, but eventually. When is chance, but eventually is not.

That it's possible doesn't prove 'creator' only 'creativity of randomity'.

And if infinity exists in the abstract, which it does, the the above must be true.

That's how I look at it.

All the arguments for a 'creator' or 'intelligent designer' I do not find compelling.

Particularly because the idea of a God, creator, almighty being, is a half baked solution. If we use it to solve the mystery of existence, we are still left with a mystery, the mystery of who created God? A half baked solution is more illogical than to accept in toto that the whys and wherefores of existence is a complete mystery. It would be, to me, more honest to go with the latter.

I go with the concept of the 'creativity of randomity' because of my postulate, to me, it makes sense. Because that much is observable. Intelligent designer, not observable or provable, why go there? That makes no sense, whatsoever.

But, fire away. I'll listen

 

Please add me to the list of people towards whom you are working on being civil.

I really don't think that your insulting attitude and cheap ad hom supports your ideas as much as you think it does.

What you are noting here doesn't explain how there could be regions of this universe that have different physics. And, that's what was being commented on.

There have been apex species on Earth for a VERY long time.

Evolution depends on random effects. But, it also depends on the competition that leads to removing lines that are less competitive and to finding new ways to coexist.

As can clearly be seen, that has led to huge biodiversity.

 

As we have been over this, a number of times, in the past, I should not need to reiterate why I cannot take your criticism as having any validity, whatsoever. Do you not remember what I have said to you, the many times you have thrown criticisms my way, without offering any of my quotes, to support your charges?

So you could just as well be saying that I am a cannibalistic pedophile; your lack of presenting any proof to your words, says it all. Though, I know this is your favorite way to present your arguments: unsubstantiated, and based on nothing but your own say- so. This way, there is really nothing upon which I could focus any reply, unless I were to merely accept your smears, about my being unduly insulting (which I don't). You will have to show me, to what you are referring.

The quote you do, subsequently offer, does include my referring to your argument, as being, "imbecilic," which it was, and the reason for this, I think my post quite clearly explained. This, FYI, was not an "ad hom," as it was completely about your argument, not about you, personally-- unlike this reply of yours.

Yet, I do not think it is compulsory, for any of us to have to address replies, which are totally non sequitur, to whatever was the point that we had put forth. "Regions of this universe that have different physics," may be the subject, upon which you were commenting, but it had nothing to do with my post, which you were answering, when you made your comment.

Once again, kind of a non- response from you. As your post's quote of me shows, what you were trying to discredit, was my suggestion that "randomness," need not lead to "all possibilities," coming to fruition, but can lead to "monoculture." As your reply does not offer any argument to dispute that human action has led us to at least the threshold, if not even through the doorway, of a mass extinction crisis; nor do you even address the idea that humans choose to grow monoculture crops, which we choose as the "winners," from amongst the many other varieties of crops, deprived of much of the land, where they might otherwise thrive; therefore, you have not offered any argument to challenge my overall point, which is that, to which I prefer sticking, rather than to chase after you, down all of your "rabbit holes," dug by non- germaine assertions.

 

Well, coming from the intellect which your arguments here, present-- that insult, really, means... nothing at all, except that your ego needed to hurl another insult to make yourself feel better, after doing so poorly, in debate. Since your attempts to have your ideas hold their own, against my thoughts and arguments, were nothing but a miserable failure, you have therefore shown yourself to be my mental inferior; so your criticisms of me, baseless as they are (founded solely on your personal opinion, of alleged others), are all the worse assertions, of yourself.

 

I have never heard the term "pettifogging," but I am reasonably sure-- as my spell check is indicating that it is wrong (much as it did with your "randomity," though I needed no help, to make that, as a fake word)-- that it is not a "common," word; so your hypocritical nature shows itself, once again. Is your own advice, which you so easily offer unsolicited, to others, not good enough for you?

Secondly, just because you have a mediocre vocabulary, does not mean that "predicate," as I used it, is not a common usage.

 

I see no relevance, in that distinction, you make. This, in a nutshell, is the problem with all your "distinctions." If you are assuming, "infinity," and, by that, meaning something that had the capacity to exhaust all possibilities, in physical reality, what reason on earth would you have to assume such a thing existing, and Itself, not being the Divine Ground of Being? And am I right, in assuming you have postulated no origin, for this all- encompassing, source of all things? It seems, if so, like a rather gaping hole, in your view, to me.

 

You are not making a logical argument, but rather, one akin to any religious devotee, whose reason has been subsumed by faith. For example, what is above is not a reasonable point. If "God," is a "half- baked," idea, because it leaves unanswered, your question, "who made God?" then your "infinity," has the same drawback. Or, if you can allow yourself to accept that "infinity," just always has been, or that it created itself, there is no logical reason that you should not be able to accept the same thing about God.

Here, though, you have moved the location, at least to my perception of what you have been saying, of your magnetic North. You are not only just accepting that we can't have all the answers-- by the way, something that I have always stated is an obvious fact, so no space between us, on that issue-- but you are portraying this as your central tenet, that Existence, is "a complete Mystery." Well, this makes you as Agnostic as is possible-- I don't know how you would not be absolutely sure, you fit that designation.

Also, however, this would render all your speculating about "infinity," as irrelevant. Either way, this undergirds my earlier assertions that you were not being at all clear in presenting your argument; it, in fact, proves that you were either being misleading then, or are, now offering a misleading depiction of your philosophy.

If, though, it turns out to be this most recent incarnation, of your really holding nothing more true, than that creation is a hopelessly impenetrable Mystery, I would question how much of a "postulate," that really is. And if that is your top belief, you certainly took your time, making that clear, and included a lot of excess material, which both took the reader away from, and obscured, this point. Therefore, how you could call someone else, "verbose," would be a Great Mystery, itself, beyond all excuse.

One last example, for now:

But couldn't infinity be the type of abstract thought that, according to you, is the domain of unicorns? This is what you asserted to me, when I simply took your own reasoning, as it is expressed here-- arguing that, if infinity exists in the abstract, it is inevitable that it must be real-- to show the same thing could be said about "God." Yet, you have two sets of rules. Saying this about God, are the ridiculous words of someone who does not recognize the unmistakable difference between God and Mathematics. But this could not be so, about your precious "infinity:" this is the double-standard, of most religious zealots. In debate terminology, however, we just call it, "inconsistency."

 

You absolutely wrong.

If you assert someone's argument is weak, invalid, needs work, comments to caliber etc., that would not be an ad hom.

But, if you say their argument is 'stupid' or 'imbecilic', that is not valid criticism, that is an ad hom.

Why? Because, if an argument is imbecilic, you are saying it's the kind of argument an imbecile would make, and that makes it an ad hom, by implication.

It's also a violation of the forum's rules I guarantee if you were reported the mods would mark you down for it. I know, it's happened to me a few times.

I really don't give a damn if you think it doesn't, it does.

 

Just as Stephen Hawking cleverly avoided the term "intelligent design" in favor of "spontaneous creation", physicists likewise wish to avoid the term "consciousness" in favor of "information".

"Information", they can understand & quantify/measure. "Consciousness", they cannot.

Some day Western scientists will be forced to discard their preferred terms, but right now they're still fighting tooth & nail to preserve the old paradigm.

A "simulation" is another term used by physicists as a means to avoid confronting the truth --- that Reality is but an illusion created by, for, and from consciousness.

In simple terms, All is One. So, by logic, what we call Reality (ie, awareness/existence) must then be the product of the illusion of separation. Hence, all Realities must be an illusion. But it also means that Reality is real because without the illusion of separation there can be no awareness/existence. The Oneness of All creates infinite interesting paradoxes. The fact that Reality is both an illusion AND real is only one example.

Further, using simple logic, if All is One then there exists no fundamental separation between any-thing. Ergo, space/distance & time, do not exist, which then means that motion & change do not exist. The next logical deduction from this is that we must be experiencing Reality as snap-shots, like frames in a movie reel. Along this movie reel we can go forward or backward, and go faster or slower.

In the big picture, Reality (life/awareness/existence) essentially is the result of Oneness experiencing it-self through the illusion of separation. Thus Oneness can never escape it-self (and hence, never "know" it-self absolutely), but can only experience it-self in infinite ways, eternally. This makes Oneness (or Creation) both infinite & eternal.

 

Even the hard sciences do not avoid the issues of consciousness.

And, information is a different field. One might argue that information is better understood,
but even if true that doesn't mean issues related to consciousness are avoided.

I don't know where you get that idea.

Simulation is a real word with real meaning.

If you are referring to the idea that this universe is a simulation, physicists don't agree with that. And, there certainly is no evidence in favor of that idea.

But, it looks like you are working outside of any field where evidence is important.

 

While I think some of your assertions go beyond mere logical deduction, I certainly think you are presenting a more cohesive concept of Totality, and a more cogent argument, than that of this thread, that "God is not intelligent," meaning that God is not an Intelligence, because all supposedly came to be through Randomness, from a postulated, unprovable (in fact, scientifically contraindicated) beginning state, for which no explanation has been offered.

As to your own assumptions, why would "change," not be possible, if All is One? Consider, just for an easy example, the single mechanism of bolt which screws into a bracket. As one turned the bolt- screw, there would be both movement, and so, change. We could even speculate a device that manifested much broader, overall movement, when one part was turned/tightened/moved/adjusted.

No?

 

Humans don't know everything. That's just a straight up truth.

But, that doesn't impugn what we DO know, including about the early seconds of this universe.

Also, I think we have to be careful about how we use "random".

 

Once more, your reply does not address the contents of my, quoted post. Do you realize this, or did you just misunderstand what I wrote? Please do not take this as my being insulting; I think I am asking a valid, and useful, question.

Taking your reply, piece by piece: Humans don't know everything-- I agree 110%.

...the early seconds of the universe-- I was not discounting that belief; if you really want to dig into it, it is not accurate to say that we "know," this, but I was accepting our best computer-modeled guesses, as being accurate. You understand, don't you, that those speculations still give no account for the original matter, which it has been proposed coalesced, and then exploded? So, that would've beeen my meaning, if I'd said that "science," had offered no explanation for the universe's origin. But I was talking about the supposed theory of this thread, which speculates "infinity," at its foundation, which is definitely not based on the scientific understanding of the universe. Curious, that you do not challenge our OP writer, on that.

As I would hope you are aware, the consensus of scientific opinion, is that the universe is finite, and that it will eventually break into separate masses, at its edges. It could be interesting to consider one of these pieces that rips away from the rest, somehow becoming the basis for a new "universe," perhaps after pooling together with the lost fringes from some other, over- expanded, universes. (I say this, by the way, merely as a novel idea, not to propose it, as a theory).

So, no alternative to current theory is part of this thread's perspective, and science has agreed upon no source for that original fuel, for the Big Bang (nor does the thread- initiator, propose some other accounting, for the universe's base material). Hence, no initial source; no true origin. And "what we DO know," according to science, is that the universe is not infinite, even in size. But the OP proposes that it is infinite in its creating of all possible ramifications of Existence. Again, there is no scientific basis for this idea; and only a weak, faulty one given. Yet you apparently have no trouble swallowing that.

As to your last comment, "I think we have to be careful about how we use 'random'," I will have to ask you to explain what you mean by that. All I had said in my post, in stating the OP's case, was that, "all supposedly came to be through Randomness." Other than Patricio's insistence on misspelling it as "Randomity," I think my characterization is fair. If you think not, please provide supporting evidence.

 

I stated that, because you complained that there are questions that science hasn't answered. But, the fact that humans don't know it all doesn't mean that humans know nothing.

There are theoretical physicists who see various ways in which our universe could be infinite.

The OP is a matter of religion, posted in a religious forum.

I try to oppose people's religious beliefs as little as possible.

Yes. Science does not claim to have an answer for the formation of the singularity.

Theoretical physicists pose various possibilities that are so far proving to be untestable.

I think "random" does not describe a full process and tends to lead to ignoring the constraints and processes we know about or might learn about.

As mentioned earlier, some claim that evolution is random. But, the main feature of evolution is the selection processes. Writing off evolution as random totally misses what is actually happening.

Saying something is random is often used as a depricatory remark made about a process that is not fully understood.

 

Still haven't mastered that quote function, eh? Yet you were able to quote my post, you are now answering. But you are making a blatantly false claim, that, in my prior post, which elicited your comment, I "complained that there are questions that science hasn't answered." I may have stated it, as a fact, just as you have done, yourself.

If you wish my responses to remain polite, please either quote something supporting your assertions about what I'd said, or cease making untrue allegations. This seems, to me, a reasonable request.

Don't you think that sharing these, out of the mainstream, ideas, then, would be a very relevant contribution to this thread?

That is all well and good, however it still does not really answer what was wrong with my reference to "Randomness," in my brief summary of Patricio's posits. If anything, this seems like a point for you to bring up with him, not with me, for recapping his stance. Does that not seem to you, a more logical course of action?

 

This interface doesn't make it easy to post from multiple posts. I'm sometimes assuming you know what part of your post I'm responding to.

You posted "all supposedly came to be through Randomness." I just commented on a possible issue with using "random" in this discussion.

 

"This discussion," is founded on the idea of randomness. Maybe you should refresh your memory of the OP.

DON'T make that assumption-- experience has shown, it is unwise.

 

I think the first use of "random" was by you in post 19.

 

You are correct about this. However, Da Silva answered that post, in #27, this way--

-- and since then, has run with the idea, big- time. For example, he employs some form of the word 13 times, in one post, on page three, that I will shorten, below (because it is a bit long & redundant) to only show 11 of those iterations:

P.D.S. has taken ownership, of the concept-- I think it is fair to say.

 

There is 'some sort of cause', which I express, as follows:

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.


Note that, compared to infinity, all measurements, quantities, numerical values, are infinitesimal.

It's easy to see that 3 dice tossed to infinity will turn up all sixes, probably way sooner than a long time, but less easy to comprehend that the astronomical number of factors that must be in place for life to occur could occur in the same assured sense that 3 dice will turn up all sixes if there is no time limit on doing it. The point is, the larger number, compared to infinity, as a practical matter, is no different than the smaller number. Infinity sees no difference between infinity minus one trillion and infinity minus one, the math answer to both is still infinity. (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, there is no way to 'prove' that God is not an intelligence, or an intelligence, we can only find paths of logic for our positions. I'm asserting that the postulate, 'given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable', provides some degree of logic that God is not an intelligence, it is merely the trifecta that Infinity, Possibility, and Inevitability = Nature = God. This is my take on 'pantheism'. I post it here to discover counter arguments. Now, I might not agree with those arguments, but if there is one that is more compelling than my own path of logic, I want to find out about it.

 

I want to discard all of the subsequent comments from this comment, because your comment above, is where the conversation started, and it's friendly enough.

Okay,

Consciousness is intelligence. Nature has collective intelligence only in the sense that it is the sum total of individual consciousnesses in organisms small to large. I would never discount that. But that is't what I meant.

What it doesn't have is 'personal intelligence' in the sense of an sentient being separate from the whole. It's not an individual, a personal god.

In other words, it doesn't have a separate intelligence divorced from the whole, only a collective intelligence which only manifests
in individual organisms. And your story about the worms can easily be explained by modern evolutionism, as I understand it. Run that one by some evolutionists, see if they can explain it, I'd be curious to know, myself. Now, an evolutionist might not accept the idea of 'collective intelligence of the whole' ,but I would add it only in the sense that it is not a thinking being, but it is genetic intelligence, which is a collective intelligence, like software in a machine. AI writes it's own code, so genetics does something similar in an organic way. Software is not intelligence, it can only simulate it. Sentient intelligence is beyond the machine, and resides only in individual organisms, small to large. This is not a 'personal god' driving this. this is evolution, plus organic software, driving evolution.

If someone asked me, 'why are things are they way they are?" I would answer that with 'because they cannot be any other way". I would also suggest that if we had the priveledge of being able to see the entire universe and all that lives in it, we would see an astronomical number of diversity and so the answer is that, all those other ways we wondered didn't happen, probably happened somewhere else.

I make a distinction between randomity and chance. Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

The middle clause is randomity, things occuring by chance, the last clause where it's postulate arises from infinity, is not chance. The universe exists in randomity but that it exists, is inevitable. Why? Because of infinity and the fact that life is possible.

Now, whether infinity exists in the physical universe, this cannot be known. But I will try and give a path of logic to lean more towards it.

That infinity exists in the abstract is known. Because of this, I feel safe to presume infinity does exist in the physical universe because of the more religious and philosophical concept that the outer flows into existence, randomly, from the inner, or rather, the universe arises from the abstract. Since the abstract is infinity, since it gives birth to the universe, the universe must, therefore be infinite. Therefore, the postulate, given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable, is true.

But, I'm no genius, Feel free to prove me wrong.

See if you can avoid the super large bold texts. Italics is best for emphasis 99% of the time.

Thank you.

 

Any "intelligence," so called, which believes even in the chance that it could possibly be, "divorced from the whole," is nothing worthy of anyone's excitement. Do you truly think that your own intelligence, has not been profoundly influenced, by the whole, that is, by your environment, including all other humans with whom you've interacted, and of whom you've gained familiarity, from news, history, and all other sources?* This is, BTW, only the closest at hand of your intellect's clothing, from your deep closet of influences; but it is garment enough, I hope, to make my point.

I would submit now, just what I had predicted, in my original post; to wit: I feel you are using too narrow a definition of the concept of intelligence. You are-- and, in the hopes of not rustling your feathers, any more than necessary, I will point out that the words, "in my opinion," are to be understood as accompanying all my opinions, in such a matter as this; in the same way as you noted, it should be taken to be the case, in your own voicing of your beliefs-- placing conditions on your idea of this quality (intelligence/consciousness), which are not only subjective, based upon your own, biased suppositions, but which can be shown to be objectively false. Just for one example of this, let me remind you that all of your own decisions, you make with the input of at least two, distinct, intelligences: that of your left brain, and your right brain. I know that you will have some objection, to my contention, but this is only to be expected: it is the reflexive reaction, of your dominant, left brain intelligence.

To consider, however, a larger example: if a flock of birds is able to fly in intricate patterns-- at breakbeak speed, with all members conforming, sans a single brushing of a feather, against any other's wing-- without having made any prior arrangement amongst themselves, and without the benefit of consultation, and polling of those individual intelligences, it seems illogical, to me, for you to credit merely the parts of each of those intellects, with the sum total of this display, of what can be described as nothing other than the tangible demonstration of intelligence, at work (IMO). That is, while acknowledging the argument you had made, nevertheless, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Any single intelligence, for that matter, is itself, a creation from many smaller-- and you can say, less evolved-- intelligences: from the separate regions of any given brain; to interconnected groups, communicating within those sections; down to (at least) the individual brain cells. I feel it is merely a matter of our own, human prejudices, that fail to recognize them, as of any "significance." And I am not even mentioning the behavior-modulating neurotransmitters, which are produced by the bacteria in our guts, which number far greater than the cells of our bodies, proper, and which, specific colonies, are parts of our being, for life.

I provided the link, in another thread, but will find it once again, if you would like, to a PBS documentary on SLIME MOLD. Would you be surprised to learn that slime mold, is able to solve mazes, in order to find the food reward, at the end, just as would a lab mouse? What I found most interesting, was that slime molds from different countries, have what appear to be different-- for lack of a better word-- personalities. From some countries, it is very cautious, while from other lands, it is extremely aggressive, to the point of recklessness. If you think this was the researchers reading too much into the different slimes' behavior patterns, they related that the American slime mold, showed a decided dislike for organic oats-- going so far as escaping its enclosure, to look for other victuals.

While it is true that you can feel comfortable, in your concurrence with the majority opinion of "science," being at your back, it would be a clearly conscious "oversight," of any intelligent person, to not also admit that our species' own track record, on this question, has been absurdly bad. Nearly every condition, which mainstream, "science," has previously proclaimed as the benchmark, for setting human intellect (and emotion) apart from all other species, has come, in turn, to be later disproven. If you wanna stick with the group that has made the wrong pick, in every other, decided race, so far, that's your choice; but I do not consider it a particularly intimidating certification. In fact, in your place, I would not be so trusting, as to think, in regard to science, "fool me once, twice, twenty or thirty times, shame only on you."


Thay this Uniting, Group Intelligence, takes primacy over its individual parts, is endorsed by an apparent misspeaking by yourself, ending your quote above, not that "collective intelligence," is merely the manifestation of individual intelligences, which have been pooled; but, to the contrary, that it is through "individual organisms," by which Collective Intelligence, manifests. To my mind, there is a world of difference, between these two statements.


I had planned to answer another part of your post, but I am short on time, so will have to return to it, and continue, later.


*If this is what you'd meant, when you had claimed that I don't speak naturally, as part of your argument on how bad a writer I was, it actually would only have been proof that you knew not the first thing, of that which you were speaking. Namely, that there are practices of spoken language, which are considered wrong, in written language or even, for that matter, in spoken language, within formal settings. Put more plainly, the way you talk, over a beer, after work, with your buddies, is not the same standard, as for a commencement speech, or any professional presentation. In writing, as well, there are numerous levels of strictness, or laxity, for different types of writing. I do, when it seems appropriate, diverge from the standardly "correct," forms; but I do not wish to fall into bad habits, in my writing, by routinely ignoring the basic rules, such as that one is never supposed to end a sentence, with a preposition. I take that to be desirable, as well, in any clause within a sentence. Hence, if we'd been speaking face to face, in a casual setting, I would likely have said, "...your environment, including all other humans" you've interacted with, and gained familiarity with, "from news, history, and all other sources?" Since, in this forum, we have many readers, to whom we are strangers, I wish to accurately represent myself, as someone who, at the minimum, can manage to write grammatically correct sentences. The idea is far from radical, that the way a person expresses their ideas, speaks to that person's intelligence; that is, if one speaks poorly, one's ideas are likely, at least by some, not given the same consideration, as would have been the case, had they sounded more intelligent, in explaining their view, using proper English.

Of course, you can, subjectively, not care for the sound of properly written, (American) English sentences. My opting to, for the most part, following these rules, however, does not make me a, "phoney."