God is not intelligent

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Patricio Da Silva, May 26, 2022.

  1. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Accidental posting of a saved quote, to which I'd not yet written any reply.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2022
  2. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Patricio Da Silva

    I am not sure what to make of the fact that you seemed to want to restart our discussion, yet have for several days, offered no reply to my points, other than that you perhaps have nothing to say, with regard to my first installment, which only treated what I saw as your first, fallacious assumption, that consciousness could not be communal; or, since you seem to see distinctions where none really exist, you maintained that any communal consciousness was not true consciousness, but only a combination of all the individual consciousnesses, within the community.

    Let me make clear, from the start, that I am stating your case
    as I understand it to be, not verbatim as you have postulated. This is not in any way meant to misrepresent your ideas, so please know that I consider these descriptions to be fair, and are not some cheap way of finding some flaw in your argument, as you had previously suggested. If you see a difference between what you have proposed, and how I am representing it-- in the hopes of making clear, your explanations, which do not always seem that way, to me (and so it is pointless for me to reiterate your words, if I am not completely certain how you mean them)-- please ask yourself if I am faulting your idea, based on the difference you see in our two versions. For example, you made a big deal about my not specifying that you are only postulating all possible possibilities, which I find to be unnecessarily redundant. Note, in my critique, I never faulted your idea for (as one might conceivably, I suppose, interpret my wording), suggesting that you were including the "impossible," in your postulate.

    I am clarifying these points, because my last reply had only addressed your first main point, as I'd said. Since, in the middle of your post, I was reading only your reiteration of points you had previously made, I went straight to my limited reply, without finishing your post. Now that I have, I see you had made requests about my limiting large font, boldface print. While I did use some of that, in my reply, most was actually in my quote of you, to point out the specific aspects of your points, I would be addressing. Still, I am sure that it was more than you would have preferred. Since, though, it was not as if I used this in every other line of my post, like some other posters on this site, I feel it is a bit presumptuous of you to try to dictate the finer points of your interlocutor's writing. It would be comparable, IMO, to my requesting that you not end any of your sentences or clauses, with a preposition. Or, perhaps, that you refrain from making the same basic point, in only different words. I am sure, though, you will only see this from your own side, and will say that I am putting forth a false analogy; it is not important: I am not making any requests of your writing. And I will try, within what should be considered reasonable, to minimize the things you specified. But, in order for me to be comfortable with the idea that my meanings will not be mangled by you, so that no special emphasis is required, on my part, I need you to, well, not mangle my meanings, as I just described, regarding "possible," possibilities. Once someone starts making what I see as ridiculous errors-- and if you can tell me that my typeface is unacceptable, I think you have no cause to take offense at my honest appraisal of your complaints-- then I will feel it necessary to overemphasize, what I think should be obvious. OK? You don't jump to unjustified assumptions, and I will correspond as though to a person, who does not jump to unwarranted conclusions.


    In my last post, I pointed out that distinct, "group" consciousnesses exist, in contrast to your assertion, which exceed merely cumulative totals. They are, at the very least, either magnifications, or fusions of different elements, and sometimes, completely distinct things. I had cited your own intellect's fusion of your right & left brain intelligences, which have been proven (in people with traumatic brain injuries) to be capable of functioning independently, if perhaps not as effectively, in all things, this way. I also alluded to a colony of Slime Mold, which can solve mazes, like a lab rat. If you were to call this, somehow, the result of non intelligence, I would require you to explain why the exact same justification could not be used, to claim that mice are not conscious. I place a high premium, upon consistency of thought & evaluation.

    We could also discuss colonies of creatures, that function as a single unit, such as the Portuguese man o' war, or other siphonophores. Or we could consider colonial insects, such as bees, wasps, and, the most fascinating to me, ants, through which I can not only disprove your "cumulative," model of communal "intelligence," but also effectively continue prosecuting my argument against the reasonable odds that they could have evolved solely by random chance. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will wait to hear your reply to the concept of group consciousness, which exceeds the intelligence of its individual members.

    Since, however, you have appeared nonplussed by my addressing of the first point you presented, I am going to jump to what I see as a different, fundamental mistake, in your thought, before returning to the points cited in your last post.

    As this post is already of significant length, and I cannot finish the new argument, I have just promo'ed, in this sitting, I will close here, and pick up with the element which I find your theory has, importantly, overlooked, which forces a completely different conclusion to be drawn, than the one at which you have arrived.






     
  3. Matt84

    Matt84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    5,896
    Likes Received:
    2,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can say that again!
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  4. RoanokeIllinois

    RoanokeIllinois Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2022
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113

    "Or rather, God is not an intelligence. The distinction is significant. God is an abstraction, and a mystery."

    In the Bible, it says that God is the end all be all. The beginning and the end. He knows everything. If that is not an "intellegence", then I don't know what is. You're entitled to your own beliefs, under the U.S. first Amendment of the Constitution, but to say what you're saying, is against the belief of Christianity.

    "My God is not theistic nor deistic, it is more on the Einsteinian pantheistic model."

    So, let me get this straight? Einstein is intelligence, and God is not? yeah, I'm ganna have to disagree with ya, since God created Einstein.

    "The only way to find God is to find oneself. It has been said, 'Know thyself, and the truth shall set you free'. Now, that quote can be attributed to someone or some thing, but I believe it is older than our planet and has been around for billions of years."

    "Know Thyself" is a Greek Aphorism. Socrates and Plato studied under it, and so have I, since the age of around 15. Because of this saying, I found my way back to Jesus Christ. willy Shakespeare, was a great playwritter, but one of the saying he got famous off of was "to thy ownself be true.". Which is simply a longer version of "Know Thyself".

    As a Philosopher, and a Poet myself, since the age of around 15, I try and be as authentic as I can be, and give credit when and where credit is due. The basic principles of where my thoughts have come from, besides the Bible, is the Greek Aphorism of "Know Thyself". I don't wish to plagiarize, and do seek to be as authentic as I can be.
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you are totally misunderstanding.

    In living material we see random changes. However, that's NOT the important element.

    The important element is that there are selection processes.

    Evolution is based on those selection processes.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's certainly easy to say that in your religion, god created everything that appears to be intelligently created.

    But, there is no evidence of that.

    Plus, theories have to have some sort of predictive value. Otherwise, they are useless. This notion of intelligent design does not predict anything. All it does is stake claims on stuff that looks good.

    Science doesn't accept that kind of theory. And, neither should anyone else.
     
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently, you think that if you speak to me at a third grade level, that makes me look stupid. As with the rest of your argument, you are wrong. You have just added nothing to the debate, which hadn't already been fully realized, by me. This should have been obvious, to anyone reading my argument; therefore, your post only serves as testimony against your own ability, to follow my relatively straight forward argument.

    Congratulations.



    While that seems a good place to end, if I were after the same effect as you had botched, yet again, in your own post; I will explain to you, my thinking, once more, since you have just given irrefutable evidence, that you have not understood it.


    I realize how mutations work. But if we look at
    ALL the possible mutations-- and forgive the enlarged type, all of of you who read that as yelling, or for whatever other idiosyncratic reason, have adopted it as one of your pet peeves, but I cannot possibly overemphasize the importance of that single word, as Will Readmore's quote, makes patently clear-- which any species might experience, totally randomly, we do not find evidence in the fossil record, to endorse the idea that mutations occurred to all aspects of organisms equally, until one of them led to that creature's posterity, out- reproducing its peers.

    Now, you may simplistically respond (just based on our prior history), that evolutionary changes are often not accomplished in a single stroke, but rather through
    multiple "random" mutations, all involving the same gene, or group of genes, amongst ALL of genes of that species, which could have mutations. In fact, because it can take time before the mutations which eventually combine to give an individual a marked advantage (and then time to use that advantage, to spread its genes throughout the gene pool, which is not an overnight affair, itself), this is all the more reason to expect that we would see so many completely useless, and often detrimental, mutations occurring, in the long interregnum. Again, I have not seen evidence that this is true. Do not misinterpret my words. I am not saying that we have not seen species, which have evolved themselves into extinction. I am talking about the changes which would convey no benefit, but not necessarily any disability, either. This vast array of "trials," before arriving at the correct formula, only through massive numbers of changes, occurring without any guidance or direction, should still be part of all species' genomes, shouldn't they? (That question is rhetorical: the correct answer, is "yes.") And, amongst the deluge of mutations which would be required, to find advantageous combinations, through dumb luck, would be many, which would have doomed the recipients. Why are not this great propensity of evolutionary- level aberrations, seen at tremendously higher rates, in the fossil record?


    I will render this concept in a less abstract way, in case you may find that helpful. But, I might as well bring @Patricio Da Silva into the conversation as well, as he may likewise, still not grasp my meaning. There are certain species of birds that became isolated, on islands, for example, from the rest of the population. We have seen, in the fossil record, as well as in their current forms, that these small populations, living under conditions with very specific differences, from the habitats of their original line, have made remarkably fast adaptations (in evolutionary terms), to their environments. One that I know of, is of birds developing greatly enhanced beak lengths, combined with reduced widths, and often with modifications in its shape, along with, as seems common sense, changes in their tongues. But-- according to you and Patricio--
    the mutational dynamic, does not employ "common sense:" it is utterly random. So, tell me, just based on pure mathematics, how many times should there have been mutations causing longer breaks, which did not occur, in tandem, with a mutation in the tongue's length, musculature, innervation, and method of functioning, before we finally saw a "coincidence," of this beneficial, mutational pairing?

    The only way one could make even a desperate argument, that this union of alterations would just happen, by chance, to be concurrent, would be to postulate epidemic levels of mutations, occurring in that population (again, which I do not not believe is supported by the "scientific" record). We should have seen a RANDOM distribution of mutations, until the right combination of beak & tongue changes, had given an individual a food- gathering advantage. Once more, I remind you that, even getting the unlikely (if sensible) combination of beak & tongue mutations, did not always offer the recipient ANY--
    sorry, again, to the typeface- sensitive-- advantage. So this lightning, would need have struck, numerous times, merely through random probability, before there even was a benefit. To just reiterate, for those who have been, in the past, slow to absorb an idea: what a grand spectacle of arbitrary mutations, logic dictates that we would see, during this period, if the theory which science, and yourselves, promote was complete (FYI, Will Readmore, this means that I do not slough off the truth of natural selection, as you inexplicably have seemed to conclude, only that there is more to it, than random chance).

    But, that is not the end of it. I am feeling especially generous, so I will stipulate that mutations ran wild in that population of birds, allowing the extremely low likelihood of that magic combination of traits to develop randomly, and due to some unexplained peculiarities of climate, soil, and just bad luck-- while we have been able to document the chain of mutations that led to success, in the fossil record-- we've not discovered the signs, of the legion of other, bizarre mutations (as the changes in its beak, until it actually led to significant benefit, could only be described as, also being) which must have been occurring, according to the "chance," theory.

    But, I ask you, now that we can, & have, observed many, many generations of these birds, why are we not witnessing a
    CONTINUATION of this species' high mutation rate?

    In other words, we would have to speculate that mutations began running amok, just when the species needed help,
    by chance, until they had traced the entire line of changes, to be perfectly adapted to their new environment (without evidence of the countless failures, along the way), and then, suddenly stopped, when a much higher than normal mutation rate, was no longer necessary.

    Think.



    Think a little more.


    HOW can you possibly attribute that, to "random chance?" To anyone who can recognize the quality, that seems to describe the bird's mutations to be fluctuating, according to external conditions, or, as it is also known, it strikingly resembles evolution itself, in regard to these birds-- in stark contrast to merely following the same, thoughtless pattern-- exercising sound JUDGEMENT.




    P.S.-- What I am saying is that evolutionary biologists describe only an idea, and one which has some truth to it. But when was the last time you heard one of them actually crunch the numbers, in their theory: look at all the genes that might mutate, and calculate the the probable number of mutations required, for each step of the given creature's evolutionary journey-- then document this rate? If your answer is anything other than, "never," I would be tremendously interested to see that, so ask you to please kindly send me the link.

     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2022
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the Bible was written by men of antiquity. If you argue that the books were written by men inspired by God, then I would argue, if that is true, then all books are inspirations of God, whether they appear to be or not and all art is inspired by God. All human interaction is inspired by God, including the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Some things may seem lacking in inspiration, but there's God there, nevertheless. I feel my songs (I"m a jazz songwriter) are inspired by God, but none of these references are a personal God, because God is the inspiration for all interaction by sentient beings, from the lowest of creatures to humanity and beyond. However, this view of God is more of the pantheist God, not the monotheist God. Now, there are certain ancient writings of men of antiquity I do pay heed, but it is not the Bible because
    we do not know who wrote the books of the Bible and most of the books don't strike me as being particularly trustworthy. However, I do trust the Gospel of Thomas, which was written, based on scholarly estimates, around the 2nd century, but that doesn't disprove that the sayings of Christ were not authentic. A number of the sayings are hard to understand, but there are a few that strike me as the words of an enlightened being. None of the sayings of Christ speak of a personal God, that I can tell. He does speak of 'The All' but there no reference to 'The All' being a personal God, it is much closer to the descriptions of self-realization described by various sages of antiquity.. Some of the psalms are very nice, inspired, but those that ascribe qualities to God that are not pantheistic (more akin to eastern concepts) are not trustworthy, in my view. Of course, since my philosophy is more pantheistic, I would hold that view thereby. None of the Eastern Philosophers of Antiquity I prefer speak of a personal God. Lao Tzu, Zhuang Zu, Siddartha, mainly.
    The pantheistic 'God' is not an intelligence. Because if God were an intelligence, then God would be a 'being'. The pantheist god is not a 'being', it is more like a force, the source of life, as in a wellspring gives us endless water. If there is God in each of us, the same God, we are God, all consciousness is God, but we are intelligence, the force is just the force, giving rise to us and all lving things. It is not a personal God, not a 'being' with 'conciousness', the pantheist god is a collective state, not an individual state. one could argue that the pantheist God is intelligent, but since all that is created appears to happen in randomity, and intelligence is not consistent with randomity, randomity is more consistent with a natural force. But the natural force giving rise to all living things is not an intelligence, as in 'intelligent designer'. ID would be a personal God, a sentient being, or supreme being. so, no. God does not 'create' because that implies intelligence, the proper framework to look at it is as 'life emanates, flows from, has arisen from God, but God as the spiritual basis to life, not as 'God the creator'. God is not a creator, God is creativity. the distinction is important in order to understand pantheism. In the pantheist view, a truly religious person is not someone who possesses a religion, it is someone who possesses the quality of religiousness.
    In my view, it is one of the greatest quotes from humanity. I know you quote a source, but my view is that it is much older than that, that it predates history. Of course, it's just a gut feeling. It's one of those axioms welling up from the ether (The All) that no one can claim. That is my belief.
    Good.

    I am a meditator, and for me, meditation helps me find God. But, this 'God' is not a 'creator' it is our native state, a merging with the whole. That is more in keeping with eastern philosophical concepts. Now, I'm not a card carrying pantheist, so if they have some doctrine somewhere, I'm not espousing it, I'm only saying that my philosophy is closer to pantheism (based on the descriptions I've read) and eastern philosophy than anything else.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I should think the answer to that question is rather simple.

    First, understand that the collected fossil record is infinitesimally small compared to the total number of living creatures that died, and only those whose fossils survived millions of years in great abundance provide the higher odds that we will find them, Mutations that do not give a benefit eventually cause those species with that mutation to fade away much sooner than others, we are therefore less likely to find them. What we do find are those whose abundance greatly increases the odds of their discovery so it is logical that the vast majority of fossils found are those with the successful mutations.
    So, in other words, fossils with advantageous features will be vastly more abundant than, and crowd out those that have less advantageous features.

    And there is another dynamic to this issue. The classic 'men have nipples?" question, men have nipples, and we don't need them. This occurs because embryos are female in the early stages, and since nipples didn't cause males to have an evolutionary disadvantage, males with nipples were not de-selected by females to mate. Had females found males with nipples repulsive, they would have avoided those males and males with nipples would have been gone long ago an subsequently the odds of discovering them in the distant future would have been decreased. however, nipples do not show up on fossils, so when you are talking about mutations, we are only talking about skeletal remains petrifying, and many mutations might be in the organic, fleshy areas of the creatures. It may very well true that many of the fossils discovered, had mutations, it's just that those mutations weren't skeletal.

    Another thing, how come there are no males with no nipples? Surely males without nipples mutations happened in prehistory. Apparently females found males without them undesirable, so it was males without nipples that were deselected in the evolutionary scheme, but that fact will not be revealed in the fossil record.

    Caveat, I'm not a scientist and I arrived at these conclusions by pure deduction. Feel free to prove me wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice screed full of ad hom! But, why do you think that ad hom will change science?

    You should at least learn why ALL of biology disagrees with your position here.
     
  11. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,256
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m curious why that experience didn’t make you a believer in reincarnation? Maybe you explained it already. I havnt had time to read all the posts.
     
  12. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is you, apparently, who demonstrates the greatest need to at least learn the position of "biology," as you clearly do not know it, well enough, to offer up any refutation of my post, which you are, purportedly, trying to contradict.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More personal attack with zero content.
     
  14. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1) I was just pointing out, that you had offered no counter-argument, other than to assert, on the weight of your word alone:

    WillReadmore said: ↑
    Nice screed full of ad hom! But, why do you think that ad hom will change science?

    You should at least learn why ALL of biology disagrees with your position here.


    And now, right on the heels of your own alleging my need to learn about biology,
    you have the nerve, the lack of any shame at your over the top hypocrisy, to label my reply--

    DEFinning said:
    It is you, apparently, who demonstrates the greatest need to at least learn the position of "biology," as you clearly do not know it, well enough, to offer up any refutation of my post, which you are, purportedly, trying to contradict--

    as,
    "personal attack, with zero content." I point out-- though God only knows, what you will call it-- that I only stated a fact, that you said I should learn why all biology says that my ideas are wrong, yet you could not, yourself, offer any of this knowledge, which would supposedly disprove my argument (even though I believe I had held out opportunities for you to do so, during my presenting of it). Based on that indication, I claimed that you had the greatest need (between the two of us) to learn the position of "biology." And if you term that, a "personal attack, then what should anyone think of your initially charging that I needed to learn biology's position?


    Did you not recognize that my reply directly responded, within the parameters which you had defined, that is, that it mirrored your charge, and responded logically, to it? After all, you provided less basis, than I had, for our mutual contentions. And, I can now add, that I never referred to anything that you've written here, as a "screed," nor have I thrown repeated (or even one) accusation at you, as relying on "ad hom" attacks. And, these multiple assertions, by you, are given without basis, as well-- unless you count my reciprocating, in my reply to your assertion of my deficient knowledge, drawing the same conclusion, about you.


    This reply of yours, quite clearly, did nothing but show your criticisms to be imponderous, frangible, and putrescible things (translation: insubstantial and, on top of that,
    liable to fall to pieces, or to rot)-- IOW, you have yourself discredited your words, writ large, not just by making meaningless accusations, but by proving yourself to be a hypocrite, through and through.

    As there is not a single poster here, who who even could, have been making more vapid replies than I have been suffering, from you, I am done with the utter waste of time, which "conversation," with you, has turned out to be. Go somewhere, and evolve.



     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2022
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm totally unimpressed by your constant hail of ad hom.

    There is NO CHANCE I give you ANY respect, and have NO reason to read any post of yours while your ONLY argument is pure ad hom.
     
  16. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Proving what I had just alleged, about you, and vindicating my verdict, of your hypocrisy--
    added bonus, this also gives us a gauge of your intelligence level, in not realizing those things, about your post.

    What a shame, that I will miss your brilliant comeback, as you have just essentially sworn that you will not even see this reply ("NO CHANCE"-- your caps-- that you give me any respect, and "NO reason to read" any of my posts). And, of course, we all know just how strictly, you keep to your word.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2022
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your posts are chock full of ad hom. Your claims that there is any truth in what you say is just plain silly.

    There is no chance of an honest exchange with you.

    Please STOP posting to me.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read through a bit ... what are you arguing - that God is not intelligent due to the messiness of mutations ?
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I did comment on a mistake being made concerning how evolution works.

    I doubt I've ever said anything about god not being intelligent on this or other threads.

    Don't all religions that have a god view that god as being supremely intelligent?

    The OP isn't about god not being intelligent. That was more like a catchy thread title.
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Believe it was the other fellow arguing for "God is not intelligent" .. or God is not the author of creation if that fits better..

    Either way .. fail to see how messiness of mutations sheds light on the question.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree.

    I'd still point out that the OP is not what it seems. It's not about whether god is intelligent. As the first lines state, it's about God not being an intelligence, and going from there. It's a version of what god is.

    I don't believe evolution shows anything about God, so I don't believe it should have come up in this thread. Since it did, I thought I'd fix a mistake being made concerning how evolution works.
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One thing I am familiar with .. hence why I interjected .. is the mathematical impossibility claim .. which is bunk . folks claiming that is a mathematical impossibility for life to have arisen but so called "random chance"
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I agree.

    The problem I have with it is that life did begin, and we don't know how it happened. So, it's hard to say it's impossible.
     
  24. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The argument is that it is not possible without the intervention of the creator
     
  25. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the mutual round of insults you quoted, of course, have nothing to do with the actual argument. I will note, however, that the other poster's responses, shows that he has not even been able to follow the thread (despite being an active participant).

    WillReadmore said:

    Well, I did comment on a mistake being made concerning how evolution works.*

    I doubt I've ever said anything about god not being intelligent on this or other threads.

    Don't all religions that have a god view that god as being supremely intelligent?

    The OP isn't about god not being intelligent. That was more like a catchy thread title**

    [End quote]

    * Correction: Readmore commented on his misunderstanding of my argument. There were no "mistakes," about "how evolution works." If you are interested enough to read our conversation, for yourself, you will see that I challenged W.R. to provide evidence of the aspect of my argument, with which he disagreed, and he only responded with the flaccid assertion (as usual, backed by nothing but his own mouth):

    WillReadmore said: ↑
    Nice screed full of ad hom! But, why do you think that ad hom will change science?

    You should at least learn why ALL of biology disagrees with your position here.

    [End]

    I pointed out to him that, if
    he actually knew of the thing, of which he was suggesting I need learn more about, he would have been able to offer something of it, to put at least a little meat, on his bare- boned personalization of his "argument," to center upon my supposed ignorance. True to form, Readmore's reply was devoid of relevant content, but overflowing with personal insult-- prominently among them, that I was the one attacking him, with "ad hom," arguments:

    WillReadmore said: ↑
    I'm totally unimpressed by your constant hail of ad hom.

    There is NO CHANCE I give you ANY respect, and have NO reason to read any post of yours while your ONLY argument is pure ad hom.

    [End]


    You have your characters, mixed up. The author of the OP, does indeed make the case that "God," that which governs all Creation, is not SENTIENT, so ** again to W.R.'s discredit, his assessment of the thread being unrelated to the "Intelligence" of God, and only a catchy thread title, is erroneous. But this lack of thought, if you prefer, on God's part, was not my ("the other fellow") argument; it is Patricio's. In brief, he believes that all has come to be, as a result of some universal laws-- for which it seems to me his explanation is limited to either: 1)there was no other option but for the laws to be as they are, or 2) it is not only an unknowable Mystery, but one of which, giving any of one's consideration, is a waste of time-- and mere Random occurrence.

    You have also misunderstood my argument. It is, for instance, not "mathematically impossible," that both James Comey and Andrew McCabe (who took Comey's place) could have been selected for a rare and very invasive, exhaustive audit, by the I.R.S., after leaving the Trump Administration, utterly due to random chance-- the odds against this being millions to one, it seems highly unlikely that there was not something else involved. That is essentially my argument about Evolution (or at least the part of it, which you reference). Patricio was at least understanding of enough, to insert a "get around," of this reality (as it applies overarchingly, to Creation in its entirety), of stipulating "infinity;" my attempts to get him to define & justify this given, figure prominently, in the thread.

    I had said to the thread readership, at large, earlier on, I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who can do, what I have never heard strict Evolutionists do, by providing the
    probabilities behind the specific course, which Evolution has taken; IOW, the likelihood that, merely through totally random mutation, and natural selection, we would expect to see anything resembling the vast array of life that has risen and fallen on our planet, within the known timespan. By all means, if you feel inclined to do so, please take a shot.

    However, understand that I am not challenging the mere concept of evolutionary change, so that your simply reeling off the type of thing that anyone might read in a Jr. High textbook, would suffice as an answering argument; in other words, unlike some people, show that you at least have a clue, about the argument which you challenge:



    WillReadmore said: ↑
    I agree.

    I'd still point out that the OP is not what it seems. It's not about whether god is intelligent. As the first lines state, it's about God not being an intelligence, and going from there. It's a version of what god is.

    I don't believe evolution shows anything about God, so I don't believe it should have come up in this thread. Since it did, I thought I'd fix a mistake being made concerning how evolution works.

    [End]

    I am currently writing a reply to Patricio, which goes into this, in more detail. I have lost track as to whether it is a reply for this thread, or for another, closely- related one, he started, but I will have you sent an alert, when I post.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2022

Share This Page