Originally posted by Dasa
Intelligence does not exist without consciousness.
You cannot have one without the other.
The proof is // that you cannot point to a thing in this universe without having it being touched by intelligence.
Go ahead and point to something.......................that has not.
Therefore God exists and evolution is false.
Note: this does not mean the ...[text shortened]... However it does mean that true religion is true...................As found in the eternal Vedas.
Intelligence does not exist without consciousness.
You cannot have one without the other.
I do not know that this is true... I am also not sure quite what it is you mean by this.
The proof is // that you cannot point to a thing in this universe without having it being touched by intelligence.
What do you mean, "touched by intelligence"?
Do you mean altered? Or Created?
Because if you mean either of those then out of the vast number of things I could point to as not having been
altered or created by an intelligence I will choose The Sun as my example.
Go ahead and point to something.......................that has not.
The Sun.
Done. Not a problem. Next...
Therefore God exists and evolution is false.
Total Non-Sequitur.
You have not demonstrated that Intelligence doesn't exist without conciousness [or vice versa]
[or defined properly what you mean by either of those terms which you need to do]
You have not demonstrated that there is nothing that has not been 'touched by intelligence'
[or what you mean by that]
You have not demonstrated that if either of the above are true, that this proves that evolution doesn't,
or hasn't happened.
You haven't demonstrated that if either of the above are true that this proves that a god or gods exist.
You do not in fact have any sort of coherent argument of any description.
So, here is what you need to do to fix this...
Which will require actually paying attention, and writing
a well structured and thought out post, and not a wannabe tweet...
You need to set out a series of well defined premises that you will build your argument upon.
With any necessary evidence [links thereto] and reasons for why we should accept these premises
as being true. And crucially not leaving out any premises you will later rely on.
You then need to construct a logically valid argument that takes the collection of premises and
builds upon them to reach a logical conclusion.
If you cannot demonstrate to us that the set of premises required for your argument are evidently true...
And/or You cannot get to your desired conclusion via a logically sound and valid argument from those
premises...
Then it is not rational or reasonable to accept what you say as being true, and thus we will remain
unconvinced of your claims. [And you should stop making [or believing] them]