1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    17 May '15 23:02
    I started a thread about the process of evolution and wanted to know if atheists think it was super intelligent because you cannot have intelligence without consciousness involvement.

    If the atheist answers ( NO ) that there is no intelligence then evolution is a lie.

    Why is that so?

    Because if evolution is responsible for the human being and the elephant or the whale or the tiger or horse or the billions of birds that fly in the sky, then this process of evolution MUST BE Super Intelligent..........................and intelligence is always coming from consciousness.

    So atheists.........where did the SUPER intelligence come from?

    It looks like evolution is really just a theory after all.
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 May '15 23:10
    Originally posted by Dasa
    I started a thread about the process of evolution and wanted to know if atheists think it was super intelligent because you cannot have intelligence without consciousness involvement.

    If the atheist answers ( NO ) that there is no intelligence then evolution is a lie.

    Why is that so?

    Because if evolution is responsible for the human being and the e ...[text shortened]... the SUPER intelligence come from?

    It looks like evolution is really just a theory after all.
    I started a thread about the process of evolution and wanted to know if atheists think it was super
    intelligent because you cannot have intelligence without consciousness involvement.
    .........
    Because if evolution is responsible for the human being and the elephant or the whale or the tiger or
    horse or the billions of birds that fly in the sky, then this process of evolution MUST BE Super Intelligent



    Assuming that you mean that you cannot have an intelligence forming without concious involvement...


    All evidence to the contrary, but if you want to claim this as true, then you must demonstrate that it is
    so. And not simply assert that it is so. Which is all you have done so far.

    As it stands your 'argument' is a non-sequitur. The conclusion just does not follow from your argument.
  3. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    18 May '15 00:14
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    [quote]I started a thread about the process of evolution and wanted to know if atheists think it was super
    intelligent [b]because you cannot have intelligence without consciousness involvement.

    .........
    Because if evolution is responsible for the human being and the elephant or the whale or the tiger or
    horse or the billions of birds that fly ...[text shortened]... tands your 'argument' is a non-sequitur. The conclusion just does not follow from your argument.[/b]
    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 teachings of false religion are true at all.

    However it does mean that true religion is true...................As found in the eternal Vedas.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    18 May '15 00:361 edit
    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]
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78543
    18 May '15 01:07
    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.
    You said, and I have added line numbers for ease of reference:
    1) Intelligence does not exist without consciousness.
    2) You cannot have one without the other.
    3) The proof is // that you cannot point to a thing in this universe without having it being touched by intelligence.
    4) Go ahead and point to something.......................that has not.
    5) Therefore God exists and evolution is false.
    6) Note: this does not mean the teachings of false religion are true at all.
    7) However it does mean that true religion is true...................As found in the eternal Vedas
    Starting at line (1), why not? Intelligence is a property concerning problem solving, consciousness is a property connected with awareness, they are different things. Consciousness may well not be possible without intelligence, but it does not follow that something cannot be intelligent but non-conscious.

    Line (3), this sentence is ungrammatical to the point where it's meaning is unclear. Do you mean the following: "The proof is that one cannot point to a thing without it having been touched by intelligence.". What do you mean by "touched by intelligence"? What are you trying to prove? Line (1), that intelligent things are conscious, or a statement internal to line (3), presumably that there is a "universal intelligence" everything has been touched by?

    Line (4) - I'm tempted to point to your keyboard.

    Line (5) - does not follow from lines (1, 2 and 3). You have not shown that there is a God. You have also not shown that the theory of evolution is false. Neither statement follows from the preceding lines. There is no automatic contradiction between a universal God and evolution, so even if you had proven the existence of God you still would not have disproved evolution.

    Try using conventional grammar, normal punctuation and not writing in thought stopping clichés.
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35523
    18 May '15 01:11
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Therefore God exists and evolution is false.
    Close, but no cigar.

    God exists and evolution is true.

    One does not pre-empt the other.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    18 May '15 01:40
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Close, but no cigar.

    God exists and evolution is true.

    One does not pre-empt the other.
    Obviously he is not talkng about your brand of narrowly defined Evolution, but the Evilution defined by the modern British. 😏
  8. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    18 May '15 22:23
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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, ...[text shortened]... us we will remain
    unconvinced of your claims. [And you should stop making [or believing] them]
    I mean created.

    The sun is part of a designed cosmos and the sun is not in the sky by some random accident (bib bang)................but is part of an intelligently created universe.

    Life as we know it cannot exist on this earth without the sun...................and isn't it interesting how the thousands of different foods on earth require the sun to exist and also water and also soil and also carbon dioxide etc..............and amazingly they all exist.

    Now how does an un-intelligent universe have all the things we need (rhetorical question)...............and we humans need and want lots and lots and lots of stuff.(and its all provided.)

    Honest people can see design with clarity .....................however dishonest people will come up with all soughts of over intellectualized arguments to defend their evolution which is the Holy Grail for atheists and so they pretend they cannot see intelligent design.

    Note: If a person is dishonest they cannot be part of a discussion because they will always use their dishonesty to support and defend falsity..............which renders the discussion useless.

    .
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    18 May '15 22:34
    Originally posted by Dasa
    I mean created.

    The sun is part of a designed cosmos and the sun is not in the sky by some random accident (bib bang)................but is part of an intelligently created universe.

    Life as we know it cannot exist on this earth without the sun...................and isn't it interesting how the thousands of different foods on earth require the sun to exis ...[text shortened]... dishonesty to support and defend falsity..............which renders the discussion useless.

    .
    Ok. So you are basically making the "Teleological Argument" or "Argument from Design" with
    a side order of the "Fine Tuning Argument" for good measure.

    Now that I/We know what you are talking about, I have a couple of questions.

    Which I will ask one at a time to avoid confusion.

    I honestly [along with the majority of other people, including almost all scientists who actually study
    this kind of thing]
    cannot see any signs of intelligent design in the natural world.
    In fact it is the contrast between the natural world and the designed technological world that helps us
    identify designed objects as opposed to natural 'un-designed' objects.

    So my question is, beyond your 'intuition' telling you that everything you see must be intelligently designed.
    How do you determine that everything you/we see has been designed by an intelligent designer?
  10. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    19 May '15 02:45
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Ok. So you are basically making the "Teleological Argument" or "Argument from Design" with
    a side order of the "Fine Tuning Argument" for good measure.

    Now that I/We know what you are talking about, I have a couple of questions.

    Which I will ask one at a time to avoid confusion.

    I honestly [i][along with the majority of other people, including ...[text shortened]... .
    How do you determine that everything you/we see has been designed by an intelligent designer?
    Simply looking at the human body with all its components and its mind and consciousness and reproductive organs etc, we know it cannot exist without an intelligent cause.

    That cause is the intelligence of God.

    God being Super intelligent because God belongs to the Super Natural (actually God is responsible for the Super Natural.)

    This temporary material world is not natural for us because we are spiritual beings.

    But instead the spiritual world is our natural habitat because we are in truth spiritual beings and we do not belong to this world of suffering and death.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    19 May '15 03:49
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Ok. So you are basically making the "Teleological Argument" or "Argument from Design" with
    a side order of the "Fine Tuning Argument" for good measure.

    Now that I/We know what you are talking about, I have a couple of questions.

    Which I will ask one at a time to avoid confusion.

    I honestly [i][along with the majority of other people, including ...[text shortened]... .
    How do you determine that everything you/we see has been designed by an intelligent designer?
    Why couldn't a super intelligence have made the laws of physics and chemistry in bringing the universe into existence?
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86348
    19 May '15 04:162 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    God exists and evolution is true.
    How do you account for:

    Genesis 1: 27
    God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    19 May '15 07:192 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    How do you account for:

    Genesis 1: 27
    God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
    She believes God created man using evolution or evilution and a day does not really mean a day. God is apparently some sort of trickster to her.
  14. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    22 May '15 07:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Why couldn't a super intelligence have made the laws of physics and chemistry in bringing the universe into existence?
    It could have but it did not.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 May '15 08:171 edit
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Simply looking at the human body with all its components and its mind and consciousness and reproductive organs etc, we know it cannot exist without an intelligent cause.
    You may think you know, but saying 'we know' is dishonest. You were asked to explain how others would know by anything other than intuition, and all you do is repost your intuition with a false assumption that others share your intuition.
Back to Top