Divine Intelligence: God the Evidence (for those that require it)

[cigley]

"What we have here is the fact that long before a living thing could have come into being to create intelligence, there is something acting in a very intelligent way, in the creation of the atom and the elements."

**there is something acting in a very intelligent way** Sounds very subjective to me. Sounds like qualitative reasoning to make your point.

Also, intelligence wasnt created. Intelligence is a function of trial and error. We can see in our everday lives the proof for that. and if this is true, why would God have to go through error to be intelligent?

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

Man I dig you Cigley, you smarter then some of these religous muthafuckas..
Intelligence isnt created, it existence is, it didnt become, it is.

 

[cbm_redux]

Quantitative Reasoning or things that can be expressed or reasoned about mathematically or quantitatively is a type of intelligence.

Right off the bat, you've dived headlong into a sea of fallacious bullshit. There is nothing that can't be described mathematically. That is precisely the reason that we invented math, and in particular calculus, i.e. to describe physical phenomena. They really shouldn't give convicts books

 

[A-ten]

This is what is known as interpretative "science". It is a philosophical argument that attributes certain scientific paradigms to a divine mine saying "that this kind of organization could not exist if it were not for a divine intelligence". It proves not the existence of God, only the possibility of a higher intelligence to ourselves that creates order in the universe.

By virtue of these same principles, one could prove that this intelligence has no loyalty or sympathy to mankind. That it exists to order and serves no other purpose but as a superintelligence that sets the order of the universe. It doesn't care whether it applies this order to men, animals, or plants. This is a huge gaping hole in the argument that ultimately reverts to a philosiphical argument with a loose scientific foundation that does not support the idea that God exists, only the idea that a higher intelligence provides order for the universe.

Christians that believe this is proof of God are reaching. This is merely proof of universal order that may or may not be attributed to a higher intelligence. It defintely does not prove this higher intelligence in anyway interacts with man on any level other than to order the universe in which man lives. Life is still very much random and unexplainable on many, many levels.

 

[Benjamin Check]

What does religion have to do with the existence of God?

Seems to me that the OP argued that there was a Force in place, that guides, shapes and forms all of the scientific rules that are known? Didn't argue how God looked, acted, or what religion was correct.



That statement is flawed, there is an obvious order within the universe, and the entire universe doesn't have to be considered. Just the solar system, the way the planets orbit the sun. Hasn't changed. Ecosystem hasn't changed. Even gravity, hasn't changed. The rules that apply to stars and black holes all over the universe hasn't changed.

UM GRAVITY IS NOT A CONSTANT IN THE UNIVERSE. SOMETIMES WEAK SOMTIMES STRING, SOMETIMES ANTI......WE DONT KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY. THTS HY ITS CALLED "THEROERTICAL ASTROPHYSICS!" ASS

 

[Benjamin Check]

First off..........MAN....NOT RELIGION is responsible for some of the worse things in History.You cant judge the car by it's Driver! Second of all if you are sooo "Enlightened" you would realize that you dont know anything regardless of what you perceive as Truth & Fact. I aint here to bash nobody but I laugh at Folks who swear just because they read a couple of Books they got it ALL figured out. (As you stated you only "heard" about that book )

Homie who started the thread simply offered to share some Information he attained........asking for some feedback & Here comes MR. ENLIGHTENED on some "BULLSHIT"-RaaaRaaa.WTF????

Thats why we as a people ain't EVER gonna make progress because somebody is always on that negative shit!!

The current population of this planet is about 6,654,984,723
and rising,that many Humans .........and NONE of us have the same Fingerprints.NONE ARE THE SAME!!!

If you took all your Nerve Strands and lined them up they would span around the whole planet Earth!!! Yet ans still all that is compacted inside your Body.

We are made up of countless strands of DNA.......COUNTLESS.....yet and still about a Teaspoon full of DNA contains more Information/Data than the entire Ecyclopedia Brittanica! One DNA molecule inside your cells contains about 750 megabytes of information!! (consider the size of a molecule at this point!)

Your Heart Pumps 2113,6 Gallons of Blood thru your Body Everyday!! It Doesnt take breaks..............

The brain is like a 168,0000 MHz Pentium computer!!! thats about 4,800 3,5ghz processors!!

The Human eye has an approx. resolution of 576 megapixels!!!! Fuck a Digicam!!

The human body is more complex and advanced than any machine we could invent.

So this "Coincidence" is actually more complex than anything we could accomplish??

Now lemme guess......you will probably agree that ALL this is Coincidence or Accident?

Not a Product of Intelligent Design?

Lemme put it your terms so you'll understand:

"You really think this Shit just happened by Accident and not Design?"

Fuck a Universe........look at yourself Bro!!....it's Evident! Our Problem as Humans is the fact that we simply CANNOT accept a SIMPLE answer to some Questions regarding Creation and mind you....EVERY CREATION, in order to be labeled as such, HAS TO HAVE A CREATOR!

This is not about Religion Bruh it's about evidence of God's existence NOT what some might think he looks like...that shit is irrelevant.

You CANNOT deny TRUTH/FACT!!!

GOD doesnt need us that is true!!!!......We need him (taking into account that all he supplied/supplies us with on a daily basis is a Necessity to EXIST.....AIR, SUN,WATER etc.).......So why not say thanks from time to time )

I'm bout to go fix me a Sammich...........................Peace!!

YEA YOURE DELUSIONAL.......YOUR "FACTS" HOWEVER USELESS, ARE MEANT FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN DISCUSSION. "THANKING GOD"...MEANS YOU THINK HES PAYING ATTENTION TO "YOU" I ASSURE YOU, HES NOT.

 

[Benjamin Check]

Nice fuckin post.



If you were truly enlightened, you would not proclaim yourself as such in this manner.



Your arguments for resettling in Africa and building up West African nations sound pretty moral, actually. You speak of a strong love for and pride in your family, which is moral.

You're a young dude, man. All this passion and arrogance is admirable but as you get older, you'll learn that its not all black and white and clear cut like you have it in your mind. That goes for your perceptions AND self-perception.

Just a bit of advice. Do with it what you will.

Dertbagg and RBG, I hope you guys keep this up. This is a cool little thread.

To the homie that thinks it should just be posting pussy and fuck the barbershop talk, you're missing an essential reason for BGOL.

You can get free pussy and porn from a hundred different blogs. This here is THE black barbershop of the internet. Dont knock the hustle.

YOU REALLY DONT GET IT HUH?......
HELPING MY FAMILY.......THOSE WHO SHARE MY GENETIC CODE...IS NOT MORAL. THERES A DIFF IN MY WORLD BETWEEN "RIGHT" AND PROPER. i WANT TO HAVE KIDS AND E A GOOD PARENT.....NOT CAUSE OF "IMAGINARY MORALS" BECAUSE I'M SUPPOSED TO. PERIOD. ME CHOOSING TO ENHANCE THE AREA I WANT TO LIVE IN FOR THE COMFORT OF MYSELF, AND MY FAMILY.......IS NOT MORALS. ITS CALLED COMMON SENSE. YOU MY OLDER AND UNWISE FRIEND NEED TO REALIZE THE WOLD IS BLACK AND WHITE. HAVE AND HAVE NOT.........AWWW YOU MUST BE ONE OF HEM NIGGAS THAT FORGOT...THATS SWEET.

 

[SKATTA]

bump.
great thread.

 

[OnSlaught]

YOU REALLY DONT GET IT HUH?......
HELPING MY FAMILY.......THOSE WHO SHARE MY GENETIC CODE...IS NOT MORAL. THERES A DIFF IN MY WORLD BETWEEN "RIGHT" AND PROPER. i WANT TO HAVE KIDS AND E A GOOD PARENT.....NOT CAUSE OF "IMAGINARY MORALS" BECAUSE I'M SUPPOSED TO. PERIOD. ME CHOOSING TO ENHANCE THE AREA I WANT TO LIVE IN FOR THE COMFORT OF MYSELF, AND MY FAMILY.......IS NOT MORALS. ITS CALLED COMMON SENSE. YOU MY OLDER AND UNWISE FRIEND NEED TO REALIZE THE WOLD IS BLACK AND WHITE. HAVE AND HAVE NOT.........AWWW YOU MUST BE ONE OF HEM NIGGAS THAT FORGOT...THATS SWEET.

See, this is an argument that goes back thousands of years...one that you will eventually lose if you READ! It's called Socratic philosophy/logic. He proposed the same "morals" that you are barking about not having as ethics. Believe me, if there were no morals, your ass would be shanked or someone's bitch. You live the way you do because a system of ethics was placed into being because some people were being moralistic. Unfortunately, you say you have common sense, which is something that with a little more scrutiny and observation you would realize you and a host of others on this planet do not possess.

What you are talking about are natural, instinctual drives, and so far I have yet to find another animal that in its own environment, let alone a foreign one, possesses any other drive besides trying to survive. Meaning that the male of the species doesn't really give a damn about nurturing either their current mate or their children. When it's found it is very rare, and likely something we are misinterpreting as affection. Humans are about the only animals on this planet that can give a justification of why we do what we do.

Oh and as far as you seeing the world in black and white...good luck with life. This world is in grey, meaning that no complex question can be simply answered with an easy answer without suspension of intelligence most of the time. Black-and-white thinking is error because it simplifies a complex idea or situation and black-and-white arguments are wrong because that type of reasoning leads to failure to consider all the possible solutions to a situation or problem.

There are many solutions to complex problems, not just one or two....

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

bump.
great thread.

Right You Are!

 

[cigley]

See, this is an argument that goes back thousands of years...one that you will eventually lose if you READ! It's called Socratic philosophy/logic. He proposed the same "morals" that you are barking about not having as ethics. Believe me, if there were no morals, your ass would be shanked or someone's bitch. You live the way you do because a system of ethics was placed into being because some people were being moralistic. Unfortunately, you say you have common sense, which is something that with a little more scrutiny and observation you would realize you and a host of others on this planet do not possess.

What you are talking about are natural, instinctual drives, and so far I have yet to find another animal that in its own environment, let alone a foreign one, possesses any other drive besides trying to survive. Meaning that the male of the species doesn't really give a damn about nurturing either their current mate or their children. When it's found it is very rare, and likely something we are misinterpreting as affection. Humans are about the only animals on this planet that can give a justification of why we do what we do.

Oh and as far as you seeing the world in black and white...good luck with life. This world is in grey, meaning that no complex question can be simply answered with an easy answer without suspension of intelligence most of the time. Black-and-white thinking is error because it simplifies a complex idea or situation and black-and-white arguments are wrong because that type of reasoning leads to failure to consider all the possible solutions to a situation or problem.

There are many solutions to complex problems, not just one or two....

 

[Dert Bagg]

BUMP

 

[sean69]

Good read! To me, this is just another (of many) way to explain what i refer to as the inherent "consciousness" of matter at all levels even down to the molecular and sub-atomic level. The "consciousness" appears hidden to beings (living organisms, specifically humans) because we lack the intelligence to observe and comprehend it empirically. However, is it possible to realize this level of awareness rationally, not through intellectual process, but through spiritual perception of the world (which is not limited or subject to any religion)??

I think so. I believe that the physical and the meta-physical are in fact just one true reality separated by our deficiency in intelligence.

The fact is that the average person views the world from a macroscopic perspective and as such only observes natural and synthetic material at macroscopic level - humans and all other animals, plants and objects that we can see with the naked eye. Now, at a microscopic level and a nanoscopic molecular level, this is a whole new ball game. Quantum mechanics has taught us that. When you start observing materials, and especially living organisms, at this level, you start to appreciate the beauty and elegance of an intelligence far superior to ours. Like dude said in the original post, check out the functional chemistry of life starting from DNA, the polymeric assembly of molecules that's the genetic template for life! Every physical trait that you have and a human being. Including your consciousness. Your mind. (don't forget, your brain is all molecules and proteins. Atoms; electrons, proton and neutrons.
And if you believe in a soul or whatever, that's separate from the physical body, then what's that made of??

As an organic chemist (and molecular biology and physics enthusiast), we deal with matter (in the lab) on a molecular and often times, nano- scale. We basically, rearrange atoms and molecules with empirical knowledge of their underlying properties, applying laws of physics and mathematics (aka, chemistry) through scientific methodology, to make stuff. Oh, and also to investigate nature and the stuff we make, to make more stuff.

I have often wondered if there's a scientific proof of the existence of a higher intelligence (God or whatever you choose to call it). There are certainly theories in physics and cosmology bolstered by natural laws (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) that suggest the plausibility of creation of the singularity from which the Bing-Bang generated the universe (space and time) and all the matter in it.
However, these are theories. And as every true scientist knows, you can not prove a theory right, just support it or debunk it with more evidence.

What we have here is the fact that long before a living thing could have come into being to create intelligence, there is something acting in a very intelligent way, in the creation of the atom and the elements. One thing is for a pattern to occur as an organizing force inside the atom. Seeing it acting again as an organizing force outside the atom reinforces the idea of an organizing intelligent presence at work. Following the Big Bang is not a simple cooling down process from which the various atoms are created, or however else scientist may discover the creation takes place. What is a fact, however the process occurs, is that there is a numerical basis to it. There is evidence of intelligence behind it. This I think is evidence for us to believe or at least ponder about the presence of this bodiless intelligence and force. We perceive God's presence through its Intelligence. It is the intelligence behind all of the laws of nature, which can be understood through qualitative logic or quantitative logic (mathematics).

I absolutely see nothing wrong with this line of argument. There is so much inherent intelligence in nature that it isn't so ludicrous for one to at least ponder the possibility of and intelligent designing force. IMO.

Cmon dog...you were dead 2 sentences into this thread...
I'd start here.

I've read this book and I am familiar with Thomas Kuhn and his thesis on the philosophy of Science; that the evolution of science isn't based on the simple accumulation of facts but rather through paradigm shifts, the dynamics of consensus and the nature of inquiry in the scientific community, and social, cultural and political influences, the interplays of analysis, reductionism , etc etc. Yeah i get it. And he makes some good arguments based on history.
However, my main beef with his thesis is that he refuses to accept that scientific theories of different "paradigms" can still correlate on the same level! (see "Discussion:Observational Invariance", C.R. Kordig)

 

[sean69]

Um......I am the furthest thing from a christian. In fact I am COMPLETELY AMORAL. "mortals" is just a term I use jokingly.
god made man in his own image.......yea im sure. to an alien, monkeys and men are pretty similar. aas far as this "knowing god" thats just another wack way to say "you" because "you" think "your" way have reached "enlightenment", or "heaven" or "nirvana" or "paradise" whether it be here on earth, in the spiritual realm, or in fantasy. I have known the way to "god" for over 10 years. i'm glad that YOU just got there and are exited....but ive known my purpose for a while. Glad to see you made it here......first rule of enlightenment......dont preach! everyman must find his own way. see how you are being rejected out of hand? I believe everything you said inthe first post....but im teaching you a lesson of "enlightenment" all of the people i have led to "nirvana" have been through discussion. "what is the prpose of life" when you get to the purpose...it all becomes clear to them. but you cant throw information at em. you have to ask questions and let THEM come up with the answers. When you come across in the preachy way......niggas feel like they are in church,and start falling asleep.

That's interesting because i noticed that, your first response to his post was to declare it utter complete BULLSHIT!
I do agree with you on the 'self-realization' as a means to enlightenment (Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza would also agree ) and that civil discussion is a way to get there. You are right, preachy seldom works. However, in all fairness, it's responses like your first one and some of the other responses i read, that often fuel it and ultimately result in fruitless, unproductive, circular arguments. IMO.

 

[sean69]

Which is it?
Is it the reasoning or the logic that is intelligence?
(One is the movement the other is the medium.)

Kuhn undermined the fundamental assumption of objectivity in science by defining science (and the scientific community) socially. He coined the modern meaning of paradigm, and proposed that absent a neutral paradigm, no true objectivity can be achieved. Objectivity is only relative to the paradigm (social group and the rules of conduct born of it). So as paradigms shift....

But we are talking about God. What that bit means in general is that claims of final objective proofs can never truly get off the ground. Of course we can't escape paradigms so our arguments will necessarily be relative to the, which usually makes this academic. But your argument isn't even objective relative to the paradigm!

You've written paragraphs over-elaborating a point:
The capacity we have to reason proves logic proves supra-human intelligence.

Assuming I've distilled the proof correctly, it in-and-of-itself does not proceed objectively. Reason "requires" logic, because logic is the paradigm of reason. It does not follow, simply, that logic necessarily "requires" a superior "reasoner" for its own existence. That can easily lead to an infinite regress devolving into the classic watch, watchmaker, watchmakermaker line of debate.

But even if it were objectively true (relative to the paradigm) that our ability to reason quantitatively proves a medium of intelligence greater than ourselves, you still fail to provide an objective link between that and "God."



You introduced "mathematical thinking" and "design" as the foundations of living matter without providing any evidence for that prior to the introduction, then try to use that undemonstrated premise to support the your God theory. (Simply exposing the irritability hypothesis does not create a design hypothesis.)



1) Again, no evidence is provided linking a capacity for mathematics with a necessary endowment by "God."

2) Says who? The lack of a unified field theory is one example of something that is clearly, currently, unquantifiable. And it is not controversial among scientists that much of nature "exists" outside of any human potential to quantify it.

3) That nature expresses quantifiable patterns is not evidence that it was "built" (by a "builder"), at all.

4) Plenty of scientists do invent (Edison, Carver). But they don't invent science and none would claim to (name one). Scientists discover what is discoverable in nature. And no discovery yet has provided relatively objective proof of design.


And how you can even attempt to tie the precision of empiricist argument to those vagueries about race and "the West," is baffling.

Very good rebuttal!! However, i have some comments:
Kuhn's argument on the impossibility of true objectivity because of its relation to a paradigm is compelling. But once again, I contend that his argument of incommensurability, basically, ingnores the fact that in spite of this perceived paradigm constraint, observation and comparison of scientific data across paradigms is possible! I think these radical paradigm changes characterized by Kuhn are actually changes in interpretation.

If your argument is that our lack of absolute objectivity is due to the limitations of our intelligence and methods of observing and recording data, absolutely. I buy it. However, if it is based on this Kuhnian paradigm shift argument, I think the premise is flawed. hence a fallacious argument.

That being said, there is tons of evidence for hints of logical mathematical design in life. Look at the human cell and its functioning - at the molecular level. Another example: The fact that we can use computers (integrated logic machines) to simulate molecular dynamics to predict processes using the algorithms developed with the same mathematics that describes these real molecules.

And finally, there actually IS a unified field theory based on the Wave Structure of matter! We can get into this but maybe it's wise to save that for another post.

 

[sean69]

right?

Its fundamental. If the complexity of our creation necessitates an intelligent designer, doesn't a designer complex enough to design that creation require a designer as well?

Good point.

 

[sean69]

Re: While we're at it lets bang on evolution a bit too. LOL

What is truly sad is that there is no chasm between true science and true religion. If fact where science and religion cannot support each other in revealing the wonder of the universe and the intelligence that created and sustains it is the point where science and religion must recognize the need for further growth and understanding.

ONE

CO-SIGN!
Couldn't have put it any better.

 

[sj808]

I don't follow any religion... but I do believe in "God".



I think the problem is that people always refers to "God" as a "him"... a person... a being..


Can we just label God as mother-nature maybe? Or just Life?? The growth and happenings of life is "God" in my opinion.


I think that's the problem with alot of people. They base "God" after all these religious beliefs and always try to define "God" to the tee. "God" is too far beyond our comprehension. Me trying to think about it gives me a headache... stop trying to put a specific definition and just let it be.

 

[OnSlaught]

Very good rebuttal!! However, i have some comments:
Kuhn's argument on the impossibility of true objectivity because of its relation to a paradigm is compelling. But once again, I contend that his argument of incommensurability, basically, ingnores the fact that in spite of this perceived paradigm constraint, observation and comparison of scientific data across paradigms is possible! I think these radical paradigm changes characterized by Kuhn are actually changes in interpretation.

If your argument is that our lack of absolute objectivity is due to the limitations of our intelligence and methods of observing and recording data, absolutely. I buy it. However, if it is based on this Kuhnian paradigm shift argument, I think the premise is flawed. hence a fallacious argument.

That being said, there is tons of evidence for hints of logical mathematical design in life. Look at the human cell and its functioning - at the molecular level. Another example: The fact that we can use computers (integrated logic machines) to simulate molecular dynamics to predict processes using the algorithms developed with the same mathematics that describes these real molecules.

And finally, there actually IS a unified field theory based on the Wave Structure of matter! We can get into this but maybe it's wise to save that for another post.

Sean, well thought out post. However, I'd forewarn as a caveat to tread lightly, especially because any contradiction or exception that someone finds in your "evidence" will displace your statement as being wrong, or at least tentative. Many things in life are tentative, especially scientific research and theory.

You are an organic chemist and I a molecular biologist...we should be able to agree and butt heads on several topics. However enthused we are about theoretical physics, we cannot claim any expertise. There really isn't an overall unified field theory, and believe me it is still very tentative. New math has to be created in the form of new equations, in order for it fit together and make sense. Hell, we are still not sure about dark energy and dark matter making up roughly 96% of our universe, let alone something that unites every conservative and non-conservative force in it.

I'll come back and post more and I'll be eager to hear your responses as well Sean.

 

[sean69]

If bees evolved, if flowers evolved, if nitrogen fixing bacteria
evolved, what would happen to animals which are incapable to making their own food or preparing oxygen for animal consumption, and so on? As for what appears to be a progressive introduction of more complex creatures along a time line, need not be the expression of separate creatures engaged in a striving by and for themselvesm, but a gradual unfolding of the components of a developing being - as seen in the fetal process, where complex cells and tissues "evolve" from simpler ones as integral and interdependent parts of a whole.

Gradualism (embedded in intelligent design theory)! I co-sign this.

It is a shame that the theory of evolution has not been revisited from the level of genetics which reveals very little "evolutionary" development between the blueprints of primitive and highly "evolved" creatures. Mirroring this is the fact that the entire genetic blueprint of a creature is encoded even in all its cells - from the simplest to the most complex.

People are actually starting to vet evolution theory on the basis of molecular biology and genetics! Check out "The Edge of Evolution: The Search of the Limits of darwinism" by Michael Behe. In it, he presents very compelling arguments on what evolution theory can and can not explain. Good read.

If you don't know that there has been a vociferous struggle going on between agenda driven science and religion then you have not been watching this unfolding debate. Although not necessarily the core of the debate what I have presented here represents the difference between a left brained western view of God and the world and the right brained or more balanced view of African spiritual philosophy. And whether those on either side of this debate know it or not African spiritual philosophy holds the key to ending this debate.
ONE

 

[sean69]

Sean, well thought out post. However, I'd forewarn as a caveat to tread lightly, especially because any contradiction or exception that someone finds in your "evidence" will displace your statement as being wrong, or at least tentative. Many things in life are tentative, especially scientific research and theory.

You are an organic chemist and I a molecular biologist...we should be able to agree and butt heads on several topics. However enthused we are about theoretical physics, we cannot claim any expertise. There really isn't an overall unified field theory, and believe me it is still very tentative. New math has to be created in the form of new equations, in order for it fit together and make sense. Hell, we are still not sure about dark energy and dark matter making up roughly 96% of our universe, let alone something that unites every conservative and non-conservative force in it.

I'll come back and post more and I'll be eager to hear your responses as well Sean.

Thanks for the advice. You make a good point. It wasn't my intention to come off as over-zealous or cavalier. I am still in the stage of crystallizing my views on the unified field theory. But this unification does not require new math, theories of laws! Just a new way of looking at matter as not consisting of discrete particles, but spherical standing in-and-out waves.
Once I do, I will certainly share these with you for your own views and comments.

 

[sean69]

55th time. Reason is intelligence.
What is the next step in your God-proof?

I've been under the impression that reason (which requires logic) is a component of intelligence, and not = Intelligence. By saying reason = intelligence are you not limiting intelligence to logic which in-its-self is limited a given premise?

Could there be an intelligence outside the comprehension of our own intelligence that is responsible for the universe and also the reason that we can't seem to completely understand everything about it (the universe)?

I think there's a major flaw in our thinking that the intelligence of humans operates on the same level as the intelligence of the creator.

How again does pattern not suggest a designer?

 

[sean69]

See, this is an argument that goes back thousands of years...one that you will eventually lose if you READ! It's called Socratic philosophy/logic. He proposed the same "morals" that you are barking about not having as ethics. Believe me, if there were no morals, your ass would be shanked or someone's bitch. You live the way you do because a system of ethics was placed into being because some people were being moralistic. Unfortunately, you say you have common sense, which is something that with a little more scrutiny and observation you would realize you and a host of others on this planet do not possess.

What you are talking about are natural, instinctual drives, and so far I have yet to find another animal that in its own environment, let alone a foreign one, possesses any other drive besides trying to survive. Meaning that the male of the species doesn't really give a damn about nurturing either their current mate or their children. When it's found it is very rare, and likely something we are misinterpreting as affection. Humans are about the only animals on this planet that can give a justification of why we do what we do.

Oh and as far as you seeing the world in black and white...good luck with life. This world is in grey, meaning that no complex question can be simply answered with an easy answer without suspension of intelligence most of the time. Black-and-white thinking is error because it simplifies a complex idea or situation and black-and-white arguments are wrong because that type of reasoning leads to failure to consider all the possible solutions to a situation or problem.

There are many solutions to complex problems, not just one or two....

CO-SIGN!

 

[Dert Bagg]

I've been under the impression that reason (which requires logic) is a component of intelligence, and not = Intelligence. By saying reason = intelligence are you not limiting intelligence to logic which in-its-self is limited a given premise?

Could there be an intelligence outside the comprehension of our own intelligence that is responsible for the universe and also the reason that we can't seem to completely understand everything about it (the universe)?

I think there's a major flaw in our thinking that the intelligence of humans operates on the same level as the intelligence of the creator.

How again does pattern not suggest a designer?

1) My distinction here may tread into the territory of what the meaning of "is," is, but nevertheless consider me to be conceding his point, in part, to discover if there is anything else, or if the trail (finally) ends there. (I might say reason is intelligence, but would not say that intelligence is reason.)

2) Pattern may suggest a designer given certain other variables, but I am not aware of any relatively objective basis for the conclusion that the existence of a pattern necessitates the existence of a designer.

 

[John_Gault]

Damn... when did folks trade in cogency for big fonts?

Bwahhhhaaaaaa!! Wow, that was funny, ouch. (turns on heel and walks back out)

JG

 

[sean69]

1) My distinction here may tread into the territory of what the meaning of "is," is, but nevertheless consider me to be conceding his point, in part, to discover if there is anything else, or if the trail (finally) ends there. (I might say reason is intelligence, but would not say that intelligence is reason.)

Awww fuck it! I'm all confused now.

2) Pattern may suggest a designer given certain other variables, but I am not aware of any relatively objective basis for the conclusion that the existence of a pattern necessitates the existence of a designer.

Hmm. By "objective basis" you mean scientific (logical, mathematical) proof? I gotta think on this one ...

 

[John_Gault]

I've been eye-balling this thread, and there are a few things that need to be established before these types of debates can flourish.


One of which is a standard of 'objectivity' and a definition of it. I won't get long on the tooth about it . . . but the science heads in this thread, as well as any cursory 'search' on the net for LOGIC should explain its' basis in mathematics. So that in the end, 2+2=4.

Why? because math doesn't have opinions, or care about any of you or what you think. So a Socratic method (logical) method of reasoning and inquiry is the best and ONLY method to intelligent reasoning of any problem discussed. Esp. in the context of interpreting existential phenomenon.


So, when asked (or asking), why is the scientific method of inquiry the gold standard and benchmark for forays into 'objective' quantitative analysis. One must also ask, 'what alternative is there?'


Pardon my (ahem) ignorance, but I'm not aware of ANY other methodology that is capable of usurping math based 'logic' in its' facility to peel back layers of the physical universe.

Shit, those who've had some rigor plied to their learning, know that 'basic' logic is only the 'ground floor'. Advanced logic is just as it sounds . . . complex! I won't debate anything theistic or monotheistic in this thread. They always end the same way, ALWAYS.

JG

 

[RBGrider]

"What we have here is the fact that long before a living thing could have come into being to create intelligence, there is something acting in a very intelligent way, in the creation of the atom and the elements."

**there is something acting in a very intelligent way** Sounds very subjective to me. Sounds like qualitative reasoning to make your point.

Also, intelligence wasnt created. Intelligence is a function of trial and error. We can see in our everday lives the proof for that. and if this is true, why would God have to go through error to be intelligent?

The first shell of an atom can hold a maximum of 2 electrons, the second shell 8, the third 18 and the fourth 32. This gives us the following mathematical progression: 2(1)2 2(2)2 2(3)2 2(4)2

This arrangement of electrons is the same pattern of the elements when they are arranged on the periodic table. In the first row of the periodic table there are 2 elements Hydrogen and Helium, in rows 2 & 3 we find there are 8 elements in each row, in rows 4 and 5 we find 18 elements in each, in row 6 we find 32 elements and in row 7 we find 23 elements. The last row does not break the pattern, it contains elements that are so unstable that the limit of integration has been reached before reaching the 32nd possible element.

Some how scientist have missed the fact that following the so called Big Bang the creation of elements proceeded according to strict mathematical rules. All elements are made up of the same components, just configured differently. The progression from one element to the next follows a strict mathematical pattern, in which the underlying properties of each element are repeated in the element 8 places away.

What so many in this thread choose to quote and try to argue against is very interesting. The core of post rests on the above quote which demonstrates that after the theoretical explosion that created the universe that all of the elements known to exist within the newly created universe formed following strict mathematical rules. Not one of you chose to quote this and argue that it is not an example of Intelligence but instead is random activity as postulated by atheistic science. The absurdity of such an argument is hammered home by the fact that "science" has claimed that intelligence didn't come into existence until actual BEINGS arrived on the scene and then only through a long process of "adaptation" to the environment. This is obviously false since we have the very earliest stages of creation occurring based on phenomenon that follows the most basic definition of intelligence and long before any "beings" are claimed to have existed.

No there is no process of "trial and error" required by the Intelligence behind the creation of the universe. Nor do I understand or agree with your claim that "intelligence is a function of trial and error". Intelligence is a function of consciousness which is its passive state and will which is its active state.

I will concede that I and others may make the leap from this clear example of intelligence ((2+2)=4) to attributing this Intelligence to God. But I have only asked that you concede that IT IS INTELLIGENCE. What you choose to determine that intelligence is is up to you. What we can agree on objectively is that whether it is the big bang or the formation of beings and creatures all follow strict mathematical rules which are part of the very definition of INTELLIGENCE.

 

[Dert Bagg]

Shit, those who've had some rigor plied to their learning, know that 'basic' logic is only the 'ground floor'. Advanced logic is just as it sounds . . . complex! I won't debate anything theistic or monotheistic in this thread. They always end the same way, ALWAYS.

JG

Indeed, JG. They do.

 

[RBGrider]

for the family:


Our being-and that of God, as we are created in Its image—is composed of two indivisible entities. It is an individual, that is, an indivisible duality composed of an entity that is a consciousness that is responsible for voluntary or willed behavior, and an unconsciousness that is responsible for involuntary and automated behavior. A careful analysis of these two parts of being will show that the act of willing is merely an indication of a potential act and lacks the energy to carry out what has been willed. The carrying out of the will is the task of the unconscious part of being wherein resides the forces—emotions---for the execution of the will. This is why people have such a hard time carrying out their will, for example, to break a habit like smoking. One part of being declares, because it is devoid of energy, while the other executes because it has the energy to do so. Given the fact that energy is oppositely polarized by matter, we must conclude that the unconscious is composed of energy/matter. This grouping establishes, by logic, the proposition that if one part of being is composed of energy/matter, the other part of being—consciousness/will—is immaterial and devoid of energy, it is imperceptible. In the Kametic spiritual system, the imperceptibility of the Self was denoted by the divine principle “Amen”, the hidden, concealed. We can thus schematize the fundamental aspects of being as follows:

Immaterial/Self/Identity………………..Material/Spirit/Not Self/non Identity

Active …………----passive ……………............ Active………………Passive

Will………….......Consciousness………........…Energy……………… Matter

Note that the immaterial part of being---consciousness/will has been associated with Self/identity. In other words, CONSCIOUSNESS IS WHAT AND WHO WE ARE---our identity---and willing is what we do. Logically, this means that the material/energy part of being , the SPIRIT, is NOT SELF. You may find this confusing since they have been repeatedly told that “man is spirit not the physical body”.

This schematization of the interaction of the two fundamental parts of being, through the Tree of Life, tracks a progression of changes from the essential and original state of being, which is oneness, to the substantial and transformed state of being which is many, in other words we are one being manifesting as many. That we are essentially one being as far as the identity part of our being is concerned is framed in the attributes of the Self. Since the Self—consciousness/will is immaterial, it cannot be divided, multiplied, added onto or subtracted from. Our oneness as part of the energy/matter part of our being is concerned is framed in the attributes of the essential and original state of the energy and material foundation of our vehicles (mind, body, etc) In its original state our matter is undifferentiated, unstructured, not shaped into forms or things, and our energy is in a state of inactivity (state of peace, Hetep, nirvana ie not moving)

Since our essential and original, or true state of being is one of oneness due to the indivisibility of the immaterial self, and the undivided original state of energy/matter, our being is infinite (matter not limited) and eternal (consciousness/self is outside the realm of space and time). From this follows logically that the process known as creation can only be a transformation (division) and modification of a portion of the limitless expanse of matter. It is a progression from the peaceful eternal one to the appearance of the many, separated, energized (emotional) mortal (non-eternal, finite) beings. The process through which the separation of the one indivisible consciousness (God’s self) into the apparent many is achieved through modifications of energy/matter. We are like one light (consciousness/self) passing through translucent panes of different colors (modified energy/matter) and manifesting as different, and separate lights of different colors. The failure to relate properly to this reality of being is behind the many problems experienced in the world. The vast majority see only differences which are superficial and fall into the trap of declaring others as enemies, competitors, threats, cannon fodder, commodities, etc. Underneath these superficial differences are elements that unite us into one being.

 

[Punani Killa]

I believe in God, I don't believe in God the way most people believe in God. I don't believe that god is some man living in the sky watching and judging everything that we do. I believe that God is a growing force that is constantly evolving and we as human beings are products of that evolution. And someday our time here will be done and something else will take over. We are little specks that use religion to make ourself feel more important a relevant then everything around us and anything that came before us. Religion is man made, the bible is also man made. So i say live your life the best that you can. Be thankful that you lived another day. Try to acquire as much knowledge as you can. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with believing in something but you should still take the time to understand why you believe in it. The human brain that you have can process thoughts that are way more powerful then any book or any saying. Which means that if you don't believe in any I just said, your thought process should be strong enough to process it as bullshit and understand why its bullshit. If you believe what ever I say without thinking about it, then that would make you a weak minded individual. In my opinion, religion has it's good points because it supplies a basic set of rules to live by. And I think that everybody should live by a set of rules. The bad thing about religion (again in my opinion) is that it teaches people that there is a God or Gods that already did all the thinking for you.


For right now I am comfortable with the thought that one night my Dad said "fuck the condom" and as a result I came from this hole right here.

 

[truplutu]

First off..........MAN....NOT RELIGION is responsible for some of the worse things in History.You cant judge the car by it's Driver! Second of all if you are sooo "Enlightened" you would realize that you dont know anything regardless of what you perceive as Truth & Fact. I aint here to bash nobody but I laugh at Folks who swear just because they read a couple of Books they got it ALL figured out. (As you stated you only "heard" about that book )

Homie who started the thread simply offered to share some Information he attained........asking for some feedback & Here comes MR. ENLIGHTENED on some "BULLSHIT"-RaaaRaaa.WTF????

Thats why we as a people ain't EVER gonna make progress because somebody is always on that negative shit!!

The current population of this planet is about 6,654,984,723
and rising,that many Humans .........and NONE of us have the same Fingerprints.NONE ARE THE SAME!!!

If you took all your Nerve Strands and lined them up they would span around the whole planet Earth!!! Yet ans still all that is compacted inside your Body.

We are made up of countless strands of DNA.......COUNTLESS.....yet and still about a Teaspoon full of DNA contains more Information/Data than the entire Ecyclopedia Brittanica! One DNA molecule inside your cells contains about 750 megabytes of information!! (consider the size of a molecule at this point!)

Your Heart Pumps 2113,6 Gallons of Blood thru your Body Everyday!! It Doesnt take breaks..............

The brain is like a 168,0000 MHz Pentium computer!!! thats about 4,800 3,5ghz processors!!

The Human eye has an approx. resolution of 576 megapixels!!!! Fuck a Digicam!!

The human body is more complex and advanced than any machine we could invent.

So this "Coincidence" is actually more complex than anything we could accomplish??

Now lemme guess......you will probably agree that ALL this is Coincidence or Accident?

Not a Product of Intelligent Design?

Lemme put it your terms so you'll understand:

"You really think this Shit just happened by Accident and not Design?"

Fuck a Universe........look at yourself Bro!!....it's Evident! Our Problem as Humans is the fact that we simply CANNOT accept a SIMPLE answer to some Questions regarding Creation and mind you....EVERY CREATION, in order to be labeled as such, HAS TO HAVE A CREATOR!

This is not about Religion Bruh it's about evidence of God's existence NOT what some might think he looks like...that shit is irrelevant.

You CANNOT deny TRUTH/FACT!!!

GOD doesnt need us that is true!!!!......We need him (taking into account that all he supplied/supplies us with on a daily basis is a Necessity to EXIST.....AIR, SUN,WATER etc.).......So why not say thanks from time to time )

I'm bout to go fix me a Sammich...........................Peace!!

BUMP

 

[RBGrider]

Just to add to brothers excellent post you bumped above.



Every 72 years at sunrise the Earth crosses the star path at 0 degrees of Aries on March 21st. This movement is known as the procession of the Equinox. The number 72 is instructive as it has a number of important correspondences. It alludes to the Schemhaphoras or the 72 names of God which are hidden in the book of Exodus, Chapter 14, verses 19,20 & 21. Each verse is composed of 72 letters (in original Hebrew). If one writes these three verses one above the other, the first column from right to left, the second from left to right and the third right to left you will get 72 columns of three letter names for God. The diagram will have 4 columns of 18 names each. The 4 columns allude to the 4 cardinal elements (water, fire, earth & water) the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable name of God. It is said that he who through the study of Exodus “can rightly pronounce the 72 letter name of God will causeth heaven and Earth to tremble, for it is the name which rusheth through the universe.” 72 also alludes to the 72 angels of Jacobs Ladder and the 72 conspirators of the Ausarian metaphor.

The Earth rotates at 1 degree every 4 minutes (a 1:4 ratio). Thus the Earth rotates 15 degrees every 60 minutes. There are 24 hrs in a day – 24 x 15 = 360 degrees. Each of the 12 signs of the Zodiac are separated in the heavens by 30. 72 x 30 = 2,160 years which is the time the Sun stays in a sign or an age (ex: Age of Aquarius). 12 signs x 2,160 = 25,920 years. 25,920 is how long it takes the North Pole to trace a complete circle in the heavens in its processional movement. This period is also known as a Great Year. More info on the procession of the equinox here: http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/royalarch/


All things vibrate, including the human spirit & body. And each thing vibrates to its specific “key”. The vibrating mechanism of the human body is the breathing system. Comparing the cyclical values of the heavens to the respiratory & circulatory systems of the human body reveal some interesting parallels.

Humans average 4 breaths for every 18 heartbeats (aprx 1:4 ratio). 4 x 18 = 72. 72 beats per min is of course also the average resting heart rate. Thus there are also 18 breaths for every 72 heartbeats. (also a 1:4 ratio) 18 breaths per minute or 1080 breaths an hour (108 is the number of beads in a rosary) = 1080 x 24hrs = 25,920 breaths per day. The significance of these relationships have been known for thousands of years although much of its meaning has been lost since the destruction of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt.

Spiritual development can be broken down to learning to control the breath. Different manifestations of your spirit come into being at specific vibrations/keys or breathing rates. Therefore learning to control the breath gives you control over and access to all aspects of your spirit.