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

[cigley]

OK, let me see...

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

The start of your thesis is very tricky. In fact it's elegant in it's trickiness. You start by making two definitions in one. You say that quantitative reasoning are things that can be expressed or reasoned about mathematically or quanitatively AND that it is a type of intelligence. You then continue to say...

"If we could look at phenomenon and identify mathematical patterns that could be discussed or understood through quantitative reasoning this would be objective evidence of the Intelligence of the Force we call God."

The premise here is that one could find evidence of inteligence by way of mathematical patterns. This is where you lose me. Number 1, yes, you could theoretically prove God to be an intelligent being in that if he created the universe, he would have to be intelligent to "get all this right." But, who is to say God micro-managed the creation of the universe. I made a sandwich not to long ago. I didnt need to know much about the ham or the cheese in order to get it made. Number 2, the mere existence of patterns does not reflect intelligence, it reflects the ability of someone being able to recognize the pattern. See, your premise is look we see a pattern. Patterns are intelligence. God is intelligent. There is a god. But your proof is actually this...look we see a pattern. I am intelligent enough to see this pattern. I think the only way my intelligence is satisfied by this discovery is if something more intelligent created it. You never disprove the possibility of the pattern being very likely to exist.

Here are some things I think you are missing...
1. Who is to say your data isnt corrupted? If there is an omnipotent being powerful enough to create the universe who's to say they wouldnt be able to alter your so-called evidence.
2. patterns are possible in randomness.
3. I'm hungry, so I'll stop here.

 

[RBGrider]

OK, let me see...

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

The start of your thesis is very tricky. In fact it's elegant in it's trickiness. You start by making two definitions in one. You say that quantitative reasoning are things that can be expressed or reasoned about mathematically or quanitatively AND that it is a type of intelligence. You then continue to say...

"If we could look at phenomenon and identify mathematical patterns that could be discussed or understood through quantitative reasoning this would be objective evidence of the Intelligence of the Force we call God."

The premise here is that one could find evidence of inteligence by way of mathematical patterns. This is where you lose me. Number 1, yes, you could theoretically prove God to be an intelligent being in that if he created the universe, he would have to be intelligent to "get all this right." But, who is to say God micro-managed the creation of the universe. I made a sandwich not to long ago. I didnt need to know much about the ham or the cheese in order to get it made. Number 2, the mere existence of patterns does not reflect intelligence, it reflects the ability of someone being able to recognize the pattern. See, your premise is look we see a pattern. Patterns are intelligence. God is intelligent. There is a god. But your proof is actually this...look we see a pattern. I am intelligent enough to see this pattern. I think the only way my intelligence is satisfied by this discovery is if something more intelligent created it. You never disprove the possibility of the pattern being very likely to exist.

Here are some things I think you are missing...
1. Who is to say your data isnt corrupted? If there is an omnipotent being powerful enough to create the universe who's to say they wouldnt be able to alter your so-called evidence.
2. patterns are possible in randomness.
3. I'm hungry, so I'll stop here.

I assure you soldier I'm not trying to trick you. I have provided evidence of mathematic patterns occurring in the formation of the elements after the so called "big bang". This a simple example but chosen because it demonstrates quantitative patterns or intelligence at what would have to be the earliest stages of creation. I'm sure others could search far more complex examples the anthropic principal, DNA, the human body or brain for example. Once again whether we could understand and recognize these patterns or not they would still be there. Our ability to see, understand and reason quantitatively is what allows us to understand and perceive God's Intelligence.

 

[patty]

Congratulations on seeing the pattern. Well done.
What u seem to not grasp is that invoking intelligent creator does not answer the question but rather amplifies it. Because no matter how improbable the world is the creative intelligence would have to be more improbable indeed. So who created that intelligent. Until you can come up with the terminator of the infinite regress, all you have done is shown you can see patterns.

 

[RBGrider]

Congratulations on seeing the pattern. Well done.
What u seem to not grasp is that invoking intelligent creator does not answer the question but rather amplifies it. Because no matter how improbable the world is the creative intelligence would have to be more improbable indeed. So who created that intelligent. Until you can come up with the terminator of the infinite regress, all you have done is shown you can see patterns.

This is the subject of another thread but simply stated the Intelligence of which I speak is SELF CREATED. And just for clarification I do not happen to subscribe to a belief in a omnipotent Being which exists outside of and controlling any and all events in the world. The creator and Creation are ONE IN THE SAME and are simply different expressions of ONE REALITY.

 

[Gods_Debris]

This is the subject of another thread but simply stated the Intelligence of which I speak is SELF CREATED. And just for clarification I do not happen to subscribe to a belief in a omnipotent Being which exists outside of and controlling any and all events in the world. The creator and Creation are ONE IN THE SAME and are simply different expressions of ONE REALITY.

...thus rendering your entire post a pointless attention whoring episode... thankx for wasting our time

 

[RBGrider]

...thus rendering your entire post a pointless attention whoring episode... thankx for wasting our time

So if I'm not a Christian, something I've stated quite clearly on several occasions, then proof of a Divine Intelligence is pointless?

 

[Gods_Debris]

So if I'm not a Christian, something I've stated quite clearly on several occasions, then proof of a Divine Intelligence is pointless?

You really presuppose WAY TOO MUCH. You've done it time and time again in this thread too.

Here, I'll make it easier on you by spoon feeding you what you shuld be looking for....

"What I am questioning, is the purpose of your post since you are saying that we are all god. What then, is the necessity in your trying to prove his/her/it's existance? If god simply is, then u should simply let it be. Or, what IS your ultimate goal and/or purpose?"

there.... stop attention whoring

P.S.- I actually tend to agree w/ that propostion (I.E. my name 'Gods_Debris')

 

[RBGrider]

You really presuppose WAY TOO MUCH. You've done it time and time again in this thread too.

Here, I'll make it easier on you by spoon feeding you what you shuld be looking for....

"What I am questioning, is the purpose of your post since you are saying that we are all god. What then, is the necessity in your trying to prove his/her/it's existance? If god simply is, then u should simply let it be. Or, what IS your ultimate goal and/or purpose?"

there.... stop attention whoring

P.S.- I actually tend to agree w/ that propostion (I.E. my name 'Gods_Debris')

Notice post says God the evidence "for those that require it"

The purpose of the post was to engage Black people, some of whom seem to have adopted atheistic beliefs, in a discussion on the science/mathematical evidence for the existence of the Divine Intelligence many call God. And to show that God may be placed on objective footing along with mathematics and chemistry.

Simply stating that God exist both as creator and creation is no more evidence of Its existence then the Bible is evidence of Jesus. An atheist would no more accept that God's consciousness is to be found in all things from Wo/Man to a dung beetle then they would a "sky god".

Was going to ask about your handle thank you for that information.

ONE

 

[NightMare Paint]

nigga just got daddy issues

 

[cigley]

Check it...

"I assure you soldier I'm not trying to trick you."

Irrelevant. Your attempt to be sincere is facilitated by your premise being flawed and therefore the rest of your argument is questionable.

"I have provided evidence of mathematic patterns occurring in the formation of the elements after the so called "big bang"."

You provide evidence of a pattern that further proves the existence of our universe.

"This a simple example but chosen because it demonstrates quantitative patterns or intelligence at what would have to be the earliest stages of creation."

It's simplicity is not an issue. Some of the best proofs are deceptively simplistic...almost beautiful in its artestry. For some reason you define the existence of a pattern as proof of intelligence. I fail to see why you would think the existence of a pattern to be proof of intelligence. In fact, one may argue it is the non-pattern compliant miracles that were used to argue the existence of a God. Namely, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.

"I'm sure others could search far more complex examples the anthropic principal, DNA, the human body or brain for example. Once again whether we could understand and recognize these patterns or not they would still be there. Our ability to see, understand and reason quantitatively is what allows us to understand and perceive God's Intelligence."

Certainly, if you inject God's Intelligence into the equation you will marvel at it, however without the evidence linking God to the creation of the universe you have, well, all that stuff you wrote.

 

[Alderuhen]

Now , just tell me why this bullshit should be the evidence of god ?
Fuck it

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

One intellegent design thats for sure.........
Is opposites
Dark, Light...
Tall, Short....
Good, Bad....
Smart, Dumb...
Alive, Dead....
Oh the consistent contrast.....
Those that Believe, Those that dont,
Those who Know, Those who dont...
Those who can prove, Those who cant...
Those who think they know, those who really know
Which side do you fall under?

1 Thessalonians. 5:21 Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good....


One things for sure, just cus you believe it, does'nt make it true.
Cause right in the word Believe is Lie.
And there are more people in this world who believe in lies then anything.
A smart man will always say god doesnt exist because it goes against his logic.
A wise man will say the opposite.
Psams 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

If a creator of the universe is limited to a mans logic, he wouldnt be much of a creator in my eyes. He would have to exist outside of a mans puny logic to be a real god of all things. Or should I say his existence would have to be where the impossible is possible.

Lets see opposites...
We need a parent, he doesnt...
We die, He doesnt...
Ahhh forget it..

Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways like my ways...
I know its all bullshit but im just saying if he did exist he would have to be limitless, AKA the opposite of a mortal man.

I love BGOL yall some smart cats around heah...

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

Oh yeah, and me personally, I aint trying to convince nobody of nothing..
I dont argue with nobody.
I actually respect those who say theres no god....
according to the bible, they fit well into to the scheme of things..
Hell gotta have those opposites.

 

[Studio718]

had to open up photoshop for this thread.

Know your place bitches.
Your mind ain't build to understand anything outside of " universe ".

 

[Dert Bagg]

For some reason you define the existence of a pattern as proof of intelligence. I fail to see why you would think the existence of a pattern to be proof of intelligence.

Certainly, if you inject God's Intelligence into the equation you will marvel at it, however without the evidence linking God to the creation of the universe you have, well, all that stuff you wrote.

Say it again fam...
I think the 53rd time may be the charm...

 

[RBGrider]

Check it...

"I assure you soldier I'm not trying to trick you."

Irrelevant. Your attempt to be sincere is facilitated by your premise being flawed and therefore the rest of your argument is questionable.

"I have provided evidence of mathematic patterns occurring in the formation of the elements after the so called "big bang"."

You provide evidence of a pattern that further proves the existence of our universe.

"This a simple example but chosen because it demonstrates quantitative patterns or intelligence at what would have to be the earliest stages of creation."

It's simplicity is not an issue. Some of the best proofs are deceptively simplistic...almost beautiful in its artestry. For some reason you define the existence of a pattern as proof of intelligence. I fail to see why you would think the existence of a pattern to be proof of intelligence. In fact, one may argue it is the non-pattern compliant miracles that were used to argue the existence of a God. Namely, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.

"I'm sure others could search far more complex examples the anthropic principal, DNA, the human body or brain for example. Once again whether we could understand and recognize these patterns or not they would still be there. Our ability to see, understand and reason quantitatively is what allows us to understand and perceive God's Intelligence."

Certainly, if you inject God's Intelligence into the equation you will marvel at it, however without the evidence linking God to the creation of the universe you have, well, all that stuff you wrote.

With all due respect to you and Dert (53rd time is a sharm ) your simply repeating that what I have presented is "flawed" or not an example of intelligence is not an argument. It would be foolish of me to waste time presenting an argument that "proves the existence of our universe" this fact is evident. What is not evident to many yourself included is that their is intelligence in the design maintenance and functioning of that universe. You must either present a counter argument that proves that it is not intelligence or you must concede the point. It must be stated here what your task is you must be prepared to argue that quantitative reasoning the backbone of all science and intellectual understanding of the world and a linchpin of all measurement of intelligence IS in fact NOT INTELLIGENCE. Your not liking the evidence or its conclusion does not qualify as an argument against it.

I anxiously await your cogent argument.

 

[Dert Bagg]

 

[RBGrider]

Not at all. I haven't even asked you to argue based on the conclusion that the evidence points to God. I have simply asked you to argue that what I have provided evidence of IS NOT INTELLIGENCE. And you are retreating behind claims of logical fallacies.

I'm gonna leave yall alone cause this is getting us nowhere. We are all free to see what we like when we look at this stuff. Just know that you are looking at the equivalent of the equation (2 + 2)= and are unable to agree that the answer is 4.

PEACE

 

[OnSlaught]

Not at all. I haven't even asked you to argue based on the conclusion that the evidence points to God. I have simply asked you to argue that what I have provided evidence of IS NOT INTELLIGENCE. And you are retreating behind claims of logical fallacies.

I'm gonna leave yall alone cause this is getting us nowhere. We are all free to see what we like when we look at this stuff. Just know that you are looking at the equivalent of the equation (2 + 2)= and are unable to agree that the answer is 4.

PEACE

You do know that you (and others as well) are arguing a moot point, right? The belief in a higher being, supreme being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is one's own preference. Therefore it is subjective. You are trying to prove something that is subjective by using the objective, which doesn't really do either justice. All anyone has to do in order to prove your hypothesis to be flawed is to find an exception. You say that there is a mathematical pattern to the universe, and that in and of itself is proof of a divine intelligence. Well then shouldn't, as you are able to do in mathematics, be able to work backwards from the end to the beginning of your hypothesis and prove that there are patterns because of a divine intelligence. Which then would presuppose that there is a pattern in everything in order for there to be a divine intelligence...you see where I am going? If you can't find everything to have a pattern then you can't provide that there is a divine intelligence that gives that pattern, unless you are assuming that divine intelligence to be picky as all hell.

Bottom line, people believe what they want to believe...I don't expect them to back it up. Oh, and usually when they do, it's flawed...

 

[Built4Life]

You do know that you (and others as well) are arguing a moot point, right? The belief in a higher being, supreme being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is one's own preference. Therefore it is subjective. You are trying to prove something that is subjective by using the objective, which doesn't really do either justice. All anyone has to do in order to prove your hypothesis to be flawed is to find an exception. You say that there is a mathematical pattern to the universe, and that in and of itself is proof of a divine intelligence. Well then shouldn't, as you are able to do in mathematics, be able to work backwards from the end to the beginning of your hypothesis and prove that there are patterns because of a divine intelligence. Which then would presuppose that there is a pattern in everything in order for there to be a divine intelligence...you see where I am going? If you can't find everything to have a pattern then you can't provide that there is a divine intelligence that gives that pattern, unless you are assuming that divine intelligence to be picky as all hell.

Bottom line, people believe what they want to believe...I don't expect them to back it up. Oh, and usually when they do, it's flawed...

Everyone is born an atheist, but we are reared into a culture that indoctrinates us with beliefs systems whether it is about behavior or what to believe.

As Dert said earlier, most atheists are not positive atheists. Most atheists don't believe in the gods of this world, and many would say that there is not enough proof to believe in a divine intelligence which is true too. Many people do not require proof, but there are people who do.
What most atheists disdain is the belief in false ideas as it is bad for humankind.


If the topic starter had proof then he would win the nobel prize of some sorts and be named the greatest philospher ever because he has unequivocally answered one of the most puzzling questions that has perplexed humanity.

 

[Dert Bagg]

Not at all. I haven't even asked you to argue based on the conclusion that the evidence points to God. I have simply asked you to argue that what I have provided evidence of IS NOT INTELLIGENCE. And you are retreating behind claims of logical fallacies.

I'm gonna leave yall alone cause this is getting us nowhere. We are all free to see what we like when we look at this stuff. Just know that you are looking at the equivalent of the equation (2 + 2)= and are unable to agree that the answer is 4.

PEACE

You might want to re-read the thread at this point.
Intelligence is implicit to any definition of reason.
No one disagrees with the equivalence of reason and intelligence.
(I know I don't. Please quote where I have. -- This is like the 3rd time in this thread where you've invented a point of difference between and avoided addressing the actual issue. Maybe its not intentional, but its reflects poorly on your argument here.)


From Post# 59

Then who disagrees that reasoning is intelligence?
Intelligence is core to any definition of reason.
That is not a remarkable statement.
It certainly isn't the lynch-pin in a God-proof.

For the 54th time, the problem here is your inability or unwillingness to provide an intelligible, coherent, or cogent link of necessity between the existence of intelligence and intelligence being the product of design.


Another gem from #59:

If you reply, please turn some attention to objective evidence for a necessary link between pattern and design.

 

[RBGrider]

You do know that you (and others as well) are arguing a moot point, right? The belief in a higher being, supreme being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is one's own preference. Therefore it is subjective. You are trying to prove something that is subjective by using the objective, which doesn't really do either justice. All anyone has to do in order to prove your hypothesis to be flawed is to find an exception. You say that there is a mathematical pattern to the universe, and that in and of itself is proof of a divine intelligence. Well then shouldn't, as you are able to do in mathematics, be able to work backwards from the end to the beginning of your hypothesis and prove that there are patterns because of a divine intelligence. Which then would presuppose that there is a pattern in everything in order for there to be a divine intelligence...you see where I am going? If you can't find everything to have a pattern then you can't provide that there is a divine intelligence that gives that pattern, unless you are assuming that divine intelligence to be picky as all hell.

Bottom line, people believe what they want to believe...I don't expect them to back it up. Oh, and usually when they do, it's flawed...

If there is flaw in what I have presented then I am still waiting for someone to show how it is flawed. Those that disagree must either show how it is not intelligence or come up with another definition of intelligence.

Yes people will still think as they like and I have no problem with people who consciously choose to believe that 2+2=5. But the fact remains that there is no contradiction between science and the Divine. Mathematics is the language of God and it is through this language that God can be put on objective footing. ANd this is no small point. What you believe YOU DO NOT KNOW. And we need to KNOW it is part of our spiritual make up TO KNOW. Is this the ONLY way to know? OF course not. But if you start talking to people about your subjective experience with the Divine they will say well that's deep or that mf is crazy. This is just the place to start....so we can end the debate...what you choose to do after that is on you.

ONE

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

The Father The word and the Holy Spirit and these three are 1
A Proton, Electron and a Nuetron and these three are 1
A Nucleous, nucleotides, and a Cell Body and these three are 1
Psyche, Soma, pneuma....
Mind, Body & Soul these three agree in one
Biblical Tabernacle Holy Place, Most Holy Place, Court Round About these
three make 1
A man, a woman and a child...
are we in the 3rd dimension?

Unity..........

Universe...........

 

[Dert Bagg]

Everyone is born an atheist, but we are reared into a culture that indoctrinates us with beliefs systems whether it is about behavior or what to believe.

As Dert said earlier, most atheists are not positive atheists. Most atheists don't believe in the gods of this world, and many would say that there is not enough proof to believe in a divine intelligence which is true too. Many people do not require proof, but there are people who do.
What most atheists disdain is the belief in false ideas as it is bad for humankind.


If the topic starter had proof then he would win the nobel prize of some sorts and be named the greatest philospher ever because he has unequivocally answered one of the most puzzling questions that has perplexed humanity.

Right...duke starts a thread with paragraphs of "argument" and "evidence" to prove a proposition that he later proclaims is as simple as 2+2=4...?

GONG!

 

[Dert Bagg]

If there is flaw in what I have presented then I am still waiting for someone to show how it is flawed. Those that disagree must either show how it is not intelligence or come up with another definition of intelligence.

Yes people will still think as they like and I have no problem with people who consciously choose to believe that 2+2=5. But the fact remains that there is no contradiction between science and the Divine. Mathematics is the language of God and it is through this language that God can be put on objective footing. ANd this is no small point. What you believe YOU DO NOT KNOW. And we need to KNOW it is part of our spiritual make up TO KNOW. Is this the ONLY way to know? OF course not. But if you start talking to people about your subjective experience with the Divine they will say well that's deep or that mf is crazy. This is just the place to start....so we can end the debate...what you choose to do after that is on you.


ONE

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

 

[OnSlaught]

Everyone is born an atheist, but we are reared into a culture that indoctrinates us with beliefs systems whether it is about behavior or what to believe.

As Dert said earlier, most atheists are not positive atheists. Most atheists don't believe in the gods of this world, and many would say that there is not enough proof to believe in a divine intelligence which is true too. Many people do not require proof, but there are people who do.
What most atheists disdain is the belief in false ideas as it is bad for humankind.


If the topic starter had proof then he would win the nobel prize of some sorts and be named the greatest philospher ever because he has unequivocally answered one of the most puzzling questions that has perplexed humanity.

I agree. He would be up on CNN right now being nominated for the award right now!

You might want to re-read the thread at this point.
Intelligence is implicit to any definition of reason.
No one disagrees with the equivalence of reason and intelligence.
(I know I don't. Please quote where I have. -- This is like the 3rd time in this thread where you've invented a point of difference between and avoided addressing the actual issue. Maybe its not intentional, but its reflects poorly on your argument here.)


From Post# 59



For the 54th time, the problem here is your inability or unwillingness to provide an intelligible, coherent, or cogent link of necessity between the existence of intelligence and intelligence being the product of design.


Another gem from #59:

If there is flaw in what I have presented then I am still waiting for someone to show how it is flawed. Those that disagree must either show how it is not intelligence or come up with another definition of intelligence.

Yes people will still think as they like and I have no problem with people who consciously choose to believe that 2+2=5. But the fact remains that there is no contradiction between science and the Divine. Mathematics is the language of God and it is through this language that God can be put on objective footing. ANd this is no small point. What you believe YOU DO NOT KNOW. And we need to KNOW it is part of our spiritual make up TO KNOW. Is this the ONLY way to know? OF course not. But if you start talking to people about your subjective experience with the Divine they will say well that's deep or that mf is crazy. This is just the place to start....so we can end the debate...what you choose to do after that is on you.

ONE

RB, I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to agree with Dert on this one. I just proved that you logic is flawed. Where there is an exception, and I clearly showed one, there is error. If you need a more tangible example, then what is the significance, pattern or design in lint? If there is design or pattern in our universe that proves that there is a divine intelligence, then there should be those key elements in even the minute (every single one).

I happen to believe in a divine being, and science does go along to an extent with my reasoning in proving that. But then it abruptly stops at some point. Both science and my belief stop making sense because not all is explainable and corroborate with each other. Like Dert and others have said before me, what exactly is your objective proof that links both together?

Yes, 2 + 2 = 4, but why is a mathematics that has not even been invented yet needed in order to unify all the non-conservative and conservative forces in our universe? There are a lot of unknowns, and before you get an explanation for those you can't propose your hypothesis.

 

[OnSlaught]

The Father The word and the Holy Spirit and these three are 1
A Proton, Electron and a Nuetron and these three are 1
A Nucleous, nucleotides, and a Cell Body and these three are 1
Psyche, Soma, pneuma....
Mind, Body & Soul these three agree in one
Biblical Tabernacle Holy Place, Most Holy Place, Court Round About these
three make 1
A man, a woman and a child...
are we in the 3rd dimension?

Unity..........

Universe...........

Ice my man, we live in four dimensions...and in cell body, whether animal or plant, there are much more than a nucleus and nucleotides...a proton, electron and neutron are needed to make an atom, but what about quarks? The other stuff is tentative...however, a man and a woman would be thought to be the normal way in making a child, but not according to making a God-son...

 

[cigley]

"With all due respect to you and Dert (53rd time is a sharm )"

No disrespect taken, friend. More then happy to iron out my position.

"your simply repeating that what I have presented is "flawed" or not an example of intelligence is not an argument."

First things first. If I were to make a judgement, I'd say you were not familiar with practices scientist and mathmaticians use to develop proofs, theorems, rules, etc. Dont take offense, I'm making a quick judgement that could be wrong.

From my above text, I state, the PREMISE of your argument is flawed. Operative word is PREMISE. If your premise was correct, then I would be
able to delve into your argument either accepting or rejecting the points involved. You see, I understand the connection you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, you havent even started your proof in the right direction. Things like this happen all the time. For example, when the DC sniper was going around killing people, the feds released a description...
Loner white male. They were wrong. Their premise was not correct. So as much as they want to speculate on the guys motive. They can do all the searching they want. But, unless new information or a new premise (or at least open to a new premise) comes up, well I hope by now you get it.

You see, I can't get to your argument because your premise is incorrect. Your premise is that if there is a pattern, God created it. You say this as if the rules of nature don't apply. As if randomness can't be a function of a mathematical equation as well as the inverse...
patterns.

"It would be foolish of me to waste time presenting an argument that "proves the existence of our universe" this fact is evident."

We agree on this point.

Your proof currently only proves the complexity of the universe.

"What is not evident to many yourself included is that their is intelligence in the design maintenance and functioning of that universe."

I accept that the universe is complex. Considering what I do for a living, I'm very aware how complex the universe is.
In fact I can accept there is a God.

Side question, One thing I fail to see in this statement...Are you suggesting God is active in its upkeep? (serious question)

"You must either present a counter argument that proves that it is not intelligence or you must concede the point."

No, If you're going to present a "proof." It needs to follow the standards that make it a proof. If it's linear in its logic,
disproving one of its articles will be enough. Not always, but in this instance, because the premise is flawed, that will suffice.

"It must be stated here what your task is you must be prepared to argue that quantitative reasoning the backbone of all science and
intellectual understanding of the world and a linchpin of all measurement of intelligence IS in fact NOT INTELLIGENCE."

I can say, quantitative reasoning is in fact a skillset of intelligence. Many places of employement/schools attempt to find out
how well a person preforms in this subject. So whats your point? You seem to be attempting to say that because you are able to use
quantitative reasoning to find the patterns in nature, that you are in fact intelligent, that somehow that is proof that god exists. or
that because of the complexity of what you find, only god can create it. How does that prove god exists? Because you used quantitative
reasoning to find random patterns(purposeful oxymoron)? Thats like saying, because I said so.

"Your not liking the evidence or its conclusion does not qualify as an argument against it."

I havent decided wether I like your conclusion or not. My argument to put it simply is that you havent presented your argument at all. I wish I could comment on your argument.
For now, I can't get to the argument because your premise is flawed. According to the following statement...

"If we could look at phenomenon and identify mathematical patterns that could be discussed or understood through quantitative reasoning this would be objective evidence of the Intelligence of the Force we call God."

You are saying here, if it is a pattern, only God could created it.
Or maybe you are saying, if we can analyze the pattern, then god exists.

"I anxiously await your cogent argument."

I anxiously await a premise.

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

Four Dimension huh

When you look at a solid, say for instance a box you can only see 3 sides
at a Time.

as Far as all of the molecular breakdown of things we can get off into
much more, I agree, but we can also come back to a simplistic breakdown of three.

Look at your arm The Hand, The Fore Arm & The Upper Arm,
same for your Finger...

We can break the Arm down into skin, and muscle etc etc....
But we still have a non argumentative simplistic breakdown of 3....
Simplistic enough for a child, or a dummy like myself....
That other shit is just to complex for me.
You know.... the Four Dimensions and shit.

 

[cigley]

Four Dimension huh

When you look at a solid, say for instance a box you can only see 3 sides
at a Time.

as Far as all of the molecular breakdown of things we can get off into
much more, I agree, but we can also come back to a simplistic breakdown of three.

Look at your arm The Hand, The Fore Arm & The Upper Arm,
same for your Finger...

We can break the Arm down into skin, and muscle etc etc....
But we still have a non argumentative simplistic breakdown of 3....
Simplistic enough for a child, or a dummy like myself....
That other shit is just to complex for me.
You know.... the Four Dimensions and shit.

I present to you the four-color theorem.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Four-ColorTheorem.html

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

Man I told you man.... Thats why I love BGOL.




My dumb ass a stick to this...

 

[cigley]

Man I told you man.... Thats why I love BGOL.




My dumb ass a stick to this...

The fourth dimension refers to time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU1fixMAObI

 

[OnSlaught]

"With all due respect to you and Dert (53rd time is a sharm )"

No disrespect taken, friend. More then happy to iron out my position.

"your simply repeating that what I have presented is "flawed" or not an example of intelligence is not an argument."

First things first. If I were to make a judgement, I'd say you were not familiar with practices scientist and mathmaticians use to develop proofs, theorems, rules, etc. Dont take offense, I'm making a quick judgement that could be wrong.

From my above text, I state, the PREMISE of your argument is flawed. Operative word is PREMISE. If your premise was correct, then I would be
able to delve into your argument either accepting or rejecting the points involved. You see, I understand the connection you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, you havent even started your proof in the right direction. Things like this happen all the time. For example, when the DC sniper was going around killing people, the feds released a description...
Loner white male. They were wrong. Their premise was not correct. So as much as they want to speculate on the guys motive. They can do all the searching they want. But, unless new information or a new premise (or at least open to a new premise) comes up, well I hope by now you get it.

You see, I can't get to your argument because your premise is incorrect. Your premise is that if there is a pattern, God created it. You say this as if the rules of nature don't apply. As if randomness can't be a function of a mathematical equation as well as the inverse...
patterns.

"It would be foolish of me to waste time presenting an argument that "proves the existence of our universe" this fact is evident."

We agree on this point.

Your proof currently only proves the complexity of the universe.

"What is not evident to many yourself included is that their is intelligence in the design maintenance and functioning of that universe."

I accept that the universe is complex. Considering what I do for a living, I'm very aware how complex the universe is.
In fact I can accept there is a God.

Side question, One thing I fail to see in this statement...Are you suggesting God is active in its upkeep? (serious question)

"You must either present a counter argument that proves that it is not intelligence or you must concede the point."

No, If you're going to present a "proof." It needs to follow the standards that make it a proof. If it's linear in its logic,
disproving one of its articles will be enough. Not always, but in this instance, because the premise is flawed, that will suffice.

"It must be stated here what your task is you must be prepared to argue that quantitative reasoning the backbone of all science and
intellectual understanding of the world and a linchpin of all measurement of intelligence IS in fact NOT INTELLIGENCE."

I can say, quantitative reasoning is in fact a skillset of intelligence. Many places of employement/schools attempt to find out
how well a person preforms in this subject. So whats your point? You seem to be attempting to say that because you are able to use
quantitative reasoning to find the patterns in nature, that you are in fact intelligent, that somehow that is proof that god exists. or
that because of the complexity of what you find, only god can create it. How does that prove god exists? Because you used quantitative
reasoning to find random patterns(purposeful oxymoron)? Thats like saying, because I said so.

"Your not liking the evidence or its conclusion does not qualify as an argument against it."

I havent decided wether I like your conclusion or not. My argument to put it simply is that you havent presented your argument at all. I wish I could comment on your argument.
For now, I can't get to the argument because your premise is flawed. According to the following statement...

"If we could look at phenomenon and identify mathematical patterns that could be discussed or understood through quantitative reasoning this would be objective evidence of the Intelligence of the Force we call God."

You are saying here, if it is a pattern, only God could created it.
Or maybe you are saying, if we can analyze the pattern, then god exists.

"I anxiously await your cogent argument."

I anxiously await a premise.

Just another way of putting what I stated...

 

[Garifuna]

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.

Somehow, you arrived at this point without determining the nature of either life or intelligence. The rest of your argument follows from this baseless assumption.

Go back; consider the nature of matter. Prove that matter is not alive. Only then can you say that matter predates life, and that intelligence predates life.

In all your mumbo-jumbo about the structure of matter, the universe, and DNA; you left out a description of the structure of both life and intelligence. Yet you argue that life was created from matter.

I don't think so.

Life is the force that binds matter together. Life is the force that organizes and builds the universe. Some scientists believe that life is the result of ectropy, while others argue the reverse. Similarly, some people argue that God created man (in his image), while others argue that man created god (in his image). Most philosophers who believe in the existence of God believe that God is alive. If God is alive, then God didn't create life.

Your arguments are further based on the egotistical assumption that man is "intelligent", and that the creation of man was an "intelligent" act. Many of the opinions expressed on BGOL, covering a wide range of subjects, seem to dispute that premise (especially when discussing people perceived to be somehow different than the writer).

 

[ICEBURG SLIM]

The fourth dimension refers to time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU1fixMAObI

Agreed, and since Time is invisible....
Lets call it spirit.
Or even better, spirit in measure