Here is the question atheists can't answer...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you trying to suggest that because of that that the nature of intelligence is not to create intelligence.

That does not follow from what I said. What I said ppints out that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it MAY be in our nature to create (no qualifier) things. You are making logical errors.

 

[ding]

Are you trying to suggest that because of that that the nature of intelligence is not to create intelligence.

That does not follow from what I said. What I said ppints out that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it MAY be in our nature to create (no qualifier) things. You are making logical errors.

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements.

Unless you really are trying to convince people that you do not believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Which is it? Would you like to take a position?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

 

[ding]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
survival, not intelligence is the fundamental motivational behavior for all beings that shapes their destiny and the prodigy for their future.

 

[sealybobo]

FWIW I don't see anything special in humans on the third rock orbiting our sun that would put us above or below any other being that knows and create from another planet (if they do exist). I would expect us to be very similar as there are natural requirements which exist within the laws of nature for intelligence to exist.

Yea but one scientist pointed out that they wouldn’t be human because they didn’t grow up here with our atmosphere or moon so while they may be made of the same stuff they evolved on a different planet that probably isn’t like it is here.

He said we assume they would have eyes because we do but maybe not. Things like that.

You have to go down the list of attributes required for intelligence to be able to emerge. For instance... #1 life must emerge from the sea. The physics of underwater living precludes intelligence from emerging. You will never see anything in the sea developing a technological society.

The next requirement (besides the sensory) is locomotion. Nature has selected quadrapeds because that is the most effective means of locomotion. I wouldn't expect that to be different. So they would have four limbs like us.

The next requirement would be a large central nervous system. Nature has selected warm blooded creatures for that. I wouldn't expect that to be different. So they would be warm blooded like us.

The next requirement and the most important requirement for intelligence to emerge is opposable thumbs. You can't have intelligence without it. They allow us to grasp objects and see them from different angles and perspectives. It is this that leads to our spacial awareness and intelligence. That's when all the magic begins. The nervous system of every single mammal has gotten larger as it evolved, but it was when the opposable thumb was introduced that our central nervous system took off. Everything about evolution points to the emergence of intelligence.

As for our senses, sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste, nature employs a back up system for each except taste. We have two eyes, two ears, two hands and two nostrils although the two sides of the sinuses are really about backing up the breathing capability. So I would expect that in these regards they would be similar to us as well.

Of course this all goes without saying that they would be carbon based like us as nature has determined that intelligence requires carbon based life forms.

A part of me hopes we are the smartest thing out there.

I’m on the bar on the lake. Drove the quad all my friends have snow mobiles I am not dressed appropriately

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

Yes, the error was yours. You struggle with the negations of universal and existential statements.

You arent pondering, you are asserting. Use the correct words.

 

[ding]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

Yes, the error was yours. You struggle with the negations of universal and existential statements.

You arent pondering, you are asserting. Use the correct words.

it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

Yes, the error was yours. You struggle with the negations of universal and existential statements.

You arent pondering, you are asserting. Use the correct words.

it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

I don't disagree. It sure is adorable how you hide your assertions of the existence omnipotent, omniscient sky wizards in these coy little statements.

 

[BreezeWood]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

Yes, the error was yours. You struggle with the negations of universal and existential statements.

You arent pondering, you are asserting. Use the correct words.

it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

I don't disagree. It sure is adorable how you hide your assertions of the existence omnipotent, omniscient sky wizards in these coy little statements.

.

I don't disagree. It sure is adorable how you hide your assertions of the existence omnipotent, omniscient sky wizards in these coy little statements.

their particular wizzard from the 4th century being among the most devious historical fallacy's of them all ...

 

[ding]

The error was caused by you pointing out differences rather than agreements

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

Yes, the error was yours. You struggle with the negations of universal and existential statements.

You arent pondering, you are asserting. Use the correct words.

it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

I don't disagree. It sure is adorable how you hide your assertions of the existence omnipotent, omniscient sky wizards in these coy little statements.

And I think it is adorable that you are blind to reality too. It is not a huge leap in logic to suppose a higher power or intelligence than man. Man is a product of the rules that governed the universe. In many ways the universe resembles a mind. So it is not unreasonable to investigate what has been created more closely for signs that can be used to make predictions. After all isn't that what science is? The study of nature to make predictions regarding nature?

And here you are dismissing something that should be investigated more fully with an open mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

And here you are dismissing something that should be investigated more fully with an open mind.

that's a joke coming from christians and their derelict religion - an open mind is all that is needed to discard all three desert religions by the simplest review of their derision's throughout history to the present day.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is not a huge leap in logic to suppose a higher power or intelligence than man

To assert its existence? Of course it is. Leaps of logic dont get any bigger.

 

[ding]

It is not a huge leap in logic to suppose a higher power or intelligence than man

To assert its existence? Of course it is. Leaps of logic dont get any bigger.

We already know the universe is capable of creating intelligence. It's not as big of a leap as you think.

If we were logical AI constructs in a computer simulation, there would be a greater intelligence. The programmer, right?

 

[ding]

Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A Giant Brain

 

[ding]

FWIW I don't see anything special in humans on the third rock orbiting our sun that would put us above or below any other being that knows and create from another planet (if they do exist). I would expect us to be very similar as there are natural requirements which exist within the laws of nature for intelligence to exist.

Yea but one scientist pointed out that they wouldn’t be human because they didn’t grow up here with our atmosphere or moon so while they may be made of the same stuff they evolved on a different planet that probably isn’t like it is here.

He said we assume they would have eyes because we do but maybe not. Things like that.

You have to go down the list of attributes required for intelligence to be able to emerge. For instance... #1 life must emerge from the sea. The physics of underwater living precludes intelligence from emerging. You will never see anything in the sea developing a technological society.

The next requirement (besides the sensory) is locomotion. Nature has selected quadrapeds because that is the most effective means of locomotion. I wouldn't expect that to be different. So they would have four limbs like us.

The next requirement would be a large central nervous system. Nature has selected warm blooded creatures for that. I wouldn't expect that to be different. So they would be warm blooded like us.

The next requirement and the most important requirement for intelligence to emerge is opposable thumbs. You can't have intelligence without it. They allow us to grasp objects and see them from different angles and perspectives. It is this that leads to our spacial awareness and intelligence. That's when all the magic begins. The nervous system of every single mammal has gotten larger as it evolved, but it was when the opposable thumb was introduced that our central nervous system took off. Everything about evolution points to the emergence of intelligence.

As for our senses, sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste, nature employs a back up system for each except taste. We have two eyes, two ears, two hands and two nostrils although the two sides of the sinuses are really about backing up the breathing capability. So I would expect that in these regards they would be similar to us as well.

Of course this all goes without saying that they would be carbon based like us as nature has determined that intelligence requires carbon based life forms.

A part of me hopes we are the smartest thing out there.

I’m on the bar on the lake. Drove the quad all my friends have snow mobiles I am not dressed appropriately

Settle for being the smartest thing on the lake.

There is absolutely zero chance that we are the smartest thing out there.

 

[ding]

FWIW I don't see anything special in humans on the third rock orbiting our sun that would put us above or below any other being that knows and create from another planet (if they do exist). I would expect us to be very similar as there are natural requirements which exist within the laws of nature for intelligence to exist.

Yea but one scientist pointed out that they wouldn’t be human because they didn’t grow up here with our atmosphere or moon so while they may be made of the same stuff they evolved on a different planet that probably isn’t like it is here.

He said we assume they would have eyes because we do but maybe not. Things like that.

You have to go down the list of attributes required for intelligence to be able to emerge. For instance... #1 life must emerge from the sea. The physics of underwater living precludes intelligence from emerging. You will never see anything in the sea developing a technological society.

The next requirement (besides the sensory) is locomotion. Nature has selected quadrapeds because that is the most effective means of locomotion. I wouldn't expect that to be different. So they would have four limbs like us.

The next requirement would be a large central nervous system. Nature has selected warm blooded creatures for that. I wouldn't expect that to be different. So they would be warm blooded like us.

The next requirement and the most important requirement for intelligence to emerge is opposable thumbs. You can't have intelligence without it. They allow us to grasp objects and see them from different angles and perspectives. It is this that leads to our spacial awareness and intelligence. That's when all the magic begins. The nervous system of every single mammal has gotten larger as it evolved, but it was when the opposable thumb was introduced that our central nervous system took off. Everything about evolution points to the emergence of intelligence.

As for our senses, sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste, nature employs a back up system for each except taste. We have two eyes, two ears, two hands and two nostrils although the two sides of the sinuses are really about backing up the breathing capability. So I would expect that in these regards they would be similar to us as well.

Of course this all goes without saying that they would be carbon based like us as nature has determined that intelligence requires carbon based life forms.

A part of me hopes we are the smartest thing out there.

I’m on the bar on the lake. Drove the quad all my friends have snow mobiles I am not dressed appropriately

Settle for being the smartest thing on the lake.

There is absolutely zero chance that we are the smartest thing out there.

You just don't believe it is your creator.

 

[sealybobo]

Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A Giant Brain

View attachment 176287

That makes more sense. At least that hypothesis wasn’t obviously made up by primitive superstitious goat herders 2000 years ago

 

[sealybobo]

No, your error was caused by your lack of understanding about the negations of universal and existential statements.

My position is that your entire line is circular and absurd. Of course the creatures you define as intelligent will create things that "emulate intelligence" under the same definition. That's akin to making the declaration that animals which are built to run fast will find it in their nature to run fast.

It's all pseudo-intellectual, self-pleasing pap.

The error wasn't mine. It was yours. You need to find a better way of acknowledging the observation and disagreeing with the conclusion.

That or I'll just keep pointing out the stupidities you are introducing.

There is nothing circular about an observation. It is what it is. And since we ourselves are intelligent and are aware that we create intelligence ourselves, it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

Yes, the error was yours. You struggle with the negations of universal and existential statements.

You arent pondering, you are asserting. Use the correct words.

it is not a huge leap of logic to ponder a greater intelligence than ours. And if we look at nature we can see signs of that intelligence in the order of nature itself.

I don't disagree. It sure is adorable how you hide your assertions of the existence omnipotent, omniscient sky wizards in these coy little statements.

And I think it is adorable that you are blind to reality too. It is not a huge leap in logic to suppose a higher power or intelligence than man. Man is a product of the rules that governed the universe. In many ways the universe resembles a mind. So it is not unreasonable to investigate what has been created more closely for signs that can be used to make predictions. After all isn't that what science is? The study of nature to make predictions regarding nature?

And here you are dismissing something that should be investigated more fully with an open mind.

The universe will die too you know. It’s all natural.

 

[ding]

Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A Giant Brain

View attachment 176287

That makes more sense. At least that hypothesis wasn’t obviously made up by primitive superstitious goat herders 2000 years ago

But the goat herders 6000 years ago knew that the universe had a beginning. Which is more than I can say for your fellow science denying atheists. So who's the goat herders now?