The Second Proof of God

[ding]

Shades of grey would have someone believe that intelligence of a rabbit foraging for food is the same as intelligence that has built a technological civilization that is actively searching for signs of other technological civilizations based on the premise that intelligence is not an accident.

 

[edthecynic]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

 

[ding]

Shades of grey would have someone believe in perpetual motion.

 

[Montrovant]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And yet he considers me dishonest because I don't believe anyone can reasonably claim that there is nothing more complex/advanced in the entire universe than human intelligence.

 

[Slyhunter]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

It can’t be logically disproven that you’re a homosexual. Does that mean that you are?

The universe requires a Creator. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. Therefore, the PHYSICAL universe had a creator. My logic cannot be refuted. It is iron clad.

Who created the creator? Your logic sucks.

 

[Slyhunter]

Shades of grey would have someone believe in perpetual motion.

Hey dingbat, part of your name is missing.

 

[DOTR]

^ doesn't have a clue what is required for intelligence to emerge.

Perhaps you should have said "locomotion is a requirement for a species to evolve intelligence." All you said is that locomotion is a requirement of intelligence. I think Stephen Hawking would disagree with that.

One might argue that locomotion isn't a direct requirement for a species to evolve intelligence, but rather a requirement of animal survival, but no need to get into that.

Also, you said that intelligence emerged after creatures left the sea. How are you defining intelligence? Most animals can be said to have some degree of intelligence, are you saying self-awareness? And would you not consider whales and dolphins intelligent creatures?

You said that creatures that left the sea had to develop locomotion. That is unlikely. Instead, it is more likely that such creatures had to develop new forms of locomotion; I am unaware of any animal life which does not engage in some sort of locomotion.

Perhaps your statements aren't accurately reflecting the points you are trying to get across.

Oh my. “Perhaps” lol

 

[Montrovant]

^ doesn't have a clue what is required for intelligence to emerge.

Perhaps you should have said "locomotion is a requirement for a species to evolve intelligence." All you said is that locomotion is a requirement of intelligence. I think Stephen Hawking would disagree with that.

One might argue that locomotion isn't a direct requirement for a species to evolve intelligence, but rather a requirement of animal survival, but no need to get into that.

Also, you said that intelligence emerged after creatures left the sea. How are you defining intelligence? Most animals can be said to have some degree of intelligence, are you saying self-awareness? And would you not consider whales and dolphins intelligent creatures?

You said that creatures that left the sea had to develop locomotion. That is unlikely. Instead, it is more likely that such creatures had to develop new forms of locomotion; I am unaware of any animal life which does not engage in some sort of locomotion.

Perhaps your statements aren't accurately reflecting the points you are trying to get across.

Oh my. “Perhaps” lol

View attachment 177427

Using the word perhaps is a problem for you?

 

[Montrovant]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

Shades of grey would have someone believe that intelligence of a rabbit foraging for food is the same as intelligence that has built a technological civilization that is actively searching for signs of other technological civilizations based on the premise that intelligence is not an accident.

Shades of grey would have someone believe in perpetual motion.

Speaking of dishonesty, I neither claimed nor implied any of these things.

I would have you believe that dolphins have intelligence. That doesn't require them to have a technological civilization under the sea, unless you define intelligence as the creation of a technological civilization. You mentioned that evolution from sea creatures to land creatures was required for the development of intelligence, I pointed out that there are sea creatures with intelligence.

I would not have anyone believe that a rabbit foraging for food is the same as the intelligence required to build a technological civilization. Again, I neither claimed nor implied such a thing. However, you were giving your opinion on the rise of intelligence without defining intelligence. I pointed out that pretty much all animals have at least some degree of intelligence, even if it is not the same level as humans.

I don't even know where you get the perpetual motion statement from. That seems to have been pulled completely from your imagination.

Care to make up some other things that I have not said and attribute them to me?

 

[DOTR]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

there is no "proof" of G-d. there is only belief... that is why they call it "faith".

How do you know?

 

[DOTR]

I know that the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, you might have a surge protector rated in Joules named after him in honor of his great accomplishment, and I know you have no repeatable experiment contradicting it.

And you should know that matter and energy will eventually reach thermal equilibrium which should tell you that it is not possible for matter to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which all mean that space and time was created 14 billion years ago.

But let's play it out your way. How long has matter and energy existed?

The third Law of Thermodynamics says thermal equilibrium is impossible, but you knew that already.
And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity.

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

“Laws of physics cannot be broken...except where we need them not to apply”

 

[Montrovant]

And you should know that matter and energy will eventually reach thermal equilibrium which should tell you that it is not possible for matter to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which all mean that space and time was created 14 billion years ago.

But let's play it out your way. How long has matter and energy existed?

The third Law of Thermodynamics says thermal equilibrium is impossible, but you knew that already.
And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity.

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

“Laws of physics cannot be broken...except where we need them not to apply”

That does seem to be the way it works sometimes.

 

[DOTR]

Here is how intelligence emerged while following the laws of nature. First creatures had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then creatures had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence. Then cold blooded creatures needed to evolve into warm blooded creatures so that a larger central nervous system could evolve as evidenced by the fact that the central nervous systems of every mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

All of these things were controlled by natural processes through the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. It is the reason we search for intelligence in the universe.

But what about consciousness ? Intelligence is a matter of degree. But like life itself, consciousness is unique. Life developed once in the universe and the same applies to consciousness.
There is no problem in allowing evolution to develop intelligence. It serves an adaptive purpose. But consciousness? No.
And note these are two things humans can’t manufacture.

 

[Picaro]

Some neuroscientists have thought for a long time 'religion' is hard-wired into the human brain. Most likely it is another manifestation of a type of intelligence and/or reasoning, related to the capacity of 'consciousness' for abstraction when faced with dilemmas of various sorts. 'Evolution' obviously thought it important enough to develop, yet 'rationalists' can't grasp it at all. So, who are the more stupid and devolved? Clearly not the 'religious' people, by the 'logic' of what passes for atheism in most of these threads, which is really nothing more than a bias toward some fatuous pagan cult with pseudo-scientific trappings they like to refer to as 'evolution', despite the utter lack of a chain of evidence for it. They insist it's 'science', though; I guess they must be neurotic.

 

[edthecynic]

Shades of grey would have someone believe in perpetual motion.

Electrons of a stable atom are in perpetual motion around the nucleus.

 

[bgrouse]

Aquinas was an idiot. Or at least he catered to them. Nothing more than "I don't know, so God," followed by a lie. I wouldn't even honor it by calling it pseudoscience.

Ah, someone volunteered to verify my point that a lot of you are indeed stupid. Thanks.

Aquinas is one of the most acknowledged and brilliant writers and philosophers in human history, bar none, but to assorted Dawkins' Dufuses, deviants, perverts, and other ilk he's ' a moron'.lol

If he wrote that argument, then he's either a moron or catered to them. Sorry, that's just how it is.

 

[Picaro]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

 

[Picaro]

Aquinas was an idiot. Or at least he catered to them. Nothing more than "I don't know, so God," followed by a lie. I wouldn't even honor it by calling it pseudoscience.

Ah, someone volunteered to verify my point that a lot of you are indeed stupid. Thanks.

Aquinas is one of the most acknowledged and brilliant writers and philosophers in human history, bar none, but to assorted Dawkins' Dufuses, deviants, perverts, and other ilk he's ' a moron'.lol

If he wrote that argument, then he's either a moron or catered to them. Sorry, that's just how it is.

Yes, he certainly shut down the 'rationalists' with the greatest of ease. Sucks to be stupid, but you could try and overcome it.

 

[bgrouse]

Aquinas was an idiot. Or at least he catered to them. Nothing more than "I don't know, so God," followed by a lie. I wouldn't even honor it by calling it pseudoscience.

Ah, someone volunteered to verify my point that a lot of you are indeed stupid. Thanks.

Aquinas is one of the most acknowledged and brilliant writers and philosophers in human history, bar none, but to assorted Dawkins' Dufuses, deviants, perverts, and other ilk he's ' a moron'.lol

If he wrote that argument, then he's either a moron or catered to them. Sorry, that's just how it is.

Yes, he certainly shut down the 'rationalists' with the greatest of ease. Sucks to be stupid, but you could try and overcome it.

Shut down? Is that what you call it when scientists give up trying to convince religious idiots that their less-than-pseudoscience garbage is ridiculous?

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is a trillion times stronger then the bs proofs that you present!!!