XxSabrinaxX:

Define "Intelligent"

Atewo400:

@ bobowaja am laughing oo

gensteejay:

According to Merriam-Webster, "intelligent" means "having or showing the ability to easily learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations." What are you driving at?

hahn:


If Christians have a certain standard then why are there over 30,000 different Christian denominations with all of you disagreeing on a lot of issues?

Why do members of RCCG consider Jehovah's witnesses to be not real Christians? (This can be found across a lot of denominations)

Why is it difficult for Christians to agree on certain Christian practices?

Why are there so much Christian pastors sleeping and impregnating their church members?

Why are there so many corrupt Christian politicians?

Why are there so many Christians on the front page committing different forms of crimes and blaming the devil?

For a religion that claims a "standard" your standards are very low and full of mediocrity.

Despite the fact that we have at least a church on every street we are still the poverty capital of the world, still lack basic infrastructure and even give testimonies when we get visas to countries who are not as religious as we are.

I guess your standard is simply one of confusion

XxSabrinaxX:

Will you agree with me that your "creator" god is an omniscient, omnipotent being? Is he meant to be flawless?

gensteejay:

Are you saying man isn't an intelligent biological system? Note I used "intelligent" in my original submission, not "perfect".

It seems you're mixing up the 2.

Is it wrong to use the phrase, "intelligent life", in describing humans?

Your post above shows you admit man is fashioned by a designer. Am I right?

I will address your other claims when you answer those questions.

XxSabrinaxX:
So all humans are stupid, including you?

gensteejay:

So all humans are stupid, including you?

XxSabrinaxX:

Point to where I made this assertation.

gensteejay:

What are you saying here?

XxSabrinaxX:

I cant see your quote.

gensteejay:


Are you saying man isn't an intelligent biological system?

XxSabrinaxX:

Man is an intelligent biological system.

XxSabrinaxX:

No

XxSabrinaxX:

Will you agree with me that your "creator" god is an omniscient, omnipotent being?

XxSabrinaxX:
Is he meant to be flawless?

gensteejay:

This stance of yours seems to lend further credence to this assertion of mine: The simple fact is, an intelligent design requires and points to the existence of an intelligent maker.

gensteejay:
Can an intelligent system come from nothing?

gensteejay:
Is it rational to attribute its design to chance or evolution, given the fact that the current evolutionary theory still has a number of issues.

gensteejay:
Using the pronoun, "he", for God isn't quite appropriate as God has no gender, no name, no religion, and is not knowable. In my opinion.

gensteejay:

Is God flawless? Yes, because God is all-knowing.

gensteejay:
An atheist, who says God is imperfect due to bad happenings and several faults in human's design, only shows a lack of depth in philosophy and has little appreciation of, or knowledge about, relatives.

XxSabrinaxX:

Intelligent Design represents itself as a scientific position, namely that presence of extremely complex interacting structures and functions (referred to as irreducible complexity) in biological systems, by their very nature, cannot even theoretically be explained by a series of evolutionary steps, each one conferring a selective advantage over the previous. Thus, because it is impossible to posit such a series, this therefore provides irrefutable evidence for a divine creator.
This is rejected for two reasons: First, just because we can't explain how something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Unanswered questions provide the basis of scientific investigation. Second, by definition, science is the study of physical processes, and to state that some process does not have a physical cause is to state that studying its origins is impossible in a scientific context. Scientists in general consider this intellectually lazy and insulting. And they do so whether they themselves are atheists, conventionally religious, or all points in between.

XxSabrinaxX:
I don't know. However, its a matter of perception. We don't have the language yet to talk about concepts we can't even imagine, so we can't really answer a question like this yet. A monkey could look at a blank computer screen that turns on all of a sudden and would think that whatever appeared on the screen "came out of nothing". If that monkey then went to think about how something like that could be, it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that:
1) the computer screen turned on because of how computers work,
2) that computers work that way because it's how humans created them,
3) that humans work the way they do because of how natural evolution works
4) everything else that follows suit. It could maybe come to understand that a human is responsible for creating something out of nothing on that screen, but it wouldn't understand all the other infinitely receding reasons behind it. I think it's similar to how we view the beginning of the universe. The answer probably lies beyond our ability to understand currently, because it deals with concepts we haven't even imagined yet, same as how the monkey can't imagine concepts relating to how computer hardware and software works.

XxSabrinaxX:
It isn't rational because like I said, there's no way to know. And if I may ask, what are these issues with the evolution theory?

XxSabrinaxX:
I agree with this completely. I only use "he" when I'm arguing with theists, but i'm guessing you're not?

XxSabrinaxX:
And all powerful.

XxSabrinaxX:

The idea of a god that is all knowing and all powerful is one who is supposedly perfect. If truly there is a first cause, the universe sure wouldn't be the way it is now.

gensteejay:

Don't you think this your definition of science is too simplistic? Science, not only deals with the study of physical processes, but also psychological (mental) ones. Theoretical physicists and chemists will have a big problem with the way you defined science above. I think your approach to this issue is facile.

gensteejay:
In light of your (highlighted) position above, don't you think that subscribing to the ideology of atheism is kind of premature, and that turning a blind eye to the existence of Infinite Intelligence/God/First Cause may not be a wise decision.

gensteejay:
For instance, it's illogical for a real God to demand worship from its creations and punish them for sins (I have zero belief in this one) or mistakes.

gensteejay:
Do you think the atheistic philosophy will stand the test time?Methinks considering the rapid pace of development in science; religion, atheism, and the likes will not survive for long.

gensteejay:
Check out this link and let me know your thoughts: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/scientific-weaknesses-of-evolution-2012-9

Some commenters have mentioned some earlier.

gensteejay:
No. I don't subscribe to any specific philosophy, group, religion, or movement, be it science, atheism, omnism, etc. I feel there are some truths in all of them, and none is 100% correct and accurate. I'm more of a knowledge seeker and rational thinker, and try to formulate my own philosophy.

XxSabrinaxX:

It can't prove the supernatural though, can it?


The ideology of atheism is not deliberately turning a blind eye to the existence of a first cause. We just don't know for certain if there is a first cause and we've not seen any objective, verifiable evidence to suggest so.


I concur


I agree completely. I'm more of a gnostic atheist by the way. With the increase of science, alchemy and certain phenomena like ghosts have been explained. My lack of belief in a God is due to the fact that I've not come accross any convincing argument yet.


Darwin specifically predicted that recognizable human ancestors would be found in Africa. Many now have been. Evolutionary theory predicted that the use of antiviral or antibacterial agents would result in the emergence of resistant strains. This principle is, of course, a mainstay of contemporary medicine. Paleontologists correctly predicted that species showing the evolution from fish to amphibian would be found in Devonian strata. This example, among many, refutes the frequently heard creationist claim that "transitional forms" (presumably meaning transitional species) do not exist. Paleontologists had expected to find transitions from land-based mammals to whales for years. In the past decade, science journals, as well as the media, have been full of these finds. A simple Internet search will yield hundreds of examples of transitional species.
Now personally I don't believe evolution is a fact, there could be other possibilities but we have no idea. But as I stated earlier, I'd take evolution over creationsm any day.





....Why are we even debating? The only people I have beef with is theists.

I think you're committing a fallacy of generalization when talking about atheists. I identify as a-theist in the sense that I don't believe in an allpowerful, allknowing deity that interferes in our reality. Its hard to pin down atheists to a particular worldview. There are atheists who believe for a fact and are certain that NO gods exists. I'm not in that school of thought.

gensteejay:

When will atheists start looking at the concept of God beyond those egocentric, vengeful, and demonic entities (gods) in religions, with their (the god's) limited knowledge and intelligence?

LordReed:


And who told you we haven't? I have considered the possibility of the existence of a deistic god but I also rejected it for the same reason I rejected all other gods, lack of sufficient evidence to give a rational reason to believe. I applaud people like NPComplete who acknowledge they have no reason to believe but believe anyway in a deistic god, I find such candor refreshing.

gensteejay:

Who is "we"? "I" is more appropriate IMO.

LordReed:


"We" is the atheists you generalized and I used "I" where appropriate.

XxSabrinaxX:

The Kalam cosmological argument is garbage. The argument basically goes like this:
*Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*The universe began to exist.
*Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
*And so follows the timeless god that created the universe
This premise is terribly flawed. Here's why,

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
This claim needs evidence to support it

2. The universe began to exist
So does this claim. The Big Bang may or may not be the beginning of the universe and the very word beginning may not be very well suited in the absence of time anyhow.

b]3. Therefore the universe must have a cause[/b]
Provided you assume both the premises which there is no reason to, yes that would be correct.

4. And so follows the timeless god that created the universe
No, that doesn't follow. A "cause" isn't necessarily a "timeless god" and generally the term "god" is associated with a form of sentience or at least intent which certainly doesn't follow. I also don't understand why so many people assume the universe had a beginning, even before the "big bang" everything was a singularity. At least as I understand it.
I'd advise you to check this link out:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

If you want to watch/listen to a 2 hour debate, where religious apologist William Lane Craig gets absolutely trashed for using this flawed argument, you should watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ

Vic2Ree:

Madam, I was just calling you out on faulty reasoning. I don't know why you are emotional like this

5thElement:


No it isn't.

If people want to sing and praise their God in the privacy of their building, how does this constitute a crime to you who are in your own house?

the exception begin the pentecostal type of Christians who scream and shout like mad people in the middle of the night without regards to the people living in that area. they should desist.

BotafogoJunior:
Oh boy,una no dey read before typing stop being average....he said religion is a scam and you started typing rubbish which does not correspond with his comment.oya read his comment again and correct your yeye comment

JMAN05:


There is no evidence against it.


Second law of thermodynamics. If not beginning, what then?

[

Evidence we see in the universe shows that a supernatural Being did make the universe. The precision in the universe and its laws didn't make itself.

JMAN05:

Evidence we see in the universe shows that a supernatural Being did make the universe. The precision in the universe and its laws didn't make itself.

IAmSabrina:

Like I said, the Kalam cosmological arguement has been trashed up, down, left, right, centre (seriously you need to see that video. WLC got wrecked). One does not simply look at something he can't explain and attach a supernatural entity to it. Even if a god exists, we have no way to prove it. So why bother?

JMAN05:


You ve not answered the question. How has it been trashed? How did all these get started? Has the second law of thermodynamics been trashed too? The video? I have watched it, though not all. What the guy is saying is an argument I have heard several times which to me is not a trashing, but a way to run away from the obvious truth. Quantum mechanics is not nothing if you want to be sincere.

IAmSabrina:

Absolutely NO ONE has ever demonstrated the possibility of an immaterial intelligent mind capable of existing independent of something material ... like a brain. Just like immaterial gravity cannot exist without a material mass. Absolutely NO ONE has ever demonstrated the possibility of an immaterial intelligent mind creating anything material, even from pre-existing material, without having any physicality itself & without having any material means (tools) to do so. Unless the above two can be demonstrated to be even possible, any intelligent minded creator God is just utter nonsense.

The present Universe as we know it, is the result of the expansion of a super-dense mass of material (not necessarily atoms & such) known as the 'singularity', which contained all the energy in this Universe, albeit in a different form (quantum or whatever). This is known by scientists as of now, so any speculations about there being 'nothing' is just that - hypothetical speculation. Energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed - therefore that 'singularity' must have always existed in that form or some other form - other Universes, Multiverses or whatever.

It is very simple, if someone can magically presume there is a god, and that this god had/has no cause, then I can presume there are unicorns that you can't see and had no cause and caused our universe. Same levels of evidence and proof for both assumptions. You can't prove me wrong, so it must be true! The Kalam doesn't even factor into the Kalam. It's dead before it is even arrives. The short version: If your argument requires presumptions in order to work, it is meaningless as an argument.

CAPSLOCKED:


SO DO YOU KNOW THIS SUPERNATURAL BEING?