God is not intelligent

Yes. As mentioned above, you can believe what you want. And, of course that applies to everyone else, too.

The problem comes when you use your religious beliefs, which have no proof or even mutually acceptable evidence, to insist on policy that affects everyone.

Our founders recognized that problem, and thus wrote the solution into our first amendment.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, please. There is belief and there is knowing. Our freedom, rights, and equality of rights are based on the self evident truth that we all spring from one God. Our religious liberty extends to us the right to deal with that fact as individuals as we see fit in our own lives.

 

No, that is YOUR belief. You can feel it as "knowing" or "self evident" or whatever you want. But, it is YOUR belief.

And, to some extent you can even treat your neighbors like **** if they don't conform.

But, that's not the issue I pointed to.

Your religion can't be the reason for laws that the government forces me to follow.

That's why religious argument wasn't allowed in the case of Obergefell, for one example.

 

That is correct.

That statement involves a little bit of assumption, on your part (as, e.g., that you are not speaking to a blind person), but I would say that it is usually true. And do you know why it is usually true? I will explain it, because it is self-evident that-- as you showed was the case, with the concept of "randomness"-- you do not understand the meaning of this term.

The reason that "self-evident" facts, would not require proof, would be because, if they are self-evident, no one disputes them! Just because something seems obvious to you, does not make it, de facto, "self-evident." (BTW, I know I am using more editing augmentations, than is to your liking; but this is what occurs, as I believe I have explained to you, when I need to relate an idea to someone who continually misses the boat, despite that I believe the concept should be self-evident). Still, that is real chutzpa, on your part, to define what is, to the general population, "self-evident," based on just your own perceptions. FYI, to anyone who believes in God (just for a start), that everything is random-- or however you specifically stated it, if you find there to be some significant difference, based on your particular syntax-- is not self-evident. Let me give you another example, from this thread:

So what do you think about that? To Injeun, that we all spring from one God-- and believe me, as someone who is quite good at interpreting the meaning of ideas, clearly stated in the English language, he is not using the word God, just because it sounds "poetic," as a way to refer to something that is completely abstract, that is, as you had meant it, something that does not tangibly exist-- is self-evident, even though you would not agree with this. That is, you do not just accept his word, that it is self-evident, do you? No, you would expect, if he was contending that it was so self-evident, that he could prove his contention, at least through logical argument, rather than, oh, let's say, just reiterate ad nauseum, that he doesn't need to prove it because, according to him, it is self-evident.


So, where does my example bring us-- that you feel that Injeun's definition of "self-evident," is erroneous, but continue to assert that your own is correct? If that is the case, could I then ask you to explain the difference between your own contention, and Injeun's-- or is the answer to that question (IYO), also "self-evident?"

Well thank you for at least explaining your charge against me-- it is a refreshing change. However, your supposed logic, is based on a totally fictional concept, of what it means, for something to be self-evident, to your discredit, which is why I had said that your facility with language, was deserting you. Just as a reminder, this was after you'd already tried to prove your point, by pointing to the movement of clouds, or the particular behavior, or specific presence (you did not make clear which), of the "animals in the woods," as examples of randomness, as opposed to being completely understandable, explainable and-- at least with regard to clouds-- even predictable phenomenon. Clouds, for example, like all the major winds and weather patterns, consistently move from West to East, as a result (I assume) of the Earth's rotation, ultimately. This is the apotheosis, of "randomness." So my own questioning of your highly dubious pronouncements of what is self-evident, is not oxymoronic; or do you feel like going for "the hat trick?"

 

This was your response to this post of mine:

Allow my, self- promoted, proficiency in reading comprehension, come to your aid, in explaining a disconnect, in our "argument." I make abundantly clear that my argument is limited to disproving your postulate, that everything arose from randomness. Was that unclear to you, from my post? In fact, I have been going about, giving arguments, "to prove it."

Yet, in your reply, you first strongly imply that I have not been offering evidence, for my claim (by explaining to me, that this is proper protocol). Then, you-- from God knows where-- say that (or for all intents & purposes, give the impression that) my argument has, in fact, been something completely different from what it has been.

This can only lead me to two, obvious, reactions:

1) You believe in a universe of "Randomity (sic)?" If you assert that as a belief, I accept your belief. However, if you claim it is fact, then you must prove it.

Just to be extra clear, this entails going beyond, merely contending that it is a self-evident truth, and so requires no proof, from you.

2) Either you can grasp this fundamental point, or you cannot.

If you cannot, there is nothing else to discuss, I cannot help you.

 

I don't believe physics is random.

What happened at the outset established strong principles of what is possible or even probable and what is NOT possible.

This is another case where "random" can be overemphasized. For example, what happened after the big bang expansion included the formation of stars, galaxies. Stars grew and died, splattering new elements throughout vast regions, etc. That was highly likely given the full state of existence.

 

I am sorry, Will, but your analogy does not work. That is to say, for one fly's receiving a certain mutation, to deplete the deck, of potential mutations-- besides it being the opposite thing, from what had actually occurred (one fly's receiving of an Ace, as it played out, increased the likelihood that more Aces were on the way)-- this would imply that the genome of genes, shared by the flies in both groups, would have some de facto awareness, of what mutations had been handed out; IOW, if what had come before, truly affected what would follow, this is would prove the process to absolutely NOT be a random one. Nevertheless, the laws of probability state that, among all the potential mutations which might occur, if the same one continues to recur, it is not mere "coincidence," but the sign of something, affecting that result. Surely you can understand this patently true concept.

Does it not make vastly more sense, if two groups of captive fruit flies-- and so, therefore, both experiencing the same deviation(s), in their living conditions-- end up getting similar mutations, this most logically pointing to the specific mutations, as an attempt to adapt, to those new conditions? IOW, it seems from the experiment that you related, that the insects' reproductive process is being caused, by some source (which is up for speculation), to willfully respond to their circumstances.

This is what I have been saying about mutations coming along, just at the point when they are needed, and would be useful, because of the situation which previous mutations have prepared. That this is how things happened, to borrow a line from our Patricio, was self- evident, to scientists of the past, who believed in this, as it had been described, by Lamarck. The mother giraffe, for instance, keeps stretching its neck, to reach a food source, at the limit of its grasp. Lamarck had reasoned that this activity, by the parent, was passed along in a trait, to its offspring. Of course, as we learned more about genes & mutation, this way of thinking was abandoned-- but science threw the baby out, with the bathwater!

Science did prove that mutations were not directly tied, to what any given individual had done, to deal with its living situation; yet the alternate assumption, that helpful mutations were always just a fortuitous, random coincidence, was absurd. The truth is really staring in the face, any who do not let their qualms over using their own reasoning abilities, to lead to any conclusions that have not yet been underwritten, with the seal of mainstream scientific acceptance, stand in the way of their thinking.

Clearly, as had Lamarck noted, species have responded to their environments with a better than random percentage of mutations which ultimately proved to be useful. Also, proven to be the case, is that these alterations in characteristics, come through mutations. But what, then, must drive specific mutations-- like all the beak mutations, of the birds, of which I'd previously spoken, coming just when that group became isolated from the main population, on an island where longer breaks were necessary, to access the new flora-- is some sort of comprehension of the environment, which has the ability to affect the very genes of the species. And what more likely prospect, than that this intelligence, is some extension of the species' DNA, itself?

 

Whether or not it is a popular sentiment, I will point out the truth of the matter, as best as I can determine. And the point which you, honestly, are trying to convey, is not that Patricio, or anyone, is incapable of hubris or childishness, but that most of the other posters are fond of him, so may disagree with my saying anything "negative," about him, on that principle of friendship or comradery-- not because I am incorrect.

In fact, your own partisanship-- which I would speculate is more "anti-DEFinning," than it is Pro-Patricio-- is on manifest display, in your chastising of me, over this. If you had read Patricio's posts to me-- and I'm guessing that if I were to take the time to look, I would find several of them getting "likes," from you-- there is no way an objective reader could not realize that his correspondence, overall, has been far more ad hom oriented, toward me, than mine have been toward him. Further, while my supposed ad hom about Patricio's refusal to defend his position-- because of the self-serving judgement that his beliefs, with which I disagree (as would many others) are nonetheless "self-evident" truths which, as such, he does not need to justify-- does have at least something to do with the argument at hand, Patricio has criticized my 1) use of editing tools; 2) my way of writing-- calling me "phoney;" 3) implied in no uncertain terms that I was unintelligent, and I could go on, but why bother? It is clear that your charge against me, is only so much hogwash, perhaps leftover from some grudge you continue to bear against me, because of our own arguments when, once again, you were the far greater offender.

I suppose I could repost all these to rehash the issue-- which would owe it's revival, to your, comments, personally judgemental of me-- or, maybe we could be mature enough, to just move past it? What do you think?

 

You do realize that verbosity doesn't improve your argument, eh?

I guess not.

Well......

You can deny that life is, overall, randomity all you want.

It's a free country.

I'm not going to respond any further, there is no debate on this point, you'll just repeat your denial, and there is no point to continue about it.

You see, this OP is not about 'randomity' per se, it is only mentioned to bolster that God is not an intelligence.

That God is not an intelligence is not a self evident truth, it has to be reasoned, and it is a belief, not stated as fact.

But, if you want to tear down the self evident truth that life is random, that is something you'll have to prove, because the empirical evidence supports it.

Now, I'll qualify the 'life is random' statement, as I've done in the past, there are ordered instances within the chaos of existence, as humans, animals, tend to group in hierarchies, galaxies tend to be spiral, etc., but overall, the universe is chaos, with some chaotically enforced order.

 

Mockery is not a merit worthy counter argument.

 

Someday we'll all face our Creator and He will tell us where we went wrong.
I hope most will be grateful that He gave us this life on earth.

 

If that is what you believe, that is fine, declare it as your belief. Most people, as do I, believe in something.

But, what I don't do is conflate my beliefs with fact. I know what a fact is, and I know what a belief is and they are not the same.

Now, I might 'believe my belief is fact', what I won't do is DECLARE it as fact, because that would be a mistake.

Just don't declare it as fact, because, IF you do, the burden is on you to prove it.

No one is calling you a lunatic, or not I, so you didn't have to mention it.

 

You missed the point.

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe in.

If a belief is not a self evident truth, such as the belief in a supreme being, it's okay to assert that is one's belief.

However, if one assert's it to be a fact, then the burden is on that person to prove it. And 'prove it' could include offering such a strong argument that reasonable people will achieve a meeting of mind with you about it. There is always the chance that what you believe to be true, you are missing a greater truth, which, if you understood it, would change your mind, and you must be willing to consider that that is always a possibility. Because, if you don't, you will never grow as a person.

Now, on the subject, for example, the existence of a supreme being, this most certainly is not a self evident fact. One might think it is, but it's not, actually.

If one is not willing to prove it, (or at least offer such a strong argument reasonable people will achieve a meeting of mind with you) then one shouldn't declare it as fact, declare it as belief, for they are not the same thing.


If you use this wording: 'he believes it to be a fact to himself', that is the same thing as declaring it as a belief.

That is different than to merely declare a belief as fact, because then you are telling everyone else what the common fact is.

Then you have to prove it, because not everyone will agree with you, nor see it as you do.

Maybe it is a fact, but in any event, you still have to prove it. If it is a fact, you should be able to prove it, or should able to achieve a meeting of mind with others ( assuming they are reasonable people, not everyone is reasonable and/or capable of reason at a reasonable level).

A fact is the same (relatively speaking) from any viewpoint. If it isn't, it's not a fact. Now, just because some people can't see a fact, that doesn't negate that it is a fact, that doesn't negate the principle of the common fact. By 'common fact' I mean the common reality. For those who want to engage in post modern nihilistic thinking, that crowd is not reasonable, and they do not change the principle of common reality for they cannot see it.

There will always be someone who can't see what is in front of them, life is full of such people. Post modernists are a prime example. That doesn't negate the principle of common reality.

 

I agree that neither mine nor any others religious views should overshadow anyone elses constitutional rights. Nor theirs, ours. That said, my stating that I know personally that God is real, that he lives and is divine, does not violate anyone elses constitutional right. It is my exercise of the constitutional right to free speech. That our freedom, rights, and equality come from God....then to keep him in remembrance is to keep our constitution shored up.

 

My statement that God is real, lives, and is divine, was communicated to me from Gods spirit. It is not self evident to the world, scientifically provable or discovered, summited by way of reason, wished or otherwise brought to fruition by my belief, or in any way provable by me. This is because it didn't come from me or from any direction in life. It came from God.

Astonishingly, I recognized and remembered his spirit, even though I never knew him in my entire life. It was like he had been gone forever, such that I had forgotten him. And then he returned and awakened me to a remembrance of him, like waking up from a dream and recognizing and remembering your life and realizing that your dream wasn't real. Only it was in the middle of the day and I was wide awake. Nevertheless, my eyes were opened, my heart and body were filled with the milk and honey of immeasurably divine peace, all the obstacles of my soul and consciousness were swept away, my mind was filled with light and I saw a vision like a wall of clouds that parted, out of which shined a great light, and a pure white spirit flowed out and down like a river and gathered in a pool to the LDS Missionaries who were sitting on my couch. Yes, the world is strewn with lies and counterfeits. But there is also the truth. Otherwise, there'd be nothing for falsehoods to approximate.

You have stated that it is yours and others belief and opinion that the Bible is cherry picked to empower men. And that Jesus original gospel was actually about reincarnation. You say there is no God in person and he is not intelligent. But that God you say is a universal substance which we gobble up like manna, becoming increasingly more dense in our progression thru multiple reincarnations, until we reach a state of enlightenment on an equally dense planet.

So I don't say what I've said to disturb your universe. But rather to say that my personal experience regarding God is nothing like what you imagine. If it helps you to consider what I've said to be my belief, then so be it. But let the record state that it is not my belief. It is what I know, and am therefore inclined to grown into.

 

That's a serious misinterpretation. I didn't say anything about "depleting the deck". I said that the selection is random only in that the available choices are selected randomly.

That is even less helpful to your argument. It's a possible way that the set of possible mutations is less than a random selection from all possible chromosome locations.

Yes, Lamarck was seriously wrong.

I don't know of any way in which he was right. Maybe you can state that if it is important to your views.

Science knows how mutations come about.

The problem is that there is no mechanism for a possible benefit to an animal to cause a greater likelihood of a mutation in that direction.

A longer neck might benefit a giraffe, but there is no way for that possible benefit to be communicated to the appropriate genetic material to cause such a mutation.

Yes, that's what Lamarck thought.

This is why I think these notions of "random" in terms of genetic code need to be considered in the context of modern biology. There is no mechanism such as what Lamarck proposed. And, evolution has been seriously successful without that idea.

 

I think anyone on this board can identify ad hom.

Having to read around your ad hom is one good reason not to read your posts.

 

I'm not sure why you think you keep needing to defend your rights to your own religious views. Nobody disagrees with that.

I have NO idea how you think your religious views "keep our constitution shored up". You will remember that our founders moved to a constitutional form of government because they knew the disaster of mixing religion and government.

 

My only point is that you state that that is your belief.

Do not claim it as fact. If you say it is a fact "to you' that is another way of saying it is your belief.

But, if you claim it is a self evident fact, then you will have to prove it.


That is my only point.

Whether you 'disturb my universe' or not, is beside the point and irrelevant to the point.

 

You inferred that my vocal trust in God is somehow a potential threat to the constitution.

Because according to our Declaration of Independence, our freedom, rights in freedom, and equality of rights in freedom are based on the self evident truth that there is one creator from whom we all spring. So if I say that God lives, then the divine nature of our constitutional rights in freedom is kept in remembrance. Thus helping to shore it up from the erosion caused by the transitory and changeable values of man.

 

I don't know for sure, so I ask questions.

For many Christians, it absolutely is a threat to the constitution.

I have no idea what that means to you.

I'd point out that the statement you paraphrase was not meant as a claim that there is a god. It was a claim that our universally shared human origins must be considered as clear evidence that we are all equal.

 

I have repeatedly stated that it is not my belief but my certainty. The belief or unbelief is yours. Here, I will say it again for you. I know that God is real, that he lives and is divine. And I didn't say that my knowledge is self evident. That was a reference to our founding fathers words in the DOI.

 

To say 'it is my certainty' is the same thing as saying 'my belief'. There is zero difference between the two statements. You are merely adding emphasis to your belief, but it is your belief, nevertheless.

It only becomes different when you remove the word 'my' from the statement.

See, when you say, 'God is certain', then you are claiming it is certain as common reality, for everyone including yourself, so that is when you have to prove it.

With word 'my', you are merely stating your belief, no matter how 'certain' you are. You are merely stating you believe it more strongly.

Irrelevant to my point.

 

I know. You don't know. Therefore the labor is yours to know, not mine. One can believe or have faith in something. But at some point that belief or faith is either realized or runs its course fruitless and is discarded. You can plant a fruit tree, believing and having faith and laboring that at some point it will bear fruit. And when or if it does, your faith and belief and labors are realized. So you no longer believe or have faith that the tree will produce fruit. You know that the tree has produced fruit. Then your faith and belief becomes idle in that matter. I know that God is real and that he lives. I no longer merely believe, because I know without doubt. I don't believe my tree produces fruit. I know that it does. It is not an opinion or a possibility or a hope. It is my testimony. Salvation is a personal matter, not a worldwide event. But if the existence of God ever becomes a world wide event, it won't be for the cause of salvation, but for his judgment of the world.

 

Soooo...the force.