God is not intelligent

and their successors did an end run around it rebranding it with a secular one.
thou shalt not have 2 wives sayeth your lord god US
thou shalt not abort a fetus sayeth your lord god US
thou shalt bake gay wedding cakes sayeth your lord god US
thou shalt obeyth all commandments of the lord god US or suffer bankrupty and eternal ruin
blessed be the lord god US, amen

 

You have stated your beliefs, and emphasized them to what you believe is the utmost degree possible.

As long as you do not remove the personalization of 'my' from your 'knowledge', they are beliefs which are yours to whatever degree you claim them, and, as such, no proof is required.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

Let us not forget that of the 10 commandments, only 2 are echoed in current US Law to a degree of certainty. (murder and stealing. Lying has some bearing in tort law and fraud, depending on the act itself)

 

You are, in essence, making the same argument that Trump believers make against those who support the Jan 6 committee's efforts investigating the attack on 1/6,

Fans of Trump see the effort as being driven by being 'anti-Trump' and 'hatred' of Trump.

Little do they realize that it's Trump's transgressions, and not Trump, the man, which drives the efforts.

I can repeat this point ad nauseum, and they still won't see the point.

IN your case, substitute 'transgressions' with 'errors of logic' and their variants of flights away from reality.


FYI, I only grant 'likes' to those comments which are reality based, or as close to it as possible. If you conflate 'likes' with being 'pro anyone', you have made an error of logic.

Yes, my ad homs at you were owing to my extreme frustration given your incessant logical errors and refusal and/or inability to grasp certain fundamental points and principles. I do apologize. But, let's agree, both of us, to abstain from ad homs.

Regarding your comment:

...because of the self-serving judgement that his beliefs, with which I disagree (as would many others)

The highlighted are weasel words. You do this a lot, and that you are willing to traffic in weasel words is consistent with your incessant logical errors. If you are interested in learning how to de-weasel your words, you would have named some names, and quoted them where the quotes support your views. Vague generalities which cannot be substantiated (especially those which defy coherent thought) are weasel words.

 

No, I've stated the truth. What you do with it us up to you. You may believe that what I say isn't true. But that is just your belief, which you do not know for certain. If you had rather believe your fantasy and imagination, rather than entertain the truth of my testimony...that is up to you. You even admit that you have no personal validation for your belief. While I confess that I do have personal validation for what I know. For you to tell me that what I know is belief, is for me to tell you that what you believe is true. While it may be true that you believe in reincarnation and that there is no God. Your belief runs contrary to what I know. And so I say it.

 

yes, legally, in todays courts, lying has to rise to a narrow level of adjudicable fraud to beat summary judgment.
Unless you are a politician or hold a guv office, then lying is just part of the job.

 

Here you demonstrate two things:

1) By trying to somehow equate me with Trump, or his supporters-- because naturally, anyone who suggests that another's actions might be directed by malice, since that is a non-existent human emotion, must simply be delusional; as, I suppose we must say that all the black people, who complain that cops treat them differently than they treat white suspects, must also be comparable to Trump supporters, right?-- you here prove, definitively, you lack the mental capacity for making analogies. This is only one in a long line of just horribly bad ones, you have spun, but it really takes the cake, for demonstrating your lack of the assessment abilities, required.

2) By trying to equate me with Trump or Trump 1/6 defenders, I must give you credit for taking a much stronger crack, at trying to insult me, than your earlier quibbling with my overuse of editing tools.

This comment is not clearly explained; you need to rewrite it, if you wish it to be understood, however it is that you'd intended.

Apparently reading is not one of your strong points, either. Reminder: my post you have answered here, with a new onslaught of attacks on me, was not directed to you, nor was it intended to be about you, anymore than necessary, in order to address Readmore's comments, made purportedly in your defense. So, if you reread...on second thought, I will just show you. This is my post, to Will Readmore:


DEFinning said: ↑
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.
[End]

I hope it is now clear to you that I never suggested that you, Patricio da Silva, gave likes to any posts, just to take sides, and which were not, "reality based." I was saying, to WRM, that I imagine he had already seen, and probably "liked," your insulting posts, directed at me. So your including this in your post, I had been about to say, was completely uncalled for. However, in going back for my quote, I see that you had "liked," Will's totally biased criticism of me, which had ignored any of your own (and this time, the "your" does apply to you, Patricio) ad hom attacks.

You only "like," reality-based posts, indeed.
(I had only wanted to use the "eye-rolling" emoji, as I couldn't trust that you would understand that comment was meant sarcastically, but it was unfortunately not available, so I chose this, to represent your being lost in your own "reality.")

Because criticizing someone's character (phoney), way of communicating (style points) and intelligence, are reasonable reactions to being frustrated by someone's "incessant logical errors and refusal and/or inability to grasp certain fundamental points and principles (do I need to bring out the t.v., again)?" Your excuses are bullshit, justifications of your own behavior-- this, is where an intelligent person would see an analogy, to supporters of the January sixth "protestors."

You doubly prove the disingenuousness of your, so called, apology, by following your suggestion, that we "abstain from ad homs," with a whole new, trumped-up, charge against me, of using " weasel words," which is provably false. Have their not been numerous others, in fact most of those who have responded to your thread, who have disagreed with your posits about a "random" universe, and ultimate reality?

FYI, the only way I could not substantiate, the fact that "many others," would disagree with your self-justification, that-- in direct opposition to the feedback you have received from others, in this thread-- there was no need to justify your assumption that everything is random, was if this was the overwhelmingly predominant opinion. As I believe I have already pointed out, this is not the view of any of the world's major religions, to which belong, the majority of the world's population. So I was not saying anything that could not be proven to be true; in fact, I had been underselling the point!

Yet it leads to another baseless accusation, by you, levied against me. In fact, the definition you quote, "vague generalities which cannot be substantiated," rings true of your own claims about infinity and randomness being the natural essence of existence.

I will refrain from making a case that the implications of your term, make this also an attempt to smear my character, because you have more than proven your deafness to any facts that contradict your own mental image of things. So I will just end with this extreme paraphrase of Shakespeare:

the weasel runs not, round your mulberry bush, but in yourself.

 

You're making another error of logic, one in a litany of errors of logic.

I'm NOT equating you with Trump nor his supporters. I'm only comparing similar logical errors.

IF I said Trump's demagoguery were similar to Hitler's, and you accused me of equating Trump with Hitler, that, too, would be a similar error of logic. The comparison only goes to 'demagoguery' not 'murder' or Hitler, the man. Indeed, their demagogic methods are verisimilar.

I apologized for the prior ad hom and promised not to do it IF you promise.

If you can't make the promise, I'm putting you on ignore.

You're confusing rational criticism with insult. The two are not the same.

If I asserted you had bad breath, and you did, actually have bad breath, that is not an insult, that is a rational criticism of an authentic defect.

Your reaction is owes to the natural tendency to be made uncomfortable with criticism.

I can't help that, but you need to learn the difference.

That person with B.O. should thank the person critical, for in that criticism. the person, if he were honest, would do something to improve himself.

In your case, you cling to your defects of logic and choose not to improve yourself.

You're complete and utter failure to understand that randomity in life is as plain as the sky is blue is a defect, a logical defect in your ability to grasp logic, and you continue to assert that it is an 'opinion'.

Moreover, your bloviating verbosity is awful to read, and you are flattering yourself if you think it is being read. You really should do something about that.
You attempt to be articulate, but fail miserably. Good articulation is NOT smug arrogance coupled with verbosity and how many subordinate clauses you cram into one sentence and it certainly can distinguish weasel words.

In that regard, you have earned my kill file ( which is old usenet expression for the ignore function).

FYI, I never said 'given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable' was an axiom or unimpeachable. I used it as a logical basis. Moreover, it's not vague (on it's own terms). ONe could argue that 'infinity' is vague, but it does have a rather specific meaning so it hardly qualifies as a weasel word. In fact, I created a thread devoted to asking the question of it's validity. However, it doesn't qualify as 'weasel words'. If you need more information on what constitutes weasel words, they are words of incoherence, vague generalities which are used to support an argument. Such as "everyone knows", but that's one tiny example, there are many others.

If you refuse to accept my apology, then I'll reiterate my claim.

You are, indeed, a phony. I think there is no question of that fact.

Now go snitch to the mods.

 

Yes, this was precisely my point, though with the opposite conclusion: because of the evolutionary logic behind sex being pleasurable, the fact that genes would coincidentally mutate to allow this to happen, so "very early on" in the evolutionary process, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. You see that happy connection, as being a mere stroke of random good luck, do you? I see it as proof that life, in the collective sense, clearly has some sort of understanding.

I will reproduce the rest of your post, but I honestly cannot follow whatever argument you are making.

Who said anything about an organism's consciousness? I was making the the point about the genetic mutations which created the fortuitous circumstances, such as sex being a pleasurable thing, which evolution could then run with, obviously coming, in some instances, at least, with a timing that was just too right on the money, to allow any open minded thinker to believe, they were merely random occurrences.

To return, once more, to my example of bird beaks, among isolated populations of island birds. Their beaks now match exactly, the length and shape, of the flowers which provide their sustenance. This required a great deal of mutation (as I earlier explained, between changes to both the beak, and to the tongue) which occurred over a very short period of time. And I understand, perfectly well, how evolution would give the bird with the proper combination of alterations to its beak's length and width, and curvature, along with a tongue that was both sufficiently long, as well as had the functional abilities, to lap up this nectar, with its tip, a great advantage in survival, and so in spreading its new genes throughout the population. But what are the chances that those useful mutations would have just naturally occurred, when they did, randomly, that is, without any relation to the change in circumstances which now made these mutations so helpful? Any scientifically-minded individual, should ask themself, do we see a great deal of continued mutation, amongst these birds beaks (which, of course, would now be deleterious to all those recipients of the random changes, which had served members of their species, so well, in the past)? And the answer, I am sure, is NO. But a beak and tongue being the subject of frequent mutations, only for a brief period of time, cannot be explained, by random chance.

This fact, your illogical counter arguments show, must be very difficult for you to swallow.

 

And, naturally, your own opinion of my writing, makes it a fact?

YOU POMPOUS ASS!

And remember, you should thank me, for pointing out what a conceited twit, you are coming across as, since that "rational criticism" is not an insult, but bringing your attention to an "authentic defect." Much more so, I would add, than your own foolishly substituting your idea that everything is random, being too self evident a notion to question, with a fact as undeniable as whether or not someone else has unpleasant body odor.

Physician, heal thyself.

Once more-- so you say it, therefore it must be true?

If only you listened, to your own advice:

 

You mean, like everyone knows that "randomity in life is as plain as the sky is blue?"

Unless you are trying to suggest that the universe has already existed, for an infinite amount of time (which would be a direct contradiction of all scientific thought, on the matter), the obvious question is: the logical basis of what?

 

It was satire, meant to demonstrate what a hypocrite you were being. There is a difference.

Mockery tends to be more juvenile in nature, such as trying to imply a person has B.O., for instance.

 

Sexual reproduction started very early in life on Earth. It occurred in the Protozoic Eon abut 1.2 to 2 billion years ago. Without there being a built in desire to take part in that form of reproduction, it seems likely that it would not have succeeded. All I'm saying is that the drive for sex certainly did NOT start with humans.

As for your bird thing, please remember that plants were involved, and they were mutating to benefit that relation as well.

You can't put the onus on the birds alone.

 

And I certainly never said, or thought, that it did-- were you confused about that? Here is the beginning of my quote, to which you replied:

DEFinning said: ↑
Yes, this was precisely my point, though with the opposite conclusion: because of the evolutionary logic behind sex being pleasurable, the fact that genes would coincidentally mutate to allow this to happen, so "very early on" in the evolutionary process, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

[End]

As you see from the quotation marks, I was following the same form, in my reply to Patricio, as he had used in his, also unnecessary, explanation about when sex became pleasurable, and it's importance, in the evolutionary process. I never thought, for a moment, that he was referring to humans which, for your information, came along rather late "in the evolutionary process (which you apparently didn't realize, to be speaking to me about any form of hominid, in response to what I had written)."

Yes, you are quite right! I had, somehow, not even thought about that. Thank you for inserting that additional, interesting wrinkle, into the equation. While it still doesn't make the likelihood of completely random, natural mutations seem a reasonable expectation (one would need monitor these plants for their rate of mutation, or natural hybridization, affecting the construction of their flowers, to know, for sure; but I would be willing to bet that-- absent any precipitating cause-- it would be found to be relatively low*), nonetheless it is a most worthwhile point, which redeems your post, from its poor start (I hope you do not feel that is an attempt to insult you, as it is not).



*Just to remind you, when I said precipitating cause, it was referring not to the flowers naturally selecting for a different petal length/shape/arrangement, but to "random" mutations, causing some specimens to vary from the norm. And, of course, if these mutations are adaptive to that cause, then they are not random.

 

There is distinction between a self evident truth, and





A self evident truth, like the sky is blue, does not fulfill the definition of weasel words. That life is rife with randomity is another example of self evident truth.

Most certainty, a self evident truth does not depend on 'everyone knowing it', it only depends on that of a reasonable, rational, person being able to see it.

 

Mockery is one form of the literary genre of satire, and it has been noted that "[t]he mock genres and the practice of literary mockery goes back at least as far as the sixth century BCE". --Wikipedia

Satire, the kind that is associated with 'literary value' if you are implying you are engaging in satire of that caliber, above and beyond cheap mockery, notwithstanding the fact that mockery is a form of satire, and doing on an internet forum, this is the zenith of delusion and, as such, is wishful thinking on your part.

So, I will repeat, mockery is not a merit worthy counter argument.

Even if it had achieved an elevated satirical nature, it still would not be a valid counter argument in a debate such as this.

If I call you a hypocrite, I will have to prove it. Merely calling you a hypocrite, no matter which style of prose I choose, is a vacuous allegation. Vacuous allegations are not a merit worthy counter argument.

I called you a phony, and evidence for that fact is your pseudo-elevated writing style, which is more pretense than authentic. I think the evidence is clear on that point. I practically have to flog myself to read your writing. Note that your comment I'm responding to here is okay, but, just saying, overall, weighing the body of prose you have thus far contributed to this forum.

 

And now, I see, your own weaseling, has begun. No longer are you stating that the universe IS random,* but that "life is rife with (randomness)," which is another thing altogether. If not for the somewhat ambiguous term-- when being used to describe something, about which an argument may later turn on its quantifiable definition-- "rife," I might even agree with that statement. But that was not what you had been arguing, and your new version, does not fill the hole, which your change creates, in your argument; since, without contradicting your new statement, either life, or the universe, could still have developed, in some respects, non-randomly. If this is the case, it creates the likely possibility of an intelligence, or consciousness existing, which had at least some degree of directing influence: a thing that could pass as-- again, by your obscurely or, more accurately, esoterically (with words that have their specifically intended meaning, only in your own mind) defined term-- "God." And there, nothing of your argument remains (though feel free to take your coinage of "randomity," with you, as a souvenir).

Also, anyone has got to love your redefining the concept of " self evident truth," after I previously proved that your minority assessment of the nature of the universe, did not come close to passing the smell test. Now, according to you, "it only depends on that of a reasonable, rational, person being able to see it." I notice more weasel words, in disguise, in that statement, where you say a self evident truth "does not depend on 'everyone knowing it'." Perhaps you did not notice but, what sounds like it could be a reasonable caveat-- that is, if by not everyone, you mean only 98% or even as little as only 90% of the people-- is instead left with an undefined degree of weasel-, I mean, wiggle- room. Its floor is in the other part of your new, self-serving justification: a reasonable, rational person-- as in, one. So somewhere between one, and not everyone, is the new definition-- from our forum's official accuser of other posters (not just of me, I have seen) using "weasel words"-- of what constitutes a quorum, in determining what is "self evident."

Interestingly, this is a far cry from your oft cited example of a self-evident statement, with which you ludicrously, to the point of desperation, presume to link your own theory: the sky is blue...And the universe was formed, and continues to be governed, by "randomity." Yes, I'm sure most people see those two statements as equal-- in fact, do you think your own theory would get even more of the "reasonable" person's vote, as the quintessential example of a self-evident statement?

While that last paragraph is largely meant as facetious sarcasm, I really have to wonder about your answer to that final question since, by your definition's very non-specific criteria for ascertaining what is self evident, someone must be the determiner of who is "reasonable (and) rational," and who that would be, would not necessarily be self evident to everyone, or perhaps to not a large portion of us. We know, for example, that you have deemed me, who disagrees with your theory, as therefore not one of the rational ones. Well, I suppose it's only fitting, that you step up to the plate, then, and assume the responsibility (more sarcasm, FYI).



* Since you are putting forth the pretense of being "a reasonable...person," I hope you will accept my paraphrase of whatever your precise verbiage had been, if the slight difference would not completely alter the takeaway that most people would accept as accurate, which I believe applies to the way I phrased it, above (I am tiring of indulging you, with your make- believe word, of Randomity).

 

Exactly, genius! That's why I did not stoop to YOUR frequent refuge, of using these (empty accusations, or charges that are based on nothing except your own opinion; as everything you have said-- and will probably continue saying-- about my writing or, rather, as you pretentiously put it, my "verbose bloviation;" [and this, just before stating that "good articulation is not smug arrogance, coupled with verbosity"-- what happened, did your internet access go on the fritz, before you could check an online thesaurus, for smarter-sounding ways to say "good?"], as well as all your evaluations of my intelligence). Do you know what the word "smug," even means? Here is a clue, no charge: I ask that because of what I just listed as one of the things you have done. Clue #2: I put it in italics, for you. Clue #3: and bolded it.

Instead of these tactics of yours, while posing as some sort of expert or authority on things, at which you are only average, at best, I chose to put a mirror up to your own behavior. If you see this as beneath you, for comment, that is only (in the manner that you have told me) your refusal to grow and improve yourself. That is, of course, your prerogative.

 

Again, mutations are NOT the whole issue.

Remember that there is a selection process that is very definitely NOT random.

imho, you need to be a LOT more interested in the selection process. It simply can not be ignored, as it is a critical component of evolution.

Beyond that, let's remember that mutations are probably not totally random in all senses of the term. For one thing, they are modifications of what exists.

There is a known experiment where fruit flies are divided into two separate populations, kept apart. Even so, both separated populations will have mutations that affect eye color within the time frame of the experiment.

 

In my own opinion, you need to finally realize that this debate is not, strictly speaking, about evolution. This thread is under Philosophy & Religion, and not Science, for very good reason: it is Patricio's giving us his (knowing that whatever word I choose, he will take issue with it) overall conception of our existence, specifically its origin and, for lack of a word less likely to be misconstrued, its governance. I am sure you have noticed his saying that he did not perceive Creation to be the result of any Intelligence, Consciousness, or Will. In his view, it just "happened." Therefore, my counter argument has focused on showing that things which he, which most of our scientific community, and which many in society (albeit far from most), see as being explainable as the results of mere chance, are in fact not that way, upon closer scrutiny.

My goal then, is to point to indications which I would hope should, at the very least, cause any open minded individual, to not be overly comfortable & confident, in their perspective of a universe devoid of any-- and I use this word, not in the biological way you have been trained to think of it, so if you are unable to entertain any alternatives that lie beyond your current framework, then you are probably not doing either of us any good, by having me explain any of my own, various, ways of conceiving of Creation or Existence, to you-- Being.
Whether you consider its Being Life, or uniting Individuality/Essence, or Consciousness, or Spirit, is not really part of my argument's thrust.

Does that get us closer to at least understanding, what is the subject we are discussing?

 

The funny thing about all this philosophizing, is that at some point we need to eat, drink, rest, and secure our persons.

 

Being in this religion section doesn't mean one gets to be free of what we know about how this universe works. Whatever the religion might be, I would suggest it has to leave us with a universe that works the way that we observe it to work for all those factors that we may meaningfully observe.

In some way, you appear to have attempted to use evolution as a supporting argument. Thus it makes sense to examine whether evolution actually does support your argument.

 

You've stated your Truth. What I would do with it has no bearing on your statement, nor is it your concern, nor did you ask for it, therefore there was no need for your to mention it, and that you did, belies your misunderstanding of my reply .

If you want to reframe your truth, as 'the truth', you will need to substantiate it, because anyone can make a vacious claim, and that doing so, is a meaningless exercise. So, you tell me, is this your truth, or 'the truth' as in 'for everyone else'? If it is the latter, offered without substantiation, then that is arrogance, and, in my view. I feel rather confident that if God, providence, or whatever term endears one the most, if it has a message to mankind, being arrogant is not it. Humility is more Godlike, if you were to ask me about it. I never said I didn't believe in God, what I said was that my God is not the god of Christianity, it is the God much closer to that of pantheism.

Well, your statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding of my meaning.

I'm inclined to agree with Socrates, who wrote "if there is one thing I know for certain, is that I know absolutely nothing for certain",

That much, I do know. Moreover, I don't see how anyone else can know more than that, either, and that to say otherwise, is arrogance.
Even in science they have 'theories' which are the highest levels of knowledge in Science, but there's a standing axiom about such theories, that they are the prevailing theories until a better one replaces it, which means they are always open to greater truths, should any be discovered. In that way, I feel it's not inconsistent with Socrates.

If you are a Christian, it is my understanding that Christ preached humility. Your statement is it's opposite, which is arrogance. Arrogance is not a Christian teaching, as far as I know. Also, Humility is preached in many of the eastern philosophies, as well. Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, they all teach it. Humility is one of the greatest virtues a person can attain.

I know the difference between 'belief' and 'fact', and though I could inwardly believe my belief is fact, but, since I can't prove it, it would be arrogant to claim an unprovable belief as fact (or truth, I use the two terms interchangeably), and that I won't do because arrogance is not a good quality if one is pursuing spiritual enrichment.

 

I understand the bubble of mistrust and suspicion in which you reside. But there is no such thing as "my truth." I don't own the truth to call it mine. It is more like it owns me. When we agree upon values, we lift them into laws against (for instance) murder, rape, and theft. Just because others don't abide by those values, it doesn't detract from those values such that they become our truths or utterly self serving. It is simply the greater thing to which we give honor and subject ourselves. We do not own the laws as much as they own us. So when I say I know that God lives, I say what I know, your beliefs notwithstanding. FWIW, I'm not alone in this declaration. Millions worldwide do say the same. Our own American Declaration of Independence says as much. Paraphrasing, it is self evident that there is one God from whom we all spring. As such, we are entitled to be free, endowed with God given rights, and equal in those rights by virtue of our similar origin. So our religious liberty is not a question of whether or not God is real. But what we intend to do individually with that fact.

 

Currently, mainstream science has not made the necessary paradigm shift to effectively study consciousness. It matters not how advanced or primitive their tools are. Without the proper framework and approach to studying consciousness, they will only be left with more questions than answers.

The best way to study consciousness is with the help of indigenous cultures, shamans/witch doctors/medicine men, Eastern mystics & yogis, psychics, remote viewers, plant & animal communicators, children's memories, NDE/OBE experiencers, alien/ET contactees & abductees, deprivation tanks, psychedelics, meditation, and hypnosis, along with a deep exploration of the many ancient & current occult tools & practices.

In this way, we gain a truer and more comprehensive picture of the nature of consciousness and our place in it without the veil imposed by material scientific filters & beliefs. There's more nuance than hard objective science when it comes to consciousness.

Some physicists & scientists actually do accept this possibility. However, all should accept the fact that it's a moot point anyway because, even if true, there's no way to confirm or deny that we're living in a simulation.

Evidence is not what one should look for. First simply observe & experience and take note of everything----from personal experiences, to what others experience, to what the non-science (natural) world shows us, and even to what science offers. Then look at it all logically by connecting the dots, and see what the big picture tells us.

The important thing is to understand that there exists not a single thing that cannot be influenced by or that cannot influence all other things. All is "connected" because All is One.