God is not intelligent

No its not.

 

It's a rhetorical question and you weren't part of the conversation so go back in the thread to understand what the conversation is about.

It's blue most of the time.

 

The sky is not blue, therefore you are claiming that their claim is 'not true'.
fair enough.

Its never blue!

What you see when you see blue is the 'raleigh effect', the sky is actually transparent.

 

As anyone (but you) can see, what is obvious, is that the fact that "the sky is blue," is in no way comparable, to your claim of the nature of the creation of the universe, and the principles which maintain it.

If you cannot see this, it is you, who is beyond being helped.

But that is a juvenile way of carrying on a disagreement, which you have chosen, by *merely asserting the reverse, without any supporting evidence. That our sky is blue is not some mystery, but a well known, and explained, scientific fact:

<Google snip>
How can you explain blue colour of sky?

The sky is blue due to a phenomenon called Raleigh scattering. This scattering refers to the scattering of electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a form) by particles of a much smaller wavelength.Jan 31, 2020

https://www.mcgill.ca › oss › article
Why is the Sky Blue? Or Better Yet, Why is the Ocean Blue? - McGill University
<End>

Now, if you knew how to carry on an adult debate, you would prove your contention, by supplying similar evidence, that "randomity" is a well-proven and accepted fact, on par with, "the sky is blue." But, despite many opportunities, you have never done so. And you never will, because your contention is a ludicrous one.

 

You're pettifogging the subject that was under discussion, which wasn't, in fact, about the sky.

If you do not know what 'pettifogging' is, please look it up.

Thank you.

 

You're hopeless. if the sky is blue isn't sufficient for the point, let's replace it with one that is.

How about 'is water wet'?

That be okay?

****, you're impossible.

 

nah, just pointing out your defective analogy

 

Could you hear the TWILIGHT ZONE theme song playing in the background during all this?

 

Anyone can do what you are doing-- it proves nothing. Watch: well, that you have your head up your ass, because you so love the smell of your ideas, is as true as that 1+1= 2.
And hence, by your logic-- of saying that your theory of randomness, is the same as the fact of the sky's appearance of blueness, makes that true-- I have just "proven" your head is up your ass, by saying that my contention is as factual as the sum of one & one, being two.

You claimed "randomity" was as true as that the sky is blue; if that were so, it would be no trouble to provide a proof, a scientific explanation of it, as I did, and anyone could find, for the blue sky. Instead, you come up with a new, sad, deflection.

A theory-- which is what, you are espousing-- is not the same, as a fact (self-evident, or otherwise).


Once again, you are only proving that you are a master projector, who is (by all appearances, at least) blind to his own denials of truth:
Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
I agree. @DEFinning is making the colossal mistake of assuming his religious/spiritual philosophy is fact,

I am making no such claim, and don't believe I have, at all. Please produce it, if I am wrong about this. You, on the other hand, continually assert that your theory is factual-- first, in the way the sky appears blue, and now, the way that water is wet.

Something is all wet, all right.

 

You did not go back to the proper place in the conversation (the last 3 posts, of pg.14, #s 348, 349, & 350) : it has always been Patricio who has been using the "self-evident" fact, that "the sky is blue," to somehow prove that his theory, that all the universe is, and always has been, governed by "randomity"-- don't ask me, why he doesn't say "randomness," like everyone else-- is irrefutable. He has just now switched to claim that what proves the veracity of his assertion, about the random nature of the universe, is that "water is wet." Quite the science genius, wouldn't you say?

Here is the actual conversation, about which you commented:

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
The observable universe is randomity(!), it results in ordered chaos in places, total chaos in other places. That is not a belief(!)*

To which, I answered:

Followed by Patricio's quoting me, and bringing up the sky, once again, as his "proof."

DEFinning said: ↑
It most certainly is.

I will give him credit for one thing, though: he was absolutely right, that saying that "the observable universe is randomity," is as patently true as that "the sky is blue(sic)"-- which I always took to mean, that it appears blue, to us-- is definitely one of those things, which is "beyond belief."

 

agreed
anything presumed to be the case, ie presumed to be true regardless if its fact or fiction is a 'belief'

the sky is blue not only proves nothing but it is a defective analogy as I pointed out since the sky is actually transparent.

 

Then replace it with one that isn't. You see, the analogy isn't the point.

How about:

Is water wet?

That work for you?

Let me know, if not, we'll find one that suits your finickyness.

 

I suppose the cliché riddled brains of the tired and unimaginative might do that.

 

That the water is wet is not a theory.

That the universe is a sea of randomity is not a theory.

Scientific explanation? You need a scientific explanation why the water is wet? Why the universe is a sea of randomity? Just look.

As for 'scientific explanation', I'm not a scientist.

If you don't agree, then good, be gone.

You're a grinder.

Years ago we debated on Usenet, and there was a famous post by someone who categorized all the types of debaters.

There was the guy whose style was calm, but steady - his method was just to grind on while nitpicking on everything until the opponent gave up, while totally oblivious to the actual argument, the truth of which he or she was not interested in at all, they were doing it because they got their jollies grinding on their opponents in a verbal war of attrition until they gave up.

I've just realized you are that guy, and given this glaring truth, this conversation is over.

Now pester someone else who will fall prey to your pseudo debate tricks.

If you want to go deeper into the subject, you'll have to google it, there's a ton of writing about the random universe, from the quantum level to the macro level and last, but not least, thermodynamics.

That's above my paygrade.

 

So what? It appears blue. Does the sky appear blue?

Yes, it does.

Whether or not it is, technically, is beside the point.

 

If the universe is not random, indeterministic, then it is deterministic, determined.


If that is true, what is the determinant factor? And do not give an answer that depends on faith, please.


thank you.

 

Wet water.

 

No... its the drug riddled brains of liberals.

 

Pot is harmless. Lack of imagination is far more dangerous.

 

Liberals do cocaine mainly.

 

I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberal, (and a few, I presume, are conservative) and I've not seen cocaine anywhere in 40 years.

Cocaine isn't the problem, opioids are and that affects a lot of people, people like Rush Limbaugh.

 

analogies are used to prove the point, and you posted a faulty analogy, one of 'appearances' and what something appears to be is not the same thing as a fact.

haha
Yes water is wet works, after all its my analogy, or till now AFAIK I am the only one on the board that said it.

 

That's a difference between Dems and Repubs. Repubs generally reject all illegal drugs. They don't differentiate much between the rightness and wrongness of cocaine versus opioids. Its all "DOPE" (and its all called that for a REASON).

 

Well, I was sort of alluding to the Christian/monotheistic definition of 'God', which does not jive with the sentiment of my post.

Nevertheless, you're correct. Anything 'intelligent' could technically be termed 'a being'. However, to align with the idea of Oneness, it may be more apropos not to preface the term 'being' with either 'A' or 'THE', but simply 'BEING' or 'BEING-NESS'. In fact, one could even discard the term 'intelligent' in favor of 'ORDER', as 'intelligence' is already assumed in any state of order.

But none of this is important. All we need to know is that All is One. It's simple and answers all our questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOD
* (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
* (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

BEING
* The nature or essence of a person
* A being is any living creature, from a person to a bug. Being also refers to the state of existing. "To be, or not to be" — that is the question when you're talking about being. Things that exist are in a state of being: this meaning of being is a little vague, but it has to do with the way things are alive and real.

 

I don't think that really "answers all our questions." It is a vague model, that may help you to feel that there is a reason for everything, or that all things are as they are meant to be, that everything will ultimately work out "for the best"-- basically all the same comforting thoughts that one may get from believing in a more conventional, monotheistic God- image.

But first of all, none of us, at least on this plane of existence, has the means for knowing the truth underlying all existence. Where my own belief differs from conventional agnosticism, is that agnostics traditionally feel that since man's mind is incapable of grasping ultimate truth, it is not worth even trying. I do not say that our ideas cannot be correct, at least in some basic sense, only that we cannot know if they are correct or not. This does not seem, to me, to be a reason to not try to gain insight, to contemplate, speculate, and have temporal, mental constructs, we use as a kind of translator, or even facilitator of our discourse with what I'll call the Divine, realizing that this will have specific associations for some, which all need not share. So I cannot know if my own conception is at all accurate, & therefore cannot know that your own concept is wrong. I assume, though, that all are wrong, and that the difference may only be one of degree.

Anyway, one model that I have used, which falls into your "all is one" proposition, is that creation can be analogized with a body. If that were so, it would even bring symbolic truth to the words of Genesis: God made man in His own image; that is, having a body. I honestly believe this is also a reference to extraterrestrials, who tinkered with our DNA, to make us more like them; but a something can certainly be true in multiple different senses, simultaneously.

My point is that, even if all the cells in our body are part of the same wholeness, they are not all the same type of cells. While they may have all started out as stem cells, initially, they are now blood cells, and brain cells, nerve and skin, different organs, muscles, and connective tissue. So that leaves many potential questions, for we cells, as to what our role may be, in the overall Oneness. And just because we share that Oneness, does not make all parts, the same as ourselves. We may be a part of the immune system, and we may sometimes confront cells in the All, which have turned cancerous, for instance. Or the body's defenses may be turned upon us-- then what? So, you see, your simplification really does not answer all questions.

Even the concept of there being a single Unity, might be both true and false, in its ambiguousness. Sticking with the cell analogy, these are individual units, yet which are actually the merger of two different creatures. At least it is thought to be the case, that originally the mitochondria, which are the energizers of our cells, were one organic "being" and the cell wall, defined a different one. Over time, the theory goes, a symbiotic relationship between them-- the cell wall offering protection for the mitochondria, which in turn offered energy to that "creature," led to the two eventually becoming united. Likewise, it is possible that the whole of Creation could nonetheless contain two very different natures.

Consider even the simple, basic phenomenon of light, which is not a single thing, but also a binding together of two elements: electricity, and magnetism. The way light travels, in fact, is through the action of these two components, on one another. The electricity moves in a direction, away from the magnetism, as it were, but the magnetism holds on tightly, so that it gets pulled by the light, and actually begins to overshoot it. But that causes its own, electric dance partner, to hold back the magnetism's progress, until it is once again swung out into the lead, as in an unending game of leap frog. So two in
one. Though part of the same photon of light, its magnetism, is not its electricity, although the two are wed. Consider this symbolism in the fusion of a physical body, and a soul; or even one's physical versus mental self; left brain and right brain; conscious and unconscious.

And this is barely scratching the surface, of potential analogs. The great scientist, Leibniz, conceived of his own grand design, in something he called Monadology (not to be confused with Monadism), in which there were many, local power centers, which may have been arranged in a hierarchical way, somewhat similar to the mystical Judaic, Kabbalah Tree of Life, with its various angelic forces.

Much more to consider, than the generalization, that all is one.