Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.

What is your education? You appear to be confortable assuming you know mine, so..?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

This is just semantics and trying to debate on definitions, and semantics is usually uninteresting in debate.

Atheism and agnosticism are both more than the terms you have outlined.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your second statement:
I have/do not have y belief about x.

that can sprial out of control. can we say instead:
I do/do not believe statement x?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, would you accept my testimony that this is 100% incorrect? Would you accept maybe like the dictionaries or wikipedias testimony? Is there ANYONE who could convince you?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is the second one. The guy whose beliefs you are arguing with sounds like a tool, I wonder if he actually exists.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your second statement:
I have/do not have y belief about x.

that can sprial out of control. can we say instead:
I do/do not believe statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, why not just say "I have a default position of disbelief for things which cannot impact reality or things which cannot give evidence." Then you dont have any of these problems you seem to be struggling with.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.


[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly means -- actually take the time to read the words AND the message they contain ... then respond. Rather than typing the reply while reading.
The condescending connotation was just a lucky coincidence.

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]I guess that would be OK, but what is wrong with this? A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), they have a default position about things that cannot be known and that is to not believe in them, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not "I have no belief in god." That covers the atheism part. Is it even possible to find out if God exists? Depends on what kind of God. That covers the agnostic part. Atheism is a LACK of belief in God, and actually, its just a lack of belief in any particular God, usually Allah because the major monotheists are egotistical/lack imagination.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliffs: There wouldn't be an ultimate power, but an infinite regression of power.

Well, yes and no.

The concept is that there is no ultimate God, but a succession of intelligences without end. So omnipotence would be illogical.

The agnostic atheist who understands the infinite would see there is no God, but a hierarchial progression. It's not a simple concept, and in this day and age, people are beginning to grasp quantum mechanics. There isn't a complete solution yet. The thing is, there will never be.

That's my personal take on it anyway. I assume there already or will be a type Omega civilization (see Kardashev Scale) and that such an intelligence exists or will exist. And the power and talent set of such is limitless. The universe itself is just a closed mathematical set in their understanding.

And that perception of time isn't linear but an expanding solution set with interconnections appproaching infinity but never getting there.

I see basic deity-based religion as a panacea for individuals that have not come to terms with their own individual death and need to grasp at that to allay their fears of such.

Just thoughts from an agnostic atheist. Felines have it simpler.

Re: Put More Simply
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. </font>

I think he does understand this, but that's not his point.

The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is.

In other words, while he might not agree with his Muslim neighbor and might even pity him for believing in the wrong religion, an intelligent Christian would not say that his neighbor's beliefs are any less rational than his own. Only someone who is not very smart could think that.

This is also the reason why hard line fundamentalists of any religion are almost always the least intelligent. This has nothing to do with piety. Even the pope could recognize that Muslims are no less rational than he is. Even if he does think they are wrong and going to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll buy that Lestat, but what's the point?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all correct, but it doesn't answer the question. What does any of it have to do with God?

God doesn't present an answer to the dilemma of why there is something rather than nothing. The existence or nonexistence of God is completely irrelevant to that dilemma.

The idea that God exists without cause may seem more palatable to you than the idea that the universe exists without cause, but this is hardly a good argument. You're basically saying that you believe in God because it's comfortable - I view that as a form of intellectual dishonesty.

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not. The variable of God's existence has no bearing on the question of why there is something rather than nothing - thus, introducing this variable into the consideration of that fundamental question is illogical.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

We think different things. We tend to oppose organized groups with specific beliefs, and authoritative pretensions to knowledge. So our ideas vary considerably from person to person.

Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist. That is, for all intents and purposes there is no God.

In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone living hundreds/thousands of years ago, which of the following is inferior based upon your own criteria?
1) People get sick because God is punishing them for their sins
2) People get sick because there are these tiny microscopic organisms that swim around their body. These organisms, too small to see with the naked eye, jump from person to person spreading the disease.

It would have seemed like #2 included unnecessary elements, so by your criteria it would have been deemed inferior, even though we know it to be correct with a great deal of certainty.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

But #2 introduces a bunch of "unnecessary elements." To accept #2, one needs to accept the belief in microscopic organisms, accept that they can be transmitted from person to person, and accept that they can cause illness. That makes it "inferior" by your proposed criteria to the answer that does not involve introducing unnecessary elements...or perhaps there is a flaw with your criteria?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

But even today, as was true 10000 years ago, people don't mind understanding the structure of what's going on while still interpreting the intention behind that in extremely different ways. If I want to interpret someone getting sick as a punishment from God, it's not really that hard to slip into doing so, is it?
Well for me it would be because I don't believe in God, but back when I did believe I had some interesting thoughts about what caused what.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone living hundreds/thousands of years ago, which of the following is inferior based upon your own criteria?
1) People get sick because God is punishing them for their sins
2) People get sick because there are these tiny microscopic organisms that swim around their body. These organisms, too small to see with the naked eye, jump from person to person spreading the disease.

It would have seemed like #2 included unnecessary elements, so by your criteria it would have been deemed inferior, even though we know it to be correct with a great deal of certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

#2 was inferior for people living thousands of years ago. I don't think #1 was great, either, but #2 was worse. #2 is better now because we have more information - information that supports #2.

If someone shuffles a deck of cards and chooses one at random, I'm correct in saying "that card is unlikely to be the ace of spades." If the card happens to be the ace of spades, that doesn't make me any less correct. And if I proceed to look at all of the other cards, finding every card except the ace of spades, then I am now justified in concluding that the mystery card is the ace of spades (because I have more information).

But I don't think we need to get deep into the philosophy of science here. This is a much simpler case. Let's call a the fact that something (rather than nothing) exists, let's call b the existence of God, and let's call c the existence of the universe. Our goal is to explain c. Let's say that the &gt; operator means "to explain."

Here are two methods of explaining c.

1) a&gt;c
2) a&gt;b&gt;c

These explanations are logically identical. We're not considering the question of b at all. We're trying to find the ultimate explanation for c, which is a in either case. Introducing b into the logic is inefficient. We can actually simplify b out algebraically.

In fact, algebra makes a good analogy. You're basically saying, "x - 4 = -2," and I'm saying that it's better to say "x = 2." That's all there is to it. No matter how much you like the term "-2," that term is not useful in considering this particular equation. And this equation has no bearing on the question "is y equal to -2?", regardless of whether you represent the equation with a -2 or not. Neither -2 nor y matter, because our task is to solve for x.

(A similar example is that x+y=2+y is uninteresting and, since we're solving for x and not y, we should eliminate the ys. Even if we have x=-y, y=-2, we should still simplify down to x=2 if we're solving for x.)

That there is something other than nothing has no bearing on the question of whether God exists. I agree it's an interesting mystery, but it has no bearing on God. If I say "the universe exists because there's something rather than nothing," and you say "the universe exists because God created it, and God exists because there's something rather than nothing," you have said by extension that the universe exists because there's something rather than nothing.

Now instead of having the question of why there's something rather than nothing, we also have the questions of why and how God created the universe. Far from solving the basic question of the universe, we have just introduced greater complexity. God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that God gives no answers, it's more that He answers questions that in turn lead to related questions. The questions are essentially shifted. The difficult questions about how the universe began can be answered more easily by accepting the existence of God, but that then leads to similarly difficult questions about how God came to exist. I don't purport to think that accepting the existence of God is a completely comfortable way to answer these questions, but I feel it's a little more comfortable than the alternative. I don't mean to imply that I have solved the dilemma.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

mickey,

You're basically using the argument from incredulity to make your point. I probably can't give the definition justice here but you can google it if you're interested in what I'm saying.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

The question of how God came into existence in your scenario and the original question of how the universe came into existence are the same questionl, unless you can ascribe some attribute to God that makes is "easier" for him to exist.

But I don't think you can. And since God introduces elements of complexity, if the God idea doesn't provide some inherent benefit then it's a mistake. How you feel doesn't bear on the question of whether your belief is rational.

(And to go on from there to belief in a specific God is even more fallacious.)

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.

It's the process of results and the possible complexity of the tasks that might seem unthinkable to humans, at least thinking ones.

I disagree with you, madnak, in that such higher powers can't be known. Reasonable, logical speculations can be made. Like quantum weirdness and the lack of randomness, they cannot be proven.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the laws of science, as you understanding of them deepens, they become more and more complex, messy in fact. Hey wait that is a god attribute... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the laws of science, as you understanding of them deepens, they become more and more complex, messy in fact. Hey wait that is a god attribute... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.


[/ QUOTE ]

If so, then a god notion is even more unthinkable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Surely the source/s of consequences of unthinkable complexities is/are more unthinkable and therefore less plausible.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.


[/ QUOTE ]

If so, then a god notion is even more unthinkable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Surely the source/s of consequences of unthinkable complexities is/are more unthinkable and therefore less plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are very difficult to discern, yes. But that doesn't mean it's not ripe territory for speculation. It's why I tend towards a hierarchial structure of intelligences. Seems quite logical to me. And there's no end to the complexity, and it's an infinite series. &lt;shrugs&gt; I'm willing to tackle the issue, at least, in a rational fashion. What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

FortunaMaximus, we seem to be on the same track, even if not in the same place on that track! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ps The smiley was added for those that notice them!

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
FortunaMaximus, we seem to be on the same track, even if not in the same place on that track! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ps The smiley was added for those that notice them!

[/ QUOTE ]

Very much so. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plausability of a final god of sorts is as logical as it gets. The fact is that man is not intelligent enough to disprove God. It might also be true that the constraints of physics may never allow even the most intelligent physical creature that one can imagine the abilty to disprove the existence of God.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plausability of a final god of sorts is as logical as it gets. The fact is that man is not intelligent enough to disprove God. It might also be true that the constraints of physics may never allow even the most intelligent physical creature that one can imagine the abilty to disprove the existence of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disproving the existence of a Omega-type intelligence. Such should exist. Their evolution, or his if you will, would never be final due to infinite evolution/regression. There's always a next question, next answer, growth.

As those intelligences progress, they grow. There's no such thing as a final eschaton. Look at the Biblical kingdom of God as the universe itself, and you realize humanity's only just started to grow and spread life and intelligence through the universe.

We haven't solved Fermi's Paradox yet, and there's a good chance we mightn't for eons, but you can hypothesize a resolution in which life elsewhere is going through the same stages in different levels of development.

And such a concept is staggeringly large, because it is a growing infinity. And this universe is only 13.7 billion years old and there are only a hundred odd elements (which should logically allow for the properties of life's emergence elsewhere since the elements are finite and so are the possible combinations in a finite set) and we've yet to colonize a single solar system. As far as we know, the Solar System is ours to grow into, and we'll progress beyond. I'm optimistic about that.

A top-level intelligence would never be individual, but likely collective. As for the question of how things came into being, it's simple. Mathematics and logic go beyond a single universe, at least on paper, and there are laws. There was a single big bang. It may not have been the first, but one in a sequence of them. Perhaps there were previous universes. That's also unanswerable.

And that's the crux. There's always an unanswerable question, and the succession is perpetual. The question is whether it's for us to evolve and get there, or others have already and are observing our development as redundancy.

By computing and biological standards, we have yet begun to start directing our own development consciously. But we have modified our planet to meet our needs, not necessarily in the best ways.

There's a lot of time for all these things. Even if the universe is finite, mathematics shows infinity is a provable logical concept. It's no coincidence as we grow, we discover these things.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

I pretty much agree with DS premise here as it applies to RELIGEON, but not the existence of GOD.

To me, Religion is man's attempt to quantify God and codify his/her values and will.

Even assuming that such a thing were remotely possible, and Human rational thought could be applied to the problem, I think you would quickly run into what I will call the SUPREME COURT PARADOX. By that, I mean that the 9 supposedly most qualified legal minds often disagree most on issues of the most basic interpretion of our own man-made laws.

Take Abortion for instance: Putting aside precedent, the status of abortion-- an inalienable right of all women, or MURDER-- is never more than a single vote or two from switching, from these polar extremes.

It is completely understandable that the brightest minds would be the least likely to adhere to any religeon and would choose to examine these question for themselves. What is surprising to me is how many people (including bright people) are willing to accept any particular religion as the "correct" one.

But not of this has any bearing to me on the issue of the existence of God.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disproving the existence of a Omega-type intelligence. Such should exist. Their evolution, or his his if you will, would never be final

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's final. God is omniscient. Omniscience makes his intelligence final.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the Biblical kingdom of God as the universe itself

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the kingdom of god as the "universe itself" is much, much too limiting. God's Kingdom is not restricted to what you might view as the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
since the elements are finite

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says so? Show me the proof that elements are finite. Only god can show this to be true. In the words of DS "Do you see why?"

[ QUOTE ]
A top-level intelligence would never be individual, but likely collective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? God is!

[ QUOTE ]
There was a single big bang. It may not have been the first, but one in a sequence of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or one of many occurring at the same time in differnt locations of space? So what. What is your point?

[ QUOTE ]
And that's the crux. There's always an unanswerable question

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it that you do not understand about omniscience? Religious folks made up this term a long long time ago to answer skeptics like you.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Religious folks made up this term a long long time ago to answer skeptics like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really. I'm a skeptic because I want to know more and find infinity and quantum theory more to my liking.

I stand by my statement that the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Unneccesary for who? For what? Even if the concept of God is illogical show me how that proves there is no God. Which, I'm sure you understand, is much more important than the logic of there being a God.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Unneccesary for who? For what? Even if the concept of God is illogical show me how that proves there is no God. Which, I'm sure you understand, is much more important than the logic of there being a God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I'm not denying the existence of beings with potentially omnipotent powers from the view of individuals. It's just that for some intelligent people, the answer is obvious that because everything is evolving, God cannot exist or he would already have resolved the question of life and existence. I'm not trying to disprove God ultimately, but redefine the concept.

Say he exists. Is he done with his work and knows everything? That's the part I find illogical, because there is yet more to be known, to be found. Perhaps there exists a scenario in where the answers are already there and we are progressing along towards finding them. It's merely my opinion that such near-omnipotent beings are doing the same thing still. So a final God is illogical in my view. Such intelligences would seem omnipotent in a human outlook, of course, so that makes my statement on "unnecessary" incorrect for the majority.

Most people find solace in religion and place their faith in that there already is one. They need that, and I've said in other threads that this concept is not a bad thing, it's just unnecessary for me, personally.

I am first and foremost an agnostic and until proven wrong on this, I take this stand to speculate and perhaps learn more. So I concede the point of it being unnecessary, but I remain agnostic for reasons stated.