The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[FortunaMaximus]

[ 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. <shrugs> 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.

[MidGe]

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!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ 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]

[pokervintage]

[ 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

[FortunaMaximus]

[ 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.

[Mendacious]

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.

[pokervintage]

[ 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

[FortunaMaximus]

[ 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.

[pokervintage]

[ 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

[FortunaMaximus]

[ 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.