Why should a deity exist?

[JHaysPE]

(30-01-2017 06:28 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  My counter hypothesis is that Stupidity is a "thing", a force like gravity and it nullifies those intelligence forces completely.

You are now trapped in an impenetrable box.
You have no access to intelligence.

Stupidity would be a privation of intelligence. Dark as opposed to light.

Atheist as opposed to faithful...

[Bucky Ball]

(01-02-2017 02:17 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  

(27-01-2017 05:12 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Could you please elaborate on that?

Thomas Aquinas has given us the following terms - In the "rational mind", we have "intellect" and "will". Intellect analyzes and discerns, and then there is a choice. The will then enacts the choice to realize it and express it upon the external existence.

So when I describe God as "the sheer will of existence", I am describing God as the author of every mechanism, every force, every constant, every immutable, and every substance that has resulted in the existence of me. Every mutation, every natural selection, every cosmic event - every action that had to occur to result in my existence - this is God. As these are actions following intelligence, I describe this as "will".

I have a pet theory that "intelligence" is an immutable like "gravity" - it simply "is". Humans can recognize it, can measure and can harness it, but haven't yet created it or fully comprehend it - exactly like gravity.

I see a lot of atheist believe the human mind as the source of intelligence. This to me makes as much sense as asserting that a flat earth is the center of the universe, with everything moving around it.

Aquinas said all sorts of stupid things, as has the idiot Barron.
Aquinas said the reason that the devil went to Eve first was that "the light of reason shone less brightly in her" ... a preternaturally *perfect* (yet stupid) being.
(as well as a misogynist Doctor of the Church).

He also said the saved get to see the damned in hell, in order to increase their joy by seeing their enemies suffer.

Your pet theory is irrelevant and you have no evidence for it. You made it up to justify your nonsense to yourself and make it sound rational.

[TheInquisition]

(01-02-2017 02:17 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  

(27-01-2017 05:12 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Could you please elaborate on that?

Thomas Aquinas has given us the following terms - In the "rational mind", we have "intellect" and "will". Intellect analyzes and discerns, and then there is a choice. The will then enacts the choice to realize it and express it upon the external existence.

So when I describe God as "the sheer will of existence", I am describing God as the author of every mechanism, every force, every constant, every immutable, and every substance that has resulted in the existence of me. Every mutation, every natural selection, every cosmic event - every action that had to occur to result in my existence - this is God. As these are actions following intelligence, I describe this as "will".

I have a pet theory that "intelligence" is an immutable like "gravity" - it simply "is". Humans can recognize it, can measure and can harness it, but haven't yet created it or fully comprehend it - exactly like gravity.

I see a lot of atheist believe the human mind as the source of intelligence. This to me makes as much sense as asserting that a flat earth is the center of the universe, with everything moving around it.

What evidence do you have that intelligence can exist outside of a mind with no physical substrate?

This is an argument from incredulity.

[JHaysPE]

(30-01-2017 07:27 AM)Velvet Wrote:  They will argue that when you damage the brain you actually diminsh the brain's capability of interacting with this "force".

Yeah... hard to debate when people are not even a bit interested in finding the truth, everything you say becomes just a new obstacle to be "ad-hoc'ed"

Your observation about the participants is interesting as to the difference between the apathy of "I don't care", to the militance of some in here.

I have yet to see anyone attempt to define this "God' they reject. Only vitriol thrown at the descriptions offered.

[TheInquisition]

(01-02-2017 02:29 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  

(30-01-2017 07:27 AM)Velvet Wrote:  They will argue that when you damage the brain you actually diminsh the brain's capability of interacting with this "force".

Yeah... hard to debate when people are not even a bit interested in finding the truth, everything you say becomes just a new obstacle to be "ad-hoc'ed"

Your observation about the participants is interesting as to the difference between the apathy of "I don't care", to the militance of some in here.

I have yet to see anyone attempt to define this "God' they reject. Only vitriol thrown at the descriptions offered.

It is YOU that must come up with a falsifiable and coherent definition of god, you are the one making the claim.

[JHaysPE]

(01-02-2017 02:28 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  What evidence do you have that intelligence can exist outside of a mind with no physical substrate?

This is an argument from incredulity.

I define "intelligence" as that which imbues purpose through design. And I see purpose in creatures not designed by the intelligent input of man, but naturally evolved through natural selection.

Ergo, intelligence is not a product of the rational mind. In fact, the rational mind is a product of intelligence.

[Bucky Ball]

(01-02-2017 02:29 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I have yet to see anyone attempt to define this "God' they reject. Only vitriol thrown at the descriptions offered.

We can't help it if your descriptions are nothing but nonsense and you swallowed the garbage of the RCC hook, line and sinker.
You have no coherent definition of a god. You say it's "immutable", but call it intelligence. An intelligence THINKS. That means it constantly changes.
Your definition is meaningless and patently false.

[Bucky Ball]

Quote:I define "intelligence" as that which imbues purpose through design. And I see purpose in creatures not designed by the intelligent input of man, but naturally evolved through natural selection.

That's nice. Sentimental drivel.
No one else does, and making up your own *special* definitions of words is not a way to get anyone to see the logic in an argument.
in·tel·li·gence
/inˈteləjəns/
noun
noun: intelligence
1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
"an eminent man of great intelligence"
synonyms: intellectual capacity, mental capacity, intellect, mind, brain(s), IQ, brainpower, judgment, reasoning, understanding, comprehension; More
acumen, wit, sense, insight, perception, penetration, discernment, smartness, canniness, astuteness, intuition, acuity, cleverness, brilliance, ability;
informalbraininess
"a man of great intelligence"
•a person or being with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
plural noun: intelligences
"extraterrestrial intelligences"
2. the collection of information of military or political value.
"the chief of military intelligence"
synonyms: information gathering, surveillance, observation, reconnaissance, spying, espionage, infiltration, ELINT, humint;

[TheInquisition]

(01-02-2017 02:35 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 02:28 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  What evidence do you have that intelligence can exist outside of a mind with no physical substrate?

This is an argument from incredulity.

I define "intelligence" as that which imbues purpose through design. And I see purpose in creatures not designed by the intelligent input of man, but naturally evolved through natural selection.

Ergo, intelligence is not a product of the rational mind. In fact, the rational mind is a product of intelligence.

So indistinguishable from the natural world, i.e. not falsifiable.

How would you make the distinction between natural and supernatural forces acting in the natural world?

[Heath_Tierney]

(01-02-2017 02:35 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 02:28 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  What evidence do you have that intelligence can exist outside of a mind with no physical substrate?

This is an argument from incredulity.

I define "intelligence" as that which imbues purpose through design. And I see purpose in creatures not designed by the intelligent input of man, but naturally evolved through natural selection.

Ergo, intelligence is not a product of the rational mind. In fact, the rational mind is a product of intelligence.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that your definition is false. (And using the Latin ergo just makes you look silly and pretentious.)

I've followed this, on and off, for a while now, and, sorry to say JHays, that there's nothing new in your arguments that haven't been proven to be fallacious a thousand times before. The one you show here is "argument from design" (sometimes called the teleological argument) which was destroyed by Darwin and his predecessors starting in 1859.

Your arguments put me in mind of William Lane Craig, a meme of which I'll share with you here: