N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,21:50) | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,20:05) | First, you've gone 8-plus years without thinking to add "virtual body", so if it's a critical point, that merely supports our point for these 500-plus pages that your work is faulty, ill-thought-out, and full of problems. Secondly, the whole point of an omnipresent deity is that it doesn't have a virtual body, which, not existing, doesn't need to be controlled. Your whole "something to be controlled" requirement is utter stupidity. Intelligence no doubt emerged from neurons controlling stuff at ever-increasing levels of complexity but that does not mean that intelligence should be defined by "having something to control" - the highest levels of intelligence (evaluating your life, planning your future, dreaming up a solution to a problem, composing a symphony, imagining the plot for a novel) clearly do not require something to be controlled or muscles, virtual or otherwise. |
The all important "Something to control" has all along been there.
The detail in parenthesis still describes the same thing I was describing before but in fewer words that at the same time indicate where a "network" module is plugged into the 4 requirement circuit/algorithm module.
I also already explained that the "network" is not on its own intelligent. It's in a way just another RAM added to the intelligence generating algorithm, the same way any other additional RAM would be added to the circuit. What forms in memory is at the same time "Something to control" where an entity can exist that inherently motors itself around without hitting obstacles while taking shortest path they know and all that like we and other animals do.
It really makes no sense at all for you to arguing that it is possible to do the same thing as "disembody" gravity from the fabric of the universe.
Religions share the practice of prayer or meditation that attempts to focus thoughts and actions through the air and even around the globe. It's not something that has a body that has to be disembodied it's a coexisting force that flows through us that has all out eyes and ears to see through, but freewill has its price of leading to horrors of war and other bad things that cannot be blamed on whatever created us. In your case it's like desecrating your favorite biology book because you are mad at the processes it explains for not making a perfect world where all your chores are done for you and you live forever.
I am not arguing for intelligence more or less flowing through the fabric of the universe, it's just something that cannot be ruled out by the model or theory. With all said I am now more like demonstrating that this Theory of Intelligent Design has a way to resist being used against religion. You only end up in religious territory where you find yourself alone, talking about a disembodied God that only Atheists believe in. But thanks for going there, so we all at least now know where you end up by trying that tactic. |
Try reading AND understanding Gary: The "something to control" has always been there, and it's always been wrong, and we've always complained about it. Also, no one is trying to 'disembody' gravity from the universe (or to embody it either - the combination of concepts makes no sense).
YOU are trying to invoke virtual bodies as a late-in-the-day lame-ass attempt to save your not-a-theory from claiming that your god is unintelligent, which is the clear implication of your earlier words. You are trying to squeak it and your beloved Watson in by some ultra-loose verbiage about computers and virtual bodies, which is BS because neither of those have to have virtual bodies either. No one (that I'm aware of) thinks your god is a computer, so this is not relevant on that score either.
So, have another try at saying something relevant, sane, and meaningful.
Quote | In your case it's like desecrating your favorite biology book because you are mad at the processes it explains for not making a perfect world where all your chores are done for you and you live forever. | That's not a possible scenario in any potential reality, so no, it's not.
Quote | With all said I am now more like demonstrating that this Theory of Intelligent Design has a way to resist being used against religion. | It's not a theory, and you have yet to demonstrate any actual design, intelligent or otherwise, outside of your model.
Quote | You only end up in religious territory where you find yourself alone, talking about a disembodied God that only Atheists believe in. | Atheists don't believe in any sort of god, disembodied or otherwise, so you are babbling. The point that you are insistent on missing is that your own ideas, if correct, exclude the possibility of an intelligent non-corporeal being, which you and your fellow IDists believe in.
|