MrIntelligentDesign
Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
|
| Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06) | [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:00]
You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testeable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":
| Quote | | Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other. |
Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?
But let's see how that works:
Doesn't existence also follows "naturen"? Don't natural processes also bring things into existence?
| Quote | | It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon |
Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"
| Quote | | since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon |
So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.
Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.
But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles
| Quote | | Now, apply that to Big Bang |
Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.
You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and unoriginal |
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,02:00) |
You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules": |
I am always consistent. I am sorry if you find inconsistency with me but I think I am always consistent especially with rules.
| Quote | | Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you? |
I've written many things in my science books and I promised that I will limit only myself to intelligence, but you forced me to answer the question of the origin of IA, thus, I answered you. Yes, there are many things that I did not even disclose here..but I sure to it that you can follow me in the topic of intelligence.
| Quote | | Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature" |
What I said is on the topic of the origin of intelligence and origin of IA about naturen. But excluding the two, all things are the same.
| Quote | So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.
Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.
But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles |
When I used the playing of guitar as example, what I meant was that to an IA, everything that an IA is doing by using intelligence is naturen for that IA. For us who will study that natural phenomenon, that IA is using intellen.
There are applications of finite and infinite intelligence since we knew that all natural things that we see so far are finite but intelligence as principle though it exists in existence is an infinite phenomenon.
I am not proving the IA but intelligence predicst its existence since intelligence is for existence and intelligence predicts that an IA has a dual or more nature..
I was forced to conclude that since intelligence pinpoints that...
| Quote | Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.
You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and unoriginal |
What I said was that without a prior existence before the Big Bang, there will be no Big Bang. Big Bang as survival, probably naturen but the particles that we knew of have dual nature, a rarity of nature if the existence of nature that we knew from Big Bang is naturen.
If naturen, nature will produce wave/wave particle or particle/particle particle but nature has two nature...thus, by using intelligence, it is so obvious that the existence of universe through Big Bang is intellen..
Therefore, IA exists.
|
