Joined: Sep. 2015
|Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)|
|Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)|
|Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)|
|Edgar Postrado said:|
"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."
So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.
You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?
1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.
Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible. I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.
Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon. We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm. We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously. The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent. You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?
I am not talking about superset and set...since "existence" of any X is a set...a universal set.
For example, if an agent would like X to exist, how does this agent do it?
That agent uses intelligence, since intelligence is success and success is survival and existence. Failure is non-intelligence, thus, no existence.
Thus, existence is only one set, a universal set, thus, intelligence is always used for universal application.
Now, use X = cosmos, or particles, or species, or PC, or bike, or mountain, or anything...and you will see that the existence of any X uses the universal principle of intelligence.
Thus, your post is wrong.