Evidence for God from Science

I have come to the conclusion that considering humans to be an intelligent species is an ego-centric view. Put the terms "intelligent species" into your favorite search engine to find the various views on my contention.

There is not a day that goes by that human actions confirm unintelligent processes. Even in the scientific community, the so-called bastion of logical and intelligent thought, they base some of their most cherished views upon physical science concepts that remain unmeasured. It has become heresy to even question certain "theories" (they are considered facts).

We are all brought up into cultures that promote this ego-centric view we are an intelligent species, thus those that question this view are pariahs.

viator wrote:I have come to the conclusion that considering humans to be an intelligent species is an ego-centric view. Put the terms "intelligent species" into your favorite search engine to find the various views on my contention.

There is not a day that goes by that human actions confirm unintelligent processes. Even in the scientific community, the so-called bastion of logical and intelligent thought, they base some of their most cherished views upon physical science concepts that remain unmeasured. It has become heresy to even question certain "theories" (they are considered facts).

We are all brought up into cultures that promote this ego-centric view we are an intelligent species, thus those that question this view are pariahs.

I think you're confusing the concept of "perfect" with "intelligence."

If you wish to proffer some other species as more deserving of either title, then I'm all ears. Go ahead and lay it out.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think you're confusing the concept of "perfect" with "intelligence." ...

Perfect has a completely different meaning than intelligence. I would not call any biological species perfect, certainly not homo sapiens. Even if we were intelligent enough to do so, we do not have enough knowledge to even begin defining what might approach being a perfect biological species.

There are a large body of people that equate the acquisition of knowledge to intelligence. From my perspective, I would consider how knowledge is used as a reflection of intelligence.

It might be a wild guess on my part, but I would expect an intelligent species to learn from its mistakes. We do learn from some of our mistakes but we do not seem to have the intelligence to assure that corrections are applied uniformly.

It takes no effort to point out that humanity, as a whole, keeps making the same geo-political mistakes over and over again. Can we be considered intelligent if we keep making the same mistakes over and over again?

Viator, the problem is defining intelligence. Not every human act is an intelligent act. First of all, Humans sin by nature, second of all they have tendencies to do stupid things. Unintelligence can be recognized acording to a particular human who can recognize unintelligent behaviour. If you can define intelligence by the complexity and ability humans are capable of, then humans are an intelligent species, more than any other. Can another animal distinguish if a human does an intelligent or stupid act, more precisely, can it detect intelligence. If humans are intelligent beings and have defined intelligence they must also be able to detect and recognize intelligence and at the same time must be able to recognize the opposite. But that does not mean if they can recognize intelligence it does not mean that intelligence is used for good or bad purposes. So you can even say that intelligence can be unintelligent "according" to a "particular" person or group.

godslanguage wrote:Viator, the problem is defining intelligence.

Good point, we do have difficulty in defining the meaning of the word intelligence. It becomes even more difficult when one attempts to define what is an intelligent species.

If you can define intelligence by the complexity and ability humans are capable of, then humans are an intelligent species, more than any other.

It is appropriate that you put an "if" in front of that statement. Collectively you can take the whole world of humans, many with excellent learning capabilities and exhibiting they can perform a variety of complex skills, but they cannot, as a species, resolve basic social conflicts. That inability to resolve problems indicates they are not an intelligent species.

First of all, Humans sin by nature, ...

That is another good statement to illustrate that humans are not intelligent. What constitutes a "sin" really depends upon which religion one adheres to. In some religions eating pork is a sin. In many religions, if you don't wear certain clothes you are exhibiting sin, and the list goes on and on. An intelligent species would recognize what was or was not an acceptable action, and it wouldn't be a hodge-podge of conflicting rules.

...second of all they have tendencies to do stupid things.

If humans have the tendency to do stupid things that is prima facie evidence that they are not inherently intelligent. The annual Darwin Awards illustrate the stupidity by which some humans remove themselves from the gene pool.

That is another good statement to illustrate that humans are not intelligent. What constitutes a "sin" really depends upon which religion one adheres to. In some religions eating pork is a sin. In many religions, if you don't wear certain clothes you are exhibiting sin, and the list goes on and on. An intelligent species would recognize what was or was not an acceptable action, and it wouldn't be a hodge-podge of conflicting rules.

You got that one kind of wrong viator . Humans sin by nature, which means in Christian terms that we disobey the word of God, which to humans could mean unintelligent and stupid acts but to God its a sin against the word of God. We disobey Gods word without knowing of religion, if there were no laws and moral standards that God has chosen to govern us by, I would have trouble believing that the sinful nature of humans wouldn't errupt like a volcano. Being sinful by nature is living by the flesh and choosing to rebel.
What is the point your trying to make though, do you believe that intelligence itself equals perfection? Is there anything perfect? Didn't God make these rules up because he knew we aren't perfect and because we are sinful by nature?

Viator, does it require intelligence to identify non-intelligence?

godslanguage wrote:Humans sin by nature, ...

All you have done is give a definition of what you think is sin, and that only in the view of one religion.

godslanguage wrote: What is the point your trying to make though, do you believe that intelligence itself equals perfection? Is there anything perfect? ...

You are repeating an assertion of Canuckster.

Canuckster wrote:I think you're confusing the concept of "perfect" with "intelligence."

Read my reply in the post following Canucksters. I have no confusion that there is a difference between the terms perfect and intelligence.

August wrote:Viator, does it require intelligence to identify non-intelligence?

I have made no attempt to define the term unintelligent, I am just asserting that humans are not an intelligent species. If you wish, follow the reasoning of one persons definition of the term unintelligent.

godslanguage wrote:Unintelligence can be recognized acording to a particular human who can recognize unintelligent behaviour.

Are you stating that God cannot create a perfect species?

godslanguage wrote:Didn't God make these rules up because he knew we aren't perfect and because we are sinful by nature?

You are demeaning God by implying God cannot create a perfect species. And, if God knew we were "sinful by nature" isn't this implying that was God's intent?

The above really should be in a separate topic because it deviates from this threads topic, "we are not an intelligent species". Would it be too much to assume that we are not intelligent enough to know God's intent?

viator wrote:

August wrote:Viator, does it require intelligence to identify non-intelligence?

I have made no attempt to define the term unintelligent, I am just asserting that humans are not an intelligent species. If you wish, follow the reasoning of one persons definition of the term unintelligent.

You did not answer the question. Define unintelligence if you wish, but the answer is simply yes or no.

We are sinful by nature because we have the free will to do so in the first place. Wouldn't you think God would want to allow us to have control of ourselves and the decisions we make, otherwise God would have to make the decisions for us? If we were perfect according to God there would be no need to create us in the first place. We either choose to live by the word of God or live by the exact opposite.
God created us and the universe because he felt like doing so, we have control over the choices we make but that does not mean our choices are perfect and this is exactly why Jesus died for us, so that God would forgive our sins.

viator wrote:

godslanguage wrote:Viator, the problem is defining intelligence.

Good point, we do have difficulty in defining the meaning of the word intelligence. It becomes even more difficult when one attempts to define what is an intelligent species.

Stop, people, stop... I couldn't read on when I read this...
Do you think that a species that can quibble about the definition of the word 'intelligent' is unintelligent?

No, we can't resolve all social conflicts in the world. But Europe was wrested from the Nazis, wasn't it? That's one big example of unintelligence and inhumanity being destroyed by 1) a sense of morals and values (and, yes, 'sin', the transgression of those), 2) acting on those, 3) careful planning, 4) abstract communication, 5) by means of highly developed technology... Need I go on?

August wrote:You did not answer the question. Define unintelligence if you wish, but the answer is simply yes or no.

You have changed the parameters. You first asked whether it takes intelligence to identify non-intelligence, now you change it to the term to unintelligence.

I agree with Turgonian, that there is quibbling about the meaning of an individual word and its opposite meaning.

Turgonian wrote:Do you think that a species that can quibble about the definition of the word 'intelligent' is unintelligent?

It depends upon how one defines 'intelligent' and 'unintelligent' when it is applied to the compound term "intelligent species".

The various dictionaries do not even attempt to define non-hyphenated compound word groups. Many people provide their definition for "intelligent species", but they tend start with the premise that homo sapiens are the superior "standard", that is why I stated in the first sentence of the first post, this is an "ego-centric" view.

One can become quite famous by being ambiguous. Examine the "Drake Equation", and you can see that its premise for intelligence is something that can build a communicating device, this for a certain electromagnetic emission. A number of sources identify the parameters Drake used in his equation. One parameter uses the term "life". Two subsequent terms are dependent upon the term "life".

- the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
- the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate

Drake tried to cover every life form. Drake made no attempt to otherwise define "intelligent life".

I prefer to limit this topic to one earth species, homo sapiens.

godslanguage keeps interjecting the argument that "sin" has something to do with intelligence or the lack of.

Turgonian brings up a good example of how unintelligent the human species is. In regards to Nazi Germany, all one needs to do is follow the repetitive unintelligent decisions that were made that allowed "German national socialism" to grow and become a military threat. These decisions were made by humans that were considered to have had some of the best educated minds in the West European area.

Hello? I said Nazi Germany was beaten. By unintelligent beings, I assume?

If you think that the human species is unintelligent, go outside and talk to a member of it. As you know, a species is made up of individuals.
I can't count how many times I've thought 'Uneducated people are stupid', then talked to someone with a low education and was amazed at his/her sophistication, knowledge of life and depth of feeling.

viator wrote:

August wrote:You did not answer the question. Define unintelligence if you wish, but the answer is simply yes or no.

You have changed the parameters. You first asked whether it takes intelligence to identify non-intelligence, now you change it to the term to unintelligence.

What are you talking about? Just read the thread. YOU changed the term.

Anyhow, this is pointless. You are giving no logical argumentation, just rants based on emotion.

You refuse to answer the original question, instead hiding behind a pedantic issue that you started.

The bottom line is that your argument refutes itself. You cannot logically say that humans have little intelligence if you do not a-priori assume that it can be measured, and that your measurement is objectively intelligent enough to assert that.

As Christians, we know that God made us intelligent so that we may understand and meditate on His word. That we can love Him with all of our heart, mind and soul.

Turgonian, it was stupid unintelligent decisions that allowed German national socialism to regain military power; they were supposed to be disarmed after WW1. The Nazi's wouldn't have had to be beaten if the so-called intelligent leaders in Europe had enforced the rules signed at Versailles.

I do agree that an individuals relative "intelligence" has nothing to do with a "low education". Education, whether formal or not, is the acquisition of information, and if the information is broad based and not biased, it can help an individual to make better decisions. There is no assurance that even with good information a human will make an intelligent decision. I have family members that I know quite well, know their cultural background, their educations, and some continue to make the decision to continue practices that are destructive to their biological systems. Is that intelligent behavior?

August wrote:You cannot logically say that humans have little intelligence if you do not a-priori assume that it can be measured, and that your measurement is objectively intelligent enough to assert that.

We cannot objectively measure whether we are intelligent because we have no way to make a measurement independent from our influence. How could you measure whether we are intelligent when you state, ..."we know that God made us intelligent ...".

I need only to look at human history to conclude that humans are not an "intelligent species". If human history is not a measure of whether we are an "intelligent species", what is?