(January 12, 2019 at 6:31 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Which is why I am giving you such gentle and helpful advice.

Thanks

(January 12, 2019 at 1:08 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 12:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote: So... following this logic, one needs also

Hyper intelligence > Super intelligence > intelligence

But then, too

Mega intelligence > Hyper intelligence > Super intelligence > intelligence

Which, by inference, leads to the dreaded infinite regress problem.

Why do you need an infinite regress?

A is self-sufficient.  You can go to B without moving backwards.

Isn't it obvious?
If you posit that intelligence requires some super intelligence prior to it, then that super intelligence also requires some super-super intelligence prior to it... and then a super-super-super intelligence... and so on and so forth.

If A is self-sufficient, then how is standard human intelligence not self-sufficient?

(January 12, 2019 at 7:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 1:08 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Why do you need an infinite regress?

A is self-sufficient.  You can go to B without moving backwards.

Isn't it obvious?
If you posit that intelligence requires some super intelligence prior to it, then that super intelligence also requires some super-super intelligence prior to it... and then a super-super-super intelligence... and so on and so forth.

If A is self-sufficient, then how is standard human intelligence not self-sufficient?

Hi there and happy weekend.

If intelligence requires a regression of super intelligence, then I guess that kills the idea of a primordial soup that assumes non-intelligence to intelligence.  If not, how would it have developed intelligence?  It would've needed a superior source.

Anyway...

It was sufficient, but corrupted.  Kinda like a computer program getting a virus.  The program may have been fine, but when a virus alters its function, it can become dysfunctional.  In other words, man made a choice to alter that sufficiency.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Of course I think you know what happens next.  They did it anyway.







It was sufficient based on a direct relationship with God.

(January 12, 2019 at 6:00 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 5:51 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: The universe is 13bio years old, but the size of the observable universe (accelerating expansion!) is: ca. 46GLy This is the max. distance from where information from the big bang can reach us.

Our event horizon is 16BLy. This is the distance from with new information (sent right now) will reach us, ever.

"... T0 the3 M4X posted an image..."

So... what do you think our telescopes looking out into spcae have reported/seen, then M4X?

 Since your picture would see to indicate your... disgreement with Deesse23's posts.

(January 12, 2019 at 7:53 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 6:39 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: True. 

"All gods are total bs and fabrications except for mine" said every theist ever. CDF would certainly agree that all of the thousands of claimed gods are superstitious fabrication with a single exception, his peculiar god.

Why his peculiar god? Well, this and other threads provide CDF with the opportunity to show why his flavour of deity is somehow different from any of the thousands of claimed other deities. 

Oddly, CDF cannot say why it is that Yahweh is different from Ra, or Odin, or Vishnu, or ... well I am not going to list them all.

The bottom line is that one could take CDF's, or Max's, or Drich's or GC's arguments and apply them to any of the other thousands of proposed deities that they do not accept.

After all, we have christians on here who actively consider each other wrong, but this being an atheist forum, they actively avoid comparative theology. The infighting can apparently wait until the godless are suppressed.

Face it. Once they had eliminated all of us they would happily set about eliminating each other as heretics.

In the beginning, Yahweh created the heavens and the earth.

Unevidenced assertion 

(January 12, 2019 at 7:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: From there a creation account is given

Can you demonstrate it's veracity? Of course not. Another unevidenced assertion.

(January 12, 2019 at 7:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: which I believe in OEC day-age interpretation.

Really? Ken Ham is wrong, Kent Hovind is wrong, the entire RCC is wrong, sundry others of the thousands of christian denominations are wrong, but only you are right? Guess what they say about you.

(January 12, 2019 at 7:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: Also, the prophecies in the Bible came true.  Look at the Book of Daniel for instance with all the prophecy that came true.

And there you go with the abject lying once again.

Sometimes I wonder are you being spoonfed by some random pastor, or possibly doing this as course credit in some seminary. Nobody could be this stupid on their own.

And don't even think about wheeling out the "machine code" bullshit again unless you are ready to speak to a source matter expert.

---

(January 12, 2019 at 8:08 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 8:06 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: Well, of course evolution takes over at a point to create more and more complex DNA.

Evolution is part of the implementation of the design to an extent (there is some change over time).

Unevidenced claim.

Quote:Order of this magnitude could not have come about by random anything.

The question has not even been addressed.
I asked what exactly are the orders of magnitude referred to in the claim above.
What *is* this magnitude, exactly, and what are the other orders or levels of *magnitude* implied in the claim.
What is an example of "magnitude of order" that does not require a designer ?
We know (as you have been schooled on, here) that order arises naturally (Chaos Theory).

We all know you're not going to answer, and thus the claim is not only false, but meaningless.

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Atheism - Intelligence evolved from non-intelligence

Sure. And?

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Christianity - Fluid intelligence was created by a Source of super intelligence

Wrong

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Atheism

So?

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Non-intelligence > Intelligence

And your problem with that is? What? That is an argument from ignorance. "I dunno, must have been god.

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Christianity

Mind control.

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Super intelligence > intelligence

Utter bollocks. Now you are arguing against yourself. According to gullible believers evolution should always work upwards to higher complexity. According to believers entropy should show the opposite. Evolution doesn't care. It goes with whatever works. That's why some species have lost their eyes. They evolved in dark places where vision was superfluous.

(January 12, 2019 at 10:54 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Atheism - Intelligence evolved from non-intelligence

Sure. And?

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Christianity - Fluid intelligence was created by a Source of super intelligence

Wrong

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Atheism

So?

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Non-intelligence > Intelligence

And your problem with that is? What? That is an argument from ignorance. "I dunno, must have been god.

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Christianity

Mind control.

(January 12, 2019 at 11:29 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Super intelligence > intelligence

Utter bollocks. Now you are arguing against yourself. According to gullible believers evolution should always work upwards to higher complexity. According to believers entropy should show the opposite. Evolution doesn't care. It goes with whatever works. That's why some species have lost their eyes. They evolved in dark places where vision was superfluous.

Right, just like the giraffe stretched its neck to reach the leaves?

Crazy bats too, always dropping their eyeballs.  

Why would entropy do the opposite?   I would suggest it should go back and forth or cycle.

(January 12, 2019 at 6:15 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 5:51 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: The universe is 13bio years old, but the size of the observable universe (accelerating expansion!) is: ca. 46GLy This is the max. distance from where information from the big bang can reach us.

Our event horizon is 16BLy. This is the distance from with new information (sent right now) will reach us, ever.

Better way to phrase that is the farthest parts of the universe we have ever observed,or can ever observe using any means of which we have solid understanding now, is currently 46 billion light years away.  But we only observed its past when it was 13 billion light years away.

It is misleading to say the observable universe is 46 billion light years in size because the part of the universe we observed when it was 13 billion light years away, and that is now 46 billion years away, is not, and will never be, observable when it is 46 billion light years away, ever.

---

Sorry, but imho you are wrong.

I have never claimed that anything that is 46bLy away NOW can be observed in the FUTURE. I said "information from the big bang can reach us", referring to the PAST!
Please look at my second statement: I claimed what is 16bLy away NOW is the farthest thing that can be ever observed in the FUTURE (because obviously it is receeding from us. Anything further NOW will never be observable).

What i said in my first statement is that anything that was present at the big bang (earliest point in time) is NOW 46bLY away, thus called "observable universe. In wikis words:

Quote:"The observable universe is a spherical region of the Universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth at the present time, because electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion"

I never disagreed with your claim that what is now 46bLY away will never be observed, because in my second claim i said "what is >16bLy away now can never be observed in the future".

This is the reason why the two separate terms "observable universe" and "event horizon" exist. One describes what could have been observed in the past and where it is now, the other terms refers to what we will be able to observe in the future and where it is now. The former is now 46bLY away, the latter 16bLy

In the pic/gif below you see the age of the universe at the left y-axis. X-axis is distance to us. The thin, black horizontal line marks today. As you can see the (thick red) event horizon is ca. 16bLy away, and will never be much bigger.
The particle horizon marks the observable universe, at ca. 46bLy currently, and increasing over time.

I’m pretty sure CDF is a bot at this point.