Everything he posts is a sideshow to "I really really want God to exist, so I'll figure out how to paper over my raw desire with a thin patina of reason."

The actual reasons would be far more interesting than whatever cover we're being presented with. I'm willing to bet they'd be more compelling too.

For example, are we to believe that the reason our new friend wants to talk about a world of respect and obligation as it relates to intelligence like ours, or the need to understand the environments we live in to avoid adverse consequences, actually flows from a belief about disembodied superintelligences architecting the universe...even in their own mind...? Like they can't just acknowledge they hit their little sib in the face once, saw it really hurt, and decided they didn't want to do that again? They've never walked through a parking lot and thought "shame about the forest". We don't have to invent nonsense to describe these impulses, ideations, or predispositions..and more often than not, the nonsense actively harms them.

I think you're on the wrong track. These sort of concerns are the province of the seriously religious -- those who think deeply about what and why they believe. They realize implicitly that believing based upon emotion or blind faith is a kind of lunacy -- that believing without good reasons is a form of insanity. This awareness drives them crazy, and they are driven to find newer and better ways of avoiding the truth at the bottom of their religious belief, that it isn't based upon reasoning and justification. This is why the phenomenon of motivated reasoning is so prominent in religious behaviors and apologetics. It's a drive to convince themselves and others that they aren't simply engaged in a form of insanity.

This is not a problem for the casual believer, who believes because they were raised that way or whatever. They don't experience the cognitive dissonance as acutely as the true believer.

Probably right in general, certainly right in specific.

It is normal for every person to want to believe in something and first in themselves, because what is the point of not believing in themselves? Not at all, because you do not trust what you think, what you do and even what you feel. Therefore, when you believe in something, you want to see if it is true not only because you feel it, but if it is true objectively, that is, if it is valid in reality. How do you do this? By using logic and even the strict critical logic that scientists try to use, so that they do not get misled into wrong logical conclusions. So, when you think: "What could create something intelligent?", the only logical answer is only something intelligent, either because it has the ability to create, or because someone or something has programmed it to create. For example, when you have sex and a child results, you do not do it because you know how to create, but because that is how you are programmed to do it and your body does the rest. It is that simple! With these simple logical steps you get to the point where you can understand the theorem, because the more you question it, the more you confirm it as you constantly confirm your intelligence and the First Absolute Law of Logic.

P.S. What I wrote before, and the administrator deleted it, was not an advertisement because I don't need it, but so that you understand where the theorem is based conceptually.

(October 20, 2025 at 2:03 am)panpan Wrote: "What could create something intelligent?"

This is the heart of your problem. In that question you assume that intelligence is created. In doing so, the question implicitly requires a Creator with a capital C. It's a simple loaded question.

Instead, if you ask, "How does intelligence come into existence?" you will arrive at a very different answer. A quick search of Google Scholar will turn up any number of articles by actual scientists demonstrating that intelligence is an emergent property of a complex neural network. Given the choice between published papers by real scientists and the incoherent ramblings of a god botherer wandering the interwebs, I know which one I'll be sticking with.

(October 20, 2025 at 2:03 am)panpan Wrote: It is normal for every person to want to believe in something and first in themselves, because what is the point of not believing in themselves? Not at all, because you do not trust what you think, what you do and even what you feel. Therefore, when you believe in something, you want to see if it is true not only because you feel it, but if it is true objectively, that is, if it is valid in reality. How do you do this? By using logic and even the strict critical logic that scientists try to use, so that they do not get misled into wrong logical conclusions. So, when you think: "What could create something intelligent?", the only logical answer is only something intelligent, either because it has the ability to create, or because someone or something has programmed it to create. For example, when you have sex and a child results, you do not do it because you know how to create, but because that is how you are programmed to do it and your body does the rest. It is that simple! With these simple logical steps you get to the point where you can understand the theorem, because the more you question it, the more you confirm it as you constantly confirm your intelligence and the First Absolute Law of Logic.

P.S. What I wrote before, and the administrator deleted it, was not an advertisement because I don't need it, but so that you understand where the theorem is based conceptually.

It was the name of a webpage you created, it was therefore advertising.

We'll just add 'advertising' to the list of words you don't understand.

Boru

(October 20, 2025 at 2:03 am)panpan Wrote: It is normal for every person to want to believe in something and first in themselves, because what is the point of not believing in themselves? Not at all, because you do not trust what you think, what you do and even what you feel. Therefore, when you believe in something, you want to see if it is true not only because you feel it, but if it is true objectively, that is, if it is valid in reality. How do you do this? By using logic and even the strict critical logic that scientists try to use, so that they do not get misled into wrong logical conclusions. So, when you think: "What could create something intelligent?", the only logical answer is only something intelligent, either because it has the ability to create, or because someone or something has programmed it to create. For example, when you have sex and a child results, you do not do it because you know how to create, but because that is how you are programmed to do it and your body does the rest. It is that simple! With these simple logical steps you get to the point where you can understand the theorem, because the more you question it, the more you confirm it as you constantly confirm your intelligence and the First Absolute Law of Logic.

A valid logical structure can lead to a false conclusion, particularly if its premises are not supported by evidence. The conclusions reached must also not violate or contradict available evidence. If it does, you've not reached the correct conclusion

Theorem: your theorem is flawed and incorrect.

(October 20, 2025 at 2:03 am)panpan Wrote: It is normal for every person to want to believe in something and first in themselves, because what is the point of not believing in themselves? Not at all, because you do not trust what you think, what you do and even what you feel. Therefore, when you believe in something, you want to see if it is true not only because you feel it, but if it is true objectively, that is, if it is valid in reality. How do you do this? By using logic and even the strict critical logic that scientists try to use, so that they do not get misled into wrong logical conclusions. So, when you think: "What could create something intelligent?", the only logical answer is only something intelligent, either because it has the ability to create, or because someone or something has programmed it to create. For example, when you have sex and a child results, you do not do it because you know how to create, but because that is how you are programmed to do it and your body does the rest. It is that simple! With these simple logical steps you get to the point where you can understand the theorem, because the more you question it, the more you confirm it as you constantly confirm your intelligence and the First Absolute Law of Logic.

P.S. What I wrote before, and the administrator deleted it, was not an advertisement because I don't need it, but so that you understand where the theorem is based conceptually.

He's nicer than I am...I'd have given you another warning.  Read the rules and follow them or rack 'em up till you see yourself out the door.  Doesn't matter to me which you choose.