To the question of does God exist, the answer is whether Intelligence created Life

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is DNA intelligent in your opinion? Yes, no, I don't know are correct answers with logical justification.

No, DNA is not intelligent. There's no basis for it being intelligent. It's a complex molecule made up of four nucleotide bases that can be rearranged, so its structure is subject to modification by outside forces such as its chemical environment. It also has no traits that would cause it to be intelligent. It has no mechanism for inputting sensory data about its environment and does not exhibit any intention or volition.  All it can do is make chemical bonds.

If DNA is intelligent, then any chemical can be intelligent. I keep a supply of ferric chloride on hand for etching metal and it has yet to solve even the simplest quadratic equation.

Boru

[panpan]

In the human body, almost all cells have DNA, and those that do not have it are derivatives of DNA. DNA is a form-changing element (shapeshifter), creating all living things, and in the form of humans, creating buildings, cars, airplanes, and now Artificial Intelligence. According to the Second Absolute Law of Logic, “Only Intelligence can create Intelligence,” the inductive question arises: who created the intelligent DNA?

[Paraselene]

Imagining quite the supernatural tale for yourself there, but no Michael Crichton are you.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the human body, almost all cells have DNA, and those that do not have it are derivatives of DNA. DNA is a form-changing element  (shapeshifter), creating all living things, and in the form of humans, creating buildings, cars, airplanes, and now Artificial Intelligence. According to the Second Absolute Law of Logic, “Only Intelligence can create Intelligence,” the inductive question arises: who created the intelligent DNA?

Cars, buildings, airplanes and ai do not have dna.  Nor are we using our dna when we create them. You've already decided that natural selection can account for intelligent life like us. So the question is not who, but what, and you've already answered it.

Why do you feel the need to die on this particular hill?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In the human body, almost all cells have DNA, and those that do not have it are derivatives of DNA. DNA is a form-changing element  (shapeshifter), creating all living things, and in the form of humans, creating buildings, cars, airplanes, and now Artificial Intelligence. According to the Second Absolute Law of Logic, “Only Intelligence can create Intelligence,” the inductive question arises: who created the intelligent DNA?

You arguments would be (slightly) more palatable if you dropped the nonsense about DNA being intelligent.

I mean, you’d still be wrong and whatnot, but your Silly Pills would be easier to swallow.
 
Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The whole thing is fascinating to me. Nevermind an accurate description of the origins of intelligent life, these sorts of arguments don't strike me as accurate descriptions of the origins of a given persons belief in gods. If we add the wrinkle of needing to include every example of intelligence it gets worse, not better.

Particularly because we will, at some point, arrive at the question of what, then, created or allowed for the divine intelligence...and any answer to that question serves as a very compelling answer to every subcategory of phenomena below it that we might have thought was a good anchor point for a belief that never had anything to do with any of it in the first place.

All we even could accomplish going this route, conceptually speaking , is form an argument against whatever it is we've rationalized our beliefs over.

[Deesse23]

Dont know what this guy is on, but i definitely want some too!

[Angrboda]

It reminds me of those who claim that the universe is God. Inasmuch as the universe is God, God becomes something fundamentally different and ultimately unremarkable. It is the deity's resemblance to human agents which provides the framework within which what God is and does is special. When you debase that resemblance toward describing the deity as merely the product of physical interactions, his morality and intentions disappear. In the same way, once you define everything as intelligent on account of physical interactions, it no longer can be said to necessarily possess the traits which make it valuable. Human intelligence can solve a wide variety of novel problems. That makes it valuable because it is useful. DNA, in its intelligence, not so much. You're effectively subtracting the characteristics of intelligence that make it valuable. Once you've done so, no longer is intelligence inherently valuable, it's no longer much of anything at all.

[Paleophyte]

In the human body, almost all cells have DNA, and those that do not have it are derivatives of DNA. DNA is a form-changing element  (shapeshifter), creating all living things, and in the form of humans, creating buildings, cars, airplanes, and now Artificial Intelligence. According to the Second Absolute Law of Logic, “Only Intelligence can create Intelligence,” the inductive question arises: who created the intelligent DNA?

So much wrong I can't even...

When your model gives you absurd output for simple input it's evidence only that your model is broken. This isn't demonstrating that DNA is intelligent, it's demonstrating that your "Laws" are wrong.

[Paleophyte]

It occurs to me that the OP is not intelligent on the basis of his own "Laws". He perceives, but either he doesn't understand or fails to act. Here we are 140 posts later and he's still babbling on about his "Laws" as if they were handed down to him on The Mountain. Let's see if we can fix that or if he's unintelligent even by his own definition.

(1) Yo! Pan-Pan! May-Day! Your first "Law" isn't a law. It's a handful of characteristics that are insufficient to properly define intelligence. You can verify this by asking Google "Hey! What is intelligence?" and watch the AI give an answer that's very similar to this but stripped of all the awkward BS. That's how non-profound your "Law" is.

(2) I'll take it that you can perceive this?

(3) And that you understood this?

(4) Then, if you haven't acted on it, you're in violation of your own first "Law". Don't worry, this won't affect the way that we see you.

(5) Whereas this argument invokes you first "Law" it is self-affirming. To deny it is to prove it right. To ignore it is to prove it right. Only by admitting that your "Law" is no more than a poor Google scrape can you demonstrate intelligence.

Good luck with that little distressed one.