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

[panpan]

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I read that whole thing. I feel…unclean. 

I should have taken awty’s advice.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

Disagree. Some of the greatest problems ever have been successfully addressed via emotional thinking.

Boru

[Alan V]

Learning of thinking is the first thing of understanding! To be intelligent needs an open mind!

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

You are apparently new to this forum.  If so, you can't say whether we lack the intelligence or emotional detachment to engage with your arguments. 

Many of us have spent years studying similar arguments only to find them without any compelling basis, and to our disappointment in some cases.

I can also tell you that there are a fair number of well-informed and intellectual contributors here.  You will be lucky if you can engage with them at their own level, considering your present arrogance and condescension.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

Look at the godboy trying dictate why logic is vital here. This shit is rich.

No, logic need not apply. Bring me evidence. Until then, you literally got nuthin'. You cannot reason your god into existence. He either exists or he doesn't. You and I both know he doesn't, but you're so emotionally invested in the idea that he does that you will appeal to logic (when he defies all logic!) rather than simply relying upon your faith and shutting the hell up.

We didn't gather here for your convenience of preaching.

[Deesse23]

If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.

Is Jesus 100% God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Logically speaking, you've insisted that something must allow for the development of intelligent beings, that natural selection does so, and that moral statements are truth alike and refer to the objects they report.  These are not novel propositions, nor do they lead to a god.

[Paleophyte]

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

M'kay, I haven't seen any logic from you yet, but here you go. With respect to your first law:

 - The lead-in is entirely unnecessary. You could just skip to the statement of your first law. I will note that capitalizing Important Words and giving them ostentatious names like First Law won't help you. Rather the opposite.
 - You've got this funny buildup where you suggest that nobody has ever defined intelligence before. Then you slap down something generic that looks like it was plucked from a Google search with a Ta-Tah!. You might want to rethink that approach, unless you're suggesting that some dude on the interwebs has cracked what decades of research into cognitive science and millennia of philosophy hasn't been able to figure out.

As to the logic, you've simply plunked down a couple of propositions, without any support. This is what we call argumentation by definition. As you might imagine, it doesn't fly very far around here.
 - Your first proposition is what you call your first absolute law of logic. You don't support it, you just kinda state it. Since it doesn't have anything to do with logic you probably ought to have named it the First Absolute Intelligence Law so that we could have a chuckle at the acronym.
 - Your second proposition is what you call the paradox of self-reference. It isn't paradoxical at all. We call those tautologies, and they're neither useful nor impressive. Your second proposition is also just stated, without any support.
So there you have it, two unsupported statements, and that's supposed to be some sort of argument? It's entirely possible for either or both of those statements to be false. If it's the first, then it can take the form of a 'False therefore False' tautology and if it's the second then your first statement simply isn't self-referential. By way of example:

(P1) All thinking creatures have their brains in their feet.
(P2) You would need to use the brains in your feet to prove P1 wrong and, in doing so, would prove P1 right.
   QED Your brains are in your feet!

I think that you can see that both of those are wrong, but they're logically equivalent to your work.

[Astreja]

Logically, "intelligence created life" is self-defeating. As soon as you propose an intelligent (and presumably "alive") creator you need to extend that to the creator's creator, and so on ad infinitum. Searching for a mechanism that doesn't require a creator is IMO more likely to bear fruit.

[The Valkyrie]

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

Disagree. Some of the greatest problems ever have been successfully addressed via emotional thinking.

Boru

And/or hitting with a hammer.