God is disproven by science? Really?

[Dan From Smithville]

I never claimed to be able to falsify God. And you keep forgetting. The failure to define "Intelligence" is yours. Not mine. But here is some comforting news for you. You regularly refute your own version of God.

I found a paper collecting an assortment of definitions for intelligence by scientists that actually study the phenomenon. I'm going to stick with the views of scientists that actually study intelligence rather than the empty claims of random individuals with no science background that do not study it.

What we have here as near as I can tell is another person throwing out claims and demanding that we believe them without question. That isn't science and isn't very wise either.

 

[blü 2]

I had already given you links in all my OPs...I cannot spoon-fed you.

I didn't ask you how your links talk about intelligence.

I asked how you ─ personally ─ define it. That's the directly relevant thing here.

And my anxiety is growing that you don't know. If you do, please set out your definition.

If you don't, please just say so.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I found a paper collecting an assortment of definitions for intelligence by scientists that actually study the phenomenon. I'm going to stick with the views of scientists that actually study intelligence rather than the empty claims of random individuals with no science background that do not study it.

What we have here as near as I can tell is another person throwing out claims and demanding that we believe them without question. That isn't science and isn't very wise either.

FYI, by using Evolution since Evo is the reigning theory, we have 71 invented definitions of intelligence, probably, by using Evolution as basis. If you choose five or ten invented definitions of intelligence, and use them to answer this simple question: is biological cell intelligently designed or not, those ten could never answer that simple, single problem.

The new <id> is the only one who could answer that correctly, scientifically and logically.

Now, if I am wrong in my claim for this, I will delete all my videos, my science e-books, and my claim...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I didn't ask you how your links talk about intelligence.

I asked how you ─ personally ─ define it. That's the directly relevant thing here.

And my anxiety is growing that you don't know. If you do, please set out your definition.

If you don't, please just say so.

I had already given you the definition, but you refuse to accept. In science, if you do not accept an explanation, you must have an alternative correct explanation, if not, you are one of many religious freaks.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I never claimed to be able to falsify God. And you keep forgetting. The failure to define "Intelligence" is yours. Not mine. But here is some comforting news for you. You regularly refute your own version of God.

You did and your posts implied them that you cannot accept an Intelligent Designer. If you cannot accept my discoveries of intelligence, then, either you will invent your own and fight me. But you cannot and will never win. Why? You are ignorant of the topic of intelligence. I discovered it. I am the sole authority of that topic. Mark my word for that. Either I am a moron/stupid or a liar, or a genius. But I think I am the latter.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

LOL!! It is your claim. How can you not understand this? The burden of proof is upon you not me. You need to come up with a working definition of intelligence. Not me.

You just refuted yourself again,


By the way, you cannot disprove something that you do not understand. I am very sure that you do not understand even the basics of evolution. Or the sciences for that matter.

In fact you already pretty much proved that you do not understand even the basics of science. When you dodge reasonable questions you prove your lack of education.

lol! You had never read and never seen my falsification article for Evolution. I bet that you do not know how to falsify Evolution. There is 100% possibility that you have the wrong criteria of falsification for Evolution, and also prediction. That is why you cannot falsify and replace Evolution.

Mark my word for that.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

As it stands, intelligent design is not science and has practically no hope of becoming science.

The theory of evolution remains unfalsified no matter how many times someone claims it has been. Mere claims are not falsification.

Because you do not know intelligence, that is why you claimed that. Well in science, there is a question: is the universe intelligently designed or not?

Now, answer me by using your resources. If not, SHUT UP!

About Evolution, first, you are just relying on the explanations from Evolutionists. If you are really intellectually honest, you will empty yourself with Evolution, go to reality, and study the change of frequency alleles. And you will see what I had seen. Willing to try?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agnostics, rebels, radicals and atheists...

Repeating your vague unspecific claims, does not answer my question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You or anybody cannot tell me that I am wrong unless you knew very well the topic of intelligence.

The ghost that never lies is the most intelligent.
He knows intelligence a lot better then you.
AND he never lies.

And he told me that you are wrong.

Checkmate, theist!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unless, you cannot nail the topic of intelligence and its variants, you cannot explain almost all topics in science, especially in Biology or God, etc...

"God" is not a topic in science.
Neither are fairies or extra-dimensional unicorns.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the topic of origins, both religions and science are faith-based.

If that were true, then both should be rejected at face value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is the answer: I am posting here some excerpts from my upcoming e-book for the falsification of Evolution, after I submitted three articles to major secular science journals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 7:


...
intelligence = problem-solution-solution, (F1) .. intellen
intelligence = cause-effect-effect, or (F2) .. intellen
intelligence = action-reaction-reaction. (F3) .. intellen

Non-intelligence = problem-solution (nF1) ..naturen
Non-intelligence = cause-effect (nF2) ..naturen
Non-intelligence = action-reaction (nF3) ..naturen


45Some of you may ask, why I included cause and effect and action-reaction? In real life applications, these phenomena had the same application with intelligence. I will show later below. After many years of actual testing and refining and applying in real world, those were discovered too.

46From these two experiments, I could easily derive and define intelligence in a single, scientific, universal, correct and universal definition. This is the precise definition of intelligence, that could sum up probably 80+ invented definitions in one scientifically derived definition.



Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.

...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAKE NOTE: If I am wrong in my discovery of intelligence, then we will be forced to accept that intelligence = non-intelligence, and violate the non-contradiction principle in logic.

But I think I am right, and that is my basis in all of my posts, my replies, my explanations and my life, as a free-lance scientist.

Either I am wrong or moron/stupid, or a genius who had appeared once in a century.

Nonsensical word salad

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent

Again: who are these people?
You guys keep claiming they are "many"... where are they?
Who are they?
Care to point some out on this forum?

After all, if they are "many", then this should be an easy task.

For example, do you think I am one of them?
After all, I'm an atheist. And I most certainly don't believe in gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people are content with theory and talk,I found that only leads to poverty, misery, and a fruitless life in my case.
What I found in Jesus Christ is forgiveness, grace, abundant life, peace, joy, purpose and eternal life. A way of life that is satisfying and in the Bible I found the answers for everyday life that no matter what situation I find myself in, God is there with
me.

Which is something all believers say.
Just change the words "god", "bible" and "jesus christ" into the terms of mutually exclusive religions.

Not all of you can be correct. At best, only one version is.
But... you CAN all be wrong!

 

[blü 2]

I had already given you the definition

Your own definition? You own understanding in your own words? Apologies ─ I must have missed it. and looking back I can't find it. Perhaps you erased it accidentally. Would you please be so kind as to set it out for me again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have the best explanations in science since I can both falsify Evolution, replace Evolution, define intelligence and explain intelligence..

You keep claiming this. Post after post after post.... on some obscure religious internet forum.

When are you finally going to live up to your macho talk and actually DO IT and collect your Nobel?

All bark and no bite.

At the very least, you do not even know the topic of intelligence and how you could use that in science.
You have nothing to offer nor to counter-offer...

We don't need counter-offers.
The only thing that bare assertions such as yours deserve and require, is rejection at face value.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I had already given you the definition

No. You gave us wordsalad.

In science, if you do not accept an explanation, you must have an alternative correct explanation

You continue to demonstrate how scientifically illiterate you are.

, if not, you are one of many religious freaks.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Which is something all believers say.
Just change the words "god", "bible" and "jesus christ" into the terms of mutually exclusive religions.

Not all of you can be correct. At best, only one version is.
But... you CAN all be wrong!

That’s right, according to the Bible there is only 1 correct version, Jesus Christ was crucified, buried in a tomb, rose from the dead, is going to return to judge the living and the dead, there is salvation in no other name. This is what I found to be true and that’s all I’ve been communicating. Thanks

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because you do not know intelligence, that is why you claimed that.

I claim it, because it is a fact. Intelligent design is a belief system without evidence that would give it even the hope of being scrutinized using science.

Well in science, there is a question: is the universe intelligently designed or not?

No, there is no question like that asked in science. That is a religious question. Those claiming that it is science have failed to show it is science.

Now, answer me by using your resources. If not, SHUT UP!

I'm not sure how much I want to continue talking to someone that treats others the way you do on top of not having done what you claim.

About Evolution, first, you are just relying on the explanations from Evolutionists. If you are really intellectually honest, you will empty yourself with Evolution, go to reality, and study the change of frequency alleles. And you will see what I had seen. Willing to try?

Is it intellectually honest to claim something that you cannot demonstrate? Is it intellectually honest to avoid direct answers to direct questions? Is it intellectually honest to claim something you believe without demonstration is even in the realm of science?

I find it amusing that you are just telling me to ignore the work of people expert in their fields and accept the word of someone not trained in any of the subjects that he is claiming expertise in.

You believe something. You don't have any evidence and reasoning to share that belief with others so that they might be reasonably convinced you have more than belief. By your actions you are unwilling to even consider what others say. You have dubbed yourself the emperor of all knowledge and by fiat declare everyone else idiots. I don't recognize your authority and you haven't presented any reason to be convinced what you believe has any validity to be considered.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I claim it, because it is a fact. Intelligent design is a belief system without evidence that would give it even the hope of being scrutinized using science.

No, there is no question like that asked in science. That is a religious question. Those claiming that it is science have failed to show it is science.

I'm not sure how much I want to continue talking to someone that treats others the way you do on top of not having done what you claim.

Is it intellectually honest to claim something that you cannot demonstrate? Is it intellectually honest to avoid direct answers to direct questions? Is it intellectually honest to claim something you believe without demonstration is even in the realm of science?

I find it amusing that you are just telling me to ignore the work of people expert in their fields and accept the word of someone not trained in any of the subjects that he is claiming expertise in.

You believe something. You don't have any evidence and reasoning to share that belief with others so that they might be reasonably convinced you have more than belief. By your actions you are unwilling to even consider what others say. You have dubbed yourself the emperor of all knowledge and by fiat declare everyone else idiots. I don't recognize your authority and you haven't presented any reason to be convinced what you believe has any validity to be considered.

Your word salad does not make sense.
I told you that if you do not know intelligence, then, you cannot explain reality in science.

The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations