Is the universe an intelligence creating machine?

[Weatherman2020]

Do you believe that given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise?

Only if you’re gullible enough to think the Periodic Table can write a concerto.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise?

Only if you’re gullible enough to think the Periodic Table can write a concerto.

It’s written in the laws of nature. It was predestined by the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

You are still wrong. And you are not a Catholic. So what for heavens sake do you try to convince me about? Think and you are able to solve your not existing problem. What do you think how many time you will have, when you will have to make a fast decision?

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

 

[james bond]

Do you believe that given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise?

Only if you’re gullible enough to think the Periodic Table can write a concerto.

That's right. ding thinks nature created music and humans discovered it, too .

ding did not know what the significance of 70 AD was either.

 

[james bond]

You are still wrong. And you are not a Catholic. So what for heavens sake do you try to convince me about? Think and you are able to solve your not existing problem. What do you think how many time you will have, when you will have to make a fast decision?

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

 

[ding]

Do you believe that given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise?

Only if you’re gullible enough to think the Periodic Table can write a concerto.

That's right. ding thinks nature created music and humans discovered it, too .

Yep. Science, music and mathematics were discovered.

All math is discovered. All science is discovered. All music is discovered.

 

[ding]

You are still wrong. And you are not a Catholic. So what for heavens sake do you try to convince me about? Think and you are able to solve your not existing problem. What do you think how many time you will have, when you will have to make a fast decision?

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

The catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claim to know what Catholics believe, right?

So have you read the catechism?

 

[zaangalewa]

With crutches it goes this way.

The joke is that three boats come by to rescue her. When she dies she asked God why he didn’t save her. God tells her he sent three boats.

Not so in this variation.

Still I have not the feeling you are a Catholic.

That’s your problem.

Not really.

I miss your overarching perspective. For example said never any Catholic before in my life to me "And it must bother you, that I’m Catholic." Why should it be so?

I’d be surprised if that were the first time a Catholic said that.

I not. You are an US-American.

Because I’d be surprised if that were the first time two Catholics disagreed on Catholic thought.

What a nonsense.

That’s why I said that.

You said it because you like to win. Your problem is you don't know the reason what and why.

But I do not feel this in your case. So perhaps something is wrong with my empathy or you send to me wrong signals. I asked you whether you are a Catholic. You did not say "I am a Catholic". This gave me the impression you are not a Catholic. Why else should someone not give an answer to such a simple question?

Where did you ask me that? My standard answer to the question of am I a Catholic is I’m not a good catholic. But I’m still a Catholic.

Yes, something is wrong with your empathy.

Possible. Nevertheless I do not trust in you.

Now you say you are a Catholic. So what? It was always only your own behavior, which caused the problem to tell me something, what I do not like to discuss with you. I said I inform you about something - and I said "think about" - that was all. Whether you do so or not is your decision - not my decision.

No. I’ve always said I’m a Catholic. I never claimed to be a good catholic. But I’m still a Catholic.

So what you ask? It means that what I write about God is consistent with Catholic thought.

Good grief. What for heavens sake is your problem? Be happy, supercatholic. Nevertheless became the creator ("painter") in Jesus, the Christ, a human being (=creation= "painting").Whatever you liked to say - you used the wrong picture to say it.

 

[james bond]

You are still wrong. And you are not a Catholic. So what for heavens sake do you try to convince me about? Think and you are able to solve your not existing problem. What do you think how many time you will have, when you will have to make a fast decision?

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

The catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claim to know what Catholics believe, right?

So have you read the catechism?

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant (Methodist), so why would I read your cathechism?

Do you know what happened 70 AD now and why it's important?

I don't expect you to know why Pope Francis is wrong. Evos are usually wrong. He's a liberal Pope, but not necessarily a bad one despite being wrong about science like you are. Besides, this topic doesn't belong in Religion and Ethics. It should be Science and Technology.

 

[zaangalewa]

I do not have any idea why you are not able to understand what I said to you about this theme. I said much to much about it. Read it again. Believe it or not. Your problem. The only reason why I told you that it is wrong, what you had said in context of Jesus, is that you produce a problem of the violation of hope in this case. You are not able to deny - if you are a Catholic - that Jesus is 100% human being and 100% god. But if you deny this then you try to kill hope - without intention, I guess, but perhaps with some intellectual vanity. For many it is important that god is not a creator far away in abstract worlds. In Jesus god on his own became creation, became a human being. 100% human being! 100% "painter" (creator) became 100% "painting" (creation). And god showed us in this way he also is able to suffer with us - without any filter, directly. This message is not phraseolgy - and is not advertising a new form of icecream - this 'message' is "cross". When god suffers in Jesus with us - but also when god enjoys this world in Jesus with us - how to be desperated any longer? There's always hope. Jesus came back after he was erased from this painting which is our real world, which is "we". Whatever someone might think about what's the reason for and how this paradox impossibility is able to be real - it is for all people important to know that god is with them - that god loves them - in all situations of life - specially in times of worst sufferings. God is always with his children. And pardon me: Do not try to discuss this problem now any longer with me. I am not a theologist. Do whatever you like to do with your strange form of theology, which has absolutelly nothing to do with me - and which has also nothing to do with the catechism of the Holy Catholic Church. The catechism is made for orientation - and not for your confusion.

Yes, Jesus is 100% human. Yes, Jesus is 100% God.

But Jesus was never created. As such he can’t be the painting.

You are wrong. Better to say you are not really right. You are simplifying what's not possible to simplify. Every human being is creation. When Jesus suffered on the cross he played not to be anyone or anything. He was an innocent human being who died the extremely painfully death of a criminal on the cross. This was a totally hopeless situation. But ...

 

[DOTR]

Is the universe an intelligence creating machine?

I am universe. And I do not think I am an intelligence creating machine.

Do you believe that given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise?

Perhaps intelligence will one day arise. But will we be intelligent enough to be able to notice this?

When ancient man was pondering where he came from and what his purpose was, he recognized that man was different than all other creatures.

We are creation like all other creatures.

He concluded that he was created in God’s image. In other words he was a being that knows and creates.

You don't know whether god exists or not exists. And you don't have any idea how strange this typical anglo-american never ending discussion of mad "Christians" and extremistic "scientists" sounds in the ears of the very most Christians and in the ears of many or most scientists. Not to use the argument "god" in context of natural science means not god exists or not exists. (Did god exist when he had created existence?) One of the most stupid ideas I've ever heard in context of natural science were for example the anti-ideas of Richard Dawkins to say the philosophy agnosticism shows that god is not existing. But that's nonsense. Agnosticism is still a philosophy and not a belief and still every agnostics is able to believe in god or not to believe in god.

So just because man does not do perfect things, that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent. Just not as intelligent as he can be.

The perfect is not perfect here. In the best of all possible worlds everything is always able to be more perfect too. Second: It's our job to keep gods creation alive and we (=every single human being without any exception) are responsible for gods living creation. Pope Francis said with every species, which we lose, we will lose a voice of god. I would say we lose not only a voice of god - we lose ourselve too in the loud, louder and loudest howling of strong men all over the world for more and more personal and national might and money. Life is the real important thing: all and every life: Life first!

That’s horse shit. No offense.

Yes, we are creatures. Unlike any other though in that we are beings that know and create.

Yes, we are supposed to be stewards but man is still broken.

As to the rest maybe you should revisit the section on atheism in the catechism.

“Do you not know that we will judge angels? ”

 

[Paulie]

You are still wrong. And you are not a Catholic. So what for heavens sake do you try to convince me about? Think and you are able to solve your not existing problem. What do you think how many time you will have, when you will have to make a fast decision?

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

The catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claim to know what Catholics believe, right?

So have you read the catechism?

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant (Methodist), so why would I read your cathechism?

Do you know what happened 70 AD now and why it's important?

I don't expect you to know why Pope Francis is wrong. Evos are usually wrong. He's a liberal Pope, but not necessarily a bad one despite being wrong about science like you are. Besides, this topic doesn't belong in Religion and Ethics. It should be Science and Technology.

Francis is a pedophile. The man literally wears the boy lover symbol on his garbs. This is him at world youth day 2019 wearing the exact symbol that the FBI themselves said in 2007 was one of the symbols of the pedophile groups. This symbol is for boy lover. WAKE UP

 

[ding]

You are still wrong. And you are not a Catholic. So what for heavens sake do you try to convince me about? Think and you are able to solve your not existing problem. What do you think how many time you will have, when you will have to make a fast decision?

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

The catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claim to know what Catholics believe, right?

So have you read the catechism?

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant (Methodist), so why would I read your cathechism?

Do you know what happened 70 AD now and why it's important?

I don't expect you to know why Pope Francis is wrong. Evos are usually wrong. He's a liberal Pope, but not necessarily a bad one despite being wrong about science like you are. Besides, this topic doesn't belong in Religion and Ethics. It should be Science and Technology.

I asked you if you had read the catechism because you claim to know what Catholics believe. The catechism states what Catholics believe. It is literally the only place you can go to find out what Catholics believe.

So which of my beliefs are not what Catholics believe?

 

[ding]

Do you know what happened 70 AD now and why it's important?

I don't expect you to know why Pope Francis is wrong. Evos are usually wrong. He's a liberal Pope, but not necessarily a bad one despite being wrong about science like you are. Besides, this topic doesn't belong in Religion and Ethics. It should be Science and Technology.

Again, the only place you can go to find out what Catholics believe is the Catechism.

You can’t find it any where else. Not in 70ad or what you believe Francis means when he talks.

 

[ding]

Is the universe an intelligence creating machine?

I am universe. And I do not think I am an intelligence creating machine.

Do you believe that given enough time and the right conditions that intelligence will eventually arise?

Perhaps intelligence will one day arise. But will we be intelligent enough to be able to notice this?

When ancient man was pondering where he came from and what his purpose was, he recognized that man was different than all other creatures.

We are creation like all other creatures.

He concluded that he was created in God’s image. In other words he was a being that knows and creates.

You don't know whether god exists or not exists. And you don't have any idea how strange this typical anglo-american never ending discussion of mad "Christians" and extremistic "scientists" sounds in the ears of the very most Christians and in the ears of many or most scientists. Not to use the argument "god" in context of natural science means not god exists or not exists. (Did god exist when he had created existence?) One of the most stupid ideas I've ever heard in context of natural science were for example the anti-ideas of Richard Dawkins to say the philosophy agnosticism shows that god is not existing. But that's nonsense. Agnosticism is still a philosophy and not a belief and still every agnostics is able to believe in god or not to believe in god.

So just because man does not do perfect things, that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent. Just not as intelligent as he can be.

The perfect is not perfect here. In the best of all possible worlds everything is always able to be more perfect too. Second: It's our job to keep gods creation alive and we (=every single human being without any exception) are responsible for gods living creation. Pope Francis said with every species, which we lose, we will lose a voice of god. I would say we lose not only a voice of god - we lose ourselve too in the loud, louder and loudest howling of strong men all over the world for more and more personal and national might and money. Life is the real important thing: all and every life: Life first!

That’s horse shit. No offense.

Yes, we are creatures. Unlike any other though in that we are beings that know and create.

Yes, we are supposed to be stewards but man is still broken.

As to the rest maybe you should revisit the section on atheism in the catechism.

“Do you not know that we will judge angels? ”

No. I didn’t know that. I’m still not sure I know that.

 

[ding]

With crutches it goes this way.

The joke is that three boats come by to rescue her. When she dies she asked God why he didn’t save her. God tells her he sent three boats.

Not so in this variation.

Still I have not the feeling you are a Catholic.

That’s your problem.

Not really.

I miss your overarching perspective. For example said never any Catholic before in my life to me "And it must bother you, that I’m Catholic." Why should it be so?

I’d be surprised if that were the first time a Catholic said that.

I not. You are an US-American.

Because I’d be surprised if that were the first time two Catholics disagreed on Catholic thought.

What a nonsense.

That’s why I said that.

You said it because you like to win. Your problem is you don't know the reason what and why.

But I do not feel this in your case. So perhaps something is wrong with my empathy or you send to me wrong signals. I asked you whether you are a Catholic. You did not say "I am a Catholic". This gave me the impression you are not a Catholic. Why else should someone not give an answer to such a simple question?

Where did you ask me that? My standard answer to the question of am I a Catholic is I’m not a good catholic. But I’m still a Catholic.

Yes, something is wrong with your empathy.

Possible. Nevertheless I do not trust in you.

Now you say you are a Catholic. So what? It was always only your own behavior, which caused the problem to tell me something, what I do not like to discuss with you. I said I inform you about something - and I said "think about" - that was all. Whether you do so or not is your decision - not my decision.

No. I’ve always said I’m a Catholic. I never claimed to be a good catholic. But I’m still a Catholic.

So what you ask? It means that what I write about God is consistent with Catholic thought.

Good grief. What for heavens sake is your problem? Be happy, supercatholic. Nevertheless became the creator ("painter") in Jesus, the Christ, a human being (=creation= "painting").Whatever you liked to say - you used the wrong picture to say it.

Wrong. I used the standard response to pantheism. The painter is not the painting.

 

[ding]

You said it because you like to win.

No. I said that because I love truth.

It seems you are accusing me of what you are doing.

 

[ding]

I do not have any idea why you are not able to understand what I said to you about this theme. I said much to much about it. Read it again. Believe it or not. Your problem. The only reason why I told you that it is wrong, what you had said in context of Jesus, is that you produce a problem of the violation of hope in this case. You are not able to deny - if you are a Catholic - that Jesus is 100% human being and 100% god. But if you deny this then you try to kill hope - without intention, I guess, but perhaps with some intellectual vanity. For many it is important that god is not a creator far away in abstract worlds. In Jesus god on his own became creation, became a human being. 100% human being! 100% "painter" (creator) became 100% "painting" (creation). And god showed us in this way he also is able to suffer with us - without any filter, directly. This message is not phraseolgy - and is not advertising a new form of icecream - this 'message' is "cross". When god suffers in Jesus with us - but also when god enjoys this world in Jesus with us - how to be desperated any longer? There's always hope. Jesus came back after he was erased from this painting which is our real world, which is "we". Whatever someone might think about what's the reason for and how this paradox impossibility is able to be real - it is for all people important to know that god is with them - that god loves them - in all situations of life - specially in times of worst sufferings. God is always with his children. And pardon me: Do not try to discuss this problem now any longer with me. I am not a theologist. Do whatever you like to do with your strange form of theology, which has absolutelly nothing to do with me - and which has also nothing to do with the catechism of the Holy Catholic Church. The catechism is made for orientation - and not for your confusion.

Yes, Jesus is 100% human. Yes, Jesus is 100% God.

But Jesus was never created. As such he can’t be the painting.

You are wrong. Better to say you are not really right. You are simplifying what's not possible to simplify. Every human being is creation. When Jesus suffered on the cross he played not to be anyone or anything. He was an innocent human being who died the extremely painfully death of a criminal on the cross. This was a totally hopeless situation. But ...

What am I wrong about?

That Jesus is fully human and fully God? No. Even you agree with that.

That Jesus was not created? No. That’s exactly what the catechism says.

So which part was wrong?

 

[james bond]

Evos are usually wrong, so ding is wrong. He says he is Catholic. He doesn't know Catholic dogma tho. I think he's theistic evolutionist. He thinks math, science, and physics were created by nature and discovered by humans. He thinks the Bible is mostly allegory. He doesn't quote Scripture, so I have no idea if he's read the Bible or whether he goes to church and receives the sacraments. Does he believe in Satan and exorcism? He is a person who is his own source, so is not credible imho. One can't discuss Catholic dogma with him. I don't even want to bring in Christianity nor the Bible. He believes in evolution and big bang like Pope Francis, but he doesn't want to be tied to Francis and either does not know about him and what he does. I guess he thinks Francis is a negative influence.

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

The catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claim to know what Catholics believe, right?

So have you read the catechism?

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant (Methodist), so why would I read your cathechism?

Do you know what happened 70 AD now and why it's important?

I don't expect you to know why Pope Francis is wrong. Evos are usually wrong. He's a liberal Pope, but not necessarily a bad one despite being wrong about science like you are. Besides, this topic doesn't belong in Religion and Ethics. It should be Science and Technology.

I asked you if you had read the catechism because you claim to know what Catholics believe. The catechism states what Catholics believe. It is literally the only place you can go to find out what Catholics believe.

So which of my beliefs are not what Catholics believe?

Where did I claim I know what Catholics believe ? Aren't you the one who's supposed to know with all the pontification you do on R&E (usually over atheists who do not know)? What I said was if you knew your Catholic dogma, then you would be running rings around me. You would be teaching me a lesson. I would be aware of how strong your faith is.

You still do not know what the significance of 70 AD is or else you would've answered my question. It's when the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem. If you know your Catholic catechism, then you would know its significance.

Let's start with this one.

 

[ding]

Have you read the catechism?

Which one?

The catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claim to know what Catholics believe, right?

So have you read the catechism?

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant (Methodist), so why would I read your cathechism?

Do you know what happened 70 AD now and why it's important?

I don't expect you to know why Pope Francis is wrong. Evos are usually wrong. He's a liberal Pope, but not necessarily a bad one despite being wrong about science like you are. Besides, this topic doesn't belong in Religion and Ethics. It should be Science and Technology.

I asked you if you had read the catechism because you claim to know what Catholics believe. The catechism states what Catholics believe. It is literally the only place you can go to find out what Catholics believe.

So which of my beliefs are not what Catholics believe?

Where did I claim I know what Catholics believe ? Aren't you the one who's supposed to know with all the pontification you do on R&E (usually over atheists who do not know)? What I said was if you knew your Catholic dogma, then you would be running rings around me. You would be teaching me a lesson. I would be aware of how strong your faith is.

You still do not know what the significance of 70 AD is or else you would've answered my question. It's when the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem. If you know your Catholic catechism, then you would know its significance.

Let's start with this one.

When you told me what I believed wasn’t what Catholics believed. How else can you know that unless you know what Catholics believe.

Do you want to change your answer?