darkjepetto

I think that intellgience is a grade of decision making, understanding, and a lot of things associated with control of mind. People are regarded as intellectuals because they produce something of worth with their minds, like the ability to explain life or a rocket; intelligent people either help us to, or are themselves, more good than others. Intelligence is how good you are with your mind (considering the universe and body) ultimately.

Dreams are evidence, there can be simulate bodies so the universe can obvious project a fake body in our minds. Ok then, so rather than is the universe conscious, what I want to know is, does a designer/creator of our universe (maybe a species in control of dreams in a simpler, previous universe), somehow profit the universe? We create solar panels to feed off of the sun, what I'm suggesting is can there be a species that feeds from the universe; again, maybe it exists in mindspace. Evidence is that's it's logical to say I don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore it may have been a designer/randomness/chance/luck no matter how stupid it sounds, as long as it's grouped with the others. I'm quite infatuated by the idea that there could be parasites that feed from our energy; such as the true quality of sensory data. I will not subtract designer, nor add it, or vice versa.

exactly this. i might as well say unicorn, but i chose designer cause it's more fitting for what I know.

That's fine. I understand you take life quite seriously, but I would loosen up a bit on your stance as to what species there could be. If there was a designer - he doesn't have to be a deity - all I'm suggesting is existence created existence(you can still ask how did the first arise), rather than randomness created existence; and if there was a designer, surely it would have a hand in this universe - what the desinger desired from it/profit. So it's still a reasonable suggestion; we create lot's of things, sights, sounds, etc. Sometimes in high definition (genetics) and this data isn't used for it's product? Maybe in art or dreams, who knows? (zooming in on some of our sights may be good art). Perhaps not science though, I see that you're quite serious, but I seen you had a philosophy section, so that's why I posted.

Given there's a big bubble in the air above your head now, and given it symbolizes what you know that happened to cause the big bang you add words into that bubble; randomness, chance, designer; and the words you choose are thought to fit (i.e. possibly make sense). why is designer excluded, thought irrational, if how this comes accross in my head is it's just a possibility; i don't say, it was >definitely< a designer. A new question regarding 'higher intelligences' Why can't the universe be considered conscious; why can't it project an image into our mind spaces right now of any form? I mean it, like ditto, the pokemon, who copies other pokemon and transforms; it doesn't need to give us all it's attention, it may be active in some parts of it's body. How do you know the universe is not conscious, if you debate it is? You may think I'm wrong, but if you look at the universe now and seriously consdier, is it conscious or anything like it? (all it takes is a chemical reaction in our minds for it to show it's presence; it could have been guiding us all along).

A designer, then. Why not? It functions that there was a designer of the big bang, but I'm not saying he/she is up in the clouds, I'm saying this might have happened (I don't say I think it did happen, only that it might have); given this is a true-statement, I don't see it as irrational or stupid to believe in designers as a concept, it's possible this designer was also intelligent, if existent. It's just as stupid, in your view, therefore, to believe it was random, or by chance, given no evidence.

No it wasn't deliberate. @phi Any instance where you think or say that Atheism is the smart choice with regards to deities; where you (probably) will speak up about your lack of belief - is wiser "no comment", or a scientific answer that the question "Do you believe in God?" doesn't make sense. A intelligent designer may exist, we can't prove otherwise, but that's not a reason to start worshipping random intelligent designers, nor does it make God (or the bible where it derives from) any more credible. Without being too insulting, I want to declare that I think religion is stupid; belief in an intelligent designer is fine, but following a holy book in regards to this intelligent designer is silly, that doesn't describe this intelligent designer in any scientific way. Other than, "I'm going to have blind faith in an intelligent designer," "Or I can prove that there was an intellgient designer" is "I know what the intelligent designer is"+Drivel-Proof.

I don't think you're wrong, or immoral, I think your logic isn't correct in some instances, probably, if you are Atheist and not ungrouped (with regards to the perspective I gave). I would say, it's better not to feed the trolls, and judging by the way I've read from most Atheists, they do feed the trolls.

Atheism is just Team B in Team A versus B of God debate. Where as I do not understand the question, so I am smarter than them both. Good is beneficence; "He is a good Tennis player" - he is skilled with a Tennis Racket, where 'skilled' is what's beneficent. "He is a good man" - he exists more so beneficently than maleficently. (This is science, it's analysis of a real, consistent pattern where people are more or less beneficent across, per say, all sports, in the first example.) Morality is thereore alignment with regard to policing, or self control of evil (malefience), or the nature of good and evil phenomenon. You have to ask yourself what is the nature of good and evil, and target nature, not say 'it's obviously wiser to benefit yourself" in conversation, because that is a step out of the nature and into the realm of individual goods or evils - this nature is prevailing where people can benefit themselves, and if people want to joy over the benefits they can. What's true is what is consistent with our senses, however truth does not exist beyond man's account. When people say "what's the truth about life?", they are asking for a true statement, or true evidence, not a true phenomenon. We can make a true statement with true evidence, but it doesn't mean the phenomenon is true. It's simply the phenomenon, but there can be a true account of it. Where people make a mistake is by thinking truth is material rather than immaterial. Truth is associated with detection. Material truth is a fabrication of the greater detail of existence. Modern philosopher's continue to go wrong when determining what truth is because they think phenomena correlate to true statements, because of some truth value(pseudo), rather than true statements correlating to phenomena(accordance).

The planet objective is like the humans, in the way that he is like the planet. Evil is an alternative. There is no reason to describe he or she when sharing a lesson about people, he is a word that can describe something for a female as well, in the above example, we use he to communicate something for both genders, and the same applies to planet when planet to human communication occurs. Humans and the planet share a bond; what humans need to do and want to do can be achieved more greatly with the planet. semi-omni-spherical processing, Atomic 2, not Atomic 1, omni sperical processing; our universe is a low-frequency hell-zone, a constellation of stars that are half the universe potential of another less strenious star constellation.

You've dotted the spherical planet to define it. Metaphorically, this is equal to naming that massive geoid we live upon as a 'sphere' (rather than dot, 'sphere'). The planet defines itself, and not knowing that is deterimental to your mental health. So you're born on a planet, you ask "What am I meant to do?", and the answer to that question is 'the planet objective'. What is 'here'? 'Here' isn't a point in space, space is nothing; 'here' is the planet. What are we supposed to do here? Not space fantasy, maybe space travel if pointful. We're supposed to minutely follow the planet objective, which is more a sensory procedure than a verbal discussion.

Fine, I was wrong, you can define a cube... Nothing extroadinary, my other points still stand, in fact, it was a secondary point. Cubes aren't super-massive, but the Earth is, so cubes can be defined, but Earth cannot. You can't word a circle in one word, you can word an abstraction of a circle in one word. Metaphorically a trace is, where a circle must be drawn over a dot dotted on paper, it cannot be compressed into a single word but instead a whole action must be completed. A single word is metaphorically a dot, and morality, being metaphorically like drawing a circle, can't be defined in a single, defining statement. You draw a circle, and then dot it to define it, abstracting the circle. Encirlcing the planet in your imagination is like drawing a circle, and then you dot it to define Earth, fine, abstracting the planet. Morality is based on the planet, which is encircling the planet, but without the dot for a definition; so what is the definition without a dot? Morality is the planet objective, which is minute in comparrison to massive planet, which can't be defined in word.

Close it then.

No, I said it's impossible to define a cube with word, not describe a cube with word (descrptions are in reference to objects not words).

"the regular solid of six equal square sides" - It says it's the regular solid of six equal sides, but there are other regular objects such as a hexagon. How is this a cube and not an mental abstraction of a cube referring to a cube in your memory? It's certainly not a drawing of a cube, which would have the same effect. When pitted against a drawing of a cube, it's a rounded off definition that's inaccruate. 'A solid', doesn't define a cube accurately, a cube can be a frame of 12 edges. If I was inside a cube, it would also have a top and bottom; so again, how does the word describe cubes definitely? The definition is weak in comparison to the stronger cube image, either real or fabricated.