• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How do you decide if something is factual?

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Dude, again, learn to use the quote function. It's there for a reason.

Congratulations. When you are soundly refuted, you pick on another's method of posting. It's quite a unique position, but it also shows your inability to get along with others. Why should I be limited by your "quote" function? Is it easier to deceive others if they follow quote rules? Be nice and Have a great DAY and God Bless you.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
If you can show me that your religious viewpoint can explain reality better than my own viewpoint can, then I am certainly most interested in hearing about it. But first you will need to demonstrate that it does actually explain reality better than mine.

Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 2:4 shows that we live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes and maybe more. Don't believe Kylie when she tells you that she will believe you since she won't, UNLESS your adopt her religious viewpoint. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,412.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am simply saying that the ultimate test of any worldview that seeks to describe reality is how well that worldview corresponds to reality.



If you can show me that your religious viewpoint can explain reality better than my own viewpoint can, then I am certainly most interested in hearing about it. But first you will need to demonstrate that it does actually explain reality better than mine.

Really, that's all it is.

Lol! I never said that my (or any) religious viewpoint could explain reality [whatever that is] in full, or that it was ever meant to be used in that way. What I said, Kylie, is that there is a difference between Christian faith in how it is epistemically structured in contrast to the Scientific Investigation of the world [i.e. the universe] around us. So, it would be irrelevant for me to try to show you how a religious viewpoint such as mine explains the world 'better.'

What a religious viewpoint essentially does for a person is enable them to reconfigure his/her understanding and overall outlook on the meaning and purpose of the world; this doesn't imply that one will somehow develop a worldview that also fits together everything one knows both scientifically and religiously like Lego building blocks, piece by fitted piece. It basically means that evidence will be interpreted in different ways, and different artifacts and accidentals of the world will be accorded the status of 'fact'; in my case, Jesus' rising from the dead is a fact, but this doesn't come from the application of Methodological Naturalism, obviously (...and to which you can reply, "Yeah, duh, 2PhiloVoid!" :doh:)

To me, religious faith is 'additive' to one's already present cognitive outlook upon the world. So, for instance, I could essentially start with the teaching of Carl Sagan and see the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) as a swirling eddy of mass and energy, godless in purpose and form--and then 'add' to that one's religious impressions OVER the previous Sagian matrix and also come to see as "fact" that Christ could also have existed and risen from the dead in an otherwise godlessly structured reality, or one that at least doesn't appear to be divinely directed in a "clear and distinct" fashion. Since the religious sphere of insights about some aspects of reality is separate from the naturalist sphere of scientific investigation, this can be done and, even with variation among its members, is essentially what is found in the thinking of those like me who hold to a religious faith reflected by BioLogos.

However, if one is instead an advocate of the Intelligent Design position (i.e. Dembski), or is an atheist who advocates the flip side of the same epistemic structure that the I.D. advocate holds (i.e. Dawkins), then I suppose the person with that kind of religious view will think their faith actually DOES represent some kind of wholistic expression of reality via observed facts, all supposedly supporting a fully religious conception of the whole cosmic kit and kaboodle.

So, as I hope you can see, in my view, any demonstration to you that my view is somehow 'better' than yours would be an act of EXPECTED futility, because my view also requires an epistemic component that has to be dealt out by God in addition to the one we build ourselves from a human, scientific level. It isn't something someone just orders up at the local McDonald's.

I'm sure that if you talk to an advocate of I.D., they'll be able to tell you how they think their view is 'better' than yours; in fact, they'll likely tell you how their view is better than mine as well. All I can do is tell you that my view on how facts are established is partially 'different' from yours rather than 'better,' and I can invite you to take a closer look at this or that idea at your leisure. God willing, you'll come to a point where you feel you have to say, "Eureka, Jesus is the Risen Son of God!!!"

Is this clear? (Go ahead, tell me that it's all just handwaviem. It's okay if you do ... kind of. :rolleyes:)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Congratulations. When you are soundly refuted, you pick on another's method of posting.
If somebody does not feel like responding to your points, this does not render you the Right and Correct Winner.
It's quite a unique position, but it also shows your inability to get along with others.
How impolite. Insulting people is hardly conducive to productive discourse; this demonstrates your inability to make meaningful discussion. Therefore, you are wrong about everything.
Why should I be limited by your "quote" function?
Using the quote function makes it easier to read your post; specifically, it makes it easier to skim or review, as well as clearly distinguishing your words from the words you are responding to.
Is it easier to deceive others if they follow quote rules?
Heh. Hardly. Why are you so suspicious? Why do you think that the only possible motivation an atheist can have is Duplicity and Deceit?
Be nice and Have a great DAY and God Bless you.
Hahaha. It's a bit too late for politeness.
 
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 2:4 shows that we live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes and maybe more.
It says so under a particular interpretation, which may or may not be the most intuitive one. The supposed mapping between the interpretation of the Bible and the current scientific theories is also highly arbitrary, and seems rather like it was decided after the fact in order to produce a supposed connection. Like I have said, this proves nothing.
Don't believe Kylie when she tells you that she will believe you since she won't, UNLESS your adopt her religious viewpoint. Amen?
It is rather rude to talk disparagingly to somebody in the third person. Tone criticism aside, you are noticing that Kylie has claimed to have considered theism, and has also rejected theism. You conclude that the only possible explanation is that Kylie is unreasonably biased against theism. Why do you think that?
 
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Lol! I never said that my (or any) religious viewpoint could explain reality [whatever that is] in full, or that it was ever meant to be used in that way. What I said, Kylie, is that there is a difference between Christian faith in how it is epistemically structured in contrast to the Scientific Investigation of the world [i.e. the universe] around us. So, it would be irrelevant for me to try to show you how a religious viewpoint such as mine explains the world 'better.'

What a religious viewpoint essentially does for a person is enable them to reconfigure his/her understanding and overall outlook on the meaning and purpose of the world; this doesn't imply that one will somehow develop a worldview that also fits together everything one knows both scientifically and religiously like Lego building blocks, piece by fitted piece. It basically means that evidence will be interpreted in different ways, and different artifacts and accidentals of the world will be accorded the status of 'fact'; in my case, Jesus' rising from the dead is a fact, but this doesn't come from the application of Methodological Naturalism, obviously (...and to which you can reply, "Yeah, duh, 2PhiloVoid!" :doh:)

To me, religious faith is 'additive' to one's already present cognitive outlook upon the world. So, for instance, I could essentially start with the teaching of Carl Sagan and see the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) as a swirling eddy of mass and energy, godless in purpose and form--and then 'add' to that one's religious impressions OVER the previous Sagian matrix and also come to see as "fact" that Christ could also have existed and risen from the dead in an otherwise godlessly structured reality, or one that at least doesn't appear to be divinely directed in a "clear and distinct" fashion. Since the religious sphere of insights about some aspects of reality is separate from the naturalist sphere of scientific investigation, this can be done and, even with variation among its members, is essentially what is found in the thinking of those like me who hold to a religious faith reflected by BioLogos.

However, if one is instead an advocate of the Intelligent Design position (i.e. Dembski), or is an atheist who advocates the flip side of the same epistemic structure that the I.D. advocate holds (i.e. Dawkins), then I suppose the person with that kind of religious view will think their faith actually DOES represent some kind of wholistic expression of reality via observed facts, all supposedly supporting a fully religious conception of the whole cosmic kit and kaboodle.

So, as I hope you can see, in my view, any demonstration to you that my view is somehow 'better' than yours would be an act of EXPECTED futility, because my view also requires an epistemic component that has to be dealt out by God in addition to the one we build ourselves from a human, scientific level. It isn't something someone just orders up at the local McDonald's.

I'm sure that if you talk to an advocate of I.D., they'll be able to tell you how they think their view is 'better' than yours; in fact, they'll likely tell you how their view is better than mine as well. All I can do is tell you that my view on how facts are established is partially 'different' from yours rather than 'better,' and I can invite you to take a closer look at this or that idea at your leisure. God willing, you'll come to a point where you feel you have to say, "Eureka, Jesus is the Risen Son of God!!!"

Is this clear? (Go ahead, tell me that it's all just handwaviem. It's okay if you do ... kind of. :rolleyes:)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
You are claiming that religion and science are reconcilable? Interesting. Do you believe that you "hear" God (as in, he can indicate his response to a question, or express what he wishes you to do, or similar)? More generally, do you personally interact with God? Beyond the mind, do you believe that God affects the physical world?

On a more fundamental topic, why do you believe what you believe? How do you distinguish truth from falsehood in religion?
 
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Interesting word choice, in view of: 1
It is not that interesting that I jokingly called a science-supporter a fascist for imposing their understanding of truth onto their understanding of another's beliefs, and that you seriously called most scientists fascists. And anyway, noticing a similarity between what I jokingly say and what you seriously say does not in any way support any of your arguments and claims; it may help you exude an atmosphere of Wit to the foolish, and that is all.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,582
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is not that interesting that I jokingly called a science-supporter a fascist for imposing their understanding of truth onto their understanding of another's beliefs, and that you seriously called most scientists fascists.
And here I was giving you credit for great minds thinking alike! :eek:
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,412.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are claiming that religion and science are reconcilable? Interesting.
Essentially, yes.

Do you believe that you "hear" God (as in, he can indicate his response to a question, or express what he wishes you to do, or similar)?
No. I've never directly 'heard' from God. Nor have I been specifically signaled by God to do this or that. However, in hind sight, I might say that I see in my own life some coalescence of circumstances that seem to be difficult to pawn off as purely coincidental. :rolleyes:

More generally, do you personally interact with God?
Interaction is a relative term. But do I pray TO God? Sure; all Christians do in some way or other. But do I sense some clear and distinct, empirically tangible presence of God; not really.

Beyond the mind, do you believe that God affects the physical world?
Yes, I believe He can; but what I don't believe is that any effects He put into play will by all necessity be detectable by us. As I told Kylie, I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. I consider it, but I don't firmly subscribe to it.

On a more fundamental topic, why do you believe what you believe? How do you distinguish truth from falsehood in religion?
I distinguish it by applying as many philosophical considerations that I can muster to EVERYTHING, and not just to religion. I also distinguish it by reflecting upon how I feel about each religion I encounter; what each does it do for me, all things considered, and how I think each aesthetically compares to the other. Kind of like I did with my wife; she isn't the only woman in the world, but now she is the only woman for me. In a similar way, Jesus isn't the only God in the world (theoretically), but now He is the only God for me.

Good questions, Wakalix. :cool:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Congratulations. When you are soundly refuted, you pick on another's method of posting. It's quite a unique position, but it also shows your inability to get along with others. Why should I be limited by your "quote" function? Is it easier to deceive others if they follow quote rules? Be nice and Have a great DAY and God Bless you.

lol

If you think you have soundly refuted me, try posting your reply again with clear quotes so I can see what I'm actually supposed to be responding to. Then we'll see if I have any responses or not.

In the meantime, stop hiding behind your unclear communication.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 2:4 shows that we live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes and maybe more.

And the Harry Potter books clearly show that we live in a universe where magic is real.

I have stories that make claims too.

You seem to think that posting passages from the Bible is the same as a statement of fact, up there with "Paris is the capital of France." It is not.

Don't believe Kylie when she tells you that she will believe you since she won't, UNLESS your adopt her religious viewpoint. Amen?

Whatever dude. I doubt your attempts to rally the people against me are going to work very well.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol! I never said that my (or any) religious viewpoint could explain reality [whatever that is] in full, or that it was ever meant to be used in that way. What I said, Kylie, is that there is a difference between Christian faith in how it is epistemically structured in contrast to the Scientific Investigation of the world [i.e. the universe] around us. So, it would be irrelevant for me to try to show you how a religious viewpoint such as mine explains the world 'better.'

So then, I look at the title of this thread and wonder what the relevance of your post is...

What a religious viewpoint essentially does for a person is enable them to reconfigure his/her understanding and overall outlook on the meaning and purpose of the world; this doesn't imply that one will somehow develop a worldview that also fits together everything one knows both scientifically and religiously like Lego building blocks, piece by fitted piece. It basically means that evidence will be interpreted in different ways, and different artifacts and accidentals of the world will be accorded the status of 'fact'; in my case, Jesus' rising from the dead is a fact, but this doesn't come from the application of Methodological Naturalism, obviously (...and to which you can reply, "Yeah, duh, 2PhiloVoid!" :doh:)

In other words, it takes things which a person has no answers for, and lets them make up their own answers, because they'd rather have wrong answers than an honest "I don't know."

To me, religious faith is 'additive' to one's already present cognitive outlook upon the world. So, for instance, I could essentially start with the teaching of Carl Sagan and see the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) as a swirling eddy of mass and energy, godless in purpose and form--and then 'add' to that one's religious impressions OVER the previous Sagian matrix and also come to see as "fact" that Christ could also have existed and risen from the dead in an otherwise godlessly structured reality, or one that at least doesn't appear to be divinely directed in a "clear and distinct" fashion. Since the religious sphere of insights about some aspects of reality is separate from the naturalist sphere of scientific investigation, this can be done and, even with variation among its members, is essentially what is found in the thinking of those like me who hold to a religious faith reflected by BioLogos.

That could work, but only up to the point where the two contradict. What happens then?

However, if one is instead an advocate of the Intelligent Design position (i.e. Dembski), or is an atheist who advocates the flip side of the same epistemic structure that the I.D. advocate holds (i.e. Dawkins), then I suppose the person with that kind of religious view will think their faith actually DOES represent some kind of wholistic expression of reality via observed facts, all supposedly supporting a fully religious conception of the whole cosmic kit and kaboodle.

And what happens when this "expression of reality via observed facts" is put to the test?

So, as I hope you can see, in my view, any demonstration to you that my view is somehow 'better' than yours would be an act of EXPECTED futility, because my view also requires an epistemic component that has to be dealt out by God in addition to the one we build ourselves from a human, scientific level. It isn't something someone just orders up at the local McDonald's.

So you are saying that your worldview is no better than mine at providing accurate information about the universe?

I'm sure that if you talk to an advocate of I.D., they'll be able to tell you how they think their view is 'better' than yours; in fact, they'll likely tell you how their view is better than mine as well.

Who cares? Any idiot can TELL someone else that what they have is the best. That's completely irrelevant. What matters is how well it works when put into practice. I.D.ers can tell me that their worldview is more accurate, but when it comes time to use their idea in a prescriptive way, then they suddenly don't get any results.

All I can do is tell you that my view on how facts are established is partially 'different' from yours rather than 'better,' and I can invite you to take a closer look at this or that idea at your leisure.

So you can't even show me that your worldview is better or worse than mine at determining how the universe works? I would think that would be fairly easy to do.

God willing, you'll come to a point where you feel you have to say, "Eureka, Jesus is the Risen Son of God!!!"

Yeah, don't do that. It's very arrogant.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,412.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So then, I look at the title of this thread and wonder what the relevance of your post is...
The relevance is that even BioLogos qualifies as a form of that much vaunted "Creationism," albeit with a Francis Collins or Howard J. Van Till kind of twist. :D It means I get to have my cake and eat it too. All you get...is a Twinkie.

In other words, it takes things which a person has no answers for, and lets them make up their own answers, because they'd rather have wrong answers than an honest "I don't know."
No, you don't really get to make up your own answers; however, after sifting through upteen numbers of various scholars, you get to come to your own conclusion. Kind of like how all those various String Theorists do......... ;)

That could work, but only up to the point where the two contradict. What happens then?
What happens then is you make sure to apply the sauce in equal measure to both the Goose and the Gander.

And what happens when this "expression of reality via observed facts" is put to the test?
Since I'm not an I.D. proponent, I assume one or both expressions....fail.

So you are saying that your worldview is no better than mine at providing accurate information about the universe?
Not really. As far as science goes, I'd say that science done with the approach of Methodological Naturalism (like I do) is more sensible than those who do science with the assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism (like Dawkins).

Who cares? Any idiot can TELL someone else that what they have is the best. That's completely irrelevant. What matters is how well it works when put into practice. I.D.ers can tell me that their worldview is more accurate, but when it comes time to use their idea in a prescriptive way, then they suddenly don't get any results.
Right, you don't have to care about that. And I made that statement for comparison sake so you can see a difference between how I would 'do' science [if I were a scientist] versus how those other Christians (other Creationist) try to do it.

So you can't even show me that your worldview is better or worse than mine at determining how the universe works? I would think that would be fairly easy to do.
I don't know. WHAT, pray tell, IS your worldview. [I thought Atheism isn't a worldview.] At some point, you atheists really need to stop requiring Christians to attempt to hit a moving target while blindfolded. Unless.....all of that posturing and jesting just means that...you don't know where or what the target really is that you'd like Christians to hit.

Yeah, don't do that. It's very arrogant.
Nice rhetorical flourish there at the end, Kylie. Well Done!!! :rolleyes:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The relevance is that even BioLogos qualifies as a form of that much vaunted "Creationism," albeit with a Francis Collins or Howard J. Van Till kind of twist. :D It means I get to have my cake and eat it too. All you get...is a Twinkie.

Still not seeing the relevance. The fact that it is a form of creationism doesn't tell me how it serves as a way of determining what is factual.

No, you don't really get to make up your own answers; however, after sifting through upteen numbers of various scholars, you get to come to your own conclusion. Kind of like how all those various String Theorists do......... ;)

So you get to pick and choose the parts you want and discard the parts you don't want? Sounds like making up whatever you want to me.

Also, I'm not aware of any reputable scientists who describe string theory as factual. Perhaps you do?

What happens then is you make sure to apply the sauce in equal measure to both the Goose and the Gander.

Lovely non-answer, but could you provide a real answer?

Since I'm not an I.D. proponent, I assume one or both expressions....fail.

At least we can agree that the ID camp has no arguments of value.

Not really. As far as science goes, I'd say that science done with the approach of Methodological Naturalism (like I do) is more sensible than those who do science with the assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism (like Dawkins).

I don't see that the two are incompatible.

I don't know. WHAT, pray tell, IS your worldview.

My worldview is that if something is real, then it can be detected and understood by science. We may not be able to do so at the moment, but there is in principle some method of learning about such a thing using the scientific method.

[I thought Atheism isn't a worldview.]

Atheism is simply the position that God doesn't exist. I have many views that are not related to this in any way.

At some point, you atheists really need to stop requiring Christians to attempt to hit a moving target while blindfolded. Unless.....all of that posturing and jesting just means that...you don't know where or what the target really is that you'd like Christians to hit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice rhetorical flourish there at the end, Kylie. Well Done!!! :rolleyes:

Be honest, you weren't saying that for me, you were saying that for you. Saying that you want me to be convinced by your arguments, that I'll come over to your side and worship your God...

Whenever anyone says anything like that to me, the main thing it tells me is that the person saying it doesn't give a rat's about my own beliefs or thoughts. They just really wish that I would just take on the same beliefs as them.

Because their beliefs work for them, and therefore they must work for everyone.

And that's arrogant, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
lol

If you think you have soundly refuted me, try posting your reply again with clear quotes so I can see what I'm actually supposed to be responding to. Then we'll see if I have any responses or not.

In the meantime, stop hiding behind your unclear communication.

I don't have to go searching since my memory is as clear as my posts:

1. I showed you empirical (testable) evidence that only God could have told us 3k years ago that all life came from WATER. Today's science agrees, but you disagree with this knowledge written in Genesis 1:21.
2. All you have is a complaint that I don't post according to your rules. Live with it.
3. I will wait for your refute that some ancient superstitious man who lived 3k years ago wrote Gen 1:21. Until you do, my clear posts stand, which show that ONLY God knew and correctly wrote the scientific Truth announced last year by a consensus of godless scientists. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I have stories that make claims too.

Amen BUT you have yet to tell us How or When mindless Nature magically evolved Human Intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 and put it inside Apes. Your incomplete untrue false ToE is completely wrong, but you can't accept that. Amen?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't have to go searching since my memory is as clear as my posts:

1. I showed you empirical (testable) evidence that only God could have told us 3k years ago that all life came from WATER. Today's science agrees, but you disagree with this knowledge written in Genesis 1:21.
2. All you have is a complaint that I don't post according to your rules. Live with it.
3. I will wait for your refute that some ancient superstitious man who lived 3k years ago wrote Gen 1:21. Until you do, my clear posts stand, which show that ONLY God knew and correctly wrote the scientific Truth announced last year by a consensus of godless scientists. Amen?
You're honestly claiming that the only reason anybody could ever say that "life came from water" is because God told them so?

Anyway, I have soundly refuted you. The Bible does not say that all life came from water.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Amen BUT you have yet to tell us How or When mindless Nature magically evolved Human Intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 and put it inside Apes. Your incomplete untrue false ToE is completely wrong, but you can't accept that. Amen?
You are so doubtful that a complex information-processing system can develop self-awareness? It is rather remarkable, but certainly not impossible.
 
Upvote 0