intellgence....you either have it or you don't

lost999

I am now starting to reach the conclusion that you can't teach intelligence; you either have it or you don't.

Even though I read as much as I can, try to learn new vocabulary, it is utterly useless for me to try and procure an understanding of anything other rudimentary, simpleton terms or synopsis' on given topic. I just don't have the capability, resource, and I.Q. to be what I admire so much.

Honestly, tell me how many of you are equivalent in intelligence to a juggernaut like this:

Very few I'd wager.

I am merely an insignificant, uneducated wannabe spec in comparison to this guy. Until I amass the knowledge he has, I have no right to make any claim about anything.

I have no business commenting on things I know nothing about; I don't know anything.

I want to know why I am here? Who gave who permission for to me exist?

I'll never know the answer to this; I'm not even sure I care anymore.

Sorry for the rant, but this is an unsettling conclusion I am coming to.

Click to expand...

Lost....my friend, don't deprecate yourself. All learning takes time, and I'm sure that even you could unravel some of the atheistic '*rap' rhetoric that this supposed 'juggernaut' has spewed forth.

So, don't allow yourself to be strung along like an abused puppy tied to the back of someone's car bumper....

Popcorn?

lost999

The original OP was more of a vent, fueled off feelings. It definitely came off as immature, but I had to get it off my chest. I still think it had truth in it, pertaining to myself, it just came out in a harsh way. To really discuss these issues you need to have a solid background in science, philosophy, and mathematics. I have a basic understanding of all, maybe besides math (I shied away from calculus when in college).

Click to expand...

Yes, a solid background in the three fields you mention are helpful, but I don't think they're all absolutely necessary to contend for Christianity. In fact, since so much of cosmology, human origins, evolution, etc. is wrapped up in the assumptions of the nature of explanation as a category of human thought and enterprise, mostly what is needed is some progressive background in philosophy. That way, you can first deal with the ideas that underpin the methodologies and ideologies which in turn underpin the practice and application of science, math, and the philosophical structures that go with them, structures that of course can impinge on theology.

There are plenty of people here who understand these difficult concepts, so I can't go speaking on anyone's behalf besides myself; this has to do with my own incompetence.

Click to expand...

It's great that you are modest, but if you have a degree in social science, don't underestimate what you might be able to accomplish cognitively.

I just find it odd with the lack of questions that are can be answered, and the leaps and bounds that need to gone through to establish the most miniscule amount of truth.

Click to expand...

Actually, I find that most of the expectations that people put upon themselves are overblown to some extent; this is especially the case whenever the subject is "God."

I think it may be time to give up on these questions of origins I have. Once you think you have some kind of answer, you read something else, and have to start right back over. It's really not worth thinking about, it's just an endless cycle of frustration lol.

Click to expand...

You can give up, but remember, the world will progress each day without you then. I was where you were in some respects once (maybe twice), and then I realized that I don't have to trod the typical roads nor construct in my head the typical expectations, again, especially with regard to the subject of "God."

In the meanwhile people think they have the answers, and belittle each other because they have different opinions/beliefs. I don't know what I have found so enjoyable in this

Click to expand...

Yes, because, as you've I'm sure learned from your social lessons in school, we live in an ever developing society of pluralism. And an increase in plurality brings with it an increase in the frequency of cognitive 'headbutts' one will receive from those who see things differently. However, the thing to do isn't to bow out, but to put on a helmet and 'play ball.'

The attached video is not all that bright. The idiot who did it starts by saying that blanks might ahve been substituted and then tests that by checking a chest or remaining ammunition.

DOH,

The remaining bullets in a chest of Ammo can neither prove or disprove what was in the guns.

Acceptable msitake if it was someone commenting on a hypothetical set up by a different person. But when it is your own do a better job.

The video posted on the OP of this thread is a mass of bias masquerading as sound argumentation.

First off, the argument of a finely tuned universe was put into place before amassing discovery showed something different.
It is an old argument, it's simply been rehashed by some who simply haven't stayed updated.

The main thing that remains steady is in fact intelligent design. It poses a monumental issue for science because it's close to being a century since Einstein's relativity and there was been a fantastical failure in all sectors of physics to conquer ID.
Basically all the guy in the video says about this- because he has nothing to go on, is ridiculing the idea that God made a great big universe of noise and gas where He could have done something else- like things I suppose he'd do if he were God

An extraordinary abrupt dead end is not simpy something that happens in science, and a good deal of phycisists have outright feared an end to physics because an answer is just_ not_ there_

There have been so many countless things proposed by scientists for many decades about the origins of the universe that it's frankly amusing to see atheists go and try to dismiss religion based on the claims of certain apologists.

As a disclaimer I haven't watched the video because I'm in the middle of absolutely nowhere for Thanksgiving, and a turtle on crutches would be faster than our internet speed here. Also as a disclaimer, I'm half asleep and not sure if I'm reading the OP as intended. Apologies in advance.

Eh. I went to a K-8 school for the profoundly gifted that requires a minimum IQ of 145 for admission, and yet many of the kids there had difficulty with straight-forward simple activities and comprehending social scenarios common to their age group. I remember helping out with the kids in the lower grades, and a boy of about seven being baffled by Hot Wheel cars that had just been added to the play area. He was trying to figure out what you were supposed to do with them. I had to take the cars and put them on the track, race them around, and make the "vroom vroom" sound to show him. And even then he didn't get why it was a toy or understand its appeal. That sort of thing was common. A friend my age who went to the school with me when we were younger is bewildered by my relationship with my boyfriend and by teenage dating in general. He doesn't see the purpose of it because we're not going to get married anytime soon, and it doesn't add tangible achievement to our lives.

Being intelligent doesn't equate to being knowledgable or wise or capable of discernment, contribution, and accomplishments. If you knew the kind of epic stupidity I am capable of you'd get why we're more than just our IQs. You also don't need to have an advanced vocabulary. Jack Kerouac wrote that one day he would find the right words and they would be simple. I only use so many SAT-esque words because they'e been drilled into my head for the past two years.

I sort of perceive IQ as being akin to horsepower in a car. For specific tasks and fields it can be exceptionally advantageous. In most life settings, though, you really don't need a superior IQ any more than you need to be able to go as fast as a race car. You can get to most places you want to go in a reasonable time with an average horsepower. It's more about your drive, direction, and navigational abilities. You might not be able to make claims about things you haven't obtained comprehensive understanding of yet, but you can still share your opinions. That's what most people do.

Btw, if you remove the s from https in your YouTube link the format of the page should renormalize.

What do you mean by not being able to gain a deep understanding?

Do you mean that you don't see to remember things that you've read?

Reading isn't one of the best ways to remember things. Using that information is what tends helps people remember. For example, talking about it with others at length (like on a forum).

lost999 said:

I think it may be time to give up on these questions of origins I have. Once you think you have some kind of answer, you read something else, and have to start right back over. It's really not worth thinking about, it's just an endless cycle of frustration lol.

Click to expand...

Don't you think the universe came from the Big Bang? Or do you mean, 'why did the Big Bang happen'?

Artemis97 said:

Eh. I went to a K-8 school for the profoundly gifted that requires a minimum IQ of 145 for admission, and yet many of the kids there had difficulty with straight-forward simple activities and comprehending social scenarios common to their age group.

Click to expand...

Do you mind me asking what your IQ is roughly? I kinda wish I had a higher IQ... not that I know exactly what mind is.

lost999 said:

I just find it odd with the lack of questions that are can be answered, and the leaps and bounds that need to gone through to establish the most miniscule amount of truth.

Click to expand...

Why do you find that odd? You are grasping at the very edges of human understanding, that has been obsessed over for thousands of years with little solid gain.

I think it may be time to give up on these questions of origins I have. Once you think you have some kind of answer, you read something else, and have to start right back over. It's really not worth thinking about, it's just an endless cycle of frustration lol.

In the meanwhile people think they have the answers, and belittle each other because they have different opinions/beliefs. I don't know what I have found so enjoyable in this

Click to expand...

Admitting you don't know a specific answer shows maturity that some possibly more intelligent people don't have. There is no shame in it.

Settling on a conclusion to something where the subject is beyond your (and humanities) grasp in general is just faulty thinking.

WindStaff said:

There have been so many countless things proposed by scientists for many decades about the origins of the universe that it's frankly amusing to see atheists go and try to dismiss religion based on the claims of certain apologists.

Click to expand...

Religion doesn't need to be dismissed in this case as it doesn't explain the origin of the universe with scientific effect either.

The unknown of the origin of the universe is simply used as a prop for shaky religious beliefs.

Paradoxum said:

Do you mind me asking what your IQ is roughly? I kinda wish I had a higher IQ... not that I know exactly what mind is.

Click to expand...

Haha.

You definitely strike me as being very intelligent from your posts here.

I don't actually know my IQ because my parents have refused to ever tell me my scores. They didn't want me to fixate on the numbers or define myself by them.....or compare myself to my brother, haha. I'm sure he's smarter. I took a modified version of the Stanford Binet for young children when I was four for entry into this special program with Hunter College, and I just looked to see what score they required but couldn't find it. I took the normal Stanford Binet for admission to the school I mentioned above when we moved to the West Coast. C&p of their requirements:

Applicants choose to take one of the following tests:

Stanford Binet LM (all ages, score of 145)
WPPSI III (ages 4-6, score of 138 and above)
WISC IV (ages 5.6 and above, score of 138 and above)

Click to expand...

I was happy and did very well at the school, but don't think I was extraordinary academically.

variant said:

Why do you find that odd? You are grasping at the very edges of human understanding, that has been obsessed over for thousands of years with little solid gain.



Admitting you don't know a specific answer shows maturity that some possibly more intelligent people don't have. There is no shame in it.

Settling on a conclusion to something where the subject is beyond your (and humanities) grasp in general is just faulty thinking.

Click to expand...

...unless the 'beyond' has put it into my grasp.

Artemis97 said:

Haha.

You definitely strike me as being very intelligent from your posts here.

Click to expand...

Well thank you, but I don't think my IQ is is close to the numbers you're talking about... though it's above average.

I don't actually know my IQ because my parents have refused to ever tell me my scores. They didn't want me to fixate on the numbers or define myself by them.....or compare myself to my brother, haha. I'm sure he's smarter. I took a modified version of the Stanford Binet for young children when I was four for entry into this special program with Hunter College, and I just looked to see what score they required but couldn't find it. I took the normal Stanford Binet for admission to the school I mentioned above when we moved to the West Coast. C&p of their requirements:

Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough. So if you passed, your IQ must be above 45?

I was happy and did very well at the school, but don't think I was extraordinary academically.

Click to expand...

Compared to others at that school, or to the average person?

keith99 said:

The attached video is not all that bright. The idiot who did it starts by saying that blanks might ahve been substituted and then tests that by checking a chest or remaining ammunition.

DOH,

The remaining bullets in a chest of Ammo can neither prove or disprove what was in the guns.

Acceptable msitake if it was someone commenting on a hypothetical set up by a different person. But when it is your own do a better job.

Click to expand...

Excellent points, Keith! Thank you!

keith99 said:

The attached video is not all that bright. The idiot who did it starts by saying that blanks might ahve been substituted and then tests that by checking a chest or remaining ammunition.

DOH,

The remaining bullets in a chest of Ammo can neither prove or disprove what was in the guns.

Acceptable msitake if it was someone commenting on a hypothetical set up by a different person. But when it is your own do a better job.

Click to expand...

The narration says "examine the ammunition", which may refer to checking the spent cartridges that remain the fired guns. Blank cartridges often have a distinctive appearance, even after firing.



The person doing the animation may not have known this, or what was meant by that reference in the script.

2PhiloVoid said:

...unless the 'beyond' has put it into my grasp.

Click to expand...

Convincing yourself that you have such knowledge, when you actually do not, would also be faulty thinking.

Davian said:

Convincing yourself that you have such knowledge, when you actually do not, would also be faulty thinking.

Click to expand...

And assuming that someone else definitely has no such knowledge, when there is the potential that they actually may have it, would also constitute faulty thinking.

Fortunately for both of us, I don't think that the epistemological structure of Christianity was intended to rest purely on an evidential platform.

2PhiloVoid said:

And assuming that someone else definitely has no such knowledge, when there is the potential that they actually may have it, would also constitute faulty thinking.

Click to expand...

Creating a straw man of another's statement is faulting thinking.

I make no such assumptions. I have reached tentative conclusions based on observations that this claimed knowledge, or even the potential to have such knowledge has yet to be demonstrated.

2PhiloVoid said:

Fortunately for both of us,

Click to expand...

Who is this "us", Kimosabe?

2PhiloVoid said:

I don't think that the epistemological structure of Christianity was intended to rest purely on an evidential platform.

Click to expand...

Well, it is a religion, after all.

lost999 said:

I am now starting to reach the conclusion that you can't teach intelligence; you either have it or you don't.

Click to expand...

Look up neuroplasticity.