The world was perfect initially. God didn't change that. Man, who was tricked into thinking he could know what God knows and see what God sees is what destroyed perfection. Catch my drift? Search the galaxy. Billions of planets and here we are on this little blue ball, full of life, in a sea of silent space. Simply happenstance? I wouldn't waste my money on that bet.

and you go right ahead and embrace the word of a murderer ...

I'm in absolute agreement with Jeannie here. Intelligence does not require knowledge. I don't know where you came up with that one Michael. If you're using that as a premised you should rethink it. If you arrived at it as a conclusion you so go back and reexamine your logical process to get there because it must necessarily be flawed.

It requires intelligence to understand knowledge. But it doesn't require knowledge to be intelligent. In fact, if that were the case, we become more and more intelligent as we became more and more knowledgeable. That clearly isn't the case. I could give examples, but that really shouldn't be necessary. This should be obvious.

I agree with Jeannie also that reasoning is a learned activity. However, the ability to learn reasoning is related to intelligence. It's a proven fact that you can change your IQ. Most people don't realize this. They think that an IQ is a fixed rigid thing. You're born with a certain IQ and that's that.

Nothing could be further from the truth. IQ is ultimately a measure of the ability to reason. And a person can indeed improve their ability to reason. They can also lose their ability to reason by becoming mentally lethargic. The brain isn't all that much different from muscles in that regard. The more you use it to reason the greater you skills at reasoning will become.

Some people have the erroneous idea that if they merely use their brains they will become better at reasoning. This isn't necessarily true. A person can read a ton of book and just be accepting the knowledge that they contain without truly reasoning through it. In those cases they will have a brain full of data but they will have almost no ability to actually reason at all. Questioning why the data is where the ability to reason come into play. Following the reasoning of why things have to be true is the real workout. If the data is just accepted as presented then no reasoning skills have been learned or exercised.

Extracting data from a book without reasoning through it for yourself would be like laying on a bed watching an exercise video. That's not going to make your muscles strong.

I think this is a really good analogy too because it shows why knowledge does not equate to intelligence. Knowing a lot of data is considered knowledge. Yet a person can know a lot of data and still have no clue how it all fits together (no reasoning). And reasoning is a learned skill.

Intelligence itself (the ability to learn to reason) is innate. And like muscles, it can be improved upon, or allowed to turn to fat.

So I totally disagree that knowledge is intelligence. Like JB says, we are born with intelligence (the ability to makes sense of the world or learn reasoning) but we are not born with knowledge. So intelligence cannot require knowledge. It's the ability to assimilate knowledge and learn reasoning.

In fact, for this reason, it is possible for an "empty mind", that contains no knowledge, to be "intelligent".

It is plausible that all things can come from mind. From pure thought without any preexisting data, or form. Other than whatever form might be required for the mind to exist in the first place.

You enjoy pure thought experiments. Imagine this. You have a human being and aliens come and completely erase the entire content of the human's memory so that the human is now like a new born baby.

Will the human die? Of course not. Babies don't die automatically just because they don't yet have any knowledge. In fact, the human would be precisely like a new born baby mentally.

Thus proving that intelligence does not require knowledge. That person with the erased memory could, in theory, make a complete and full comeback. Not to what they used to know, but to whatever they experience and learn form that point forward.

So a mind that is totally blank of knowledge can still be intelligent. Intelligence does not require knowledge, nor experience.

You mean all those hours I spent watching my exercise video are not going to help me to loose weight and get in shape? Darn.

The world is not perfect and has never been perfect :
whoever designed it , screwed things somewhere and in some ways .
Keep on searching . .

The perfect designer is an imaginary word and the proof is all the problems we have at hands . We have babies born in a state of hell whatever hell means .

Awareness(the ability to think consciously) requires perceptual capability...

Perceptual capability is completely contingient upon the physiological constructs of the five senses.

Try to visualize something without having vision nor touch.

Consciousness is bi-product of having a physiological existence.

Thought is non-existent without the five senses.

That has been proven over and over.



Therefore...



One must be able to perceive, in some way, shape, or form, in order to think...

Perception requires experience(s).

A completely physiological concept.

Thus, the pantheistic notion of 'God' perceiving itself through this temporary separate and physiological existence does not stand up on it's own two feet.

Because it must then follow that this 'God' had no ability to perceive this need until after the physiological existence.

So then it could not have purposefully caused this illusion of separation, for it could not perceive the need.

No 'God' at all... an accident, perhaps.





JB,

Regarding your response...



Ability does not equate to intelligence. <------- Ooopsy! EDIT: That would not be true, according to some definitions. Nonetheless, the rest remains... what would it be without experience? Potential? Potential knows nothing, therefore cannot perceive, nor learn without the other physiological constructs that facilitate the ability to acquire knowledge.

Intelligence requires experience(exposure).

Using your description, how intelligent is a still-born?

How intelligent is someone born alive but without the use of their five senses?

How much brain activity(thought) does that living being have?

None.

If you want to call that intelligent, then that is your choice.




I said this...



To which you responded as such...




So then, you believe that one can be intelligent without the ability to reason?

Again, your choice...



Everything is learned JB... one must be capable of becoming an intelligent being, it is called innate ability, and without the five senses it is moot. One is not born with intelligence.



Then I had said this...



To which you responded with...



In your perspective...

In mine, it is like saying that thought is a product of a physiological existence. See the above concerning the thought(s) of a human born without the use of the five senses.





That entire quote is quite laughable...

my assumptive statements??? I choose to leave that comment just like it is... meaningless and without substance.

The core of consciousness is the intent to be? Puh-leeeze...

Do you not realize that the ability to desire is completely contingient upon the ability to perceive?

Potential is not sentient. Think as you must.

Good day!

it's not of arimaic descent

1per�fect
Pronunciation: \&#712;p&#601;r-fikt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English parfit, from Anglo-French, from Latin perfectus, from past participle of perficere to carry out, perfect, from per- thoroughly + facere to make, do � more at do
Date: 14th century
1 a: being entirely without fault or defect : flawless <a perfect diamond> b: satisfying all requirements : accurate c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect gentleman> d: faithfully reproducing the original; specifically : letter-perfect e: legally valid
2: expert, proficient <practice makes perfect>
3 a: pure, total b: lacking in no essential detail : complete cobsolete : sane d: absolute, unequivocal <enjoys perfect happiness> e: of an extreme kind : unmitigated <a perfect brat> <an act of perfect foolishness>
4obsolete : mature
5: of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or verbal that expresses an action or state completed at the time of speaking or at a time spoken of
6obsolete a: certain, sure b: contented, satisfied
7of a musical interval : belonging to the consonances unison, fourth, fifth, and octave which retain their character when inverted and when raised or lowered by a half step become augmented or diminished
8 a: sexually mature and fully differentiated <a perfect insect> b: having both stamens and pistils in the same flower <a perfect flower>
� per�fect�ness \-fik(t)-n&#601;s\ noun
synonyms perfect, whole, entire, intact mean not lacking or faulty in any particular. perfect implies the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state <a perfect set of teeth>. whole suggests a completeness or perfection that can be sought, gained, or regained <felt like a whole person again after vacation>. entire implies perfection deriving from integrity, soundness, or completeness of a thing <the entire Beethoven corpus>. intact implies retention of perfection of a thing in its natural or original state <the boat survived the storm intact>.


take your pic!!!

Thanks Tribo...

I did not mean to imply that it was Aramaic, I was referring to the original texts before translation. I believe the oldest copies are Aramaic. The translation may be flawed?

One finger cannot point at itself.

Yes it can, just hold it up to a mirror

If one is all, one is also that mirror...

A mirror cannot reflect itself...

Creative:



Yes, apparently this is so.

Now I would rather you just tell me what point you are trying to make.

It would be so much easier than to dance this dance.

Do you think you can do that? Just make your point?

JB

I imagine that the core of consciousness is the intent to be.
It also has the ability to perceive. It perceives its own perception..of self.

It cannot ITSELF be identified as "potential."

It is that which has potential. Yet it is invisible and formless. It is source. It is what it is. It has no name.

This is what I imagine. It is not necessary that you agree. It doesn't matter to me.

Peace.

Creative:




One is not born with intelligence? .....really..?

I have always felt that intelligence is the capacity to learn.

Of course there are many definitions for this word "intellligence."

Here is the one that I feel is accurate:

>"Intelligence (also called intellect) is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. "

>"There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However, some psychologists prefer not to include these traits in the definition of intelligence."

It is difficult for me to communicate effectively with you Creative, because we don't agree on simple meanings of words.

I find your statements ambiguous and confusing and sometimes meaningless, simply because I think you interpret words completely differently than I do.

**********************

I would like to understand you, and what point you are trying to make if that is possible. Just tell me what it is without all the fluffy philosophy please, I would really appreciate that.

I just don't like the dance.

JB

that was meant as a joke - not a philisophical statement

God will always be perfect. its man who makes the choice to deviate from God's plan. adam and eve started that deviation.

You're question here almost seems redundant. But what do you mean by 'visualize'?

Clearly we do not need to have physical sight to be able to envision things in the mind.

Moreover, we can obviously visualize things that have never before existed. If this wasn't true then we could have on creativity. Sci-fi and fantasy novels and movies would be impossible to construct. No one could even speak of a unicorn, for example, because no one has every had a sensory experience of one.

So I don't see your statement here as being meaningful. It think it's perfectly clear that we can visualize things beyond our senses.



You say that this has been proven over and over. If that's the case, how about some citations. I'm totally unaware of any such proof and I would like to exam it for myself. If it is a sound and comprehensible proof I'll accept it and understand why it must be so. However, I'm willing to bet that I will find flaws with the proof. If not with the proof itself, perhaps I'll disagree with a premise upon which the proof is resting.

Ultimately all proofs must rest upon unproven premises. That the one thing I do know.



What you say sounds good on the surface. But I could suggest that you are thinking too rigidly. You're probably thinking of a glass mirror that is flat and rigid. However, if the mirror is malleable like the surface of water it is conceivable that it most certainly could be undulated in a manner that would allow it to reflect back upon its own self. Wave reflecting wave. This is more in line with how I view the essence of God. Not as a rigid physical thing, but as a flexible spiritual entity.

In fact, this idea of God creating the universe in his own image is precisely what Pantheism is all about. It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

Jeanniebean's holographic universe is a manifestation of God herself.

Jeanniebean is a reflection of God.

i do not think this assertion is true. i believe that
perception requires some form of sensation but there is
a great variety of sensation in the world exceeding our
common notions regarding human sensation. the "seeing"
perception of a thousand eyes in some insects or the
"feeling sensation" of thousands of tiny hairs as in some
arachnids.

moreover i do not believe that we are the only thinking,
aware beings in the universe. completely independent of
a discussion of the nature of god. but as for a pantheistic
god, i see no reason why there could not be collective
consciousness much as we can view a hive of bees or a
colony of ants as having a collective behavior and acting
as complex organism. ultimately this train of thought
results as the association of Nature with God.

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

a mirrored sphere indeed does reflect itself on the
interior.

duplicate post deleted site hiccups

So easy-------God is perfect

People are NOT