Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: Kreeate
...
So once again... no actual evidence or proof of god... ...

Maybe you should put a trademark behind it like DeflatingAtheism suggests in his TJ Kirk video.

Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

...
Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. Recently, however, The New York Times reported that California’s school board has issued guidelines for science textbooks that apparently de-​emphasize teaching evolution as a fact.​—November 10, 1989.

It copies the tactics of the chief priests and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. When officers sent out to arrest Jesus came back without him, the Pharisees demanded: “‘Why is it you did not bring him in?’ The officers replied: ‘Never has another man spoken like this.’ In turn the Pharisees answered: ‘You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.’” (John 7:45-49) The tyranny of authority: ‘None of the important people, none of the educated people, accept Jesus as Messiah. Only the stupid accursed ones do.’

Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

...

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

Again, thanks for the demonstration of what this looks like.

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

...
Lies, Lies!

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”

...

Making Generalizations

... [whereislogic: already did that one, and you gave a nice demonstration of it]

Name-Calling

...

Playing on the Emotions

...

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

For example, in times of national crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “My country, right or wrong,” “Fatherland, Religion, Family,” or “Freedom or Death.” But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?

...

So the sly art of propaganda can paralyze thought, prevent clear thinking and discernment, and condition individuals to act en masse. How can you protect yourself?

See article linked in my signature for an answer to that question (for those who are interested in protecting themselves from the effects of propaganda, and not merely want to give a demonstration of those effects and techniques).

originally posted by: whereislogic

Quoting yourself to prove your point... classic christian diversion tactics.

Still no actual evidence or proof of god.

originally posted by: Kreeate
...
So once again... no actual evidence or proof of god... just sidestepping the issue with nonsense videos, quotes and verbal diarrhea. Typical of the bible pushing christian agenda.

Anyone remember my commentary about AI and that chatbot discussed in that article on page 5?

originally posted by: whereislogic
Which reminds me of an article about AI I recently quoted in response to the erronuous notion that certain AI programs or chatbots have passed a Turing test (as per the one talking about it as such in that thread). This part in particular:

...
The Myth of Artificial Intelligence is not just insightful and timely, but it is also funny. Larson, with an insider’s knowledge, describes how the sausage of AI is made, and it’s not pretty — it can even be ridiculous. Larson retells with enjoyable irony the story of Eugene Goostman, the Ukranian 13-year-old chatbot, who/which through sarcasm and misdirection convinced a third of judges in a Turing test, over a five-minute interaction, that it was an actual human being. No, argues Larson, Goostman did not legitimately pass the Turing test and computers are still nowhere near passing it, especially if people and computers need to answer rather than evade questions.

Source: Artificial Intelligence: Unseating the Inevitability Narrative | Evolution News

In the case of Kreeate and in particular the part I bolded in his comment, you can add ridicule and scoffing to sarcasm and misdirection, in order to perpetuate the habit of habitually lying about the evidence supposedly not being offered, and using the same phrase for this lie over and over for obvious propagandistic purposes as discussed before. And the last bolded phrase in that article about AI you can change to: 'need to say something profound and thoughtful about the evidence rather than evading the evidence by means of a repititious mantra and lie and misdirection and dismissal by means of ridicule, sarcasm and scoffing in order to discredit and downplay/downvalue the evidence'. Possibly in order to convince himself and others that he's right about there being "no actual evidence" (presented or referred to in this thread or otherwise, in general, since that's what he wants to believe; compare with DeflatingAtheism's commentary in response to TJ Kirk and the claim and belief that "there is no evidence for God". Beliefs are not always spelled out like that by those who believe this to be the case, or are leaning towards that belief. Keep that in mind when listening to DeflatingAtheism cause he doesn't make that clear, he's only responding to the claim; TJ Kirk nicely rephrases it, which he then responds to as well, but his response is still affected by wanting to respond to the claim, at which point he begins talking about the burden of proof, which I already alluded to you can disregard concerning what I wanted to focus on in that video).

And what on earth could motivate me to get into a debate about an habitual liar's accusations towards God being "an asshole"? If you look carefully at my replies to him, most of it is intended for others who might read his commentary, with phrases such as "for those who are interested". His closedmindedness and reluctance to consider the evidence, arguments and conclusions related to the case for God's existence in any sort of serious or interested manner (demonstrating time and time again that he's not interested in an answer or response to his challenges, he doesn't want to hear it, he “will not put with” it, as 2 Tim 4:3,4 describes it*) does however nicely provide some material to talk about. Opening up the path to discussing the behavioural pattern described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. So that everyone can see, making it much more useful/beneficial than debating him (or “fight about words”). For that, perhaps we should all be thankful for Kreeate's participation in this thread. He's certainly not afraid to show his true nature, or true colors. Which I guess, in a way, is commendable (albeit a bit repetitious and troll-like after a while). *: he'd much rather listen (and repeat) that which does 'tickle his ears', such as the stuff in connection with his slanderous accusation toward God that I just mentioned).

“Keep reminding them of these things, charging them before God as witness, not to fight about words, a thing of no usefulness at all because it overturns those listening.” (2 Timothy 2:14)

See how useful/beneficial the letters to Timothy are?

Devil

The descriptive name of Satan in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which means “Slanderer.” Satan was given the name Devil because he is the chief and foremost slanderer and false accuser of Jehovah, His good word, and His holy name.​—Mt 4:1; Joh 8:44; Re 12:9.

Source: Devil (Glossary)

So who do you think is molding his thinking? (as per the question in the article I linked in my 2nd reply)

He's a little bit of a fascinating character, cause it's all so blatant and 'out there' for all to see. No shame regarding this behaviour whatsoever, one may even wonder if he's aware of it, if not, you just gotta feel sorry for him (although he lays it on so thick, I'm somewhat in doubt of that, it looks deliberate, because of the earlier reasons discussed in the articles about propaganda and fraud, it can be very effective, especially with the repetition and especially on those whose ears he can tickle with it, in particular the stuff he referred to in relation to the accusation of God being an asshole).

“Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.

Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap; because the one sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but the one sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit. So let us not give up in doing what is fine, for in due time we will reap if we do not tire out.* [Or “give up.”] So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.” (Gal 6:6-10)

Also, I wouldn't put it past some people to actually have propaganda chatbots making comments on ATS. Those influenced by demonic teachings and even possession are also a reality of life and much more prevalent than some people might think (even those who believe in the existence of demons). Sometimes their style is subtle, sometimes it's very much 'in your face' in order to lure another into the type of bickering with the type of result warned for at 2 Timothy 2:14, that result then becoming the purpose of using that style. Where do you think the troll-types come from? The name "troll" is quite appropiate.

“And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Rom 12:2)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.” (1 Tim 4:1,2)

originally posted by: whereislogic
irrelevant garbage removed

Quoting the buy-bull is synonymous to quoting Shakespeare, only it is less eloquent and utterly meaningless. Should I start quoting phrases from Dune by Frank Herbert? Will you heed the words from that book as much as you do the buy-bull?

Definitely not, because you are a bigot, a liar and a charlatan, selling 2000 year old lies and fairy tales to a gullible populace for the benefit of the "church" and the people who claim to subscribe to it. Selling false hope and the promise of an eventual end that does not exist and will never come.

And yet again... no proof of your god. When will you provide it?

a reply to: whereislogic

By the way, all this is also evidence for the reliability of the Bible and Bible prophecy and the existence of God as its author. It falls under (in?) the field of human psychology and behaviour. One of the many sciences in which observable evidence for these things can be found (quite 'in your face' observable in this case; take note for those who are taking their first steps down this path, you don't want to become like that, that the pattern described at 2 Tim 4:3,4 takes on such extreme forms that one day you end up talking and behaving like that as well, without even realizing how far gone you are and how much your mind and thinking has been poisoned* by the one “who is misleading the entire inhabited earth”, Rev 12:9, and the behaviour he encourages and conditions people with by means of his army of demon and human pawns and according to this sytem of things as described at Rom 12:2 and Eph 2:2). *: also see my signature and text under my profilename.

Other sciences that are likewise filled with evidence for these things:

biology, (astro)physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, mathematics, history, sociology and others (just naming a few of the key ones, many of which are covered in my playlist regarding the evidence for these things I mentioned in the first sentence).

Oh, I forgot the term "mockery" after "scoffing", but I think that's a synonym for ridicule. But that might make it a bit more clear why I quoted Galatians 6:7.

Since I didn't have space before to quote Eph 2:2:

“in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.”

And while I'm at it:

Spirit of the World (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Definition: The impelling force that influences human society made up of those who are not servants of Jehovah God, causing such people to say and do things according to a characteristic pattern. Although people act on individual preferences, those who manifest the spirit of the world give evidence of certain basic attitudes, ways of doing things, and aims in life that are common to the present system of things of which Satan is ruler and god.

Why is being tainted by the spirit of the world a matter of serious concern?

1 John 5:19: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (Satan has fostered a spirit that dominates the thinking and activities of those of mankind who are not Jehovah’s approved servants. It is a spirit of selfishness and pride that is so pervasive that it is like the air that humans breathe. We need to exercise great care not to submit to Satan’s power by letting that spirit mold our lives.)

...

What are some of the characteristics of the spirit of the world against which we need to be on guard?

1 Cor. 2:12: “Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God.” (If the spirit of the world takes root in a person’s thinking and desires, its fruitage is soon seen in actions that manifest that spirit. So, breaking free from the spirit of the world requires not only avoiding unchristian activities and excesses but also getting to the root of the matter by cultivating attitudes that reflect God’s spirit and genuine love for his ways. This you should keep in mind as you consider the following manifestations of the spirit of the world.)

Doing what a person wants to do, without regard for the will of God

...

Reacting to situations on the basis of pride [whereislogic: remember the remark about a reverse appeal to pride that plays on our fear of seeming stupid in the article about propaganda?]

It was Satan who first allowed an overestimation of self to corrupt his heart. (Compare Ezekiel 28:17; Proverbs 16:5.) Pride is a divisive force in the world of which he is ruler, causing people to consider themselves better than those of other races, nations, language groups, and economic status. [whereislogic: or other religious persuasion, as in "Christian apologists" for example, see first comment I responded to] ...

Manifesting a rebellious attitude toward authority

... [I'm reminded of someone saying the God of the Bible is an asshole; I'm skipping a few now to get to the one that relates to that remark]

Giving vent to one’s emotions in abusive speech and violent acts

These are “works of the flesh” against which many persons have to put up a hard fight. With genuine faith and the help of God’s spirit they can conquer the world rather than let its spirit dominate them.—Gal. 5:19, 20, 22, 23; Eph. 4:31; 1 Cor. 13:4-8; 1 John 5:4.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
By the way, all this is also evidence for the reliability of the Bible and Bible prophecy and the existence of God as its author.

Where's your proof, or "evidence" for the reliability of the bible and god, please darling?

Footnote for bible pushing morons... No... the bible is not evidence of god or evidence of itself. You want to claim that? Prove it.

Also, if your god is so great, kindly explain these hissy fits please?

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.

originally posted by: whereislogic

... Keep that in mind when listening to DeflatingAtheism cause he doesn't make that clear, he's only responding to the claim; TJ Kirk nicely rephrases it, which he then responds to as well, but his response is still affected by wanting to respond to the claim, at which point he begins talking about the burden of proof, which I already alluded to you can disregard concerning what I wanted to focus on in that video).

Oops, I actually did the bolded thing in a youtube comment in the video comment section. Which was this:

Funny, at 1:00 he expresses his expectation that "this is not going to be a great entry into my channel", but I think it's one of the best. Along with "Bait-and-Switch Atheist Propaganda". I also kinda liked "Dumb Cop, Dumber Cop", "Atheists Never Prove %$#*", "OMG I GOT LOGICKED!!" and "The Delivery System and The Meme: A Fever Dream". I like this video so much because it actually alludes to the phenomenon predicted at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 about a certain reluctance to consider the evidence for God's existence seriously (and related beneficial teaching and truth); among other things (at 2:27, but you may want to hear what he's responding to before that; and there is more later on when he's talking about evidence for the Big Bang at 7:59, especially 8:49 without the burden of proof remark, again you may want to have a look at what he's responding to). The last video I mentioned is a good demonstration of what's described at 1 Cor. 1:19-25, well, technically, all of them provide such a demonstration. Go ahead, read those texts to see what I mean.

I bolded the relevant remark. Now you have some timeframes to focus on for the TJ Kirk vs Deflating Atheism video. Might be useful for those interested.

I linked all these videos mentioned there on page 8. The first comment after the comment where I linked the TJ Kirk vs Deflating Atheism video. I got confused cause I made that youtube comment in between. I'm out of space for convenient editing in the comment quoted at the start of this one (have to use a trick that is a bit time intensive for that, so I can go over my allotted space).

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic

... Keep that in mind when listening to DeflatingAtheism cause he doesn't make that clear, he's only responding to the claim; TJ Kirk nicely rephrases it, which he then responds to as well, but his response is still affected by wanting to respond to the claim, at which point he begins talking about the burden of proof, which I already alluded to you can disregard concerning what I wanted to focus on in that video).

Oops, I actually did the bolded thing in a youtube comment in the video comment section. Which was this:

Funny, at 1:00 he expresses his expectation that "this is not going to be a great entry into my channel", but I think it's one of the best. Along with "Bait-and-Switch Atheist Propaganda". I also kinda liked "Dumb Cop, Dumber Cop", "Atheists Never Prove %$#*", "OMG I GOT LOGICKED!!" and "The Delivery System and The Meme: A Fever Dream". I like this video so much because it actually alludes to the phenomenon predicted at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 about a certain reluctance to consider the evidence for God's existence seriously (and related beneficial teaching and truth); among other things (at 2:27, but you may want to hear what he's responding to before that; and there is more later on when he's talking about evidence for the Big Bang at 7:59, especially 8:49 without the burden of proof remark, again you may want to have a look at what he's responding to). The last video I mentioned is a good demonstration of what's described at 1 Cor. 1:19-25, well, technically, all of them provide such a demonstration. Go ahead, read those texts to see what I mean.

I bolded the relevant remark. Now you have some timeframes to focus on for the TJ Kirk vs Deflating Atheism video. Might be useful for those interested.

Again... quoting yourself and deflecting the previous issues.

a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for the reply WIL.

Don't understand most of it, but one concept did resonate, with all of : my previous post ; your OP ; and contemplations of long-ago in my youth.

From my early questioning periods, there was an idea that one of the reasons we may believe in a Greater Creator : was that we found ourselves so much more clever that all of the creatures, especially apes.
That general idea was creatively expressed in The Superior Species. [YA2020]

The ape story you shared about the linguistic differences, resonated with the previous paragraph, as well as my expression in my previous post, about the thought-exercise you had proposed for us in the OP.

Just as the apes would not only struggle with their vocalizations to express complex ideas, but it may be beyond their physical cerebral capacity, for some concepts that we can discuss.
Just as it would be beyond our abilities to describe the proposed Creator, as it may indeed be beyond our capacity to comprehend, let alone vocalize it.

originally posted by: Kreeate
[In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be taken as wives

originally posted by: cooperton
Did you care to look into the context of any of these?

Of course he didn't, that doesn't tickle his ears. He didn't even read the texts themselves most likely. He just copy-pasted that from some website because it tickled his ears, making no effort to verify if what is being said about these texts is true or doesn't contain any spin or outright lies. That being said, everything starting with Judges 21 contains spin or outright lies concerning what it actually says or is symbolically talking about. For example, Isaiah 13:16 and Hosea 13:16 contain prophecies of what would happen that came true, with the Medes and Assyrians doing it (the latter being especially known for their atrocities), some people take this as a warning and evidence of the reliability of Bible prophecy.

Ps 137:9 uses symbology, it's not meant literally. The "children" are symbolically the religious children of Babylon the Great ("daughter of Babylon", Ps 137:8) for example, which would be referring to religions such as Christendom, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confuciananism, etc.. The "rocks", which is rendered "crag" in some older Bible translations, is referring to God's Kingdom (see the link I just used for details).

In regards to Exodus 21:1-11, a "concubine" is not a "sex slave" (the word "slave" used in verse 7 also doesn't mean "sex slave"), that's spin, a concubine occupied a position in the nature of a secondary wife and was sometimes spoken of as a wife. Concubinage was in existence before the Law covenant and was recognized and regulated by the Law, which protected the rights of both wives and concubines. (Ex 21:7-11; De 21:14-17) And polygamy was not God's idea, intention or original arrangement, it started with a descendant of Cain and is prohibited in the Christian congregation, see Marriage and Concubine. The word "concubine" is only used once in Ex 21:1-11, and it says the following:

8 If her master is not pleased with her and he does not designate her as a concubine but causes her to be purchased by someone else,* [Lit., “to be redeemed.”] he will not be entitled to sell her to foreigners, for he has betrayed her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he is to grant her the rights of a daughter.

There's no "child abuse" going on in Judges 11:29-40, more spin; at 2 Kings 10:18-27 God hasn't "ordered" anything, more spin, or you could describe that as an outright lie when they say "God orders". One could make an argument that it's merely spin after considering what Jehovah says to Jeʹhu in verse 30 or elsewhere in the Bible concerning what to do with those Israelites who abandon the worship of Jehovah for the worship of Baal, which included child sacrifice (the worship of Baal included that). But the description "God orders" specifically concerning the events described in 2 Kings 10:18-27 is wrong/incorrect/false or inaccurate.

And in Judges 21 God also isn't ordering anything,several times it is said that "the assembly" (the community of Israel) is giving the commands, and in the last verse it says:

“In those days there was no king in Israel. Each one was doing what was right in his own eyes.*” [Or “what he thought was right.”]

The description from that unknown source (he didn't give a source for that website he took that from) also contains lots of spin. But that doesn't matter anyway, cause God didn't order any of it, as the last verse clearly reminds anyone who actually reads this honest account of history, making no attempt at hiding what happened, as secular historians would regarding things their country or empire did that they would rather forget or not have other people know. From where we get the saying that 'history is written by the victors'.

So why respond if they resort to that much spin and lies to make a case against Jehovah God? Clearly, honesty, truth and accuracy is not their concern (neither is making an effort regarding the 'why that way' question, possible answers to that question would prevent them from spinning it to use it as a case against Jehovah; I'm thinking or talking specifically about the destruction of the Canaanites now, but I guess you can consider the same question in relation to how God dealt with the phenomenon of slavery). And neither is it Kreeate's concern if he jumps on board with this propagandistic spin just because it tickled his ears, with no desire or interest whatsoever to understand these texts or events, or verify what is being said about it. Hence me responding to you, cause you didn't seem to have noticed that it wasn't God ordering these things in Judges 21, the one you responded to. And while I was at it, I did the others as well, leaving only the ones about the Canaanites. Which, for those who are interested, is discussed in the bottem half of the last article in this article series (but please consider a different question that may help, "WHY DO WE HATE CRUELTY?", which is discussed in the bottem half of the first article):

COVER SUBJECT: IS GOD CRUEL? Why Do People Say That God Is Cruel?
Natural Disasters—Evidence That God Is Cruel?
Divine Judgments—Were They Cruel?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

It almost sounds like your fixation on theology stems from an unrelenting hunger to possess godlike abilities akin to the X-Men comic books. Being a human is simply too mundane and finite for your ambitions.

Nah I'm just going off the Bible and history books of the awakened ancestors or our past.

You on the other hand believe a more outrageous X-men like mutation in which a microbe over many successive generations can become a human. Your belief in this has no foundation in science or history, yet you still believe it. I'll leave you to your beliefs.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
And one that is perhaps a bit too long, increasing the chance of something being said that I would like to have seen rephrased. I especially like the part from 8:20 - 10:01 (which is a bit similar to the video "Bait-and-Switch Atheist Propaganda"; it also relates to the phrase I bolded in the article "Common Sense—Why So Uncommon?" and the question of the preceding article "Who Molds Your Thinking?" and the Lucius Lavin-effect). ...again have their thinking molded by these charlatans and pseudo-intellectuals):

In that timeframe, DeflatingAtheism disccuses the buzzwords "Dunning-Kruger effect" and "cognitive dissonance". After showing a bunch of youtube comments using that 1st term in the Logicked video he's responding to above, he says at 8:57: "Are you noticing a trend here? It seem like the little ... atheism kiddies have hit upon a new 'do I sound smart yet' buzzword. I guess "cognitive dissonance" was getting old hat." (I skipped one word from there that was neither helpful nor accurate)

At the time I shared that video, I was reminded of the repetitive usage of the terms "gish gallop" and "word salad", but I didn't really want to talk about that again (did so earlier in response to TzarChasm, since he had just used the 1st term in another thread on this subforum in response to my commentary*, and peter vlar used "word salad" in a response to another comment in yet another thread). *: having a little trouble finding it so I could be mistaken, perhaps someone else used it, I've seen Peeple use both terms various times in the past (Peeple, the ATS user, not people, although that would also be the case).

Now check out some of the commentary of a youtube debate between Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty uploaded Sep 18, that I just ran into (just a small selection; between brackets is mine):

I'm 17 minutes in and embarrassed for Mr Michael here. He's literally asking kindergarden level questions that apparently led him to being a catholic. It's a gish gallop of epic proportion that I can't even begin to express how weak it is. ...

The word salad with this old guy is incredible.. wow.
This was a hard listen… gish galloping all over the place as well

Gish gallop with incredibly vague, undefined terms peppered in everywhere.

20 minutes in and this guy has about the most dishonest debate tactics I've ever seen. Matt hasn't talked yet and the Gish Gallop that just happened was inexcusable.

Holy gish-gallop

that's because of the ridiculous gish galloping idiocy.

Whether one understands all the arguments being raced through or not is irrelevant to whether it qualifies as a gish gallop. [in response to someone claiming there was no gish galloping]

he opened with a Gish Gallop of P.R.A.T.T.s. Just like every other theist apologist, he has no evidence [anyone reminded of Kreaate's and TzarChasms commentary like me? Especially Kreeate, cause TzarChasm is a bit more subtle about his denial of the "footprint" for Creation, i.e. the observable evidence] to substantiate his deitu claim and resorts to specious pesudoarguments (arguments are NOT EVIDENCE) [this mantra is responded to by DeflatingAtheism in the video with TJ Kirk; it's part of a database of "repetitious mantras" common in these circles, which includes the "no evidence" mantra, which is what that video is about. Quoting that term from the article about "Fraud in Science"] and rhetorical dirty tricks.

Correct. He started out with a gish gallop then when Matt asked him a question, instead of answering, he wanted Matt to recite Aquiinas' arguments. It went downhill from there.

Michael Egnor chastised Matt for not being able to address 10 points - mostly stolen from Aquinus, presented in rapid succession, cliff-notes, Gish gallop fashion - when he himself was not able to address Matt’s only argument.

the exact tactic taken in the AXP call from 'Kabane the Christian', some Canadian punk who thought his own word salad proved gawd.

again, you're not making any sense. Sit down with someone, try to get them to make sense of your word salad if they can, and have them write for you. Or copy and paste your argument published by someone else. The words you've used in the order you've used them makes no sense. Can't you understand that?

Are you noticing a trend here? And it's only coming from one side. Some 'people' could really use an expansion of their database of buzzwords and buzz-arguments (or ways of reasoning and thinking). It's so repetitive and such a demonstration of having been affected by the propaganda technique described in the article about fraud and propaganda (concerning repetition), as well as a demonstration of the phrase I bolded from the article "Common Sense—Why So Uncommon?" Which was: "Many people would rather let others do their thinking for them." (or letting their mental databases be programmed by them, so to speak; see text under my profilename and then my signature)

It's also related to the question raised in the title of the preceding article in that comment "Who Molds Your Thinking?" and the Lucius Lavin-effect I talked about. Basically my commentary speaking about some aspect of Kreeate's commentary (possibly starting with my comment about AI and chatbots, but also before that). Fascinating, as Spock would say (speaking about the phenomenon so well described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and other related texts, and the endresult in the way they talk and argue, mimicking the behaviour of mindless drones conditioned and indoctrinated not to think for themselves*, as per the intention of "the ruler of this world" and his pawns, John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11, 1 John 5:19). No offense intended, just trying my hands on an honest description of what I'm seeing, intended as a heads-up similar to my signature and text under my profilename. *: Instead, what they end up doing, is taking their information and M.O. in terms of thinking, reasoning and arguing, from the type of people that you can see videos of on the so-called "ScienceNET" channel shown in DeflatingAtheism's video called "Bait-and-Switch Atheist Propaganda", which has Carl Sagan, Elon Musk, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Pinker, Matt Dillahunty, Sean Carroll, Bill Nye, etc., all charlatan philosophers of the Lucius Lavin type, excellent at selling themselves as intellectuals and often "scientists" worthy of listening to and getting your information and arguments from, Kreeate already quoted one of them (although they parrot eachother as well, so hard to tell which one said that first), and strongfp used a Carl Sagan video 'ducking the question' that was asked as per the usual chatbot M.O.* Stephen Hawking should be in there somewhere as well, although I didn't see him in DeflatingAtheism's video.

The "judges" spoken of in the article about AI that were fooled by "Eugene Goostman, the Ukranian 13-year-old chatbot", into thinking "that it was an actual human being", can be forgiven, since nowadays, because of the phenomenon prophecied at 2 Tim 4:3,4 and "the spirit of the world" (also discussed earlier in relation to being molded by "this system of things"), you can hardly tell the difference anymore.

*: did anyone in this thread address the question(s) in my OP yet in a manner that is applicable to the scenario the question was about? Without changing the meaning of terms used in that question or by ignoring the context? Instead of the verb "hide" I probably should have used the expression 'not tell us' somewhere in the question itself as well, cause I spelled that out elsewhere in the OP (as in, that's what I meant with "hide"). Just a quick response to NoCorruptionAllowed on page 1.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Personally, if I were the one who did it, I would probably expect that me creating you would have impressed you, rather than ending up with you saying I don't exist, or that's it very unlikely that I exist, or no good evidence for it.

originally posted by: jamespond
Well that all depends what you've created me for. If you created me to eventually dispose of me, then maybe you wouldn't want me to know about you.

...

Well, it may not have been entirely obvious from my question(s) itself cause I tried to make it (them) as broad or general as I could, but the part of my comment that you were responding to contains a scenario where that is not the case (see video, where the purpose for the creation of the earth is given by Jehovah God, which is not "to eventually dispose of me"). So it's not really applicable in that case/scenario. In other words, it doesn't really work for me as a good reason for not telling us (in that scenario). Remember how I came to the question by thinking about Spock evaluating the claims in the Bible along with or in light of the evidence for Creation (observable fine-tuning, observable design, observable machinery and technology that makes up life, human consciousness, psychology and behaviour*, etc.)? *: Which btw, includes the M.O. I've been talking about in my previous comment.

originally posted by: cooperton

... If there is a Higher Intelligence, which is apparently benevolent, as shown by the fact we exist and have the opportunity to understand and pursue knowledge, then this sort of benevolence has some sort of plan for us intelligent creations. ...

Have you noticed how Jehovah explained his "plan" or purpose for the earth and the living creatures (incl. us) on it, in Genesis 1 and Isaiah 45 (the latter quoted in the video I used at the end of the OP and the former in the OP itself)? I described it as (see bolded part):

Well, He makes other types of living creatures after that until finally:

Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Gen 1:26-28)

That's one aspect of why he did it that way. Of course, there's a little more to it, which is explained in the rest of the Bible. Where it is also explained that his purpose for the earth and us on it filling it, has not changed one bit.

Cause I think you are under the impression that the main plan for the majority of Christians (or all or "all good people") is to go to heaven. Which idea is discussed here:

Myth 3: All Good People Go to Heaven (One Myth Leads to Another)

Have you seen the Isaiah 45 video? I think it's time to post that one again, note especially what Jehovah says at 4:35 - 4:55 (remember, this is God speaking directly to you and every other human being on this planet, listen very carefully, pay attention, meditate about what He says, this is special knowledge and wisdom, worth more than any gold or coral, let it touch your heart and mind):

For those who want to know what the stuff about Cyrus is all about (which is part of a prophecy, Isaiah wrote this for Jehovah long before Cyrys the Great was even born, now a well known historical figure, like Alexander the Great), check out the earlier linked documentary called "the bible-accurate history reliable prophecy". Everything concerning Cyrus that was prophecied there, happened exactly as described and prophecied/predicted there. You know what, I'll link part 2 again, which discusses some of the archaeological evidence in relation to this prophecy concerning Babylon and the Medo-Persians (Cyrus was king of the Medo-Persian empire; he was also the founder of the Persian Empire and the conqueror of Babylon; called “Cyrus the Great,” thereby distinguishing him from Cyrus I, his grandfather.)

In context, starting with part 1 (my usual playlist):

the bible-accurate history reliable prophecy part 1 of 3

If you have automatic play set to "on" for playlists on youtube, it will take you to the next parts automatically, you only need to click the link and watch it all the way through (technically you can skip stuff, but I don't recommend that). Specifically in your case (Cooperton), you may actually want to start the playlist at this video (skipping the stuff about evolution and philosophical naturalism/materialism, or most of it, apart from the stuff related to the doctrine of the Trinity in the video about "The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism", in which the term "Trimurti" is used, using a very similar symbol as the symbol that is often used to explain the Trinity, see subsequent videos called "He is a liar!" for the same symbol as it is used in relation to the Trinity, both videos consisting of 2 parts):

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

Isaac Newton also talks about the Trinity. As does the subsequent article in the One Myth Leads to Another series (remember a synonym for the "false stories" mentioned at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, is "myths", which is the way the KJV renders it):

Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

That series starts with (after an introductory page):

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal (and immaterial, which is part of that myth/false story)

Oops, just realized that I quoted the Isaiah 45 video in my response to jamespond. Ah whatever, keeping it in this comment now because of the addtional things I said about it now.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: whereislogic

...
you say that our consciousness isnt shared with plants or animals but until you have experienced it then you cant tell me that its not conscious.

the fungus on earth is extremely old somewhere in the region of a billion years of evolution and is the reason why life exists on earth , you should read merlin sheldrakes book entangled life.

you should also check out dennis mckennas video - the plants are talking to us
...

Don't you find it a little funny that you say I "should read" an entire book and "should" watch a 40 minute video (without giving an easy link to reading the book without having to buy or otherwise get it), when it sounds like you've not even read the 1 section in the article (chapter) I conveniently linked for you and some commentary of mine in another thread that I also conveniently linked for you that is nowhere near the size of an entire book and is fairly quickly read (it won't take up much of your time and it doesn't require much effort)?

Also note that what you said I said, wasn't quite what I said, I used the phrase "the type of consciousness possessed by humans, i.e. human consciousness, is not possessed by animals or plants" for a specific reason. You changed "possessed" to "shared", perhaps not to deliberately change what I said, but it does change it ever so slightly, as well as what I was referring to (as explained in more detail in the article). The term "human consciousness" is also used in the article I linked, to distinguish from what animals and plants are experiencing (the article gets into the differences and in what areas they can be found; see also for example the paragraph I quoted from that article in response to nothin called "Endowed to Ask"*).

*: I'm not going to conveniently link it anymore though, it's on page 8. You can read the rest as well there if interested in the differences between human beings and animals (and plants). The other stuff I quoted from that article in response to nothin is also related to the topic of human consciousness in contrast with animals, note for example the term "God-conscious" used in the section entitled "Drawn to a Creator" (also the term "self-conscious beings" is used in that section, that term referring to a difference with animals explained in the section I initially referred you to, "Memory and More!"). In the other sections or paragraphs, the following is discussed (between brackets is mine):

From Particle Physics to Your Brain

Professor Paul Davies reflected on the ability of the brain to handle the abstract field of mathematics. “Mathematics is not something that you find lying around in your back yard. It’s produced by the human mind. Yet if we ask where mathematics works best, it is in areas like particle physics and astrophysics, areas of fundamental science that are very, very far removed from everyday affairs.” What does that imply? “It suggests to me that consciousness and our ability to do mathematics are no mere accident, no trivial detail, no insignificant by-product of evolution.”—Are We Alone?

...

"Only humans form questions. Some are questions about the meaning of life" [which is related to the paragraph under "Endowed to Ask" as well as the paragraph preceding the section "Memore and More", which I will quote below]

What a difference there is between an ape’s use of signs and the complex language ability of children! Sir John Eccles referred to what most of us have also observed, an ability “exhibited even by 3-year-old children with their torrent of questions in their desire to understand their world.” He added: “By contrast, apes do not ask questions.” Yes, only humans form questions, including questions about the meaning of life.

Ah well, if you can refer me to an entire book, I guess I can encourage you to read the whole chapter in that book if interested. It'll probably cost you less of your time than the 40 minutes of the video you referred me to, that you probably already wasted more than 40 minutes on anyway (see my signature and text under my profilename).

a reply to: whereislogic

Interesting thread with a lot of different viewpoints. Starred and Flagged

a reply to: whereislogic

whats wrong with me referring you to an entire book on a subject or a 40 minute video ?
are you not interested in the acquisition of knowledge and understanding?

I did read that passage you linked , I read the entire article not just the part you suggested
I just didnt think much of it at the time and was busy so hadnt had time to reflect on it or comment to you properly

it is arrogant of humans to think we are the only ones who can do maths or ask questions , we dont fully understand consciousness yet we claim to be the masters of it

maths is not only a human ability studies have shown that monkeys can perform mathematical tasks

Monkeys do maths like humans

what I think is interesting is that everything in the universe is all , so even animals are of god
so why wouldnt they posses something similar to us afterall they are manifestations of the one the same as we are

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: whereislogic
I guess I can encourage you to read the whole chapter in that book if interested. It'll probably cost you less of your time than the 40 minutes of the video you referred me to, that you probably already wasted more than 40 minutes on anyway (see my signature and text under my profilename).

I dont feel I've wasted my time

Dennis McKenna is well researched in his plants

your signature is good , but I can let any information flow through my mind I have the ability to determine what is "sewage" and what is not

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: whereislogic

whats wrong with me referring you to an entire book on a subject or a 40 minute video ?

Nothing wrong, I just thought it was a little bit funny. It's quite a lot. And it's a little unlikely that I will buy a book whose topic doesn't interest me all that much, so many books already out there, there's no end to it.

“To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.”​—Eccl. 12:12.

‘No End to the Making of Books’ (Awake!—1978)

EVERY year billions of copies of books roll off the presses, eventually finding their way into homes, offices and libraries throughout the world. In the United States alone, each year sees the introduction of over 20,000 new books, not including textbooks and reference works. Add to this more than 8,000 reprints and revisions.

Clearly, no one person could ever hope to read all the books that have been published. In view of today’s fast printing methods, the following words written about 3,000 years ago are even more appropriate than when they were first recorded: “To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.”​—Eccl. 12:12.

One “wearisome” factor is that publications dealing with the various fields of knowledge may present conflicting views. So, the person who centers his whole life around books can tire himself out reading, comparing and trying to resolve contradictions. Particularly when it comes to philosophical studies, often it is just a matter of one opinion versus another opinion.

Since a person obviously cannot survey the whole field of human knowledge and theory, he must be selective. Just what writings are most beneficial and can safely be used as a guide for life? Wise King Solomon, the one who wrote about the making of many books, provides the answer: “The words of the wise ones are like oxgoads, and just like nails driven in are those indulging in collections of sentences; they have been given from one shepherd.”​—Eccl. 12:11.

According to this, the most valuable writings are those that originate or are in agreement with the “one shepherd.” Who is this “one shepherd”? King Solomon’s writings are a part of the Holy Scriptures and, therefore, the “shepherd” must be the one referred to in those Scriptures. At Psalm 23:1, for example, we read: “Jehovah is my Shepherd.”

In view of Solomon’s words, the greatest benefit comes from a careful study of the Scriptures that are inspired of God. This will not tire one out, as can vain efforts to resolve the conflicting theories of men. By putting the Bible’s guidelines into application, millions of men and women have come to appreciate the truth of what we read at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

The wisdom that is Biblically oriented can indeed affect us like the oxgoad mentioned by Solomon. This implement, the oxgoad, with its sharp metal point, is designed to prick a draft animal, prompting it to continue moving in a certain direction. Similarly, the words of those having godly wisdom can prick the listeners or readers to advance in harmony with the wisdom expressed, to their benefit. Also, persons who occupy themselves with “collections of sentences,” that is, truly beneficial wise sayings or proverbs, are like nails. How so? This is because nails can provide support for something or can stabilize it. Likewise, by their sound words of wisdom, “those indulging in collections of sentences,” can have a stabilizing and supportive effect on others.

Hence, do not permit yourself to be distracted by the multitude of books that are continually being printed. Take time to consider the most valuable book of all, the Bible, and publications that are in harmony with it. Then, concerning the Bible, you will not feel as did the American patriot Patrick Henry who, shortly before his death, said to a friend: “This is a book worth more than all the others that were ever printed. It is my misfortune not to have found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately.”

are you not interested in the acquisition of knowledge and understanding?

Sure I am, but I can't say I'm too interested in human philosophy where someone is talking about the topic of "plant intelligence", since then they have to re-define or misuse the word "intelligence" in such a manner that they can apply it to plants; who obviously have nothing even remotely comparable to human intelligence, even animals have more intelligence and are more easy to compare with humans to see where the differences are. I don't think the word is appropiate for plants at all, plants also don't think. To interpret plants following a pre-programmed program that was programmed by an intelligent being, as the plants themselves having some form of intelligence is some major warping of what's really going on here. It's reminiscent of what I said fairly early on about those who are re-defining words in order to advance a particular unverified philosophy/idea, such as Dawkins, Krauss and Hawking re-defining or misusing the word "nothing".

I did read that passage you linked , I read the entire article not just the part you suggested
I just didnt think much of it at the time and was busy so hadnt had time to reflect on it or comment to you properly

Oh that's alright, I did say "sounds like", in case you did and I got the wrong impression. As you somewhat indicated, you didn't seem to have taken it very seriously though. Like indicated in your commentary below:

it is arrogant of humans to think we are the only ones who can do maths or ask questions , we dont fully understand consciousness yet we claim to be the masters of it

maths is not only a human ability studies have shown that monkeys can perform mathematical tasks

Monkeys do maths like humans

Nothing "like [the way] humans" do maths. It was well described there by those talking about such things as the mathematics involved with quantum field theory (see section "From Dodging Saber-Toothed Tigers?" for example), not even close. I also expect that there is some re-defining going on as to what to interpret as "do maths" in order to give that impression and have something to write/publish about, according to the phenomenon of 'publish or perish'. Ever heard about that phrase as it's used in the sciences? This article mentions something about it (I used another page of this article series in this thread before):

Fraud in Science​—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible​—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish​—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.

The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [thousand million] a year from the National Institutes of Health.”

Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-​or-​perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Making Mountains out of Molehills

The publish-​or-​perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones​—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-​page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.
...

I think the topic of "plant intelligence" falls under some of the descriptions used above like "too trivial", "too obscure", "too self-​serving" (in terms of wanting to use the word "intelligence" in relation to what's really going on there), with "conclusions too trifling or too unjustified" (mainly because it's not really "intelligence" what is being described there, that's a misapplication of that term to things that have been pre-programmed by an intelligent being, the plant is just following the program, that's not a sign of intelligence (also concerning what you said about animals and your usage of the term "similar", I was focusing on the differences, I think evolutionists have already talked enough about similarities, time to think about the differences for a change, the similarities were already acknowledged near the start of that article, it's not that much as evolutionists would like you to think by ignoring the differences).

a reply to: sapien82

Just remember, plants do not have brains, so they don't "think" (when that word is used in its proper sense). And intelligence (when again used in its proper sense) does require thinking ability after all. Plants also don't learn or take in and store knowledge the way a human does (in their brains). So again, you can use those terms like 'learning' and 'taking in knowledge' when talking about how certain information is stored in the pre-programmed program present in plants (which does happen), but is that really the right word or terminology for that I wonder. Or would someone want to use that terminology to give people the impression that plants also have "intelligence", and then intrigue a potential audience with that notion to give the impression that one is doing something useful that advances the sciences?

To me, it's not that intriguing, it would be better if he were to give credit to the program of plants and its programmer instead. Then you're using much more appropiate terminology, it may not tickle the ears of such a large audience/market though. Some people don't even want to hear it, that that's what we're looking at concerning what he refers to as "intelligence" (the intelligence of the programmer as reflected in the program and its abilities, including adaptive abilities to deal with new situations, the plant itself isn't thinking about how best to do that).

And then there's the thing that all this is drifting further and further away from discussing the question in the OP. Which after 9 pages, I still haven't really heard a good or reasonable motive for not telling us that fits or is applicable to the scenario I laid out. Another reason why it doesn't intrigue me so much, even though I've given it some thought now in order to respond to you. When I first clicked the video and saw "Plant Intelligence?" I thought, nah, plants don't have intelligence, totally not interested in that or 40 minutes discussing that subject or making a case for that. Don't need to think too long about that one. I can answer that one within seconds, saves me some time. And perhaps more importantly, it doesn't really negate or discuss anything about the article concerning the uniqueness of man and his intelligence or human consciousness or has anything to do with the concept of asking questions (about the meaning of life or otherwise), because it doesn't remotely compare to that. And that was the topic you were responding to with that video.