Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8204
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#316

Post by Philip » Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:23 pm

Ken doesn't know what he thinks. He sure doesn't base it upon any science, logic or examinations ever made. He doesn't appear to understand that physicists' description of what happened after the Big Bang began is an incredible organizing into building blocks of not previously existing complex physical things - it's not some random, mass explosion!

In just 20 minutes of the Big Bang's beginning, physicists assert that the force of gravity separated from the other fundamental forces (which remained unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) began to be created, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion, known as cosmic inflation, the strong nuclear force separated from the other two forces, particle interactions created large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons, the Higgs field slows particles down and confered mass on them, thus allowing a universe made entirely out of radiation to support things that have mass\. Then Quarks, electrons and neutrinos formed in large numbers, and the four fundamental forces assumed their present forms. Then Quarks and anti-quarks begin to annihilate each other upon contact, in a process which would ultimately form matter. The temperature of the universe cooled to about a trillion degrees, forming hadrons (like protons and neutrons). Electrons colliding with protons fused to form neutrons and give off mass-less neutrinos. Some neutrons and neutrinos thenf re-combined into new proton-electron pairs. Electrons and positrons began to collide and annihilate each other, energy in the form of photons was freed up, and colliding photons then created more electron-positron pairs. Then the temperature of the universe fell to the point (about a billion degrees) where atomic nuclei can began to form as protons and neutrons combined through nuclear fusion to form the nuclei of the simple elements of hydrogen, helium and lithium. After about 20 minutes, the temperature and density of the universe had fallen to the point where nuclear fusion could not continue.

And how complex are some of these things that appeared within that first twenty minutes? Let's just take the development of quarks for an example: https://www.britannica.com/science/suba ... antiquarks

Ken, that, my friend, is the incredible organization you deny - which is astonishingly complex - and in just 20 minutes! No Intelligence required???!!! - and to think our best minds and experiments have taken up the past 100 years of testing and research to the present consensus! So, continue deluding yourself as you will with a Big Bang not requiring intelligence that didn't organize anything! :lol:

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#317

Post by Kenny » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:32 pm

Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:23 pm
Ken doesn't know what he thinks. He sure doesn't base it upon any science, logic or examinations ever made. He doesn't appear to understand that physicists' description of what happened after the Big Bang began is an incredible organizing into building blocks of not previously existing complex physical things - it's not some random, mass explosion!
Judging from what you just wrote, I think it is YOU who doesn’t know what I thinks.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:23 pm
In just 20 minutes of the Big Bang's beginning, physicists assert that the force of gravity separated from the other fundamental forces (which remained unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) began to be created, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion, known as cosmic inflation, the strong nuclear force separated from the other two forces, particle interactions created large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons, the Higgs field slows particles down and confered mass on them, thus allowing a universe made entirely out of radiation to support things that have mass\. Then Quarks, electrons and neutrinos formed in large numbers, and the four fundamental forces assumed their present forms. Then Quarks and anti-quarks begin to annihilate each other upon contact, in a process which would ultimately form matter. The temperature of the universe cooled to about a trillion degrees, forming hadrons (like protons and neutrons). Electrons colliding with protons fused to form neutrons and give off mass-less neutrinos. Some neutrons and neutrinos thenf re-combined into new proton-electron pairs. Electrons and positrons began to collide and annihilate each other, energy in the form of photons was freed up, and colliding photons then created more electron-positron pairs. Then the temperature of the universe fell to the point (about a billion degrees) where atomic nuclei can began to form as protons and neutrons combined through nuclear fusion to form the nuclei of the simple elements of hydrogen, helium and lithium. After about 20 minutes, the temperature and density of the universe had fallen to the point where nuclear fusion could not continue.

And how complex are some of these things that appeared within that first twenty minutes? Let's just take the development of quarks for an example: https://www.britannica.com/science/suba ... antiquarks
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China??? Nothing you’ve said here refutes anything I said.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:23 pm
Ken, that, my friend, is the incredible organization you deny - which is astonishingly complex - and in just 20 minutes! No Intelligence required???!!! - and to think our best minds and experiments have taken up the past 100 years of testing and research to the present consensus!
Wait a minute! Are you saying Physicists are claiming an intelligent being is behind the Big Bang? If so perhaps you can provide a link or something to back this up.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8204
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#318

Post by Philip » Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm

Philip: Ken, that, my friend, is the incredible organization you deny - which is astonishingly complex - and in just 20 minutes! No Intelligence required???!!! - and to think our best minds and experiments have taken up the past 100 years of testing and research to the present consensus!
Ken: Wait a minute! Are you saying Physicists are claiming an intelligent being is behind the Big Bang? If so perhaps you can provide a link or something to back this up.
And that post, Ken, shows precisely why you are not honest or sincere about this debate! Because you are not willing to address the necessity of intelligence for creating, organizing, and guiding what are obviously such complex designs, functions, coordination, and oversight and guidance for what occurred during the Big Bang. Because, as opposed to answering what you believe is possible with non-intelligent things - you are changing the subject - because, while individual scientist opinions abound, science doesn't and cannot weigh in specifically as to whether or not an intelligence caused the Big Bang's details. Science merely asserts what exactly occurred - but not WHY it did. And a very significant percentage of qualified physicists DO recognize an intelligence behind the universe, while, admittedly, many others do not. But that is merely opinion that varies from scientist to scientist, and typically lines up with whatever happens to be an individual scientists' theistic beliefs. And many qualified scientists ARE theists, yet not all of them are Christians. So, the CAUSE of the universe is a spiritual debate - because they all scientists are only able to go upon the very same data and research. But if you want a large list of renowned scientists who believe an intelligence was behind the universe, I can provide it. But something tells me that doesn't matter to you - as you only appeal to nonsense when that suits your unbelief.

Nonetheless, Ken, I asked YOU about the Big Bang, as science describes what happened, and whether or not it requires an intelligence or exhibited the markers of complexity, organization and operation that the world otherwise and only recognizes as possible as requiring intelligence. Why are you appealing to science, when scientists have a variety of views about this, as if they ALL say no intelligence was required? And, btw, there are quite a few non-theist scientists who believe the universe itself happens to have its own intelligence. But whatever, I'm telling you that you have no reason whatsoever - scientific or otherwise - to believe non-intelligent things could produce either the required exponentially unique things, designs of detailed happenings of the Big Bang. So, without an intelligence involved, you are ONLY left with the option that non-intelligent things are capable of the equivalent of magic. But we DO have centuries in which NO science has EVER shown non-intelligent things exhibiting things requiring intelligence - which is also a witness of scientific evidences and observations. And that should tell us something!

Even Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist and atheist hero has admitted that an intelligence source might have been involved in the universe's! Did you know that, when interviewed by Ben Stein, he agreed that to be a possibility. Here's a brief excerpt from the interview (Found here: http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... &Itemid=28):

Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?

Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

Ben Stein: But, but

Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.

Ben Stein: (voiceover) So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers, such as God.

Now, ask yourself, why would Dawkins ever ponder the possibility of an intelligence behind the universe? I'd say because he recognizes that what happened at the Big Bang, and what exists, required some kind of intelligent source. Even Stephen Hawking appealed to the Laws of the Universe to control things - while failing to recognize the obvious: LAWS are merely descriptive listings of the characteristics of how things work - so, they aren't an intelligence with power and control - huge blunder for him to say so.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#319

Post by Kenny » Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:44 pm

Philip: Ken, that, my friend, is the incredible organization you deny - which is astonishingly complex - and in just 20 minutes! No Intelligence required???!!! - and to think our best minds and experiments have taken up the past 100 years of testing and research to the present consensus!
Ken: Wait a minute! Are you saying Physicists are claiming an intelligent being is behind the Big Bang? If so perhaps you can provide a link or something to back this up.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm
And that post, Ken, shows precisely why you are not honest or sincere about this debate! Because you are not willing to address the necessity of intelligence for creating, organizing, and guiding what are obviously such complex designs, functions, coordination, and oversight and guidance for what occurred during the Big Bang.
If there were actual science to back up this claim of yours I’m sure you would have provided it by now. So I will accept this as what you believe, not something as fact.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm
Because, as opposed to answering what you believe is possible with non-intelligent things - you are changing the subject - because, while individual scientist opinions abound, science doesn't and cannot weigh in specifically as to whether or not an intelligence caused the Big Bang's details.
If scientific evidence showed an intelligence, you can bet your bottom dollar they would weigh in on it.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm
Science merely asserts what exactly occurred - but not WHY it did.
That’s because they don't know. Science only comments on what they know
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm
And a very significant percentage of qualified physicists DO recognize an intelligence behind the universe, while, admittedly, many others do not. But that is merely opinion that varies from scientist to scientist, and typically lines up with whatever happens to be an individual scientists' theistic beliefs.
Yes! It is their belief; not science.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm
And many qualified scientists ARE theists, yet not all of them are Christians. So, the CAUSE of the universe is a spiritual debate - because they all scientists are only able to go upon the very same data and research. But if you want a large list of renowned scientists who believe an intelligence was behind the universe, I can provide it. But something tells me that doesn't matter to you - as you only appeal to nonsense when that suits your unbelief.
I wasn’t asking about what individual scientists believe via faith, I was asking what they claim as science.
Philip wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:32 pm
Nonetheless, Ken, I asked YOU about the Big Bang, as science describes what happened, and whether or not it requires an intelligence or exhibited the markers of complexity, organization and operation that the world otherwise and only recognizes as possible as requiring intelligence.
You’re not suggesting that because in our daily lives, everything that is complex, and organized is the result of an intelligent being, that this is the case for all entities within the Universe, including the Universe itself; are you? Is this what you are trying to tell me???
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9027
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 338 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#320

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:35 am

Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:16 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:42 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:05 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:18 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:43 am


Intelligence only exists in the context of something else. Without that something else, there is no intelligence; so when you ask where did intelligence come from, you are asking where did that something else that is described as intelligent (among other things) come from.
So, intelligence is dependent on the existence of something intelligent and until something intelligent arises, there is no intelligence, correct?
So where did something intelligent come from?
Part of the material world that resulted from the expansion of the Singularity
So intelligence is material?
No; intelligence is one of many descriptions of specific things that are material.
What are the material properties of intelligence?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#321

Post by Kenny » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:44 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:35 am
Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:16 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:42 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:05 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:18 am


So, intelligence is dependent on the existence of something intelligent and until something intelligent arises, there is no intelligence, correct?
So where did something intelligent come from?
Part of the material world that resulted from the expansion of the Singularity
So intelligence is material?
No; intelligence is one of many descriptions of specific things that are material.
What are the material properties of intelligence?
I don't think it has material properties.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9027
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 338 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#322

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 am

Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:44 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:35 am
Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:16 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:42 am
Kenny wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:05 pm

Part of the material world that resulted from the expansion of the Singularity
So intelligence is material?
No; intelligence is one of many descriptions of specific things that are material.
What are the material properties of intelligence?
I don't think it has material properties.
So, intelligence is an immaterial thing that describes a material thing, yes?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8204
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#323

Post by Philip » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:30 am

Ken, you deny the obvious indications of intelligence. If you were the first astronaut to ever visit or walk on the surface of a newly discovered planet, and you found a simple machine - say a clothes washing machine - empty but perfectly functioning and going through it's various cycles - would you think it was created by a being or beings with intelligence?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#324

Post by Kenny » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:24 am

Philip wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:30 am
Ken, you deny the obvious indications of intelligence. If you were the first astronaut to ever visit or walk on the surface of a newly discovered planet, and you found a simple machine - say a clothes washing machine - empty but perfectly functioning and going through it's various cycles - would you think it was created by a being or beings with intelligence?
Judging from what I know about man-made machines, not only would I say it was created by an intelligent being, I would say it was created by humans.
Okay I've got one for you. If an alien from another planet visited Earth for the first time, saw a leaf on the ground next to a $1 bill, do you think he would know the difference between which was made by an intelligent being, vs which is from nature?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#325

Post by Kenny » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:31 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:44 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:35 am
Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:16 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:42 am

So intelligence is material?
No; intelligence is one of many descriptions of specific things that are material.
What are the material properties of intelligence?
I don't think it has material properties.
So, intelligence is an immaterial thing that describes a material thing, yes?
I wouldn't go as far as calling intelligence a thing. The term "thing" is a bit of a loaded term because it usually implies something that has an actual existence; something intelligence does not have.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9027
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 338 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#326

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:59 am

Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:31 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:44 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:35 am
Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:16 am

No; intelligence is one of many descriptions of specific things that are material.
What are the material properties of intelligence?
I don't think it has material properties.
So, intelligence is an immaterial thing that describes a material thing, yes?
I wouldn't go as far as calling intelligence a thing. The term "thing" is a bit of a loaded term because it usually implies something that has an actual existence; something intelligence does not have.
So, intelligence doesn't have an existence?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#327

Post by Kenny » Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:07 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:59 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:31 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:44 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:35 am

What are the material properties of intelligence?
I don't think it has material properties.
So, intelligence is an immaterial thing that describes a material thing, yes?
I wouldn't go as far as calling intelligence a thing. The term "thing" is a bit of a loaded term because it usually implies something that has an actual existence; something intelligence does not have.
So, intelligence doesn't have an existence?
Not by itself; no.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8204
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#328

Post by Philip » Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:21 pm

Philip: Ken, you deny the obvious indications of intelligence. If you were the first astronaut to ever visit or walk on the surface of a newly discovered planet, and you found a simple machine - say a clothes washing machine - empty but perfectly functioning and going through it's various cycles - would you think it was created by a being or beings with intelligence
ken: Judging from what I know about man-made machines, not only would I say it was created by an intelligent being, I would say it was created by humans.
You didn't pay attention to my question - I said a planet never before visited. And the issue isn't that the machine you find functioning is a washing machine. So, to clarify my reasoning, this is a planet NO humans have ever visited, and the first astronaut to visit, discovers a machine that is on and functioning - a simple machine with turning parts - that is technically as simple as a washing machine. Now, you don't know what it's purpose is or anything about it - but you would perceive it to have been created by an intelligence, correct?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#329

Post by Kenny » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:11 pm

Philip wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:21 pm
Philip: Ken, you deny the obvious indications of intelligence. If you were the first astronaut to ever visit or walk on the surface of a newly discovered planet, and you found a simple machine - say a clothes washing machine - empty but perfectly functioning and going through it's various cycles - would you think it was created by a being or beings with intelligence
ken: Judging from what I know about man-made machines, not only would I say it was created by an intelligent being, I would say it was created by humans.
You didn't pay attention to my question - I said a planet never before visited. And the issue isn't that the machine you find functioning is a washing machine. So, to clarify my reasoning, this is a planet NO humans have ever visited, and the first astronaut to visit, discovers a machine that is on and functioning - a simple machine with turning parts - that is technically as simple as a washing machine. Now, you don't know what it's purpose is or anything about it - but you would perceive it to have been created by an intelligence, correct?
I think you missed the point I was making. The only reason I would believe an intelligence was involved in your scenario is because I am familiar with things made by humans vs that which is natural on Earth. Did you get the point I was making about the leaf and the dollar bill?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9027
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 338 times

Re: Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

#330

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:56 am

Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:07 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:59 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:31 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:12 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:44 am

I don't think it has material properties.
So, intelligence is an immaterial thing that describes a material thing, yes?
I wouldn't go as far as calling intelligence a thing. The term "thing" is a bit of a loaded term because it usually implies something that has an actual existence; something intelligence does not have.
So, intelligence doesn't have an existence?
Not by itself; no.
What is it "tied" to?

Post Reply