How human language refutes atheism

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wan, I'm going to simply take a mental note of many of your criticisms. Remember, I make no attempt to persuade other people but only use debate forums so as to hone my own understanding. I will however debate Weasel with you, since it is an interesting debate. This topic deserves a thread of its own so I'm starting a new thread.

So, you're running away from this thread. Lovely. Remember that when you ask for responses in the next crap thread you start.

[my_wan]

Wan, I'm going to simply take a mental note of many of your criticisms. Remember, I make no attempt to persuade other people but only use debate forums so as to hone my own understanding. I will however debate Weasel with you, since it is an interesting debate. This topic deserves a thread of its own so I'm starting a new thread.

So, you're running away from this thread. Lovely. Remember that when you ask for responses in the next crap thread you start.

Actually my respect increased somewhat as spinoza99 thought it worth thinking through. It's actually refreshing to see this, rather than simply blustering through the criticisms with repeating blind assertions, as so many do.

If I took such positions seriously, which I did on an intellectual level if not a 'belief' level at one time, and got hammered with the criticism, I would still need to think it through before making a judgment of empirical validity. Hopefully spinoza99 will at least learn to spend as much time on considering for arguments as against arguments for any given ideal.

Emergent type physical phenomena is often difficult to conceptualize. Hive intelligence is something I took on to gain a broader understanding of it. Not many people realize that what we call ant communication is not really communication in the way we perceive it, nor is there bosses or queens organizing labor. It's more like wearing a sign on the back that says "I job X", and that the limit of the communication. No actually talking about that job. Yet the hive is still more intelligent that any ant in the colony.

Here's an excellent talk that is especially detailed in how Harvester Ant colonies work.
Deborah Gordon digs ants
Highly instructive on how simple basic blind rules at the individual level can result in a global Hive intelligence.

Here we can demonstrate that ants don't even need intelligence, only blind mechanistic rules. Which then globally leads to the colony acting and making decisions that no ant makes.

[FBM]

I agree, my_wan. I think I see Spinoza99 as at least trying to work through the reasoning instead of simply spouting ad hoc rationalizations, fallacies and obfuscations. If s/he does occasionally toss out a staw man, I think it's due to a sincere misunderstanding, not disingenuity. I think I was earlier guilty of lumping him/her into the same category as some of the worse crackpots who have wandered by here to proselytize, but now I think Spinoza99 may be cut from a better cloth. Time will tell.

[Hermit]

Here we can demonstrate that ants don't even need intelligence, only blind mechanistic rules. Which then globally leads to the colony acting and making decisions that no ant makes.

No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. - Voltaire

That may be so, but can spinoza99 therefore claim that "Each particle of air, in my humble opinion, has a mind of its own" or "One particle has a will of its own"?

[charlou]

Here we can demonstrate that ants don't even need intelligence, only blind mechanistic rules. Which then globally leads to the colony acting and making decisions that no ant makes.

No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. - Voltaire

That may be so, but can spinoza99 therefore claim that "Each particle of air, in my humble opinion, has a mind of its own" or "One particle has a will of its own"?

No, and I think that's my_wan's point?

[my_wan]

Here we can demonstrate that ants don't even need intelligence, only blind mechanistic rules. Which then globally leads to the colony acting and making decisions that no ant makes.

No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. - Voltaire

That may be so, but can spinoza99 therefore claim that "Each particle of air, in my humble opinion, has a mind of its own" or "One particle has a will of its own"?

No, and I think that's my_wan's point?

I wasn't sure Seraph was actually taking issue with anything I said. Though certainly, like me, was taking issue with Spinoza99's mindful particles.

I understand this issue some people might have with apparent order from chaos, as if there was some rule from outside the system. I love this particular area of study, and was only giving Spinoza99 the opportunity to look at it in more detail, and reconsider the value of "belief" choices in determining its character.

Ants are not any more intelligent than automatons. Even the so called language is an automated response, like an answering machine. Yet the whole colony manages to have intelligent responses. Once you learn how they do this, it provides some insight into how the basics of intelligence is formed, without requiring the parts to have a "mind". I like hive intelligence, because it allows you to see the parts more clearly.