Is God Intelligent?

[joeactor]

Hello all,

This is something that came to me on my morning walk, and I thought it would make a good topic...

So, given the following:

1) God exists.

2) God is Omniscient (knows everything)

Then:

Is God Intelligent?

After all, if he knows everything, no thinking is required.
Nothing to ponder, figure out, or solve.
He just knows.

So, what are your thoughts on this?
JoeActor

p.s. brings a whole new slant on "intelligent design" ;-)

[LARA]

I think I understand you on this one joe.  Basically with the idea of intelligence being the ability to solve problems, then any omniscient entity could be viewed as just a collection of facts or pre-thought solutions to already solved problems.  Kind of like a body of knowledge or a collection of all known solutions.  This then would simply be information, have no intelligence, free will or consciousness whatsoever or at least require any.  But this is not really at all like an anthropomorphic deity to pray to in the way most people view their own personal imaginary friend and savior.

[joeactor]

I think I understand you on this one joe.  Basically with the idea of intelligence being the ability to solve problems, then any omniscient entity could be viewed as just a collection of facts or pre-thought solutions to already solved problems.  Kind of like a body of knowledge or a collection of all known solutions.  This then would simply be information, have no intelligence, free will or consciousness whatsoever or at least require any.  But this is not really at all like an anthropomorphic deity to pray to in the way most people view their own personal imaginary friend and savior.

Exactly.

I could imagine such a being still having emotional responses, but any original thought would be either absent or unnecessary...

[LARA]

joeactor wrote: I could imagine such a being still having emotional responses

But what do you mean by a "being"?  Something with a human-like form?  Or would any physical collection of accessible information do?

And emotional responses would require evolution. Love, fear, hatred, anger, happiness all serve purposes in the survival of an organism.  If the entity is immortal or hasn't been acted on by evolution it wouldn't require emotions.  Why would it have them?

[Ninteen45]

LARA just explained why god is an asshole, No logic, just emotion and facts.

[joeactor]

LARA just explained why god is an asshole, No logic, just emotion and facts.

Now THAT'S FUNNY!

+2 to you Ninteen45!

[AlP]

Is God Intelligent?

Assuming the premises are true, what does intelligence mean? Clues here.

[joeactor]

Is God Intelligent?

Assuming the premises are true, what does intelligence mean? Clues here.

Agreed (and a good reference too).

Seems like by most of the definitions for Intelligence, God would have no need for it.

So, the definitions for both "God" and "Intelligence" are both amorphous concepts at best.

Reminds me of a conversation from Black Adder:

Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.
Edmund: Mm! ... What?
Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.
Edmund: And what's that, exactly?
Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston.
Edmund: I see. And what about it?
Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.
Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?
Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.
Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?
Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.
Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.
Percy: No, My Lord.
Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.
Percy: (finally begins to grasp) Yes, My Lord.

[Renegnicat]

Bah! Humbug! Intelligence be overrated.  

[ragarth]

Most frequently, I see people use the term omniscience for god to mean knowledge of past and future as well. If we accept this as a basic assumption, we get into a deeper conundrum for the intelligence of god related the concept of determinism.

If the universe is deterministic, then someone with accurate knowledge about the future cannot change events that lead to that known future. In other words, since we know Lincoln was murdered, if someone went back in time they can't prevent Lincoln from being murdered within the constraints of the knowledge that individual has. (ie, the text books can't change, but perhaps the individual snags lincoln at the last second, brings him forward in time, and replaced him with a cloned copy, thereby preserving the integrity of the knowledge he has. In this way, it can be said you're not changing the past, but discovering previously unknown facts about it).

If the universe is nondeterministic, then we can change the past. So we can indeed go back in time, save Lincoln from assasination, and get our face plastered in the history books.

Since god is assumed to be all knowing about the past and future, and if the universe is deterministic, then there's no room for the 'discovery' of additional knowledge allowing for the manipulation of events towards a known future, god cannot deviate one iota for a predetermined path- Just as two objects impacting each other at given speeds and given angles cannot deviate from the strictures if basic physics, nor can god have any choice in sticking a fruit tree in a garden or making egyptians eat their own babies. God is, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a force of nature that must abide by deterministic forces.

If the universe is nondeterministic, then we must ask about the method by which the universe is nondeterministic: Is it quantum fluctuation? is it branching universes? Does god generate the nondeterminism itself using fine manipulation of the soul? Depending on the answer, god can be either an entity possessing free will, or an unintelligent force of nature.

[joeactor]

If the universe is nondeterministic, then we must ask about the method by which the universe is nondeterministic: Is it quantum fluctuation? is it branching universes? Does god generate the nondeterminism itself using fine manipulation of the soul? Depending on the answer, god can be either an entity possessing free will, or an unintelligent force of nature.

Interesting - I like this line of thought.

So, in a non-deterministic universe, let's say that god knows all the outcomes for all the branches.

Does he choose which branch is followed?

Do we choose? (and he would know)

Perhaps all branches occur simultaneously?
(and "choice" is only a concept for beings who cannot see alternate branches)

[Renegnicat]

Here's a thought: Time is a spatial dimension. I read somewhere that a universe in which time exists as a spatial dimension is mathematically equivalent to one where it exists as a time dimension.

You can visualize this accordingly: Imagine a plane for each division of the universe: Stars have their own plane, computers have their own plane, and so do rats and hearts and corn chips and everything which can be identified has a three-dimensional plane. A point on a different place on the plane represents a different state for the object. All possible configurations of state for each object exist on each objects plane. Time, then, is simply the observation of different conglomerations of states on those three-dimensional planes. And when we move through time, we are moving the division of the object to another state.

Basically, this type of geometry is one in which, in addition to there being the three big dimensions, at every point among those three dimensions, there are another three dimensions extending forever.

Note, however, that the boundaries among points are not fixed. A point can represent a computer, or it can represent a computer along with the printer next to it! The divisions between points would be an entirely human-based construct. For in reality, the fabric of reality would be seamless.

How does this relate to time? Well, it destroys the need for omniscience to contradict omnipotence. Omniscience really just means that one is observing the whole of this six-dimensional plane at once. And omnipotence means that one can willfully subdivide one's observations of the plane at will. It's not that he can't change the future or past. Rather, he has absolute freedom to move within the plane as he likes, however unlikely that might be.

Now, we, as humans, can only observe a part of the plane at once. And because of that, it's always shifting. this is what produces our conception of time. In addition, we percieve time as moving forward not because we're actually moving in one direction, but because in order to get to where we have to go, we always have to start from the point we are currently at. Thus there's no way to go back to a previous point without traveling fromt he current point. And in the geometry, not all paths have equal resistance, some are very difficult to travel, while others are quite easy. Inertia applies here as well. If we are going in one direction, it's incredibly difficult to go back, because of the "time" inertia.

And a god fits in all of this, simply because he could be intelligent and omniscient, and omnipotent all at the same time. So, in this conception of the universe, it would be perfectly possible to be all three.  

[AlP]

Here's a thought: Time is a spatial dimension. I read somewhere that a universe in which time exists as a spatial dimension is mathematically equivalent to one where it exists as a time dimension.

For the love of all things holy read this book. You'll love it. Physics is absurd. If you're lucky SSY won't see this.  

[Renegnicat]

Ooh.  

[LARA]

So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.

BWAAHHAAAA!

I'll have to find a way to check out Black Adder, joeactor.


All assumptions and suppositions aside, the real fact is that any logical conclusion is worth dick unless you have the empirical data to back up the initial premises it's based on. This reality is why I don't frequent the philosophy board of HAF very often, despite that it appears to be the most active board here, especially when contrasted to the science board.  

I think the rest of y'all may benefit from looking into multiverse theory or the many worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett.  The interpretation of Quantumn Physics is always a spectacular mind fuck.

And AIP, I'm rooting for you.

I'll be lucky if this posts.  Apparently I'm getting blocked from HAF somehow.  Might not visit again, but c'est la vie and tacomakyle (sp?) was right.