>>96083196
>Yes it is.
Even if were correct, which it can't be because definitions for common language are descriptive, needing any analysis at all removes it from "common sense".
>You hate materialism.
No, I hate totalizing midwits insisting that there is no possible hypothetical where materialism is false because they insist on bloating it to include the exact things it disproved.
>By way of causal logic, they can only work because of intelligences reinforcing them
Not inside the boundaries of the counterfactual which declares it to be so.
>Pliny
Not a Medieval Christian, not a resident of Golarion, not relevant.
>Unintelligent nature/causality would not evolve to such a point where it entertains things like human art forms like religious ritual or blood sacrifice.
Why is it logically impossible with different laws of nature?
>The formation of such infrastructure still implies intelligence nonetheless
According to your refusal to actually address the hypothetical by insisting on considering the author.
>Some things can’t be formed by the universe alone.
OUR universe. Why can NO POSSIBLE universe have it?
>Are you?
The fine-tuning problem is the matter of assuming that the variables of the laws of physics were not inevitable, creating a problem as humans require a very specific set.
>It considers conservation of mass
A function outputting more mass than its input is not logically invalid.
>Intelligence doesn’t require consciousness. :^)
I am declaring that for the purpose of this argument that "intelligence" is an emergent property requiring consciousness. The use of any other will be taken as a refusal to address the point.
>>96083205
Is it a distinct category of action only I can do? The label is valid both ways if it is.
>>96083232
>Because mathematical odds alone can only do so much without intelligence as one of its variables.
Not if you assume intelligence is emergent, per the vast majority of neuroscience.
