About the Bible and God

In the beginning of the Bible the claim is made that God created the heavens - (that would include all the billions of stars) - and the earth with all of its plant and animal life - (that would include all the trillions of living and reproducing cells). If the reader accepted the claim of the author as foundational to what the author wants to convey to the reader, the reader would logically assume that the intelligence of God is vastly superior to the intelligence of humans. True or false?

 

Is intelligence even required for creation? Naturalists argue that what is called "God" by some are just natural phenomenon where simplicity gives way to complexity via emergent properties, and "intelligence" is an emergent property.

Even if it is agreed that intelligence is required, the question then becomes "can something of less intelligence create something of greater intelligence?" Here is where we need to be specific about what we mean by "intelligence". One reason Christians fear AI is the fact that it will demonstrably prove that something of less intelligence can result in something of greater intelligence (i.e., humans creating super-intelligence). The fact is, AI has surpassed human intelligence in many ways already with its virtually instant recall, encyclopedic knowledge base, calculation ability, etc. Yet is lacking on others (reasoning, emotional intelligence and empathy, the ability to count fingers, etc.).

In conclusion, I would say it is false that one must "logically assume" God must be more intelligent. It is a reasonable issue to debate where no such assumptions should be made.

The question presents several premises and leads to a conclusion. Let's break it down to identify any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, poor logic, or poor reasoning.

1. **Premise 1: "In the beginning of the Bible the claim is made that God created the heavens and the earth."**
- This is a factual statement referring to the content of the Bible.

2. **Premise 2: "The heavens include all the billions of stars."**
- This is an inference based on the modern understanding of "heavens," which is generally acceptable.

3. **Premise 3: "The earth includes all its plant and animal life."**
- This is also an inference based on a general understanding of "earth," which includes plant and animal life.

4. **Conclusion: "If the reader accepted the claim of the author as foundational to what the author wants to convey to the reader, the reader would logically assume that the intelligence of God is vastly superior to the intelligence of humans."**
- This forms the crux of the logical analysis.

### Analysis:

1. **Possible Logical Fallacies:**
- **Appeal to Authority:** The argument presumes that because the Bible is a religious text considered authoritative by many, its statements should be accepted without question. This could be problematic from a logical perspective if one does not already accept the Bible as an authoritative source.
- **Begging the Question:** The argument assumes its conclusion within its premises by stating that if one accepts the foundational claim, one must also accept the implied conclusion about God's intelligence. This circular reasoning does not provide independent justification for why the intelligence of God should be considered vastly superior.

2. **Cognitive Biases:**
- **Confirmation Bias:** If the reader already believes in the foundational claims of the Bible, they might be more inclined to accept the conclusion without critically examining it.
- **Anchoring Bias:** The reader might rely too heavily on initial information (the claim from the Bible) to draw further conclusions without seeking additional evidence.

3. **Poor Logic:**
- The term "intelligence" is not defined, and it's a complex concept. Making comparisons between divine intelligence and human intelligence without a clear definition can lead to vague or unsupported conclusions.
- The argument relies heavily on acceptance of the initial premises, which are based on faith. Logical reasoning demands that premises be universally acceptable or supported by evidence.

4. **Poor Reasoning:**
- Accepting a claim as foundational does not necessarily lead to the specific assumption about intelligence. For instance, belief in creation might not directly imply an understanding of the nature or extent of the creator's intelligence. Other characteristics (such as omnipotence) might be inferred without necessarily focusing on intelligence.

### Conclusion:
The conclusion that "the reader would logically assume that the intelligence of God is vastly superior to the intelligence of humans" is not logically necessary given the premises. The argument is built on several unexamined assumptions and relies on the acceptance of foundational claims without critical analysis. Therefore, while the conclusion might align with the beliefs of certain readers, it does not follow with strict logical necessity from the premises laid out.

Well, it’s myth. It’s a poetic musing from the Bronze Age and never meant to be a scientific truth. So, It can be poetically “true” or allegorical while also being scientifically false.

it’s also true that this religious musing is not original to the Torah, but the creative yearnings of emerging Jewish priestly scribes breaking from the polytheistic religions of earlier agrarian Sumerian beliefs to establish their own ethnic nomadic Shepherding peoples.

The Priestly scholars of ancient Judaism were fashioning their own ethnic-based belief system and Iron Age religion in rebellion with Earlier Sumerian Sea Serpent Goddesses of Mesopotamia, Assyria, Hittite, and Babylonia. (See Semitic Mythology. The Mythology of All Races Stephen Herbert Langdon). This was a common Iron Age literary trend, as Thor battles the Midgard Serpent, and Zeus defeats the ferocious serpent Typhon.

When nascent Judaism began and broke away from polytheistic traditions they adopted the Midianite Warrior Volcano God Yhvh or Yahweh as the reigning deity above all the earlier Jewish deities. (See Theophilius James Meek Hebrew Origins)

The Jewish Scholarly Priests rewrote the early Sumerian Creation stories featuring the Serpent Goddess Tiamat and her ferocious sea serpent side kicks Tohu and Bohu.

In their adaptation of the Genesis creation story (and later redacted) they refer to Yahweh slaying The Goddesses of the Abyss Tohu and Bohu and Leviathan who then fashioned the universe from their dead carcasses. (See Robert Price: Treatises on Genesis)

As an utter rejection of their Babylonian Exile, the authors of the new Yahweh cult had to demonize the previous Sumerian goddess Tiamat and her vicious serpent consorts and contrive to crown Yahweh as their own badass Serpent-slaying godhead and unite the Jewish Tribes under one deity as His Chosen Ones to rebuild the nation of Israel. (See B. Lang The Hebrew God, Portrait of an Ancient Deity).

Postscript: The ancient Sumerians believed the early cosmos was a vast sea of chaos ruled by the goddess of the salt sea Tiamat. The etymology goes something like this: Tehom, Tohu, Tahamat, Tiamat

Genesis 1:2 and 8:2 make TEHOM "the deep"; but this is clearly a late emendation of the original story; for details see TANINIM, but especially the textual commentary on Genesis 1:1-2:3.

The Bible uses TEHOM poetically to mean the seas, or a gulf, or an abyss; but it also uses TOHU in the same verses to mean the void of uncreation, the darkness before creation. Tehom is the Yehudit form of Tahamat or Tiamat, the primal sea-serpent of original Creation; we can assume that TOHU is the same or at least an alternative variation.

Of course, this is more the domain of mythology and theology than logic. The logic of the ancient mind was that even a God could not create something from nothing. While this idea would become a principle of the Catholic Church later on (Creatio ex nihilo) it was inconceivable to more primitive religions.