I probably chose a poor word in using “intelligence”, using my assumed correlation between intelligence, Free Will and sentience, which speaking philosophically need not be joined. That’s why I took the redirect a number of comments ago to disassociate the conversation from the word “intelligence”.

But I stand fully behind God being sentient and having Free Will, by definition.

The difference is that the “true Scotsman” is ascribing something to a Scotsman that he need not actually have. A Scotsman is a Scotsman because he was born in that country (or of people from there, whatever). His “liking Haggis” (per the Wikipedia article) is not innate to his definition as a Scotsman and so it’s a logical fallacy because of the false attachment of that characteristic.

In contrast, God, by definition, is sentient and has Free Will. If there’s some entity out there that isn’t sentient or doesn’t have Free Will, then it’s not God. It’s something else. Thus, it’s an inherent part of God’s definition.

Admittedly, as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, this does not prove that there is a God. There may not be an entity out there that is sentient and has Free Will.

Nevertheless I challenge you to find me a definition of a God that doesn’t include their Free Will and sentience.

I don’t think scientists insist on trying to answer the God question; I think that media reports try to act as if every discovery is, at its core, concerned with implications for religion. You are still, however, saying that God, by its very definition, is outside the realm of science. Again, this is trivial.

“I think therefore I am” combined with “the fact that we’re having this discussion suggests we have Free Will” are the closest thing to compelling out there and I have no delusions that they are great arguments.

Finally, you can call it tautological, but it seems to me the insistence by those who are scientist to try to answer the “God question”, when it’s entirely outside their realm, by the very definition of what God is, sometimes you need to say something as simple as “If the team scores a touchdown, they’ll get 6 points.”

Look, you can call this concept, the concept that a singular being has the ability to think, learn and change one’s mind on a whim what ever you want. Intelligence, Free Will, God, Refulgradetes, Boslwagnes… I don’t care what you call it. But you’re refusing to consider the idea that this conceptual idea is possible. That there could be a unitary entity that can think, learn and change one’s mind on a whim.

Because if you reduce that activity (think, learn and change one’s mind on a whim) to a bunch of smaller components, then it’s not REALLY thinking or learning or changing one’s mind, is it? It’s just the other things joining together to simulate or give the appearance of that.

Your strategy is to pretend that this concept is unimaginable. You’re attempting to define everything as so trivial as to be observable by science. You’re holding, as a dogmatic truth (since the evidence for such a claim is non-existent (we are having this conversation after all)), that it must be that everything can be broken down to levels to be observable by science.

All I’ve tried to establish in this post and subsequent conversation that if such a thing as intelligence (or whatever term you want to use) existed in a divine being, then that thing would be unmeasurable by science.

In this post, I’m not trying to prove that God exists (that work lies elsewhere), merely that the God I’m referring to, the intelligent, sentient, Free Will having deity that can defy the laws of the universe, can not be measured by science. Why? Because science can not measure that which can change it’s mind on a whim, outside of simple laws.

What part of what I’m saying don’t you understand?