God can't be denied

[Medicine*Woman]

The root of your failure in this point is blind faith in science to overcome any barrier of physics. Science is physics. You can't change that.

Solar fusion is irreversible. We are stuck on a death rock. Humans will be factored out on the time scale of at the most 100,000 years. It could be as few as two hundred years if there were to be some sort of dramatic climate shift. Massive crop failures coupled with energy wars could generate that sort of pessimistic prediction.

Do you think I like knowing that sort of horrible thing? The truth about the nature of our universe is pretty depressing.

*************
M*W: We are the products of the universe we create for ourselves, so shut-up with your doomsday bullcrap and accept responsibility for the state of negativity in your life that you created. If your life is so hopeless, do what you can to improve it while you're here instead of whining about it on the forum.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

But I know who I am... I'm just not exactly sure who I should be.

You should be yourself and adapt according to the role model influences that have the most impact on you.

I'm just interested in knowing the ultimate consequence of being forgiving and saving others.

Unless you have an investment in whom you're forgiving and saving, the most common positiv consequences might be personal satisfaction and an occasional thank you.

If my morality is actually dangerous to society in the long-run. Is it right to save people from unhealthiness and danger in an already overpopulated world?

It's not right or wrong. Those concepts don't exist objectively.

Or who's to say it is overpopulated and that there's just too much of us indicating some should be expended?

Whomever has the information, wisdom, leadership, and authority to make such decisions.

So for that matter, to even the atheists out there, why promote just being "nice" to people then?

You'll make more friends, share more resources, and not have to look over your shoulder ever 5 minutes for that enemy waiting to get ya'.

Is nuclear war a good bet since it will create a more sparce human population so resources aren't so limited?

Any war that poisons the environment to that degree could lead to an extinction of many species. Population and resource issues might be achievable with incentives to not reproduce, killing extreme criminals, moving to other planets, etc.

To have no set rules, being adaptable could mean killing people off in an overpopulated world for the good of mankind.

Why not have adaptable rules AND be adaptable?

Is being forgiving and "nice" to people really so bad?

It's neither 'good' nor 'bad'. It can have both positive and negative consequences and should be adaptively applied.

But is being human not something to be treasured?

That's up to you.

Look around us. We could just as easily not be human and just be another inanimate piece of earth in our huge galaxy.

I'm pretty certain the probability of each of us being human right now is 100%... so we could not easily be inanimate objects (or other animate ones for that matter).

We are pretty much like gods compared to everything else in the solar system.

How so?

The millions of years it took for the universe, earth, and all to form to create us. I think you really do have to appreciate the time and forces involved to create us to really appreciate the human being. No matter how you believe we got here, you must admit a lot of great processes were involved...

yes indeedy and billions of years btw.

...and I think life should be of the utmost importance.

I just can't accept the idea of 'thinning the herd' or actively letting Darwin's law take it's course and letting the weak die.

As long as you can't accept those ideas then you'll never be able to give life the utmost importance.

Perhaps man will think of something to overcome our limited resources and the problems that be in a manner that is non-destructive to other humans. So until someone can provide a better answer, I think Jesus, or for some of you, the man or men or made him up, was onto something.

Yep. Through crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, displacements, torture, etc. Jesus and friends were quite successful in turning the capacity to easily "believe" into a prevelant human adaptation.

There's happenings in it which are morally arguable but if you do something which is morally arguable, should I just totally reject you or just deem what you done as wrong and move on.

Anything that's subjective can be infitely argued and nobody will ever be correct or incorrect.

Not all Christians, Muslims, or Jews are sheep.

It doesn't matter if they are sheep, wolves, or porcupines. They practice accepting assertions as truth based on how it makes them feel.

 

[Ulam]

usp8riot,

Try reading this book "The Science of God" by Gerald S. I think you will enjoy it.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no evidence for anything other than "dull matter".
If you have evidence of such - please provide.

If consciousness is dull matter why don't we ever see consciousness emerge from dull matter, either in labroraotary tests or nature

You are the one making the claim that consciousness is somehow above/beyond/different to matter - even though we have never had ANY evidence of something that is NOT, in some shape or form, matter.

Are you saying that science has a comprehensive definition of everything that exists in the creation and definitions that don't fit that current catergory are fictional?

Therefore YOU are the one that has to provide evidence to support your claim.

Showing how consciousness mereges from dull matter would also help your case considerably too

As for the origins of consciousness - please define what you mean by "consciousness" and then we can see if there is any evidence that it is anything other than an emergent property of a complex system - the origins of which would be evolutionary.

Compare a dead person with a living one

 

[Sarkus]

If consciousness is dull matter why don't we ever see consciousness emerge from dull matter, either in labroraotary tests or nature

Firstly, we lack the scientific knowledge of the cause of life - and have as yet not been able to create life artificially from dull matter. This does NOT mean that the cause of life is God. It just means we haven't discovered it yet.

Are you saying that science has a comprehensive definition of everything that exists in the creation and definitions that don't fit that current catergory are fictional?

Nope. I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for anything other than dull matter.

Showing how consciousness mereges from dull matter would also help your case considerably too

It would - but you are making the claim. Onus is on you to provide evidence of something other than dull matter. I can not provide evidence that this "something else" does not exist - the same way you can never provide evidence of non-existence.

Compare a dead person with a living one

We've been down this route on a different thread, I'm sure....

There are vast biological and entirely material differences between a dead person and a living one, the two main ones being that the living person manages to break down food and water into usable chemicals to sustain the cells in the body, and the neuro-chemical interactions and activity within the brain (and throughout the body).
If the differences between "live" and "dead" were not material, we would not be able to detect them on the array of instrumentation that the hospitals use.

If you want to continue to use this line of debate then YOU need to provide evidence that there IS something else other than matter.

 

[usp8riot]

There's a lot of subjective or petty arguments. Not that they're not worth tackling but it's not worth starting a debate over the smaller issues right now.

CrunchyCat - How so?

I'm just saying we are pretty much like Gods since we have more control over our environment for our size than perhaps anything else in our solar system and maybe our universe if there is no other intelligent life out there.

Yep. Through crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, displacements, torture, etc. Jesus and friends were quite successful in turning the capacity to easily "believe" into a prevelant human adaptation.

If, as an atheist, you believe in 'thinning the herd' or letting it thin using Darwin's law, then what's wrong with people doing seemingly evil things to those they don't see fit? Not that I'm for it but how can you subscribe to that attitude and have a problem with people killing other people that are weak compared to someone else or a group that is numerically weaker than another being killed off? I see contradiction.

Perhaps my view of God needs to be cleared up again. Is it the word God that is offensive because most people under scorn here are of the typical religious persuasion which use the word God? It's been used for thousands of years and it's traditionally meant as an entity which is more powerful to say the least, so I use it. As I said before, God/Universe is more intelligent and more powerful than us.

But I'll go over it again. Take the brain for instance, the neurons in the brain aren't intelligent in and of themselves but combined as a network, they make up an intelligent being. Neurons at their root are a composition of particles that produce true/false output from input. Just as the universe works. In every action in the universe, it can all be turned into mathematical data, true/false or binary data, and calculated just as the brain does. Because it seems as just mere unintelligent true/false reactions going on, when it is combined together as a universe, us included, does that mean it isn't a network of smaller reactions composed of more complex reactions creating a universal intelligent entity? You have to look at the big picture. Who's to say we aren't part of a brain? Yeah, it seems silly but really, the Universe as a collective is intelligent in the same definition humans can be considered intelligent. Therefore, we have God. I don't think as an atheist or theist, I try to just think. The truth can never be just one side. The truth is a composition of rights and wrongs. It is the outcome of side a and side b. It needs a false to declare it as a truth. I realize I may be going over some heads here and might seem a little nutty but I just speak it as I see it. I try to spend a lot of time looking at things from both sides before I post but I just can't see from either religious view that you can't see the universe as a collective is intelligent and could subsequently be called an entity or God, all powerful and intelligent. When we do a wrong and what some people call karma gets back at us, it's God or just the way things are. God's rules are set. If we do bad, we don't get punished because it's wrong, but it's just the way things are. We get punished because we misunderstood the system and it's laws. It's not God attacking you. Just like when you're on the other side of a huge rubberband and you pull it, it pops back at you. You pull it, it pushes back. The natural balance of things. I don't want people thinking I see God as some old man in the sky, it's really absurd.

But I have tended to forget about hope. Like I said, when you appreciate a something, you have hope for it. And even if sparing the lives of the weak and forgiving others who may not seem to naturally deserve it could possibly lead to over-population, I've realized once again, that we should have hope for an answer and not kill in the name of what we think is right. I think it is only for God to give life and God to take it. That it's how long we live and how we live it. They compliment each other. The longer we live, often the wiser we get, and the wiser we get, often the longer we live, that is, up to a natural point. But we learn to play the game of life better, generally. I think our creator would only want us to live longer so as to better learn how to live as mankind and learn how to live longer to hopefully learn how to live better. But at it's end is the goal of learning how to live. Therefore, I think it wise to spare life at all costs. Even if someone does not seem to deserve forgiveness or his life spared, it is the person doing the punishment who hasn't learned the value of life which is being punished also. I guess I sort of answered my own question and given enough time and thought, I usually do. So therefore, I say as Jesus said paraphrased, be your brothers keeper and be forgiving of him.


Ulam, thanks for the recommendation and welcome to the forums.

 

[Godless]

Oh I don't know, can't say for sure, but who cares, If we will only live for the next 50-60 years anyway. I for one wouldn't underestimate human potential or if you will consciousness.

 

[Satyr]

Here’s another thing that “cannot be denied”:

Hunger.

In fact all needs cannot be denied, unless one becomes indifferent to one’s own existence.

God?
Another need manifesting itself as a hypothetical, absolute authority figure.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm just saying we are pretty much like Gods since we have more control over our environment for our size than perhaps anything else in our solar system and maybe our universe if there is no other intelligent life out there.

A 'God' by any sterotypical description is an immortal life form that can do anything with pure will and knows everything. I don't see any correlation between that concept and humans.

If, as an atheist, you believe in 'thinning the herd' or letting it thin using Darwin's law, then what's wrong with people doing seemingly evil things to those they don't see fit?

That's a belief creeping up on you about atheists and myself nor did I say anything was 'wrong' about it.

Not that I'm for it but how can you subscribe to that attitude and have a problem with people killing other people that are weak compared to someone else or a group that is numerically weaker than another being killed off? I see contradiction.

I don't think you're understanding the contradiction correctly. I'll boldface some key elements for you:

Perhaps man will think of something to overcome our limited resources and the problems that be in a manner that is non-destructive to other humans. So until someone can provide a better answer, I think Jesus, or for some of you, the man or men or made him up, was onto something.

Yep. Through crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, displacements, torture, etc. Jesus and friends were quite successful in turning the capacity to easily "believe" into a prevelant human adaptation.

Does that make more sense?

As I said before, God/Universe is more intelligent and more powerful than us.

Why have 2 words for the same thing? You have no evidence that the universe is sentient. What do you mean that the universe is more powerful?

But I'll go over it again. Take the brain for instance, the neurons in the brain aren't intelligent in and of themselves but combined as a network

Man, belief is killing you here. A single brain cell is able to positively recognize an image of someone's face. This has been performed in a lab. That's pretty damn intelligent for a single cell.

Neurons at their root are a composition of particles that produce true/false output from input. Just as the universe works.

Again, you don't know either of those assertions to be true. This is what the 3rd time you've asserted them? But, you have an opportunity. Back up your claims with the hard evidence required to make those assertions.

In every action in the universe, it can all be turned into mathematical data, true/false or binary data, and calculated just as the brain does. Because it seems as just mere unintelligent true/false reactions going on, when it is combined together as a universe, us included, does that mean it isn't a network of smaller reactions composed of more complex reactions creating a universal intelligent entity? You have to look at the big picture. Who's to say we aren't part of a brain? Yeah, it seems silly but really, the Universe as a collective is intelligent in the same definition humans can be considered intelligent. Therefore, we have God. I don't think as an atheist or theist, I try to just think. The truth can never be just one side. The truth is a composition of rights and wrongs. It is the outcome of side a and side b. It needs a false to declare it as a truth. I realize I may be going over some heads here and might seem a little nutty but I just speak it as I see it. I try to spend a lot of time looking at things from both sides before I post but I just can't see from either religious view that you can't see the universe as a collective is intelligent and could subsequently be called an entity or God, all powerful and intelligent. When we do a wrong and what some people call karma gets back at us, it's God or just the way things are. God's rules are set. If we do bad, we don't get punished because it's wrong, but it's just the way things are. We get punished because we misunderstood the system and it's laws. It's not God attacking you. Just like when you're on the other side of a huge rubberband and you pull it, it pops back at you. You pull it, it pushes back. The natural balance of things. I don't want people thinking I see God as some old man in the sky, it's really absurd.

This whole paragraph is an incoherency resulting from belief on top of belief on top of belief. You effectively sacraficed any semblance of truth for self-satisfaction.

But I have tended to forget about hope. Like I said, when you appreciate a something, you have hope for it. And even if sparing the lives of the weak and forgiving others who may not seem to naturally deserve it could possibly lead to over-population, I've realized once again, that we should have hope for an answer and not kill in the name of what we think is right. I think it is only for God to give life and God to take it. That it's how long we live and how we live it. They compliment each other. The longer we live, often the wiser we get, and the wiser we get, often the longer we live, that is, up to a natural point. But we learn to play the game of life better, generally. I think our creator would only want us to live longer so as to better learn how to live as mankind and learn how to live longer to hopefully learn how to live better. But at it's end is the goal of learning how to live. Therefore, I think it wise to spare life at all costs. Even if someone does not seem to deserve forgiveness or his life spared, it is the person doing the punishment who hasn't learned the value of life which is being punished also. I guess I sort of answered my own question and given enough time and thought, I usually do. So therefore, I say as Jesus said paraphrased, be your brothers keeper and be forgiving of him.

You have just communicated an important message: "I want a supreme authority / creator to exist. I want an objective right and wrong to exist. I want to know purpose and feel approved by the authority in my purpose."

That's alot of psychological need and you just met it by accepting the assertion "God exists" as truth without any supportive evidence and a heap of contradictive evidence.

Maybe the genetic factors are just too strong in you to do otherwise and maybe there are some educational gaps afoot. Who knows.

 

[wesmorris]

"God?
Another need manifesting itself as a hypothetical, absolute authority figure."

Yup, for the most part. There's more to it than that, as in the element of cultural lag from which the authority figure is constructed, but all in all, it's about authority validating presumption in a wonderfully circular whirlwind of self involvement. *shrug*

 

[Teg]

*************
M*W: We are the products of the universe we create for ourselves, so shut-up with your doomsday bullcrap and accept responsibility for the state of negativity in your life that you created. If your life is so hopeless, do what you can to improve it while you're here instead of whining about it on the forum.

If you check the science you shall find me to be 100% accurate on every point. If you choose to ignore the science, then you are just ignorant.

My point was only that this universe seems too random and self-destructive to imply an organized consciousness. On the other hand religion is full of doomsday. Of course the leaders of that community, comingled as they are with the political elite, have generated the circumstances to bring that about. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy really.

There was probably a point about 50-100 years ago where we could have had a turning point in human development. Now we're past that point. We need to reconcile what we think is worth keeping, what we will try to save for the upcoming crisis. We need to find ways to ameliorate the oncoming damage. The starvation we have now will be nothing compared to the starvation after the 5 degree shift in this century when crops will fail.

It's our success, really, that will be the death of us. We survive too often for our own good. And if you think the system has trouble coping with 6 billion, just wait until it reaches 10 billion this century.

Now there are two responses to knowledge of an upcoming crisis:
1 the irrational response: ignore the crisis and live in complete skepticism
2 the rational response: reconcile with the inevitable and try to consider possible ways to reduce the damage

 

[Cris]

But, but, with two thirds of the world poulation praying to their various gods how can we possibly go wrong?

 

[Ulam]

Love is the core of religion. Without love, religion is no better than having no religion. Having love without believing in a creator will be risky.

 

[lightgigantic]

Firstly, we lack the scientific knowledge of the cause of life - and have as yet not been able to create life artificially from dull matter. This does NOT mean that the cause of life is God. It just means we haven't discovered it yet.

Interesting - then why do you draw up the parameters of the cause not being consciousness and advocate that it was caused by dull matter?

Nope. I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for anything other than dull matter.

Then how do you explain consciousness - certainly it doesn't display the symptoms of dull matter - seems you are sold out to obsolete definitions that can not explain the observable phenomena of this world

It would - but you are making the claim. Onus is on you to provide evidence of something other than dull matter. I can not provide evidence that this "something else" does not exist - the same way you can never provide evidence of non-existence.

Who said anything about non-existence - If you want an example of non -existence it would be the evidence that consciousness comes from matter however

We've been down this route on a different thread, I'm sure....
There are vast biological and entirely material differences between a dead person and a living one, the two main ones being that the living person manages to break down food and water into usable chemicals to sustain the cells in the body, and the neuro-chemical interactions and activity within the brain (and throughout the body).

NOw you have to establish how this ability to break down foodstuff has a material cause - actually it seems to indicate that consciousness drives matter in a way that matter cannot

If the differences between "live" and "dead" were not material, we would not be able to detect them on the array of instrumentation that the hospitals use.

Unless of course the very nature of having a functional "alive" body is a symptom of consciousness - otherwise why not take a dead body and apply "the normal material conditions of consciousness" to it and re-establish life?

If you want to continue to use this line of debate then YOU need to provide evidence that there IS something else other than matter.

I have - that life cannot be reinstated or created by manufacturing the material symptoms of consciousness - it indicates that consciousness is the cause of a materially functioning body and not the effect

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Love is the core of religion. Without love, religion is no better than having no religion. Having love without believing in a creator will be risky.

*************
M*W: Atheists have love, so your theory about love is wrong. The love atheists have is not tainted by any false concept of religion. True love has no conditions or boundaries of any man-made religion. Religion limits love, and in doing so, limits spiritual growth. Love only lives inside us. That is the only place we can find it. To look for love through religion is to deny our own being, to stifle our innermost source of life.

 

[Ulam]

What if there is a creator, not loving him is like not loving your parents. I think of religion as stories parents tell to their kids to help their soul in the journey of life and after death. I believe for some reason a person who has a good soul will be rewarded.

 

[usp8riot]

I don't think you're understanding the contradiction correctly. I'll boldface some key elements for you:

I think arguing using humans, who always do bad things at some point in their life, and bunch some humans who make a mistake and have a common belief is bad practice. Can I blame past mistakes made by non-Christians throughout history? By non-Muslims? Non-Jews? I don't blame atheists for any trouble other atheists cause even though they have a common belief whether admitted or not. I think if we haven't accepted humans as not being perfect now, then we are doomed as humans. Everyone makes mistakes and when combined as a group, the same concept will apply. It's just easy to pin historical mistakes on religion since most people have some form of religion and since humans have evolved to be more intelligent, we've grasped more of the concept that there's more to see than what we see. The more we know, the more we've realized we don't know.

Why have 2 words for the same thing? You have no evidence that the universe is sentient. What do you mean that the universe is more powerful?

I often use more than one word so others can grasp the idea better. The universe is more powerful, even looking at it in the simplest sense is not that hard to grasp.

Man, belief is killing you here. A single brain cell is able to positively recognize an image of someone's face. This has been performed in a lab. That's pretty damn intelligent for a single cell.

I'm speaking of at the root, not the brain cell itself exactly, but what makes it up. A simple series of actions/reactions working as a collective making up a whole intelligent being. Even the molecules and particles making up a brain cell themselves aren't intelligent but combined as a collective make it intelligent. Look at how a computer works. A single logic gate combined with many can be defined as intelligent. To be able to beat an intelligent being such as us in a game of chess autonomously, if that isn't intelligent, than what are we if we are beat by it?

Again, you don't know either of those assertions to be true. This is what the 3rd time you've asserted them? But, you have an opportunity. Back up your claims with the hard evidence required to make those assertions.

I'm basically stating, in every action there is a reaction. And basically a simple action/reaction sequences combined with many creates intelligence. At the core, that is what makes us intelligent, and as I said, computers, but for the sake of argument, we'll leave them out since it's more arguable. So if the universe, a collective of smaller simpler actions/reactions, together in what we call the universe, by definition, it can be called intelligent, as one whole machine, or entity, whatever you want to call it.

I don't want to believe in some ways, so I ask you to believe that I don't always or in some ways want to believe. My body would sometimes go about my life just doing as I wish, with total freedom, not even caring about wrong from right, in rules other than what I make up for my own good, or to believe in an equalizer that keeps justice and equality in the universe. But as I said, I'm challenging anyone to challenge my beliefs and if you see it wrong, tell me, and back it up, or else I will keep on believing in truth, fairness, and a great Equalizer. Prove to me that a collective of simpler actions/reactions combined do not make up an intelligent entity at the same time stating that we as humans do not have simple action/reactions going on inside us to make us intelligent as a collective. Then perhaps you can disprove God, everything in the universe combined as a collective, as an intelligent entity.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What if there is a creator, not loving him is like not loving your parents. I think of religion as stories parents tell to their kids to help their soul in the journey of life and after death. I believe for some reason a person who has a good soul will be rewarded.

*************
M*W: So, what criteria do you use to determine who has a good soul and who doesn't?

 

[Sarkus]

What if there is a creator, not loving him is like not loving your parents. I think of religion as stories parents tell to their kids to help their soul in the journey of life and after death. I believe for some reason a person who has a good soul will be rewarded.

What if....
What if there was no poverty.
What if there was end to war.

What if.


Good soul?
Define "soul", and what having a "good" one entails.

Who rewards? And When?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think arguing using humans, who always do bad things at some point in their life, and bunch some humans who make a mistake and have a common belief is bad practice.

The succes of an 'idea' is measured by it's results. Christianity is littered with bloodshed EXCLUSIVELY in the name of 'God'. If that's the result its after then it is VERY VERY successful.

Can I blame past mistakes made by non-Christians throughout history? By non-Muslims? Non-Jews?

You can if you want.

I don't blame atheists for any trouble other atheists cause even though they have a common belief whether admitted or not.

Not accepting the assertion 'God' exist as truth without supportive evidence isn't a belief. Also, unlike 'believers', atheists have no formalized method of human relationship (i.e. religion).

I think if we haven't accepted humans as not being perfect now, then we are doomed as humans. Everyone makes mistakes and when combined as a group, the same concept will apply. It's just easy to pin historical mistakes on religion since most people have some form of religion and since humans have evolved to be more intelligent, we've grasped more of the concept that there's more to see than what we see. The more we know, the more we've realized we don't know.

Humans will always make mistakes. It a particular mistake keeps recurring then it might be beneficial to understand why that's happening. It tends to be a defective process most of the time.

I often use more than one word so others can grasp the idea better. The universe is more powerful, even looking at it in the simplest sense is not that hard to grasp.

It's a bad idea to use non-existent synonyms because it keeps people whom don't know any better ignorant.

I'm speaking of at the root, not the brain cell itself exactly, but what makes it up. A simple series of actions/reactions working as a collective making up a whole intelligent being. Even the molecules and particles making up a brain cell themselves aren't intelligent but combined as a collective make it intelligent.

I think the question should be asked why does a brain cell intelligent yet a muscle cell is not? Surely both are composed of a 'collective' of smaller constuents. I will however agree that intelligence of life on Earth seems a result of the quantity and quality of a network of neurons.

Look at how a computer works. A single logic gate combined with many can be defined as intelligent.

A computer is not intelligent. Some programs are artificially intelligent (i.e. they emulate our idea of intelligence).

To be able to beat an intelligent being such as us in a game of chess autonomously, if that isn't intelligent, than what are we if we are beat by it?

Not the winner.

I'm basically stating, in every action there is a reaction. And basically a simple action/reaction sequences combined with many creates intelligence.

I understand the assertion. I just don't see reasonable evidence of it being true. My ass hair goes through action/reaction sequences all the time, yet it hasn't demonstrated any act of intelligence as of yet.

So if the universe, a collective of smaller simpler actions/reactions, together in what we call the universe, by definition, it can be called intelligent, as one whole machine, or entity, whatever you want to call it.

You would have to demonstrate that styrofoam, boogers, sound, oxygen, the moon, etc. exhibit intelligence before coming to that type of conclusion.

I'm challenging anyone to challenge my beliefs and if you see it wrong, tell me, and back it up, or else I will keep on believing in truth, fairness, and a great Equalizer.

You're talking a lazy approach to this. It's not the onus of others to contradict your beliefs and show you they are fantasy. It's your onus to prove your claims and show they are truth.

Prove to me that a collective of simpler actions/reactions combined do not make up an intelligent entity...

Rocks... made up of a nice 'collection' and utterly unintelligent.

...at the same time stating that we as humans do not have simple action/reactions going on inside us to make us intelligent as a collective.

Show me how a single brain cell is intelligent and why a muscle is not? You can't and that means it's not a simple action/reaction.

Then perhaps you can disprove God, everything in the universe combined as a collective, as an intelligent entity.

In matters of claiming existence, a negative can't be proven... only contradicted. 'God' has been claimed for how many millenia? Not once shred of proof has existed. Simply put, absence of evidence over a huge amount of time is evidence of absence (i.e. there is no evidence that 'God' exists).