For humans, intelligence is translating events in our world into useable information. It is fair to say that intelligence requires the following:

A)an external world.
B)a mind capable of translating events of the external world into information.
C)a body capable of making use of that information to its own advantage.

A natural conclusion of evolution is that animals evolved intelligence for the purpose of better navigating the world in which they exist. If we are to say that God is intelligent like humans are intelligent(just on an infinitely more sophisticated level) that implies that God must exist in some external world.

Even if we assume an intelligence requires a universe it doesn't pose a big problem to say this universe is a closed system - so you could theoretically build a closed system to facilitate intelligence.

And even if we don't assume system where we do not know the borders we could still say separating intelligence from a surrounding world is like separating a garden from the surrounding landscape, so the terms "external" and "internal" would merely be chosen perspectives and not constants.

As a third counter-example information processing requires constructing an image of reality, and even in brains with no sensory input thoughts will form and sensory regions will activate (if having been activated before). Whereas this perspective requires an "external" world for learning, it doesn't require one for cognition.

Fourthly, I don't think a processing unit that perceives "inwards" instead of "outwards" is a far fetched notion. How it came about would be quite a riddle however.

Why?

Suppose some daemon appears to you and hands you a box. The daemon tells you he has changed history. Einstien never existed because the daemon snatched his brain and placed it into the box before he was ever born. You take the box, open it up...just a little bit. You peer inside and sure enough you see Einstien's living brain just existing inside that box.

What would Einstein's brain know? Would you call his brain in a box intelligent? For all intents an purposes Einstein's brain would be a blob of cells. It wouldn't have ever learned anything becuase it never had an experience other than existing. Its not enough just to exist. To be intelligent you have to exist in a world...perhaps that is why God created one.

If you set the perspective to a border between "the brain" and "everything" else, and assume no other perspectives are valid and that no other configurations are possible, then yes; the conclusion is very simple.

You haven't really asked a question however.

ive read this several times...and i still cant make sense of what you are trying to say. in no way does any of this mean you need an external world. a world with set laws will suffice...whether external or otherwise.

Unless I'm missing something, you are assuming in your conclusion that God evolved/developed intelligence the same way we did. Silly thread.

This forum could do with some believers who can actual form any sort of logical arguments instead of looking stupid and affirming peoples atheism.

.

Grand leaps of logic itt.

there is no such thing for the existence of God

You're correct, this is an argument I heard from an atheist. He went on to argue that information requires matter. That matter can be DNA, neurons, paper and ink or whatever but for information to exist there must also exist some material representation. The concept of a mind without a physical brain or information outside matter is as meaningless as a square circle.

I agree with the argument in the sense that if God does exist, there must be some sort of external reality to His existence. God may be completely responsible for our reality and can exist outside our reality, but God cannot exist outside His own reality(whatever that is). God can't be intelligence floating around in nothingness. Such a notion is nonsense.

When I wrote the OP I was expecting theist to call it silly...I was curious as to how they would respond to it. I find it quite comical that its the atheists who are calling this atheistic argument silly and illogical.

OP reminds me of the ontological argument of St. Anselm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

hth

Ok. And?

Btw depending on what exactly you mean by "infinitely more sophisticated level" you could draw some conclusions about gods' external world.

stu back to his ignorant ways. this section was so much nicer when he was gone.

we find it quite comical, btw, when theists call plethos theistic arguments silly and illogical! BAM! u c whut i did there?