I believe that philosophy is not for those who are intelligent beings, but for those who are seeking truths. If I were intelligent, I wouldn't be here, but gone to politics or business forums, and debate on how to get elected as an MP or make a mega dosh easy and quick.

Clement? You think reading Clement Freud will help me uncover my motives in drawing attention to your double digit IQ? I don't think so. It might help me cook salmon in an interesting way. But do I want to cook salmon like a pervert, that's the question I'd be asking myself. — Bartricks

No, Lucian Freud. He might be more exciting.

Yes, that was what I have been saying too. Emotions seem have taken over the reasoning. :)

Sounds like IQ test is your God. :D Of course it is full of mistakes and bogus sham system.

No one should be judged by any system or any one. People need respect, not judgement.
Get over it, and escape from your Rembrandt's self assembled maze.

Just mentioned Freud, because it could help analyse your unconscious or hidden motives for obsessing yourself with IQ tests. Although, I know it, I will try avoid going ad hominem.

There are also loads of low standard books for sale obviously written by the writers for making quick and easy money. Sure, they must be written with full of unclear and illogical sophistries, which were never checked out.

Anyhow, keeping on insisting IQ tests in Philosophical forum, is very unusual. Very weird. If you blindly believe, and are judging people by IQ tests (I don't know who even manufactured IQ tests), I do sincerely feel that you sure are not a philosopher, but a business man, and should not be in Philosophical forum. Philosophers are not that low level.

Have you read any Freud? Of course, you said you don't read books. Never mind. Good luck.

Test your own IQ. Sounds like you are deeply obsessed with your own IQ.
Read more books and try to learn.

I don't feel it is a good idea to continue arguments for philosophical debates with you. You are too emotional, and egocentric. There is nothing good to learn.

When you are that much hyper emotional, obviously you cannot tell good thinking from bad ones. I wouldn't expect that capability from you.

I don't think you are interested in philosophical debates, but looking and begging for some psychological engaging. Keep on arguing with yourself.

The problem is that our reasons work on the basis of the external sense data by being there in the world and situations, but unfortunately and unfairly, our life span is maximum 100 years or so, not long enough to be present and have experienced at the moment of the Big Bang, or the very first birth / creation of life by God in the universe, hence we are relying on the isms, historical speculations, scientific hypotheses. Not exactly the fault of the Reasoning.

If you are a theist, all the answers are in the bible or your own religious scripts, if atheist, then you would be either existentialist, phenomenologist or scientific realist, then the answers would be all there too. None of the answers would be either right or wrong. Because it is not verifiable. Then it becomes your choice and freedom to decide which one IS for you. But the fact that you have asked the question is very meaningful and significant. I feel that the philosophical questions must be NOT stopped, and kept re-asked and asked as long as human life continues in this universe.

I feel it is very important and meaningful to ask and have debates on these topics. It is not the conclusions which matters in most of the time, but the course of debates I feel that I learn a lot.

Asking validity of the questions is not, to belittle the question, but to suggest expectancy of the limitation of the nature of the arguments and answers.

Before trying to answer the question,  I would ask first, whether the question is a valid one to be answered.
When asking "why" questions, it is normally between human beings and their dispositions in their own daily lives, such as why have you ordered  the book? Because I wanted to learn more about Logic. Why did you wake up earlier than usual this morning? Because I was hungry. ....etc etc,   or their explanations to what has happened in the world, but the world must be where the replier had been in his / her life, experiencing the happenings, witnessing the situations etc. Why do you think the team lost the game? Because the players were suffering from fatigues, I guess ...etc etc.
But the OP's questions why human beings exist at all, and any forms of life exist, = this question is out of the boundary a living human being's experience, because no one right now has lived more than 100 years to have directly experienced the very beginning of life of humans or anything form of lives which could be millions of years ago.
Hence, answers will come from each person's imaginations, beliefs or the religious scripts or scientific theories, or some other philosophical systems he read.

Yes, it looks like the OP is presuming God exists, and listing Gods negative aspects.

Another point I was wondering was, if Einstein's brain had been exactly replicated, and transplanted into another person, would it then wake up a person with Einstein's identity? (with all the memories, personalities, and knowledges of him).

Question: Is mind also nonphysical? If I see triangular objects (nonphysical things) popping out of a machine (the brain), there must be something triangular in that machine (the mind must be nonphysical). — TheMadFool

I used to go by Functionalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/), and then Epiphenomenalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/).

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. — Deus

If these beliefs affect one's psychological state and decisions and action foundation, then agnosticism wouldn't be better or more prudent, as it would give more confusions hesitations and uncertain feelings in his life? Whereas it would be simpler and more consistent and certain on one's daily life when one has strong beliefs on either God exists or not?

It would depend on the fact that whether it affects your dispositions, feelings and the way of living, or the beliefs are taken just as on the theoretical level, I would imagine.

Also, these beliefs are suppose to change through time depending on the individuals' life experiences.

Forget about intelligent being, going back to God making mistakes, I think it is again absurd to imagine that an omniscient being to make mistakes, because making mistakes implies it was not omniscient, and not intelligent and humanly act rather than God's.

Maybe it would be possible for God making mistakes, if it were the Gods in Greek Myths. So that is why it would have been good to specify which God is being focused in the OP too.

But then the Greek Gods are not supposed to be Omni xn, so it wouldn't make sense to bring them into here.

Only way to have an intelligent discussion — Bartricks

An intelligent being would listen, debate intelligently and correct the logical problems in his OP, when it is proven unclear and unintelligent.

You aren't engaging with anything I argued. — Bartricks

You have been arguing with yourself not reading my points.

Never said you were wrong. I was giving my points to the OP, and your further points. I could be wrong. I will never say I am right. But those were my points, which I am willing to correct, if proven to be wrong or if there are better points for the topics, and learn from them during and after the discussions.

I have re-read the OP, and came to a couple of points.

1. To claim that God exists, you must supply some sort of arguments, proofs or theories, why it does, and how, otherwise, the whole thread quickly spirals into a Religious one. Because as Mr Flew has said some in his books(?? I cannot recall which book it was), that default position in philosophical debates in any religious topic is atheism. It is up to the theist to prove that God exist, prior to any further progression of debates or argument.

2. If God is omni x1 x2 x3 ... according to your definition, if we accept that definition and premises, then God cannot make mistake in his decisions or knowledge. If he did, then his omni x1, x2, x3 ... does not stand logical ground for being omni x1 x2 x3 ... etc.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your points which looked unclear. Will go back and read the OP, and see what I can find more. Please carry on. Thanks.

"does not own some paintings" is not clear which paintings he is talking about. Paintings of Picasso? Miro? Shargal? It is because the premise said that he owns "every paintings of Rembrandts", it already implied not to include Rembrandts in the following point of "does not own some paintings". There was a clear paradox in that already.

Fake Rembrandts are also real Rembrandts? To me, it is not. If you said it is, to you, they are. But you didn't.

"Some paintings" is unclear, what it actually denotes in the statement, therefore is not meaningful.
Is fake real? Of course not. Has the speaker meant by "every Rembrandts" also to include fake Rembrandts? Not clear on that either. Therefore not a meaningful or logical statement.

A person who is in possession of all knowledge can still not know things and have false beliefs. — Bartricks

Sounds like a self-contradictory statement to me. But that is what I feel about it. Will read the OP again, and see what I can find more. Thanks.

What did I define incorrectly? Omniscient? That means all knowing, yes? What does that mean? That means possessing all knowledge, yes? — Bartricks

I am not sure where you picked up the definition. Maybe from the books, internet sites or even the Bible? But if you are philosophical, then you shouldn't accept the definition like that just because it is in the books, or someone says that it is not controversial. You have to be sceptical until it is totally clear beyond any possibility of doubt - just like Descartes had done a few hundred years ago about EVEN his own existence.

"possessing all the knowledge"? for example what? what knowledge in details?
My book has just arrived this morning, which I ordered a couple of days ago. What book is it?
Only I know. Would anyone else know about it if I had NOT told what book it is?
Would God know it? How can you prove he does?

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. That's a definition. — Bartricks

Sorry, Bartricks. I was under impression that if you begin with false definition or supposition, then you will end up with false arguments and conclusion. :) That's me trying to be philosophical :D

I feel all this is just guess work and imagination, if

1. one doesn't know and have not proved God exists.
2. doesn't know which God he is talking about.

I think so. — Bartricks

Does God exist?

I saw my father mentally deteriorating as his bodily health was failing losing memory and clarity in speech content and consciousness before his death.

I was convinced that soul or mind as we call it, is just product of the body.
As the body perishes, so does the mind.
Would the soul resurrect? If the body resurrects and recovers its health, then maybe.

So what to do? — Inyenzi

I am sure it will not continue forever. The time will come for everyone, when their memories fail, their bodies ache without reason, eyes can't see properly, and sex drive not same as 10 year ago. And then they will know and tell themselves, "well the time has come, had better slow down.". They will come down from the rope, put away the balls to the drawer, and go for a walk. I am sure that is life.

Fair enough. I myself was totally oblivious on Freud for years since I read his book on Dreams. But this thread made me to add Freud in the Re-reading list.

I also think that Freud is the one of the great thinker and philosopher in history with all the reasons already mentioned here. But he is neglected and forgotten largely by the modern contemporary people for the reason that he emphasises on sexuality for the important factors in explanation on human life and actions. People tend to look down sexuality or any talk about sexuality as cheap and low from the cultural, political, religious, educational and moral shackles on their lives. It is kind a chip on the shoulder of the people.

Jesus went and spent 40 days, and Zarathustra 10 years in the wilderness. Buddha had given up his royal life and family, and went up to the mountain for meditation.

For peace and quiet of meditation and cleansing mind, maybe it is good to have no one around you apart from you for a while. Of course, they came down to the towns when they found the answers to the mystery of life and taught and enlightened the people. (Not sure about Mr Buddha, what he had done or happened since gone up to the mountain.) Anyhow, not exactly meaningless exercises I would reckon.

Death / thought and belief about death, is the source of Nihilism, Pessimism and Existentialism.
It is one of the mysterious events in life. No one seems wanting to face or talk about it. Only Philosophy can deal with it logically and intellectually. The upshot seems, ignore it, accept it or deny or try to avoid it. It is a personal choice.

Do we really fear death? Yes, we do. But they soon realise that fear will not deal with the problem, hence they take the philosophical stance or turn to religion.

But most of them seem just taken away into the dark abyss of death, when it strikes, without even the perceptual and emotional embattling with the fear or knowledge.

That's Love Island, not science ;) — Kenosha Kid

Never watched it in my life. Obviously you have been. :)

"Philosophy is thinking about thinking." - A. Quinton ??

I feel that the recent development of Science drives people less intelligent and less creative due to their increasing hyper-dependency on the tech gadgets and devices based on A.I. Some say it could the path to the beginning of the end of human civilization.