The difference between Human and animal

[Zosimus]

Male ligers are sterile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Irrelevant.

 

[Zosimus]

Asexual reproduction is still reproduction.

Irrelevant. Bacteria do not interbreed with one another. Accordingly, the biological species concept does not and cannot apply to them.

They are perfectly reproductively viable together.

You can manage to get a chihuahua to mount a St. Bernard? That I'd like to see!

*Eye roll*

I'll take that as an admission that the point is not refutable.

Yes, and the male's are not, which sort of precludes further reproduction.

Not so. Ligers can freely interbreed with male lions or male tigers.

So, what are you trying to argue here? Pretty sure the lets-rationally-argue-against-evolution ship sailed in the 1950s sometime. You've missed the boat by a half century plus.
So..do you have a point?

I have already stated my main contention. There is no objective, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."

In fact, a simple look at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/otherspecies_01 shows three alternate concepts to the biological species concept that you have outlined.

 

[Zosimus]

That sounds dogmatic.

I disagree. The alternative to having a priori truth is circular logic or infinite regress. Which method do you ascribe to?

If you read the article you will notice that is a plethora of things that might not be true. For instance, the Big Bang may not be true.

Yes, that's a problem with the scientific method. It doesn't work well. I'm surprised that you are holding forth defects in your methodology as proof that GR might still be true.

My subjective probability says 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Now what?

Is this an a priori or an a posteriori probability? Assuming the latter, please show the calculations you used to arrive at that number. Assuming the former, why did you select this number arbitrarily rather than using the Maximum Entropy Principle?

Ha! I touched the anthropocentric nerve. Sorry.

Do you look closer to a hairless gorilla or to a mushroom? What do you think?

Most people seem to think that I look very much like my father.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi all,
A lot of times I hear people saying that humans differ from animals due to their consciousness...
that the fact we are aware of ourselves is the difference...
thus assuming animals are not self aware..
have no desires and no understanding of pain, grief and such.

But all over nature, we keep finding out new animal behaviors that contradict this assumption
For example,
Elephants grief and mourn their dead... When a herd of elephants come across a dead elephant in their path, they actually go to it, and mourn over it....
They are known species of spiders that actually decide the "job" of each spider based on it's traits. this shows not a decision based on instincts alone but rather an understanding that a coward spider cannot be a soldier
Dolphins are known to have a very high intelligence and social awareness. They have a caring and loving approach to their young old and sick...

Come to say, There are so many facts that we are yet to know about animals, but as discoveries are made, it is clear that humans uniqueness is not as big as it seems.

besides all that, Humans, still, with all their knowledge, intelligence, socialite, culture and morality..
are instinctive creatures...
If you'll face a human with a life threatening situation.. his instincts will kick in and do everything that is needed to survive...
If a man will be forced to kill a man or die himself.. sadly, many will choose their lives over someone else..
Instinct...

As i see it.. Human's mechanism is much inferior than the animals'.
The fact that we now "control" our earth.. just shows how bad of species we are...

No animal will ever harm it's own environment...
No animal will ever harm another just for the fun of it (excluding white whales that use animals as a game - but it is actually the way they "sharpen" their hunting instincts)

So why do you think GOD will create such a wonder like humans when clearly we are a hazard to it's own created world?
Why would a GOD need a human?
What is the purpose of creating a species like the human?

I'd say humanity is the primary intended beneficiary of creation, by the same rationale that says a book written in French is intended for Frenchmen.

We are the only means we know of, by which the universe can understand itself, ponder it's own existence from within, to explore and learn about all creation, what better way to appreciate it?

That we now 'control' Earth is also consistent with Biblical prediction, we are given dominion over nature, it's resources are intended for our use.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Irrelevant. Bacteria do not interbreed with one another. Accordingly, the biological species concept does not and cannot apply to them.

Fair enough. I'm not even sure bacteria can be classified by species anyway.

You can manage to get a chihuahua to mount a St. Bernard? That I'd like to see!

Probably, but that's not the point. If sperm makes it to egg we have pregnancy.

I'll take that as an admission that the point is not refutable.

Your right, nobody has ever seen a fossil breed.

Not so. Ligers can freely interbreed with male lions or male tigers.

But not other ligers, hence no speciation.

I have already stated my main contention. There is no objective, universally-accepted definition of the word "species.".

Actually, your point I contended, and you argued for further, was that inheritability was false.(you aren't like a pig, etc) A universally accepted definition for a given word is beside the point. The working definition used by 99.999% of biologists is demonstrable.

 

[metis]

In fact, a simple look at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/otherspecies_01 shows three alternate concepts to the biological species concept that you have outlined.

Irrelevant, as the exceptions do not negate the general rule, which is that speciation can and has happened because it has been observed.

 

[Zosimus]

Fair enough. I'm not even sure bacteria can be classified by species anyway.

That's because species is an artificial concept with no relation to the real world.

Probably, but that's not the point. If sperm makes it to egg we have pregnancy.

Perhaps so, but islands contain finches that are labeled different species not because they cannot interbreed but because their mating songs are different, making breeding unlikely. Whereas chihuahuas have a physical inability to breed with larger dogs, finches just sing differently and that's enough. So, as I said, there is no objective standard.

Your right, nobody has ever seen a fossil breed.

That's why other species concepts that are incompatable with the biological species concept are applied to fossils. This brings me back to the main point: There is no clear, objective, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."

But not other ligers, hence no speciation.

Since the argument is that lions and tigers are the same species because they can breed and form fertile offspring, I have no idea what your conclusion "no speciation" is supposed to mean.

Actually, your point I contended, and you argued for further, was that inheritability was false.(you aren't like a pig, etc) A universally accepted definition for a given word is beside the point. The working definition used by 99.999% of biologists is demonstrable.

I never said inheritability was false. I suggested that there's no reason to believe that humans and pigs share a common ancestor. I similarly claimed that no one can say whether macro-evolution, commonly defined as evolution that creates a new species, occurs. One cannot say whether it occurs because no clear, objective, universally-accepted definition of "species" exists. Therefore, you cannot say that speciation is demonstrable.

 

[Zosimus]

Irrelevant, as the exceptions do not negate the general rule, which is that speciation can and has happened because it has been observed.

The statement you have made is meaningless.

 

[metis]

The statement you have made is meaningless.

If you did some serious studying, it wouldn't be.

 

[viole]

.

I disagree. The alternative to having a priori truth is circular logic or infinite regress. Which method do you ascribe to?

If you were neither agnostic nor dogmatic when you stated that: what did you mean with "agnosticism is better than dogmatism"? You seem to define dychotomies and defeat them at the same time.

Yes, that's a problem with the scientific method. It doesn't work well. I'm surprised that you are holding forth defects in your methodology as proof that GR might still be true.

It works pretty well. If you were right, we will still be in caves praying to the god sun. Corrections in our knowledge are its strength, not its weakness.

Is this an a priori or an a posteriori probability? Assuming the latter, please show the calculations you used to arrive at that number. Assuming the former, why did you select this number arbitrarily rather than using the Maximum Entropy Principle?

Well, that is my subjective probability, based on my belief and judgement. Do I need to calculate anything? I would be ready to bet several billions of billions of billions etc. (corresponding to that probability) that two independent and contemporary evolutionary trees on a planet do not produce a pig on one branch and a human on the other. I am surprised you do not see it.

Now you. How did you come to 50% ?

Most people seem to think that I look very much like my father.

Which is not what I asked. I did not ask to whom you look closer. I asked whether you think you look closer to a hairless gorilla or to a mushroom. Or to a spider, if you prefer. Looking equally similar is also a valid answer. You can also leave the hair on that gorilla, if you want.

So, what do you think? You seem to shy away from answering this simple question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That's because species is an artificial concept with no relation to the real world.

Conjecture.

Perhaps so, but islands contain finches that are labeled different species not because they cannot interbreed but because their mating songs are different, making breeding unlikely. Whereas chihuahuas have a physical inability to breed with larger dogs, finches just sing differently and that's enough. So, as I said, there is no objective standard.

Ok. You are having this linguistics argument with yourself. I haven't argued against the fact that theories and definitions can be debated, least of all in science. The fact remains that the named working definition is applicable in almost all instances.

Since the argument is that lions and tigers are the same species because they can breed and form fertile offspring, I have no idea what your conclusion "no speciation" is supposed to mean.

Who's argument is that? They can't produce fertile offspring in that there will never be a mating pair of ligers. Its clear you are being purposefully disingenuous here.

I never said inheritability was false. I suggested that there's no reason to believe that humans and pigs share a common ancestor.

And here is what I actually WAS arguing against. So you believe the dozens of direct correlation s I named in my first reply to you, and the thousands more I left out, not only between humans and pigs but between all mammals and to a lesser extent, all biological life from birds to fish to reptiles, just happened to appear with no relation or causation?

That the fossil records are what..made up?

That the universal consensus between multiple branches of science that evolution is happening is..some conspiracy?

I similarly claimed that no one can say whether macro-evolution, commonly defined as evolution that creates a new species, occurs. One cannot say whether it occurs because no clear, objective, universally-accepted definition of "species" exists. Therefore, you cannot say that speciation is demonstrable.

Ok. If I can get a few colour blind people to agree that red is actually blue, I guess there would no longer be a 'universally accepted' definition of red, and that the colour red is no longer demonstrable. Seems legit.

 

[Zosimus]

If you were neither agnostic nor dogmatic when you stated that: what did you mean with "agnosticism is better than dogmatism"? You seem to define dychotomies and defeat them at the same time.

What part don't you understand? Agnosticism? Better? Or dogmatism?

It works pretty well. If you were right, we will still be in caves praying to the god sun. Corrections in our knowledge are its strength, not its weakness.

Given that science, as we know it, was invented in the early 20th century, the vast majority of human progress is not due to science.

Well, that is my subjective probability, based on my belief and judgement. Do I need to calculate anything? I would be ready to bet several billions of billions of billions etc. (corresponding to that probability) that two independent and contemporary evolutionary trees on a planet do not produce a pig on one branch and a human on the other. I am surprised you do not see it.

Now you. How did you come to 50% ?

En boca cerrada no entran moscas. Think about that for a few minutes. It should be your guiding principle in life.

Look – obviously you know nothing about statistics, and you don't seem to be interested in learning. I've provided you with two videos. You could google the answers too. Instead you just open your mouth and let the ignorance gush out.

Basically, there are two types of statistical viewpoints. The first one is the frequentist viewpoint. It's also the easiest to understand. What's the chance that it will rain in London? Well, considering that it has rained 106 days a year in the past, frequentists will say that the chance is 106/365 or about 29 percent. This is a simple and easily verifiable number to work with. It may be right; it may be wrong. Nevertheless, it has the advantage of being straightforward.

Unfortunately, frequentist statistics are not always useful. Imagine, for example, we want to think about the chances that there is a planet out past Pluto. Does it make sense to see how many times out of 100 we observe the planet? Obviously not. So we need a new form of statistics to handle the subjective degree of belief that we have in the existence of a planet out there. The leading candidate for this job is something called Bayesian statistics. Using Bayes Theorem, we can come up with a measurement of how firmly we believe that there is or is not a planet out there.

By way of illustration, imagine that in 10 minutes we're going to perform a perfect test that will tell us for once and for all whether the planet exists. Let's also imagine that we're all betting people, and we're sitting down to take bets on the likelihood that the planet exists. If you're convinced that the planet is there, you'll be willing to bet more. If you're not sure, you won't be willing to bet much. If you're convinced the planet is not there, then you'll bet heavily but in the opposite direction. This is the concept of subjective degrees of probability.

So, your first error is thinking that you can just say that your subjective degree of belief is 99.999999999 percent. If that were true, then I should be able to put down a $1 bet and expect you to plunk down $1,000,000 on the others side of the bet without hesitation–perhaps even going so far as to take out a loan with your liver and heart as collateral. If you're unwilling to do so, then your degree of belief isn't what you say it is.

Next we come to the question: Is there a way to calculate the correct level of belief? Bayesians say yes, and they do so using this formula:

In short, everyone is looking to know the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence. In order to do so, you need to know three things. First, you need to know the probability of hypothesis before the evidence was discovered. This is known as the a priori probability. For example, if the hypothesis is "Maria has cancer" and you know that 10% of women Maria's age have cancer, then that is a reasonable a priori probability. Let's also assume that Maria is going to have a cancer test that is 95 percent accurate. In that case, the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis aka P(E|H) = 0.95

Last we need the P(E), which is more complicated. It will be P(H)*P(E|H)+P(~H)*P(E|~H) so let's make a few assumptions and say that this comes out to be .095+.045 = .14 so after doing the calculation we have P(H|E) = 67.86 percent. So basically, after getting a positive cancer test, the doctor will assume that about 2 out of 3 patients will have cancer. He will, therefore, send Maria to get a second test and, if that one turns up positive, he will be quite convinced that Maria has cancer and start her on treatment.

So the 67.86 percent number is what we call an a posteriori probability. It's the subjective probability that we have after considering the evidence. The point here is that this number is not what most people throw around in this forum. I've heard people in this forum say things like: "It's 99.99% certain that God doesn't exist." To date, no one has showed the math that leads one to that number.

The point is, however, that the a priori probability is not a number that one pulls out of one's... er... hat. In our example, the doctor knew or surmised that 10 percent was a reasonable starting number. Had he started with a number more like 1 percent then the a posteriori probability would have been quite different. Presumably, there are studies to suggest that a certain percentage of the population of a certain age has cancer, and he used those studies to come up with a reasonable a priori probability.

But what do you do if you have no information to base your a priori probability on? Without that number, you are dead in the water right from the get go. Don't panic. There are certain conventions that can help you choose a reasonable starting probability. For example, if you know that someone is sick, and you know that any one of 4 diseases could cause her symptoms then your a priori probability distribution should be something like this:

Disease A: 25%
Disease B: 25%
Disease C: 25%
Disease D: 25%

This is what I call the principle of maximum ignorance (and what Wikipedia likes to call the principle of maximum entropy). The point is that since you don't know, you should assume that the probability is 1/n given n different possibilities. In this case, we have 4 possibilities and we are assigning each probability as 1/4 or 25 percent.

Using these principles, we can return to the subject at hand. What is the probability that God created everything we see around us? There are two possibilities:

God created everything.
~God created everything.

Therefore, a reasonable starting assumption is that there is a 50% chance that God made everything and a 50% chance that it's not the case that God created everything. This is just a starting probability. From there, we could use what evidence we find to adjust the probability one way or another.

Are you clear on this so far or is there anything that you don't get?

 

[Zosimus]

Ok. You are having this linguistics argument with yourself. I haven't argued against the fact that theories and definitions can be debated, least of all in science. The fact remains that the named working definition is applicable in almost all instances.

Experts disagree with you. Norm Weeden, for example, agrees with me wholeheartedly. (01:32)

Who's argument is that? They can't produce fertile offspring in that there will never be a mating pair of ligers. Its clear you are being purposefully disingenuous here.

What are you talking about? Every time two big cats have offspring, you're seeing a mating pair of ligers. There are no lions or tigers. These are made up concepts. There are only ligers.

All of the above are ligers.

And here is what I actually WAS arguing against. So you believe the dozens of direct correlation s I named in my first reply to you, and the thousands more I left out, not only between humans and pigs but between all mammals and to a lesser extent, all biological life from birds to fish to reptiles, just happened to appear with no relation or causation?

False dichotomy. First of all, as I mentioned, I am agnostic. However, the prime alternative to your theory is not "it just happened" but intelligent design by a supernatural being.

That the fossil records are what..made up?

Misleading and irrelevant. The fossil records do not support your theory more than that of your opponents.

That the universal consensus between multiple branches of science that evolution is happening is..some conspiracy?

Science is unreliable. This has already been established. Where were you?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Oh boy.

I'm not following you into that wackiness. Good luck on your crusade.

 

[viole]

What part don't you understand? Agnosticism? Better? Or dogmatism?


Given that science, as we know it, was invented in the early 20th century, the vast majority of human progress is not due to science.


En boca cerrada no entran moscas. Think about that for a few minutes. It should be your guiding principle in life.

Look – obviously you know nothing about statistics, and you don't seem to be interested in learning. I've provided you with two videos. You could google the answers too. Instead you just open your mouth and let the ignorance gush out.

Basically, there are two types of statistical viewpoints. The first one is the frequentist viewpoint. It's also the easiest to understand. What's the chance that it will rain in London? Well, considering that it has rained 106 days a year in the past, frequentists will say that the chance is 106/365 or about 29 percent. This is a simple and easily verifiable number to work with. It may be right; it may be wrong. Nevertheless, it has the advantage of being straightforward.

Unfortunately, frequentist statistics are not always useful. Imagine, for example, we want to think about the chances that there is a planet out past Pluto. Does it make sense to see how many times out of 100 we observe the planet? Obviously not. So we need a new form of statistics to handle the subjective degree of belief that we have in the existence of a planet out there. The leading candidate for this job is something called Bayesian statistics. Using Bayes Theorem, we can come up with a measurement of how firmly we believe that there is or is not a planet out there.

By way of illustration, imagine that in 10 minutes we're going to perform a perfect test that will tell us for once and for all whether the planet exists. Let's also imagine that we're all betting people, and we're sitting down to take bets on the likelihood that the planet exists. If you're convinced that the planet is there, you'll be willing to bet more. If you're not sure, you won't be willing to bet much. If you're convinced the planet is not there, then you'll bet heavily but in the opposite direction. This is the concept of subjective degrees of probability.

So, your first error is thinking that you can just say that your subjective degree of belief is 99.999999999 percent. If that were true, then I should be able to put down a $1 bet and expect you to plunk down $1,000,000 on the others side of the bet without hesitation–perhaps even going so far as to take out a loan with your liver and heart as collateral. If you're unwilling to do so, then your degree of belief isn't what you say it is.

Next we come to the question: Is there a way to calculate the correct level of belief? Bayesians say yes, and they do so using this formula:

In short, everyone is looking to know the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence. In order to do so, you need to know three things. First, you need to know the probability of hypothesis before the evidence was discovered. This is known as the a priori probability. For example, if the hypothesis is "Maria has cancer" and you know that 10% of women Maria's age have cancer, then that is a reasonable a priori probability. Let's also assume that Maria is going to have a cancer test that is 95 percent accurate. In that case, the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis aka P(E|H) = 0.95

Last we need the P(E), which is more complicated. It will be P(H)*P(E|H)+P(~H)*P(E|~H) so let's make a few assumptions and say that this comes out to be .095+.045 = .14 so after doing the calculation we have P(H|E) = 67.86 percent. So basically, after getting a positive cancer test, the doctor will assume that about 2 out of 3 patients will have cancer. He will, therefore, send Maria to get a second test and, if that one turns up positive, he will be quite convinced that Maria has cancer and start her on treatment.

So the 67.86 percent number is what we call an a posteriori probability. It's the subjective probability that we have after considering the evidence. The point here is that this number is not what most people throw around in this forum. I've heard people in this forum say things like: "It's 99.99% certain that God doesn't exist." To date, no one has showed the math that leads one to that number.

The point is, however, that the a priori probability is not a number that one pulls out of one's... er... hat. In our example, the doctor knew or surmised that 10 percent was a reasonable starting number. Had he started with a number more like 1 percent then the a posteriori probability would have been quite different. Presumably, there are studies to suggest that a certain percentage of the population of a certain age has cancer, and he used those studies to come up with a reasonable a priori probability.

But what do you do if you have no information to base your a priori probability on? Without that number, you are dead in the water right from the get go. Don't panic. There are certain conventions that can help you choose a reasonable starting probability. For example, if you know that someone is sick, and you know that any one of 4 diseases could cause her symptoms then your a priori probability distribution should be something like this:

Disease A: 25%
Disease B: 25%
Disease C: 25%
Disease D: 25%

This is what I call the principle of maximum ignorance (and what Wikipedia likes to call the principle of maximum entropy). The point is that since you don't know, you should assume that the probability is 1/n given n different possibilities. In this case, we have 4 possibilities and we are assigning each probability as 1/4 or 25 percent.

Using these principles, we can return to the subject at hand. What is the probability that God created everything we see around us? There are two possibilities:

God created everything.
~God created everything.

Therefore, a reasonable starting assumption is that there is a 50% chance that God made everything and a 50% chance that it's not the case that God created everything. This is just a starting probability. From there, we could use what evidence we find to adjust the probability one way or another.

Are you clear on this so far or is there anything that you don't get?

Ridicolus. It is obvious that either you do not know logic, statistcs, or how to form sound sentences. Or, most likely, all of them.

First of all I asked you the probability under the assumption of no creation, twice, at least. You know: conditional probability and all. Therefore, the probability of God having created or not created anything is not relevant, since the latter is the assumption considered given. So, I am not sure what you are doing here. You lecture about things without understanding them. Obviously.

Second, a priori, It is obvious that the probabilty of God having created everything is zero. And provably so. So, your conclusion is obviously absurd.

So, now that we assessed your logical skills, what about answering my famous question about what looks closer to you.
Is the gorilla or the spider? What can be? This must be the fourth attempt, I guess.

What is the problem?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Ridicolus. It is obvious that either you do not know logic, statistcs, or how to form sound sentences. Or, most likely, all of them.

First of all I asked you the probability under the assumption of no creation, twice, at least. You know: conditional probability and all. Therefore, the probability of God having created or not created anything is not relevant, since the latter is the assumption considered given. So, I am not sure what you are doing here. You lecture about things without understanding them. Obviously.

Second, a priori, It is obvious that the probabilty of God having created everything is zero. And provably so. So, your conclusion is obviously absurd.

So, now that we assessed your logical skills, what about answering my famous question about what looks closer to you.
Is the gorilla or the spider? What can be? This must be the fourth attempt, I guess.

What is the problem?

Ciao

- viole

I will answer your question if you first answer mine. If we assume that Superman exists, what are the chances that God exists? If you can answer that question, I will answer yours.

I would be very interested in hearing your logic that God, a priori, cannot have created everything. That should be amusing.

I still don't get the point of your question, but I'll venture a guess. I'd say that a spider probably looks closer to me because there are no gorillas around to look close to me whereas there could easily be a spider nearby that I haven't spotted. Since a spider has 8 eyes, one of the eyes must be looking close to me.

 

[metis]

Why is it that there are so many people who say they don't "believe" in evolution, which we know with certainty has been occurring, and yet they believe in a deity or deities that simply cannot be objectively verified? Where's the logic? Why is it that these same people insist on evidence for evolution, which largely has been provided to them and in spades, and yet they can't produce one piece of objective evidence for there being a deity, and then get angry if you question them on it?

BTW, I'm not an atheist (see my signature statement at the bottom of this post).

 

[viole]

I will answer your question if you first answer mine. If we assume that Superman exists, what are the chances that God exists? If you can answer that question, I will answer yours.

Prima facie. I do not think that the existence of Superman influences the probability of God's existence. Maybe it would make it a bit higher. It would provide some evidence that what people make up, no matter how crazy, might be true

Now you : what is the probability of no creation under the premise of no creation?

I would be very interested in hearing your logic that God, a priori, cannot have created everything. That should be amusing.

Simple.

If God is something, then he belongs to the set of everything, ergo He would have created Himself, which looks absurd. Alternatively, God is nothing, but it seems equally absurd that nothing creates everything.

I still don't get the point of your question, but I'll venture a guess. I'd say that a spider probably looks closer to me because there are no gorillas around to look close to me whereas there could easily be a spider nearby that I haven't spotted. Since a spider has 8 eyes, one of the eyes must be looking close to me.

So, who looks closer? Who is closer to the image of God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

If we assume that Superman exists, what are the chances that God exists?

Both exist, as characters in books.
Tom

 

[Zosimus]

Prima facie. I do not think that the existence of Superman influences the probability of God's existence. Maybe it would make it a bit higher. It would provide some evidence that what people make up, no matter how crazy, might be true

Now you : what is the probability of no creation under the premise of no creation?

If we assume no creation, then the probability of no creation becomes 0.

Simple.

If God is something, then he belongs to the set of everything, ergo He would have created Himself, which looks absurd. Alternatively, God is nothing, but it seems equally absurd that nothing creates everything.

You are simply rejecting one concept of God. Most Christians, for example, do not postulate that God created himself.
Another example would be Mormons, who postulate that God (and all intelligences for that matter) have always existed and always will exist. Under this concept, God is simply more intelligent than the rest of humankind and is actively seeking to help his fellow intelligences obtain godhood.

Both groups call their concept "God." So I think that your a priori falsehood of God is not connected to most people's actual beliefs.

So, who looks closer? Who is closer to the image of God?

Wait... who looks closer or who is closer? There is, after all, not one image of God. Catholics make scores of them every year.