If you don't know that much about human brains, then how on earth can you make the claim that these possess human intelligence? The burden of proof doesn't lie on the "prove it's NOT as intelligent as a human" side.
Thinking about this for 5 seconds reveals how silly this line of thinking is, sorry, and this exact comment is made 500 times a day here.
I'm not making any such claim. It's not some black and white situation where you automatically take the extreme opposing side if you raise an issue with some take.
> The burden of proof doesn't lie on the "prove it's NOT as intelligent as a human" side.
It's on the side making any specific claim.
That isn’t how this kind of debate works.
I make a positive claim - “there is a god.”
Counterclaim says “No it doesn’t.”
The second claim cannot be made to produce contrary evidence to the first claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I'm not claiming something contrary. I'm raising an example for "Is the context of the claim even well formed and valid?"
(Same applies to your example: What do you mean by god? Is "is" even a valid state for a god?)
I have some bad news for you about human brains