Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[Still small]

Where did you get this information?

A logical deduction from the description of God as revealed throughout the Bible, not just by me but by many theologians and philosophers.

How can it be tested?

I don’t know whether it can be tested. Certainly not scientifically as ‘science’ per se is limited to testing only the material/naturalistic realm.

Can you show that there is a 4D time/space continuum, and demonstrate that God can interact with it

Look around, you’re living in it. You experience it everyday. When I refer to a 4D universe, I speak of a universe with 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension which is intricately linked. If you want a more in-depth description and proof, you might read Einstein’s theories on relativity or even just start with Wiki. As for God’s interaction with it, start with the Gospel of John (whose author was an actual eyewitness of many such interactions, along with many others that could confirm his account).

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

On the logical conclusions of theoretical physics. Just as one cannot lift themselves up by pulling on their bootlaces, neither can a universe create itself from within. The law of conservation of energy states energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed by natural means. Therefore, as the universe exists and cannot create itself, logic dictates that it must have been formed by ‘forces’ beyond our 4D space-time universe. I believe the ‘force’ described in the Bible best explains the matter. How did He create it? I don’t know as it is beyond the natural/materialistic experiences of our limited universe but that just means we haven’t yet learnt ‘how’, if we ever do.

How was this tested?

We (mankind) have yet to develop a method by which we can indisputably test that which is beyond our experience of the 4D space-time universe. It is left to logical debate.

The alternative is that you are making things up as you go along.

Maybe but there is enough independent data from various sources that agree with my explanation to show that I’m not “making things up� if you care to research and examine it without bias (if that is possible).

Have a good day!
Still small

[William]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

Also in answer to your question, "Why cannot an intelligent creative God create intelligence?" Well, you have already asked the wrong question. The question is, 'Why can't an intelligent creative God be an explanation for how intelligence came to be?"

That's the question. And the answer should be obvious. If an intelligent creative God is the explanation for intelligence, then how did that intelligent creative God come to be. According to this "explanation" this God must then have been created by yet another creative intelligence, and so on.

So you see, it's not that an intelligent creative God could not create intelligent life. It's just that this is no explanation at all until you have explained how that intelligent God came to be in the first place.

After all, if your argument is that intelligence is required to design intelligence, then you've violated your own argument the moment you postulate that an intelligent God could exist who wasn't created by a previously intelligent entity.

So your argument become circular and meaningless.

Timelessness vs infinite regress argument
Finding holes in arguments.

♦Why can't we presume the universe had no cause?

♦It is logical to assume that the universe was created by an eternal being

It is more sensible to understand that the universe had a beginning and that the BB is the evidence of that event.

In relation to the idea that it must have been created BY an eternal being, the being MUST be eternal otherwise there is the illogical contradiction of the argument of Infinite Regression, which implies that there must always be a creator for a creator when this is not at necessary or logical, as the better assumption is that there must be One creator who was not Itself created, and thus has to have always existed and has never not existed.

Philosophically the idea of an eternal creator puts to rest the argument of Infinite Regression.

♦Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity

♦Every 'thing' exists in the Mind of The First Source

♦The finite can only exist within and infinite field

Well, to begin with you can't even have memory without entropy.

We know information can be saved and stored. Memory is information.
The mind of First Source is the storehouse. Memory is information, not something we or GOD are. Consciousness is not memory. Consciousness uses memory. Consciousness is not information. Consciousness uses information.

[Divine Insight]

It is more sensible to understand that the universe had a beginning and that the BB is the evidence of that event.

In relation to the idea that it must have been created BY an eternal being, the being MUST be eternal otherwise there is the illogical contradiction of the argument of Infinite Regression, which implies that there must always be a creator for a creator when this is not at necessary or logical, as the better assumption is that there must be One creator who was not Itself created, and thus has to have always existed and has never not existed.

Philosophically the idea of an eternal creator puts to rest the argument of Infinite Regression.

The mistake you are making here is in thinking that the "creator" needs to be a conscious entity who makes deliberate choices on what should happen next.

You see, there is no problem with energy fluctuating eternally. As long as it isn't thinking about what it's doing or processing information in a coherent manner, then there is no reason why it can't be free of entropy and eternal.

Where the problem comes into play is when we start to demand that this eternal energy is somehow conscious in any meaningful or coherent way.

So there is no problem of an "infinite regress" as long as the stuff that caused our universe to come into existence is itself non-sentient or conscious.

What you are attempting to do is imagine a conscious coherent mind that exists eternally, but that violates entropy.

Well, to begin with you can't even have memory without entropy.

We know information can be saved and stored.

Only in a world where entropy can be changed. You can't save or store information without increasing entropy.

Memory is information. The mind of First Source is the storehouse. Memory is information, not something we or GOD are. Consciousness is not memory. Consciousness uses memory. Consciousness is not information. Consciousness uses information.

It's meaningless to speak of a mind that could coherently process information without an increase in entropy.

In fact, the moment you say that the mind of First Source is the "storehouse", you are already demanding that it has memory capability. How else could it store information?

And in order to have the ability to store information it must be able to increase entropy.

~~~~

So in conclusion, what we have learned about entropy is that no coherent conscious entity could be eternal. But there would be nothing wrong with unconscious energy causing our universe to come into existence. That unconscious energy could then be eternal. But the universe it had created that has a property of entropy cannot be eternal.

And this is what we know to be true.

So based on what we know, the most logical conclusion is that whatever caused our universe to come into being cannot be a sentient conscious entity. It could only have been an eternal form of energy which cannot then be conscious, have memory, or process information in any meaningful way.

If you want to call that unconscious energy "God" that's fine. But that would be a totally new definition for the term "God".

Also, in some ways, Pantheism, and especially Animism would be true. We are then this primal energy having been transformed into a temporary state where we can have temporary consciousness.

So could then say that we are this "God Energy" (where God itself is not a conscious entity) and that our consciousness is a temporary condition.

In the spirit of Eastern Mysticism we might ask if this could ever happen again? Say when this universe has finally passed. The Dalai Lama said this, "If the Big Bang happened once, then it could surly happen again".

And even though in "Universal Time" (i.e. The Entropic Time of our universe) this time span between Big Bangs would be unimaginably long. For us no time would pass at all between incarnations because during those periods we simply would not exist.

No different from when we were born. How long had we not existed before we were born? We can't remember what happened before we were born. So at that point time becomes meaningless. We could have lived an infinite number of lives into the past and we wouldn't even know it.

All we can ever experience is what's happening right "now". And thanks to entropy we can remember things that happened to us in the past within this universe. But entropy is what makes that possible.

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

The mistake you are making here is in thinking that the "creator" needs to be a conscious entity who makes deliberate choices on what should happen next.

What you appear to be speaking to is a closed system, and a lack of mindfulness in relation to that.

You see, there is no problem with energy fluctuating eternally. As long as it isn't thinking about what it's doing or processing information in a coherent manner, then there is no reason why it can't be free of entropy and eternal.

What you appear to be speaking to here is mindless energy which only becomes mindful when it activates and creation of form comes from that.

Where the problem comes into play is when we start to demand that this eternal energy is somehow conscious in any meaningful or coherent way.

What you appear to be speaking to here is mindfulness. How is one consciousness but not mindful of that? You are speaking to an event in a time where consciousness becomes mindful of itself, and until that happens, it does not exist as consciousness...only energy which has the potential to become conscious and from there, creative.

So there is no problem of an "infinite regress" as long as the stuff that caused our universe to come into existence is itself non-sentient or conscious.

What you appear to be speaking to is that there is no problem of an "infinite regress" if consciousness is emergent of the 'stuff that caused our universe to form as it did', was not conscious, but produced consciousness. What I was speaking to was that there is no problem of infinite regress if the consciousness has always existed and has never not existed. The 'stuff' is in the mind of the creator, rather than separate from the creator, or the 'creator of the creator'.

What you are attempting to do is imagine a conscious coherent mind that exists eternally, but that violates entropy.

If it can be thought of as possible, then it may well be the case.

Basically your argument is that if there exists a mindful creator of this universe, then this came about through 'the stuff of the universe' which is another type of 'consciousness is emergent of the brain' argument. 'The brain' in this case would be the stuff of the universe itself.

We know information can be saved and stored.

Only in a world where entropy can be changed. You can't save or store information without increasing entropy.

The lack of order or predictability and gradual decline into disorder actually acts against the saving of information. Information itself helps to order and to predict and cannot be that way if 'entropy'. A stable environment is necessary for the storage of information. or it would not happen.

It's meaningless to speak of a mind that could coherently process information without an increase in entropy.

Not at all. See my comment above.

In fact, the moment you say that the mind of First Source is the "storehouse", you are already demanding that it has memory capability. How else could it store information?

The mind of First Source is infinite. This universe may itself be an example of a temporary 'storehouse' in that any aspect of FS consciousness involved within it might be simultaneously creating memory through its collective experience and - from the perspective of FS Intelligence - be a memory FS is able to store. The 'storing' might be an device of creativity in itself, and only appear to be 'stored memory'.

In that, the inert stuff of a former universe becomes the potential stuff of another universe created in part from the useful experience had from the conscious interaction within the former universe (or even former universes), and the process is repeated eternally as well as infinitely..re the multiverse theory, all occurring in the mind of FS.

So in conclusion, what we have learned about entropy is that no coherent conscious entity could be eternal.

Not at all. As I have argued, entropy is merely a deleting of formation which can be experienced and the memories of which can be useful for creaton of new universes in which to explore, in relation to consciousness. When this occurs, the stuff of the universe in which such takes place reverts to inert potential, available for shaping as a container for forms by the creative consciousness of FS. FS is not 'the potential stuff' but that which experiences 'the potential' as 'reality' through making it so.

There is no limit to what can be experienced, as the process is eternal and infinite, because FS Consciousness is eternal and infinite, and simultaneously operates within many different types of experience all connected within the mind of FS through consciousness.

But there would be nothing wrong with unconscious energy causing our universe to come into existence. That unconscious energy could then be eternal. But the universe it had created that has a property of entropy cannot be eternal.

Again, you argue for the mindless cause, which contradicts the mindful reality of consciousness.

Even in that you speak of consciousness being created by this mindless process from the position of you being an aspect of that consciousness relative to the beginning of said process, your argument takes no account of the possibility of consciousness figuring a way of surviving the entropy of things and in that, being able to influence the creation of the next universe, and in that - your argument being that this process could indeed be eternal - this figuring out has not already accomplished an infinite number of universes ago . 'When' would not even matter of course, due to the eternal nature of said process. Indeed, it would even just be a natural conclusion as the nature of consciousness is infinite and eternal, having always existed.

In that, the best option is to understand that consciousness was never emergent of the process itself, but always has been the instigator of the process and the process is happening within the mind of that FS Consciousness. The mind of FSC represents the infinite fields of potential - some actively expressing said potential in the beginning stages (such as our own universe is in relation to us experiencing it) , and others half way through or nearer their end point...and whatever else.

Yes, one could argue that consciousness has no choice but to die with the process and be born again with the next process, and has been doing so forever, but this would not necessarily be the case if energy and consciousness are the same thing, and always have been. To presume it is not, is less necessary than presuming it is. It might simply be a case of 'Elvis has left the building".

Which is to say, we also know that we cannot even presume that this is the only universe which exists and where such is taking place.

The rest of your post has been addressed in my reply above, apart from the end bit where you write;

And even though in "Universal Time" (i.e. The Entropic Time of our universe) this time span between Big Bangs would be unimaginably long.

You don't say why you believe this would be the case.

For us no time would pass at all between incarnations because during those periods we simply would not exist.

No different from when we were born. How long had we not existed before we were born? We can't remember what happened before we were born. So at that point time becomes meaningless. We could have lived an infinite number of lives into the past and we wouldn't even know it.

The reality of the situation DI is that we are only the one being, and have always existed and always will exist.

The amnesia is necessary for the purpose of authenticity. One would not be able to have a unique individuate human experience if one retains the Data of Experience from a previous life form/experience. In that, one would also be unable to authentically reintegrate into the Knowledge of GOD - that knowledge that one is an aspect of FS Consciousness.

There is, however, a difference between the DoE not being retained by the individual and it not existing. When one grasps the idea that we are one being having multiple experiences, one begins to see the light through the cracks in the wall which have separated us from each other as The One.

[Divine Insight]

The reality of the situation DI is that we are only the one being, and have always existed and always will exist.

I wouldn't even argue with this at all.

However I would actually agree with you that during the times when we have no mind we are nothing but mindless energy.

By your own criteria you have defined a "mindless God", and call that mindlessness "consciousness".

I would think you would need to then define what you mean by "consciousness".

Is a rock "conscious" in your philosophy?

When you create a philosophy the best thing to do is define all your terms up front so people know what you mean when you use them.

Based on your previous post you seem to be conceding that your God doesn't need to have a mind. In that case your God could indeed be eternal without violating entropy. But it couldn't purposefully plan to create our universe then. The creation of the universe would have just been something that happened to it beyond it's own cognition.

In other words, it appears to me that what you are really saying is that energy and God on the same thing.

I would only ask why call energy "God"? Why not just call it energy?

Typically when humans use the term God they tend to use it to mean an entity that has many anthropomorphic qualities, including mindfulness and an ability to reason, think, have intentions, and act on those intentions. But that would hardly be a mindless entity.

[Swami]

The reality of the situation DI is that we are only the one being, and have always existed and always will exist.

I wouldn't even argue with this at all.

However I would actually agree with you that during the times when we have no mind we are nothing but mindless energy.

By your own criteria you have defined a "mindless God", and call that mindlessness "consciousness".

I would think you would need to then define what you mean by "consciousness".

Is a rock "conscious" in your philosophy?

When you create a philosophy the best thing to do is define all your terms up front so people know what you mean when you use them.

Based on your previous post you seem to be conceding that your God doesn't need to have a mind. In that case your God could indeed be eternal without violating entropy. But it couldn't purposefully plan to create our universe then. The creation of the universe would have just been something that happened to it beyond it's own cognition.

In other words, it appears to me that what you are really saying is that energy and God on the same thing.

I would only ask why call energy "God"? Why not just call it energy?

Typically when humans use the term God they tend to use it to mean an entity that has many anthropomorphic qualities, including mindfulness and an ability to reason, think, have intentions, and act on those intentions. But that would hardly be a mindless entity.

At the bare minimum, consciousness is just awareness.

[Aetixintro]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

By Quantum Computing, let's put Atheism to the test!
1. Are the religions more true than Atheism? True or false.
2. Are the religions more helpful than Atheism? True or false.
3. Are religions more valuable than Atheism? True or false.
My belief: Hah-hah-hah! Atheism out the window!

Quantum Computing. Quantum Physics. OR-gate. To use quantum computing (further), you can simply check for any statement inside a field and check this field for its quantum computing value. If it gets a high value, it's definitely something. Ok? Can be for Human Resources (HR) or any other.

The use of OR-gate in computers to test for various stuff. Also for the future "vision". Is it wrong you think? You need to have a proper scale for it, like 30 million true values upward and 30 millions false values downward.

Such that, examples:
1. [Field of database] Is this something for the future? [Field tested: true or false] Yes or no!
2. Are The 4 Factors useful toward Utopia? True or false.
...

Warning!
Sensitivity is important for this stuff, trying to influence the result one way or another like a dumb pollster (you vote for Hillary Clinton or I kill you! That's a yes???) or using for evil may render the results useless for at least the individual being (very) foolish! Even so, that individual may never use the quantum computing "calculator" ever again!

You may have lost definitely forever as of now because the World has moved forward on the question of God's existence. "God's existence now seems more likely than unlikely!"

Link here on the forum: viewtopic.php?p=937835#937835

[Still small]

Actually, unless you are an extreme Biblical literalist who demands that every single word of the Bible is the infallible word of God, then you do agree with me and just don't yet realize it.

Once again, you have completely overstated (AKA - exaggerated) your case. For one, I don’t believe I have ever claimed to be “an extreme Biblical literalist� and yet I still do not agree with your position. You appear to be of the opinion that if others don’t agree with you they have to be wrong for you couldn’t possibly be wrong. Bad luck mate, you lose again.

Moreover, it's actually impossible to take a pure literalist position on the Bible in any case because there is no such thing as "The Bible" anyway. So, in the end, you really have no choice. It's not really open to personal subjective opinion.

What the . . . !!! ‘No such thing as “The Bible� anyway’? Mate, you need to slow down on your medication. Either that or you’ve been using to much ‘loco weed’ or ‘yippie beans’. What kind of ridiculous statement is that, ‘no such thing as “The Bible� anyway’? I’m current looking at about 30 copies (various translation, various languages) of a book in my library called ‘The Bible’. This is a book containing a collection of 66 writings (books) by 40 authors over a period of 1600 years. It’s estimated to have sold* over 6 billion copies. (* sold - though a great quantity are then given away). To deny the existence of the Bible with a statement like ‘there is no such thing as “The Bible� anyway’ reduces your credibility to zero. Sorry, you lost it again.

Why, in your opinion, is this “a gross contradiction�? Whenever there is a position of great power and authority, there will always be those who wish to snatch it.

How in the world do you propose that power could be snatched from an omnipotent creator? That's a contradiction right there.

I don’t, it cannot be done but some will try/have tried anyway.

The very idea that some fallen angel could think that he could snatch power from the omnipotent creator who had even created his very own existence is utterly absurd.

Agreed but, again, some will try/have tried anyway.

The very idea that an omnipotent God would need to go to war against a fallen angel is a contradiction. Either the God is not omnipotent, or if he is omnipotent then he's just playing ignorant games with people that are totally unethical and immoral by an sane meaning of those terms.

Let’s correct something here. God does not go nor need to go to war, as such, against a fallen angel. Not in the way we envisage war. It’s no contest, at Christ’s return, He will defeat Satan with a word (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). There is no battle, Satan is defeated already.

The only way that a God could need to make a sacrifice of death in a war would be if the God himself was as helpless as a mortal human. Making a sacrifice in a war is an act of extreme desperation when all else has failed.
So how can you not see the obvious contradiction of an omnipotent God having to sacrifice himself or his demigod Son in an act of extreme desperation to win a war that he was already losing?

It is obvious that you have a total misunderstanding of that which God has done. This is evident by your analogy of ‘sacrifice of death in a war’. The better analogy would be that of a court of law (Rev 20:11) Imagine that you are standing in the dock of a court and the Judge is presiding over your case. He reads out the list of charges against you (Rev 20:12-13). The Judge, after going over all the evidence pronounces you ‘guilty’ and proceeds to sentence you. “According to the Law, the nature of the crimes which you have committed against the Authority requires a penalty of a $1 billion fine and you shall be incarcerated until it has been paid.� You immediately jump up and plead, “I can’t pay that, no way can I pay that, I’m doomed�. The Judge then steps down from the bench, walks up to you and says, “The Law requires that penalty to be paid but because you are my child and I love you, I will pay the penalty for you if you would like me to.� He hands over to the bailiff a cheque for $1 billion and you are released, the penalty having been paid.
Now, as the Judge, in order to be a just Judge, He must impose the true and correct penalty. If he fails to do that due to bias, then he is not a just Judge. But, then, because he is actually your father who loves you, he pays the penalty in your stead. Thereby being both a just Judge and loving father. This is, essentially, what God has done for man. As the Just Judge, He pronounces the penalty for your sins, the perfect death and eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire until you pay it (Rev 20:14-15). As the loving Father, He pays the penalty of the perfect death (the unblemished sacrifice) so that you can avoid the Lake of Fire. He, therefore, is being a loving Father whilst also remaining to be a Just Judge (but only if you’d like Him to be).

The contradictions of this religion are right before your very eyes, and have nothing at all to do with me or my opinions.

No, the contradictions that are right before your eyes are your misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the truth of the matter. It, clearly, has all to do with you and your confusion or attempts to confuse others.

And now you are making utterly absurd excuses for a totally inept and ignorant creator. A God who created people who are so utterly stupid that they can't even understand the simplest of concepts. And then he's going to get angry and hold there stupidity against them?

You obviously don’t have children because, if you did, you would realise that they, for example, are not necessarily evil or ‘stupid’ but that sometimes they make bad choices. As a loving father, you don’t hate the child, only the resulting bad decisions. Punishment, hopefully, is administered, not from anger or a desire to hurt but as correctional to allow them to seek and achieve an overall ‘better life’ or outcome. I don‘t know whether it applies to you but I’ve certainly experienced that feeling of ‘this is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you’ when disciplining a child. In the case of God, it is most certainly true.

Sorry Still small, but the fictitious God you are attempting to defend would need to be so extremely ignorant that he couldn't even remotely be considered to be all-wise or intelligent. You don't create idiots only to become angry with them for being idiots.

Sorry DI, but the fictitious god you are attempting to argue against is only extremely ignorant because he is a figment of your imagination and has little real resemblance to the God of the Bible.

Besides, if you are worshiping God, then that's what you are doing. There cannot be any such thing as a "false God".

What the . . .! You do come up with some ridiculous ideas, don’t you. Simply, just as Wiki puts it -
“A false god is, in Abrahamic doctrines, a deity or object of worship that is regarded as either illegitimate or non-functioning in its professed authority or capability, and this characterization is further used as a definition of "idol". . . . . An alternative usage of the term "false god" refers to anything that is considered to assume a place of undue importance in one's life;�
You really need to research some of your bizarre ideas before posting.

If the Canaanites were sacrificing their babies to God then that's what they were doing. What you are suggesting is that your God is so extremely stupid that he couldn't even figure that one out.

Without the use of labels such as ‘stupid’, you have failed to figure it out. Let’s have a look, shall we -
Deuteronomy 12:31  “Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.� (Emphasis added)
It is quite clear from this verse that there is a differentiation between the Creator God of the Bible and the false gods.
Jeremiah 19:5  “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:�
To who? To Baal. The Canaanites were sacrificing to a god other than the Abrahamic God who detests such offerings.

The only way the story of the Canaanites could have made any sense at all is if the Canaanites refuses to worship God at all. Period. In fact, they couldn't even be atheists either. They would actually need to believe that God exists and simply refuse to obey or worship him.

I think you need to actually re-read the Old Testament again, this time with your eyes open and your brain in gear.

If they are worshiping God and sacrificing their babies to God then they haven't rejected God.

Do you believe doing something which you know God absolutely detests is actually worshipping Him? You obviously have no idea what ‘worship’ means. Buy yourself a dictionary, please, before you make any more embarrassing mistakes. It is clearly obvious that the Canaanites were ‘worshipping’ something other than the Creator God of the Bible.

So the story of the Canaanites gives away the Bible as being a clearly man-made fable that cannot have anything at all to do with any supposedly omniscient Creator, because an omniscient creator would know better than that.

If you lack the integrity or ability to comprehend what you are reading, don’t blame the ‘source’. My advice, as before, “re-read the Old Testament again, this time with your eyes open and your brain in gear.� Or even basic research in the easily accessed Wiki articles.

You know this is a false argument. Even Christians disagree with each other. Just look at the greatest riff in Christianity, "Catholicism vs. Protestantism". They have wildly different interpretations and can't agree on much of anything. Even the Catholic Popes themselves over the centuries have had wildly different views and interpretations of this unintelligible religion.

The fact is that the religion makes no sense, and Christendom is the historical proof of this. There is no consistency in the Catholic Church over the centuries, and Protestant beliefs and interpretations vary so widely that Denominations at the far ends of this rainbow of confusion have radically different views and beliefs.
The idea that there is only one way to interpret these ancient fables is utterly absurd. Christendom has proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt.
If you don't see this you can't be paying attention to reality. (Emphasis added)

Firstly, I’m not here to defend one denomination against another. I speak of and for myself. Denominations, as such, are man-made divisions whereas the Bible speaks of Christians and non-christians. Second, your previously displayed lack of understanding is the indicator as to why you may think of the Biblical accounts as “fables�. Thirdly, I believe I pointed out that there is more than one way to interpret the scriptures, the correct way and then several incorrect ways.

"Life" is a term coined by humans. There is no actual difference between living and non-living things other than in how they are configured. They are all made of precisely the same elements. The only difference is in how they are arranged. That's it. Period.

So the difference between a non-living thing and a living thing is just a matter of arrangement of the elements that make it up. So there is absolutely no reason why life cannot evolve from non-living matter in this universe. It doesn't require any magic or outside intervention at all

So, basically you believe that bioprocesses of a living body are nothing more than physical and chemical processes. So, if I were to dump in front of you a 70kg pile of chemicals/elements of the appropriate proportions, for example -

Oxygen 65%, Carbon 18%, Hydrogen 10%, Nitrogen 3%, Calcium 1.5%, Phosphorus 1%, Potassium 0.25%, Sulphur 0.25%, Sodium 0.15%, Chlorine 0.15%, Magnesium 0.05%, Iron 0.006%, Fluorine 0.0037%, Zinc 0.0032%, Silicon 0.002%, Rubidium 0.00046%, Strontium 0.00046%, Bromine 0.00029%, Lead 0.00017%, Copper 0.0001%, Aluminium 0.00006%, Cadmium 0.00005%, Cerium 0.00005%, Barium 0.000022%, Tin, Iodine, Titanium 0.00002%, Boron 0.0.000018%, Selenium, Nickel 0.000015%, Chromium 0.000014%, Manganese 0.000012, Arsenic 0.000007%, Lithium, Mercury, Caesium 0.000006%, Molybdenum, Germanium 0.000005%, Cobalt 0.000003%, Antimony, Silver 0.000002%, Niobium, Zirconium 0.000001%, Lanthanum 0.0000008%, Tellurium,Bismuth, Gallium 0.0000007%, Indium 0.0000004%, Gold, Scandium, Tantalum 0.0000002%, Vanadium 0.00000011%, Uranium, Thorium 0.0000001%, Samarium 0.00000005%, Tungsten, Beryllium 0.00000002% & Radium 0.00000000000003%. (Link)

- could it be assembled to form a living human?
No?

Ok, you're probably not much of a biochemist, so we'll make it a bit easier. We assemble the elements into the various amino acids, proteins, adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G), even assembling them into DNA strands, haemoglobin, etc. Would you then be able to assemble the 'parts' into a living human?
No?

Ok, some of those connections, etc, are a bit tricky if you're not a micro-surgeon, so let's go a step further. We have all those various chemical 'body parts' connected and assembled correctly. Putting together all the 'cell parts', connecting all the 'plumbing', wiring all the 'electrical connections' correctly, etc, etc, etc. Basically putting a completely assembled, 'natural/material' (but lifeless) human body in front of you, could you get it to perform a simple task? Nothing complicated, like building a rocket or perform brain surgery, etc. Just something simple, like getting up, walking around outside and coming back to tell me what it saw? With all the appropriate parts put together correctly, will just the physical and chemical processes achieve this?

No? Why not? What is missing?

Also in answer to your question, "Why cannot an intelligent creative God create intelligence?" Well, you have already asked the wrong question. The question is, 'Why can't an intelligent creative God be an explanation for how intelligence came to be?"

That's the question. And the answer should be obvious. If an intelligent creative God is the explanation for intelligence, then how did that intelligent creative God come to be. According to this "explanation" this God must then have been created by yet another creative intelligence, and so on.

So you see, it's not that an intelligent creative God could not create intelligent life. It's just that this is no explanation at all until you have explained how that intelligent God came to be in the first place. (Emphasis added)

No, it was the right question. It’s just a question you can’t or won’t answer. Instead, you’ve ignored my actual question and substituted your own which you attempt to answer but having no relevance to the original question. So, again, I ask -
"Why cannot an intelligent creative God create intelligence?"

After all, if your argument is that intelligence is required to design intelligence, then you've violated your own argument the moment you postulate that an intelligent God could exist who wasn't created by a previously intelligent entity.
So your argument become circular and meaningless.

First, please give a more specific response to the question inferred in my previous post - “Explain why something of infinite intelligence cannot create something of lesser intelligence?�

Entropy holds for all dimensions. There is nothing about entropy that is limited by dimensions. Whatever dimension you imagine your invisible God to exist in, it would still need to have entropy if it is to have coherent thoughts in that dimension. And if it has entropy then it cannot be eternal.
So adding more dimensions doesn't help.

So far, we only know that entropy holds for our 4D space-time universe. What scientific proof do you have that entropy is not limited to just our 4 dimensions of space-time? What scientific evidence do you have that entropy holds for dimensions beyond our 4D space-time (physical) universe? Or is this just more ‘bluff and blunder’ on your part?

Have a good day!
Still small

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 46 by Still small]

What the . . . !!! ‘No such thing as “The Bible� anyway’? Mate, you need to slow down on your medication. Either that or you’ve been using to much ‘loco weed’ or ‘yippie beans’. What kind of ridiculous statement is that, ‘no such thing as “The Bible� anyway’?

Apart from being most discourteous, you have obviously not seen the topic "Whose Bible is THE Bible" in the Christianity and Apologetics and Apologetics forum.

The members would welcome your learned input.

Perhaps you will be the first person of faith to identify for us the objective criteria for determining "scripture".

BTW, as an act of Christian decency and humility (rather than supercilious and vituperative sanctimony) I think you should apologise to DI ... mate.

Otherwise, you will reinforce the opinion certain Atheists have of certain Christians ....

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 46 by Still small]

The better analogy would be that of a court of law (Rev 20:11) Imagine that you are standing in the dock of a court and the Judge is presiding over your case. He reads out the list of charges against you (Rev 20:12-13). The Judge, after going over all the evidence pronounces you ‘guilty’ and proceeds to sentence you. “According to the Law, the nature of the crimes which you have committed against the Authority requires a penalty of a $1 billion fine and you shall be incarcerated until it has been paid.� You immediately jump up and plead, “I can’t pay that, no way can I pay that, I’m doomed�. The Judge then steps down from the bench, walks up to you and says, “The Law requires that penalty to be paid but because you are my child and I love you, I will pay the penalty for you if you would like me to.� He hands over to the bailiff a cheque for $1 billion and you are released, the penalty having been paid.
Now, as the Judge, in order to be a just Judge, He must impose the true and correct penalty. If he fails to do that due to bias, then he is not a just Judge. But, then, because he is actually your father who loves you, he pays the penalty in your stead. Thereby being both a just Judge and loving father. This is, essentially, what God has done for man. As the Just Judge, He pronounces the penalty for your sins, the perfect death and eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire until you pay it (Rev 20:14-15). As the loving Father, He pays the penalty of the perfect death (the unblemished sacrifice) so that you can avoid the Lake of Fire. He, therefore, is being a loving Father whilst also remaining to be a Just Judge (but only if you’d like Him to be).

So much wrong with all of that.
The penalty is the same no matter what the offense.
The judge hands over a cheque made out to himself.
You don't actually know if the payment has gone through.
The cheque was made out on Friday but cancelled on Sunday.
The judge actually decided the penalty in the first place and made it impossible for anyone to pay.
The cheque doesn't actually pay for the crime. In the fine print, the judge expects you to be his personal slave for the rest of your life without actually proving that he paid the penalty.
In the religious version, the penalty of death was not paid because the victim could not die and in the story did not remain dead. Temporary incapacitation might be a more accurate description of what occurred.
There is no sign of a loving father in this barbaric scenario.