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?

[Divine Insight]

Id' say you inadvertently proved God:

Because creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of, which can transcend entropy, create new systems, achieve what nature alone never can

Sorry, but it's not even possible to have a memory without entropy.

Your claim that creative intelligence transcends entropy has no merit.

It wouldn't even be possible to have memory with entropy. Much less creative intelligence.

[Guy Threepwood]

Id' say you inadvertently proved God:

Because creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of, which can transcend entropy, create new systems, achieve what nature alone never can

Sorry, but it's not even possible to have a memory without entropy.

That's true, we are all subject to entropy, I am getting old enough to know that. I even forgot it was trash day yesterday.. or did I??

Your claim that creative intelligence transcends entropy has no merit.

Creative intelligence can create. truly new systems rather than simply react to them. Because it can operate according to anticipation of future consequences

Everything in nature ultimately boils down to information and information systems. There is only one known source for these systems. Not to say chance is impossible, but other than being unverified, it gets mathematically problematic..

[Divine Insight]

Id' say you inadvertently proved God:

Because creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of, which can transcend entropy, create new systems, achieve what nature alone never can

Sorry, but it's not even possible to have a memory without entropy.

That's true, we are all subject to entropy, I am getting old enough to know that. I even forgot it was trash day yesterday.. or did I??

Your claim that creative intelligence transcends entropy has no merit.

Creative intelligence can create. truly new systems rather than simply react to them. Because it can operate according to anticipation of future consequences

Everything in nature ultimately boils down to information and information systems. There is only one known source for these systems. Not to say chance is impossible, but other than being unverified, it gets mathematically problematic..

There are actually extreme problems with making the unverified assumption that abstract mathematics could somehow actually exist in some kind of mystical or spiritual "Platonic World".

Especially if you want to speak about "Creativity". If all mathematical numbers are said to already "exist", then nothing new could ever be "created".

The reason is quite simply. Everything can ultimately be reduced to being described as a binary number. Even your entire physical body and brain configuration right down to the very thought you are having at this moment can be reduced to a number. A number that would then necessarily need to have "always existed" even before you were ever born.

This is easy to demonstrate with something as simple as a finite digital camera.

Let's consider a camera that stores images as 1 megabyte. This is 1 million bytes of information. This can represent any number from 0 to 2^(10^6).

The decimal number given by 2^(10^) is too big to write out, but if you'd like to write it out it would be a 1 with a million zeros after it.

No ever single integer number between 0 and (1 with a million zeros written after it) would represent a different photograph in this camera.

Also note that there is nothing you cannot use this camera to take a picture of. At least within the visible light spectrum. In other words, anything that you will ever see in your entire life this camera could be used to take its photo.

Not only this, but this camera will necessarily also be able to take a photo of countless things that you will never see. In fact, this camera must also be able to take pictures of countless things that never will exist.

I keep using the term "countless" but obviously this camera can only take a finite number of photos so it's technically wrong to say that there are countless images this camera could take. None the less this camera must necessarily be able to take a photo of anything that could ever produce a visible light image. Therefore there cannot exist anything in reality that this camera could not take a picture of.

In other words, if you take your camera and go off into nature and find a bluejay and redbird perched on the horns of an albino deer and want to take a picture of this rare event, you're camera cannot complain that it doesn't have a "number" available that will describe that image perfectly. In other words, the number that describes this seen must necessarily already exist somewhere in the list of integers between 0 and (1 with a million zeros after it).

In other words, if you knew the correct number you could just type that number into your camera and lo and behold an image of an albino deer with a bluejay and redbird perched on its horns would appear on your display. It would have to!

And that number has to already exist! Somewhere between 0 and 2(10^6) there must already exist a number that describes this picture in the format this camera was designed to use. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to take this picture. When you came upon this scene and when to snap the shot, your camera would need to display an error message (Sorry no number exists for that scene)

But that NEVER HAPPENS! Cameras don't even need to be programmed to do that because those numbers necessarily already exist.

But now you can see that once you allow that all number actually "exist" in some sort of imaginary spiritual or Platonic world you run into the problem that "Creativity" can never exist. How could it? You could never create anything that hasn't already been accounted for.

So to even allow that an abstract Platonic mathematical world exists already demands that creativity could never exist.

Yet here you are trying suggest that "chance" would somehow be mathematically problematic.

Well, if you hold mathematics up as somehow trumping reality, (i.e. representing something beyond reality as in an imaginary pure Platonic supernatural world), then you can't claim that "Creativity" could ever be possible.

If mathematics exists in a purely Platonic way, then extreme determinism is all that could ever exist and nothing "new" could ever be "created".

[Guy Threepwood]

Id' say you inadvertently proved God:

Because creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of, which can transcend entropy, create new systems, achieve what nature alone never can

Sorry, but it's not even possible to have a memory without entropy.

That's true, we are all subject to entropy, I am getting old enough to know that. I even forgot it was trash day yesterday.. or did I??

Your claim that creative intelligence transcends entropy has no merit.

Creative intelligence can create. truly new systems rather than simply react to them. Because it can operate according to anticipation of future consequences

Everything in nature ultimately boils down to information and information systems. There is only one known source for these systems. Not to say chance is impossible, but other than being unverified, it gets mathematically problematic..

There are actually extreme problems with making the unverified assumption that abstract mathematics could somehow actually exist in some kind of mystical or spiritual "Platonic World".

Especially if you want to speak about "Creativity". If all mathematical numbers are said to already "exist", then nothing new could ever be "created".

The reason is quite simply. Everything can ultimately be reduced to being described as a binary number. Even your entire physical body and brain configuration right down to the very thought you are having at this moment can be reduced to a number. A number that would then necessarily need to have "always existed" even before you were ever born.

This is easy to demonstrate with something as simple as a finite digital camera.

Let's consider a camera that stores images as 1 megabyte. This is 1 million bytes of information. This can represent any number from 0 to 2^(10^6).

The decimal number given by 2^(10^) is too big to write out, but if you'd like to write it out it would be a 1 with a million zeros after it.

No ever single integer number between 0 and (1 with a million zeros written after it) would represent a different photograph in this camera.

Also note that there is nothing you cannot use this camera to take a picture of. At least within the visible light spectrum. In other words, anything that you will ever see in your entire life this camera could be used to take its photo.

Not only this, but this camera will necessarily also be able to take a photo of countless things that you will never see. In fact, this camera must also be able to take pictures of countless things that never will exist.

I keep using the term "countless" but obviously this camera can only take a finite number of photos so it's technically wrong to say that there are countless images this camera could take. None the less this camera must necessarily be able to take a photo of anything that could ever produce a visible light image. Therefore there cannot exist anything in reality that this camera could not take a picture of.

In other words, if you take your camera and go off into nature and find a bluejay and redbird perched on the horns of an albino deer and want to take a picture of this rare event, you're camera cannot complain that it doesn't have a "number" available that will describe that image perfectly. In other words, the number that describes this seen must necessarily already exist somewhere in the list of integers between 0 and (1 with a million zeros after it).

In other words, if you knew the correct number you could just type that number into your camera and lo and behold an image of an albino deer with a bluejay and redbird perched on its horns would appear on your display. It would have to!

And that number has to already exist! Somewhere between 0 and 2(10^6) there must already exist a number that describes this picture in the format this camera was designed to use. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to take this picture. When you came upon this scene and when to snap the shot, your camera would need to display an error message (Sorry no number exists for that scene)

But that NEVER HAPPENS! Cameras don't even need to be programmed to do that because those numbers necessarily already exist.

But now you can see that once you allow that all number actually "exist" in some sort of imaginary spiritual or Platonic world you run into the problem that "Creativity" can never exist. How could it? You could never create anything that hasn't already been accounted for.

So to even allow that an abstract Platonic mathematical world exists already demands that creativity could never exist.

Yet here you are trying suggest that "chance" would somehow be mathematically problematic.

Well, if you hold mathematics up as somehow trumping reality, (i.e. representing something beyond reality as in an imaginary pure Platonic supernatural world), then you can't claim that "Creativity" could ever be possible.

If mathematics exists in a purely Platonic way, then extreme determinism is all that could ever exist and nothing "new" could ever be "created".

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I take your point and I think we agree on it, as far as the point goes.

i.e. the perfect photo of the birds could technically be produced by random chance- if you took enough shots at it.

Therefore the entire universe and life in it, is also based ultimately on numbers that would have to already exist as a possibility?

hence multiverse theories. Of course even the birds and albino deer sell the universe a little short - in terms of the number of random tries needed to create everything including them. But the principle remains, generate enough random numbers and anything is possible.- right?

We agree, but only regarding this one side of the equation- the odds of random chance accounting for something eventually- on the other side are the odds of something other than random chance creating it.

if you did see a photo of the birds on the deer, would you assume a random generator did it? why not?

Likewise if a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, luck is not impossible, so why do you suspect cheating?

if you see 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks- the waves may have washed them up like that- so why conclude a castaway?


i.e. it's not that chance creation is impossible through random numbers, it's that there are far less improbable explanations- unless you can effectively rule creative intelligence entirely out first.

in every case, the merest possibility of creativity must be removed from the playing field to allow chance to eventually score the goal. The opposite is not true, we do not have to remove the possibility of chance, to conclude creative intelligence as the more likely explanation for any particular instance

[Still small]

Sorry, but it's not even possible to have a memory without entropy.

Your claim that creative intelligence transcends entropy has no merit.

It wouldn't even be possible to have memory with entropy. Much less creative intelligence.

Might I just add that God does not have memory per se, He has all-knowledge (omniscience). Memory is ‘recalling a past event’ but God is outside of time, hence His being eternal. As such, what is seen as ‘past, present and future’ from our perspective within the time reference, is observed as all in the ‘present’ to one outside the time reference. Therefore, no ‘past’, hence, no ‘memory’per se, therefore, no entropy.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Goat]

Sorry, but it's not even possible to have a memory without entropy.

Your claim that creative intelligence transcends entropy has no merit.

It wouldn't even be possible to have memory with entropy. Much less creative intelligence.

Might I just add that God does not have memory per se, He has all-knowledge (omniscience). Memory is ‘recalling a past event’ but God is outside of time, hence His being eternal. As such, what is seen as ‘past, present and future’ from our perspective within the time reference, is observed as all in the ‘present’ to one outside the time reference. Therefore, no ‘past’, hence, no ‘memory’per se, therefore, no entropy.

Have a good day!
Still small

Let's look at the claim of 'God being outside time'. What does that mean? How can you show that is true? Can you show that it even a possible state for something that has existence ?

[Still small]

Let's look at the claim of 'God being outside time'. What does that mean? How can you show that is true? Can you show that it even a possible state for something that has existence ?

“God being outside of time� simply means that while God can interact within the 4D space-time universe, He is not restricted or confined to it. Remembering that in order for God to be able to create the entire universe, which includes ‘time’, He must be separate and distinct from it. Much like a 3-dimensional artist can create a 2-dimensional drawing. The artist can see the entire image and make necessary alterations to it but the artist is not restricted to or confined within the 2-dimensions.
How can I show it to be true? I don’t know other than being a claim implied by scripture, but it would not be provable by science or scientists. Why? Or why not? Because science (and therefore, scientists) can only examine, test and observe ‘things’ within the natural 4-D realm, of which ‘time’ is a part. You would need to be able to test or observe something outside of ‘time’ or the natural realm.
Is it possible to be ‘outside’ the natural realm, including time? Yes. For example, the commonly held theory of the Big Bang creation includes the creation of time (or more correctly, ‘space-time’). What was before the Big Bang? Scientifically, this is a non-sensical question. There was no ‘before the Big Bang’ as there was no ‘time’ co-ordinates. This is why all the laws of physics ‘breakdown’ at this point, as it is beyond the natural 4-D universe that science examines and describes. Now, while this idea of no ‘before he Big Bang’, just as ‘God being outside of time’, seems counterintuitive, that is only because we are beings whose every experience and perspective is in relation to a time dimension. The limits of our experience or perspective do not necessarily determine facts or the truth, just our understanding.

Let me also add that the purpose of my previous post was that if DI was going to critique or disprove the God of the Bible, he should do so by including all the attributes of said God. Not just those attributes which he believes his argument can defeat. This would be a classic example of a ‘straw man’ which I believe DI may be prone to use.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Bust Nak]

i.e. it's not that chance creation is impossible through random numbers, it's that there are far less improbable explanations- unless you can effectively rule creative intelligence entirely out first.

That's the sticking point isn't it? Whether a god made it is more or less improbable than random chance. In the case of "HELP" in rocks or 4 royal flushes in a row, we aren't proposing a god, not even a generic creative intelligence, but a human doing it.

[Divine Insight]

Let me also add that the purpose of my previous post was that if DI was going to critique or disprove the God of the Bible, he should do so by including all the attributes of said God. Not just those attributes which he believes his argument can defeat. This would be a classic example of a ‘straw man’ which I believe DI may be prone to use.

Actually I have already proven countless times over that the Biblical God cannot exist as it is described in the Bible because the Bible demands that its own God behaves in contradictory ways and has a contradictory character.

Theists actually agree with me on this. They too literally reject the Bible with the full understanding that it is indeed self-contradictory as it is written. So instead they argue for a non-Biblical God by demanding that instead of accepting what the Bible actually says they pretend that some "Holy Spirit" has secretly and supernaturally given then divine insight into meanings that are totally contradictory to what the bible literally says. And of course every theist has a totally different idea of what these alternative non-literal interpretations should be as well.

Moreover, the non-literal interpretations that the theists give always turn out to be self-contradictory apologies as well. Or they need to reduce their God to being as helpless and inept as mortal humans by using humans as an example of how they thing God should act. For example, God should be as bad of a parent as humans. For them this makes sense. God had to sacrifice Jesus in a similar manner to how human soldiers need to die in a war. What they fail to realize is that human soldiers die in wars precisely because humans aren't omnipotent and omniscient or wise enough to prevent wars in the first place. The very idea that the Biblical God has enemies that he needs to fight is already a gross contradictions of what an omnipotent omniscient God needs to be like. So the God of the Bible is inept by the Bible's own requirement.

This is easy to understand once you realize that the God described in the Bible is a fabrication of inept humans who simply pushed their own inept characteristics onto their fictional God. After all this is a God who is jealous of other Gods. How silly is that in a monotheistic religion? Jealously is a human flaw to begin with anyway. And so is anger, wrath, and rage.

So there is no need to disprove the Biblical God. The authors of the Bible have already done that for us. And, as I say, even the theists know this as even they need to literally reject the Bible in favor of pretending that it could have been written differently.

This thread isn't about disproving the Biblical God (An obviously man-made fictional God). This thread shows how no possible "eternal" God who has a conscious coherent mind can possibly exist. And the reason is simple. In order to have coherent consciousness it would require the property of entropy. But if it has entropy then it cannot be eternal.

So there you have it. You speak of a "God outside of Time", but you are failing to recognize what this would mean. A God that is outside of time could not have a coherent consciousness. So your premise that a meaningful conscious God could exist outside of time already requires that you violate this principle.

~~~~~

Finally, an intelligent creative God cannot serve as an explanation for the existence of intelligence. The idea that this would be a valid explanation is absurd. If intelligence is required before intelligence can be created then from whence did this God obtain his intelligent design?

The failure in this type of argument is that humans are used to a magician being a valid explanation for "magic". In other words, if we see a man pull a rabbit out of a hat we might think this is impossible. But as soon as we are told that this man is a "magician" we accept this as a valid explanation.

But why? Can magicians actually perform impossible magic? No of course not. The reason we accept the magician as a valid "explanation" is because we understand that no magic was actually done, but rather the magician knows slight-of-hand tricks and the art of illusion to make you think you are seeing things that are impossible. But they aren't truly impossible at all. They are perfectly within the rules of physics.

So now you want to claim that a "magical" God must be the explanation for the existence of a universe. Why? Because saying that a "magician did it", is a valid explanation. But actually it's not. You would then need to explain how the magician does what he does for it to be an actual explanation. And no theist has ever been able to do that.

In short:

An unexplained God is no explanation for anything.

[Goat]

Let's look at the claim of 'God being outside time'. What does that mean? How can you show that is true? Can you show that it even a possible state for something that has existence ?

“God being outside of time� simply means that while God can interact within the 4D space-time universe, He is not restricted or confined to it. Remembering that in order for God to be able to create the entire universe, which includes ‘time’, He must be separate and distinct from it. Much like a 3-dimensional artist can create a 2-dimensional drawing. The artist can see the entire image and make necessary alterations to it but the artist is not restricted to or confined within the 2-dimensions.
How can I show it to be true? I don’t know other than being a claim implied by scripture, but it would not be provable by science or scientists. Why? Or why not? Because science (and therefore, scientists) can only examine, test and observe ‘things’ within the natural 4-D realm, of which ‘time’ is a part. You would need to be able to test or observe something outside of ‘time’ or the natural realm.
Is it possible to be ‘outside’ the natural realm, including time? Yes. For example, the commonly held theory of the Big Bang creation includes the creation of time (or more correctly, ‘space-time’). What was before the Big Bang? Scientifically, this is a non-sensical question. There was no ‘before the Big Bang’ as there was no ‘time’ co-ordinates. This is why all the laws of physics ‘breakdown’ at this point, as it is beyond the natural 4-D universe that science examines and describes. Now, while this idea of no ‘before he Big Bang’, just as ‘God being outside of time’, seems counterintuitive, that is only because we are beings whose every experience and perspective is in relation to a time dimension. The limits of our experience or perspective do not necessarily determine facts or the truth, just our understanding.

Let me also add that the purpose of my previous post was that if DI was going to critique or disprove the God of the Bible, he should do so by including all the attributes of said God. Not just those attributes which he believes his argument can defeat. This would be a classic example of a ‘straw man’ which I believe DI may be prone to use.

Have a good day!
Still small

Where did you get this information? How can it be tested? Can you show that there is a 4D time/space continuum, and demonstrate that God can interact with it?

On what evidence do you base this conclusion? How was this tested? The alternative is that you are making things up as you go along.