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?

[mgb]

If you literally reject the Bible then as far as I'm concerned you aren't talking about the Biblical God anyway. And even your "Jesus" would be nothing more than your own personal fabrication of what you would like for Jesus to be.

As I have said, the bible is not a religion, it is only an echo of God's word. And a heavily distorted one at that. But there is great wisdom in it also.

They create their own personal Jesus and think that this qualifies as "Christianity". And most of them aren't even interested in what Yahweh might have done in the OT. They'll either deny it by claiming that they can "twist" what the Bible literally says into something entirely different by pretending that they have reinterpreted it to mean something completely opposite to what it actually says.

Some of them do. They should listen more carefully to God and He will guide them.

I'm talking about what the Bible has to say about it, and you are talking about what you wish it would have said instead.

For me it is not wishful thinking, it is what I believe God wants me to believe.

As far as I'm concerned you've just renounced the Bible as being a dependable source of any description of "God". Therefore what you are talking about is NOT the Biblical God.

There is much truth about God in the bible.

You seem to be forgetting that Christianity has nothing at all to do with committing evil. Christianity is all about recognizing this specific God. The first of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". What in the world would that have to do with evil?

Revelation is ongoing. It did not stop with St. Paul. St. Agustine has a lot to say about evil.
Personally I don't think the Chruch evolved as God wanted it to. Far from it. If the clergy were more receptive to God's inspiration it would have gone beyond the relatively simple and imperfect theology it teaches. These things should evolve. There was a time when culture was much simpler but we have moved on and we need a better understanding of these things. The British writer Colin Wilson maintains that because religion has failed in modern times NDEs are now a new source of revelation.
But you should be aware that in this world there is a WAR against truth. Truth has only a slender foothold in the world but God ensures that those who desire it will have it.

Not only this but your idea is that people do indeed need to EARN their salvation by merit of their own virtue.

Again, the moment you have people earning their own salvation you no longer need Jesus to be their penal substitute and offer them salvation through grace.

We need both virtue and grace. We need both. Our own efforts are not enough, we need help. It is about God helping people to do the right thing. Like they say, 'God helps those who help themselves.'

Then the so-called "evil" in the world is really nothing more than the natural way things are and "evil" is nothing other that those things that humans disapprove of.

The problem with people like Sam Harris is that they think society is an ultimate thing and evil is a sociological/biological reality. Whence they are wont to go on about the subjectivity of evil etc. But it is not a sociological reality. It only filters into sociological terms but it originates elsewhere.

Everything from toothbrushed to Mozart's symphonies to the Eiffel Tower originates in mind. Mind conceives of things and they are then physically realized. Mind is the source. Mind is at the top of the pyramid and gives rise to civilization. Evil originates in the mind and filters into sociological terms. Harris is doomed to confused thinking because he does not allow for this. He even justifies torture.

None of these things are permitted in Christianity. This is simply not part of Christian theology. There is nothing in Christianity that says that it's about a God who is expecting humans to learn how to responsibly use free will.

Read the Christian theologians on free will and evil.

You'd have mere humans saving people that God would have otherwise condemned had it not been for the intervention of a human evangelism, or whatever.

It is about good spirits helping others, not evangelism. Padre Pio said he would spend his time in heaven helping people on earth.

Do you think this is "twisted"? Perhaps so. However, the fact is that it can all be backed up by scripture. Every single part of it.

That is why religion must move on from scriptures that are inconsistent. Religion needs to be guided by God.

"Why bother with a physical world at all?"

It is part of God's plan of redemption.

[Divine Insight]

If you literally reject the Bible then as far as I'm concerned you aren't talking about the Biblical God anyway. And even your "Jesus" would be nothing more than your own personal fabrication of what you would like for Jesus to be.

As I have said, the bible is not a religion, it is only an echo of God's word. And a heavily distorted one at that. But there is great wisdom in it also.

So then, by your own decree, you are not talking about the Biblical God.

You have just said that the Bible is a "heavily distorted echo of God's Word".

If that's true, then the Bible cannot be trusted to correctly describe God or his "Word". In fact, it would be meaningless to even speak of "God's Word" when you have just rejected the Bible as being a dependable source of "God's Word".

So you are definitely not talking about the Biblical God.

Apparently you have created your own God in the image of what you would like a God to be like.

That's not the Biblical God. In fact, it's an outright rejection of the God described in the Bible.

I think it's pretty sad when Christian apologists need to dismiss the Bible as being "heavily distorted" as last resort to trying to apologize for this "religion".

And yes, it is indeed a "religion"

In fact, now you have created TWO religions.

One religion is based on what the Bible has to say.

The other religion is apparently your own invention where you reject what the Bible has to say as being "heavily distorted".

~~~~~~~

Finally, you are actually in agreement with my ultimate position whether you realize it or not. I reject the Biblical description of God. You have just supported that my rejection of the Biblical description God is totally warranted and justified, because you are right there with me. Apparently you too reject the Biblical description of God as being "heavily distorted".

I don't really care if you think you can create a "NEW GOD" by cherry-picking from the Bible the parts that you approve of. All that amounts to is you creating a God that you approve of. Period.

That's all you've done. Moreover, you could have done the same thing with any other religious fables in the world. Just toss out what you don't like, keep what you like, and claim that this represents "God".

That's all you've done.

You could have done the same thing for Zeus and Apollo if you wanted to.

You've invented your own personal God mythology using selected parts of Hebrew mythology as fodder.

I could do that too.

We can all create our own Gods in our own image of what we think a God should be.

That's easy peazy.

But not the least bit compelling as a serious theology.

All you really have is an opinion on what you wish a God could be like.

I have opinions on what I think a God should be like too. But that's hardly a compelling argument for the existence of a God.

And it also wouldn't be proper of me to claim that my personally-created God is the "Biblical God", even though the Bible itself is "heavily distorted" and apparently got my God all wrong.

This has to be the weakest apology for the "Biblical God" yet. The Bible has it all wrong!

Yep, I can see that flying like a lead Zeppelin

[mgb]

If that's true, then the Bible cannot be trusted to correctly describe God or his "Word". In fact, it would be meaningless to even speak of "God's Word" when you have just rejected the Bible as being a dependable source of "God's Word".

I don't reject the bible in its entirety. I contains much wisdom. But, on reading the bible, one needs to be open to God's promptings. God can use the bible to teach because the very act of reading the bible disposes our minds towards God's inspiration.

Apparently you have created your own God in the image of what you would like a God to be like.

No. I have understood the bible in the way God wants me to understand it, insofar as I can. But it takes a lifetime of reflection and guidance to grasp these things. Yet, the truth is simple: "I am the way"

The essence of Christianity and all true religions is The Way.
Virtue and morality are part of The Way.
Virtue and morality lead to God and to truth.
That is the essence of Christianity.

[Divine Insight]

If that's true, then the Bible cannot be trusted to correctly describe God or his "Word". In fact, it would be meaningless to even speak of "God's Word" when you have just rejected the Bible as being a dependable source of "God's Word".

I don't reject the bible in its entirety. I contains much wisdom. But, on reading the bible, one needs to be open to God's promptings. God can use the bible to teach because the very act of reading the bible disposes our minds towards God's inspiration.

To begin with, if you reject so much as a jot or tittle of the Old Testament laws that are said to have come from God then you are reject Jesus' claim that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law.

Clearly Jesus is in grave disagreement with your rejection of the infallibility of the OT laws.

Secondly, what in the world are you talking about when you say "God's promptings"?

Unless you are claiming to have actually been in clear contact with a supernatural entity where you have established an unambiguous two-way communication, then what could "God's Prompting" possibly mean?

All it would mean is that you are comfortable in presuming that God approves of whatever happens to "Feel Good" to you. And you consider this "Good Feeling" about something to be God prompting you to recognize it as truth.

This is as uncompelling as an argument for a God can possibly be.

Apparently you have created your own God in the image of what you would like a God to be like.

No. I have understood the bible in the way God wants me to understand it, insofar as I can. But it takes a lifetime of reflection and guidance to grasp these things. Yet, the truth is simple: "I am the way"

This is nonsense. All you are telling me here is that you push your desired understanding onto the God you would like to imagine existing.

The essence of Christianity and all true religions is The Way.
Virtue and morality are part of The Way.
Virtue and morality lead to God and to truth.
That is the essence of Christianity.

If that were true there would be no need for Jesus, or to believe in Jesus, or even for a Bible to exist in the first place.

After all, if this magical God can inspire you toward truth in any real-time manner, then he wouldn't need books, or Jesus, or preachers, or churches, or evangelists, or any of that.

All he would need to do is inspire you toward truth just as you claim he is already doing.

But clearly this doesn't fly.

Not only this, but this then requires that God himself has inspired and prompted you to reject large parts of the Bible. Especially parts from the OT.

So you are basically claiming that God has inspired you to proclaim to the world that the Bible is "heavily distorted".

Just think about this mgb. You are actually proclaiming to everyone here that I am correct in rejecting the Bible as it is written because God himself has inspired you to do precisely the same thing.

God should be absolutely thrilled with me for having rejected the heavily distorted picture the Bible portrays of God.

How could God not be pleased by my rejection of what you claim is a "heavily distorted" picture of God?

You are actually supporting my position without even realizing that you are doing so.

Because after all, I'm not even claiming that no God exists. To the contrary, like you, I imagine that there exists a God too. Of course I tossed out the heavily distorted Hebrew account of God because I could see that this was clearly false.

In fact, back when I was a Christian and I was trying to understand the Bible so I could teach it, but instead I discovered that it cannot possibly be true "as it is written". I didn't instantly become an atheist. To the contrary I actually continued to believe in a "God".

And like you, I even felt that God was inspiring me to reject the Bible, and guiding me to truth. And those feelings ultimately led me to discover the Buddhism. For a while I convinced that God led me to Buddhism as the ultimate truth. But I eventually realized that there is no God leading me anywhere and that all of this was just wishful thinking on my part.

~~~~~~

One thing I can say with absolute certainty. If there is a God, that God is totally pleased with the fact that I don't even care whether or not He, She, It exists.

After all, why should a God care about such a petty thing?

Especially in my case, because whether a God exists or not isn't going to change who I am one iota.

I'm either good enough for God or I'm not. And I'm more than happy to take that position. It's not a rebellious or defiant position of any kind. Humans my view it that way, but they are irrelevant. If a God exist the God would fully understand precisely what I mean and also understand that it's the most honest and intelligent position I can take.

In fact, mgb, I openly confess to everyone, including any gods that might exist that I cannot know whether or not they exist. And that's the only honest position I can possibly take. To make any other claim would be a lie. Including claiming that I know a God exists when the truth is that I don't.

Now you may think this contradicts my claim in this very thread that entropy proves that a God cannot be both eternal and intelligent simultaneously. But that's just an observation based on what humans have discovered about logic and reality.

Moreover, if the Buddhist are right God doesn't need to be both eternal and intelligent simultaneously. The God of Buddhism has no intelligence when it's not manifest as a physical world. It has no need for intelligent when its "sleeping" in a dreamless sleep. And the physical universe only exists when God dreams. God then becomes the universe in this way.

So ironically the God of Buddhism can exist even without entropy.

So that's yet another big plus for the God of Buddhism.

Also the God of Buddhism couldn't care less whether any humans claim to believe in God or not. That's simply not important to the God of Buddhism.

Only the jealous-God of the Hebrews get's all bent out of shape if someone refuses to acknowledge him and his authority.

Believing in a God is totally unnecessary.

In fact, I claim that anyone who needs to believe in a God in order to strive for righteousness is already necessarily an unrighteous person beneath that facade.

If a person can't be righteous without a God, then they aren't going to be righteous with one. At best, all they could hope to do is be pretentiously righteous in the hopes of fooling the God into thinking they are righteous, when in truth they aren't.

And why do I say that in truth they aren't? Well, because they can't be righteous without a God. That's pretty much a given by definition. And so that's ultimately who they truly are.

In short, if a person can't be good without God, then they aren't a good person. Period.

[mgb]

All it would mean is that you are comfortable in presuming that God approves of whatever happens to "Feel Good" to you. And you consider this "Good Feeling" about something to be God prompting you to recognize it as truth.

That is trivializing what I am saying. It is more than a 'good feeling', it is the best sense I can make of things and I have many reasons for thinking as I do.

So you are basically claiming that God has inspired you to proclaim to the world that the Bible is "heavily distorted".

But even bible scholars know it is. Like the Jews say 'The Torah is the interpretation of the Torah', meaning that it is not meant to be taken literally. It is to be understood under God's guidance. But even from a historical sense it cannot be literally true. It even has Moses writing about his own death, which is impossible. It is really only a sketch of Jewish history, not a religion.

In fact, I claim that anyone who needs to believe in a God in order to strive for righteousness is already necessarily an unrighteous person beneath that facade.

But theists don't generlly argue that they must believe if they are to be righteous. I don't think belief is necessary for a good life. But some people need to resolve these questions about God and what God wants of them. Some people feel it is a kind of vocation to believe in God. Each to his own...

[Guy Threepwood]

Also, there are people (myself included) who have chosen not to create any children precisely because there is no way to protect them from the hostile world in which we live

So do you wish your parents had done the same, or are you glad, grateful to them to be able to experience life?

As it turned out I was extremely lucky. I haven't had to experience any serious pain and suffering, especially not physical. At least not yet. But that was certainly the result of pure luck and not anything my parents had any control over. Not only that, but if Christianity is true I'm supposedly headed to eternal damnation for not believing in the absolute ignorance of Christian theology.

So yeah, if I actually do end up in an eternal state of torment I most certainly will be wishing that my parents had chosen not to create me.

As a Christian I would NEVER have any Children precisely because of that potential fate for them.

How horrible would it be to have a child only to discover that when you go to heaven your child ended up in hell? That would have to be the worst thing ever for an sane human. And let's not forget that this horrible fate is actually God's design.

Would you purposefully design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other in order to survive? I wouldn't.

I'd include benefits of competition and cooperation.

That wasn't the question. The question wasn't about the BENEFITS of competition. I asked if you would purposeful design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other to SURVIVE whether they are interested in competing or not.

You are very good ad evading the real issues aren't you?

So how can you compare parents with a creator God? There is no comparison.

the father gives the child life, free will, resources, skills, desire, inspiration, to go out and face the world, to learn and grow- knowing there are potentially both grave risks and glorious rewards waiting for them, hoping that they choose good, but knowing that 'good' is a choice among others...

Which am I talking about? a good parent or God?
I don't know either

What makes you say that such a parent would be "good"?

I disagree. Tossing someone into an environment that has grave risks and merely 'hoping' that they just happen to luck out and make good choices isn't a very wise thing to do, IMHO.

Especially not when far better alternatives are available for a truly omnipotent omniscient God.

Apparently you don't think very highly of your God's capabilities.

Although I'm not sure we can actually say that jellyfish don't have their own sense of comfort and discomfort. If they do, then this would be their judgment of what they consider to be "good" or "bad" even if they don't take the concept to the same level of abstraction that humans do

well quite, even if they do in some reduced form, they are not pondering the meaning of it. We are the only means we know of by which the universe literally ponders it's own existence and meaning.

maybe that's pure coincidence, and maybe not

It wouldn't be a 'coincidence', it would simply be the way things are. There is nothing to 'coincide' with.

This doesn't excuse a supposedly "Perfect God" for being malevolent.

again, exposing a child to life with all it's ups and downs, is 'malevolent' ?
or loving?

Designing a child that is ill-equipped to deal with the dangers would ineed be 'malevolent'. And only one example is sufficient to show that the creator of humans is therefore malevolent. And there are far more than one example to be had, unfortunately.

Think about Adolph Hitler (one of God's Children), not only did this child fall prey to the hazards of this world, but according to what most Christians believe he was then cast into an eternal hell of torture.

What kind of a parent was God to Hitler. Huh? Not a good parent at all.

No, most parents to not refuse to grant their children their every wish because they love them. They refuse to grant them their every wish because they simply don't have the resources to grant them.

In fact, wealthy people grant their children far more of what their children want than poor people do simply because they can.

which kid is happier?

There are no constants. Some kids who were given everything they ever wanted turned out to do great things and become happy productive adults. Other's have no done so well.

Same is true for kids who had parents who couldn't give them much of anything. In fact, history shows that criminal behavior tends to breed at a far higher rate in places where children are raised by very poor families.

So your question is meaningless. The happiness of someone is not directly dependent one how much their parents were able to provide for them. And, in truth, kids who were given a better start in life have historically tended to end up being happier too.

So the historical answer to your question "which kid is happier?' appears to be the ones who are given the best resources to work with.

Again, if this is your excuse for why a supposed Creator God wouldn't help his children succeed in life fails miserably.

Well, there you go. Your God has to have this ability yet refuses to use it to restore health and comfort to his children who have been seriously injured.

after a certain age- you don't bandage your kid's finger, you hope they can not only do it themselves, but for other people

Why keep talking about what inept selfish human parents might do?

How is that supposed to excuse the bad behavior of an omnipotent Creator God?

But let's imagine you are God, you create a world where you cure every single injury and ailment with a magic wand, as if they never existed.

Just think it through; what happens to empathy? kindness? caring for each other? - never mind all the advancements we have made in medicine, technology to solve problems for ourselves

we know we are delicate, fleeting, vulnerable, children especially

Jellyfish do not feel empathy, they can do nothing to intentionally benefit one another

not even a hug, a smile, an 'I Love you' -

would you trade yet?

I wouldn't need to. It's a false dichotomy.

You are pretending that a God would need to be as inept and incapable as you imagine. Why should I accept your limitations on what an omnipotent omniscient God could do?

Moreover, you surely can't be arguing for the God of "Christianity", because Christianity includes a concept of a "Perfect Heaven", the Kingdom of God, that is perfect.

According to your argument no such place can exist as it would be devoid of love, empathy, and fulfillment.

Therefore you have just made the perfect argument AGAINST Christianity.

You can't argue that a perfect world is impossible and claim to be supporting Christianity in the same breath. That's an oxymoron.

You are pretending that a God would need to be as inept and incapable as you imagine. Why should I accept your limitations on what an omnipotent omniscient God could do?

Again, if a person declines to give a child a toy, which they can easily give them, but knows they don't need, is it because they are inept? or are they perhaps wise and loving, and want to ultimately give them something far greater?

Moreover, you surely can't be arguing for the God of "Christianity", because Christianity includes a concept of a "Perfect Heaven", the Kingdom of God, that is perfect.According to your argument no such place can exist as it would be devoid of love, empathy, and fulfillment.

Now we are getting somewhere! where did those souls in heaven come from? were they prohibited from ever knowing and learning about good AND evil? did they never get the chance to choose one over the other by their own free will?

[Divine Insight]

Again, if a person declines to give a child a toy, which they can easily give them, but knows they don't need, is it because they are inept? or are they perhaps wise and loving, and want to ultimately give them something far greater?

That's not a problem. Just give them something far greater and that will be just fine.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the God of Christianity condemns the majority of his children to hell.

Moreover, you surely can't be arguing for the God of "Christianity", because Christianity includes a concept of a "Perfect Heaven", the Kingdom of God, that is perfect.According to your argument no such place can exist as it would be devoid of love, empathy, and fulfillment.

Now we are getting somewhere! where did those souls in heaven come from? were they prohibited from ever knowing and learning about good AND evil? did they never get the chance to choose one over the other by their own free will?

If there is no evil in heaven they wouldn't need to learn to chose.

Moreover, in Christianity apparently a full third of God's angels in heaven didn't learn to choose good over evil and fell from grace with Satan.

So why bother creating a physical world when heaven is already a totally corrupt place?

If the angels couldn't learn anything by living in heaven, they most certainly aren't going to learn anything anywhere else.

So it's an extremely failed mythology.

Let's not forget too that if a third of God's angels where not happy in heaven then why should we think that humans would be any happier in heaven?

The whole theology makes no sense.

What does make sense is that authoritarian humans would make up this religion and use it to threaten people with social banishment or worse if they refuse to worship the religious authorities and obey their every commandments. And also threaten that the rebellious people will not only suffer their wrath but will also supposedly suffer the eternal wrath of their invisible angry jealous God.

Face it, there would be no reason for any truly intelligent supreme being to behave this way. The only way to accept this religion is to believe that we were created by a jealous egotistical moron who has absolutely no clue how to inspire decent people using productive intelligent methods.

I see no reason to believe that we were created by such a low-life.

If we're going to believe in a magical God there are far more intelligent religions to place our faith in.

That's a point worthy of consideration.

Christianities only answer to this question is that they God is such an egotistical jealous pig that he would become extremely irate if we were to dare choose a more intelligent religion.

But how utterly silly is that?

They have no choice but to create an ignorant monster God just to keep people from moving up to more intelligent religious paradigms.

That's the only argument they can offer for their jealous God.

All they can say is, "Either believe in our God or he'll hurt you!"

How silly is that?

You should run as fast as you can from any religion that makes a claim like that.

[Guy Threepwood]

If there is no evil in heaven they wouldn't need to learn to chose. Rolling Eyes

To summarize:

Good and evil are defined by each other.

No knowledge of evil = no knowledge of good

no choice = no goodness

[Divine Insight]

If there is no evil in heaven they wouldn't need to learn to chose. Rolling Eyes

To summarize:

Good and evil are defined by each other.

No knowledge of evil = no knowledge of good

no choice = no goodness

Then like I say, this eliminates the possibility of the Christian heaven as being a place where there is no evil.

So you'll need to chose another religious theology at this point.

Not only this but you have also vindicated Adam and Eve. Since they had no knowledge of evil before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they also could not have a knowledge of good either. (by your own argument)

Therefore they could not have even known that they were doing something wrong when they ate from this magical obviously fictional tree.

So move onto another theology. Christianity doesn't work.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, Buddhism recognizes the need for opposites to exist. But that doesn't lead to trying to pin the blame onto humans for just ONE of the opposite things that need to exist.

Also, if we're going to pin the blame onto humans for just ONE of the opposite things why not pin the blame for the existence of GOOD, on humans?

After all, what other animal species can recognize and choose to purposefully do "Good" things?

A lot of humans are concerned with the health and well-being of our planet. Those would then be "Good" humans.

Some other humans would rather pollute the planet for the sake of greedily making money. Those would be "Bad" humans.

So there you go. Some humans are good and some humans are bad.

And like Steven Weinberg has famously said:

"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg