What a marvelous example of someone pretending to know far more than he knows by simply manufacturing absurd facts on the fly!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who made God?
- Thread starter Pegg
- Start date
How could anyone call that absurd? Or manufactured even?
Very well. What do yo know about thermodynamics, neurochemistry, or informant theory that would lead you to believe that it was less than absurd?
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
What a marvelous example of someone pretending to know far more than he knows by simply manufacturing absurd facts on the fly!
Jayhawker! outta the past - to deliver the righteous smote to my man poly!
To be... ahem, objective, he may just be restating the mainstream viewpoint. As a former man of science, I can understand that compulsion.
"All things" within His own realm. There's more out there... you just have to expand your horizons.
You're thinking inside the box here, too. God created all that is within His dominion. Modern revelation tells us that.
He always existed, but not always as God. You need to expand your horizons, my friend. You're missing out on crucial information.
"All things" within His own realm. There's more out there... you just have to expand your horizons.
You're thinking inside the box here, too. God created all that is within His dominion. Modern revelation tells us that.
He always existed, but not always as God. You need to expand your horizons, my friend. You're missing out on crucial information.
I'm just curious as to what evidence you have to back up any of these claims. Scientists would be absolutely delighted if you could explain the evidence that supports your claim, could be lobel prize worthy.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You do know that special pleading is a logical fallacy.
CaptainBritain
Active Member
Dont worry about it, to the best of scientific understanding you are quite right, though it should not be hard to disprove your point, energy is natural and well within the realms of science to do experiments and test, anybody who wanted to prove the theory that energy had intelligence could simply come up with a test or a range of tests to demonstrate the claim and a range of predictions of what we would find in the future, though dont hold your breathe
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Intelligence is a matter of computation. Energy is a physical quantity, and thermodynamics tells us how energy moves around. The two are not directly related.
To be more specific about what Pegg said, there isn't such a thing as "intelligent energy." Intelligence is not a property of energy, nor vice-versa. Intelligence is a property of a computer, and a computer is a purely mathematical and abstract thing. A real computing machine requires continuous energy input, and "leaks" energy as output, but this is not inherently connected to the nature of any computation, such as intelligence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
But there are things you can be sure of.
First that leap of faith...life after death.
Then recognition of 'something' greater than you.
(top of the line life form...are you?....nothing greater?)
Did you create 'something' greater than yourself?.....you created God?
Then God came first.....Someone had to be First.
What makes you think it's a someone? Wouldn't the better statement be, Something had to happen. This way you haven't prejudiced yourself as to what answers you'll accept.
CaptainBritain
Active Member
Starting out with a conclusion and seeing what evidence will fit it is how its done....dont you know anything!!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
However you go about it...Someone had to be First.
See my topics....Intelligence First....
Again, NOT someone, something. You've already determined what you want the answer to be with that statement.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And how do you avoid....the First?
Physical substance first?
Then you are the sum of your chemistry and you fail when your chemistry fails.
More likely...intelligence first.
Your question is meaningless, until you demonstrate that having intelligence first is a requirement.
I mean the earth was here before us and it'll most likely be here long after, and as far as I'm aware, it's not intelligent as we would define it.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Go all the way back to the singularity and try that again.
Ok, are you saying that the singularity is intelligent? You realize that I'm going to ask you how you know that, right?