Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Nov 11, 2017.
You say you are not insisting on anything, and then in your next paragraph you insist.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What exactly am I insisting?
That the existence of physical laws negate any sentience since, ya know, we can't enact physical laws.
I am not insisting that at all.
Then why point to the existence of physical laws as an argument that negates a sentient precursor?
I know what I wrote. Nothing of what you said follows from what I said.
Make a point already, or step aside.
Maybe you think you wrote something else, but for the rest of us mere mortals, we have no option other than to go by what you post. Presenting physics/divine sentience as mutually exclusive is a pretty clear dichotomy.
It is Bowser's assertion that God is actively manipulating planets and atoms today.
Our understanding of science says that planets are operated by gravity, which we understand to have been in existence and unchanging since the dawn of time. Same with atoms.
So, if Bowser's assertion were true (that God is actively moving things today - not that he say, set them up 13 billion years ago and let them run on their own) then our understanding the universe could not be right.
I'm simply asking Bowser if he is aware of the implications of his assertion.
So God has no other means of exhibiting being "active" other than to do it in the all too familiar manner of "fumbling around".
Again, don't put words in my mouth.
Go back and read Bowser's assertion - post 474. I simply presented some examples as questions. He said he thinks those are God.
Bowser replied "He is that and more."
I guess you missed the "more" bit, and simply proceeded with the "that", and gave us your run down on being active according to the limits of physics .... which is of course the limit of our conditioned experience.
This led to the query why you are insisting on using such a questionable yardstick in this discussion.
About 3 posts earlier to yours Capracus kind of hit the nail on the head. If you read that first it might have saved you the trouble of barking up a tree that the cat never even ran up.
I didn't miss it. "More" just makes the assertion worse.
Still missing the point here. You are over-interpreting my words.
I am simply pointing out that our understanding of planets and atoms says one thing, and Bowser's belief says another.
If he thinks that God is actively moving the planets now (i.e. today, not set up 14 billion years ago) then that is in direct conflict with our understanding.
I make no assertions except the logical implications of his belief.
If you interpret "more" as an invitation to do a roll call of physical laws, you certainly did miss it.
As already pointed out, other posters did not miss it.
I think you need to step back and read a little more of the thread. I think you've jumped in at my post, without bothering to look at the context.
On the contrary, I don't think you understand the nature of the question being asked, much less what is being offered as an answer.
You can see Capracuses reply, a few posts before yours, for further hints.
god puts intelligence in life .
Not the abrahamic god
But a being who expands its self into life . An expression of intelligence which is expressed in evolution of all living beings .
Inotherwords , the Universe is based on a being which spreads its' intelligence in all living things.
Sometimes good , sometimes bad .
A YouTube comment : I bet gods bored as f**k if he does exist, dude knows everything there is to know and he's done everything it's possible to do an infinite number of times, bet he wished he could just die and escape the eternal drudgery.
If absolute God exist then He must have an absolute Reference frame.
Only from this absolute Reference frame God can create the universe
using physical / math laws, formulas, equations.
Separate names with a comma.