Re: If ID were true, what would that tell us about the designer's

On 5 Nov, 21:46, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
spintronic wrote:

As man moves towards advancement, he also *must* work toward eficienct
use of his resorces.
Why would a more advanced persona do less?

Because the more advanced persona is supposedly omnipotent. He's not
using resources. He can poof anything he likes out of nothing.

Where do you ever get such silly ideas?

Because the higher intelligence is supposedly omnipotent,

You have a dim view of omnipotentcy, perhaps too many x-men comics,
(though I love heroes).

You seem to believe that, the more powerful a person, the less he has
to care about breaking rules.

No. I'm just using the definition of omnipotence,

Whose definition? And is the person who has defined this word an
"expert" in omnipotency?


which you might want to look up.

Why would I do such a silly thing? If your definition "breaks" the
laws of physics, it is obviously wrong.

It doesn't mean "very powerful". Now if you would like to
argue that the supposed creator is not omnipotent, just very powerful,
please indicate your intention to do so.

If by very powerful, you mean this person can manipulate the laws of
this universe, then yes, that takes power.
E=mc2 is actually reffered to. "due to the abundance of power the
stars exist".

Stephen Hawking sometimes uses what he thinks is a clever paradox.

"Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?".

I think this is a silly paradox.

Its like asking "can such a being create two electromagnet so
powerful, that he cannot pull them apart"?

Yes & No. You can make such a magnet, but then again you can just
switch them off.


for such a being there is no such thing as either efficiency or waste.

Why?

Because of the definition of "omnipotent".

Again, "whose" definition, and what qualification makes him an expert
in such a field?

If you can do anything, you can create completely different species out of nothing without effort as
easily as you can create species that are similar to pre-existing ones.

Sure you could. I could also speak fluent manderin in front of my 6
year old, do you think he would learn anything,
by such arrogant behaviour?


Since nothing requires any effort, there is no such thing as "more effort".

Who ever said that?

It's part of the meaning of "omnipotent". God can poof anything into
existence at any time. It's as easy to create a new universe as it is to
turn water into wine. All the same if you can do anything.

I dont agree. You may think the 2 events as miraculous, but they both
have to obay the laws of physics.

No they don't. An omnipotent being, by definition, doesn't have to obey
the laws of physics.

If such a being created the laws of physics in this universe, then
controling them is not breaking them. There is even talk of man
creating "universe bubbles", if he controls the bubble is he breaking
the laws of physics?.




Is it a miracle that men create plutonium in atomic reactors??

Which is easiest, "plutonium" or synthesising some "protein"?

At this moment in time, prob plutonium. That does not mean the energy
requirements are less!

An omnipotent being has no energy requirements. He has infinite energy
at his didposal, so a trillion joules is no greater proportion of his
energy supply and a trillionth of an erg would be. Nor is the concept of
energy use at all meaningful to such a being.

Maybe, but the cardinality of infinity, doesnt mean it is not made up
of discreate units.



Thus if all species were separately created by an omnipotent being, he could
indeed reinvent the hammer every time he knocked a nail in. Why not?

That would be "unnecessary".

There is no such thing as "necessary" or "unnecesary" if you're omnipotent.

Why?

That's what "omnipotent" means.

By whose definition?



It would be no more work to make a new hammer appear every time than it
would be to save a hammer from nail to nail.

Not in this universe!

I agree, because nobody in this universe is omnipotent.

You have proof?

I have evidence, but since you don't seem to know the meaning of the
word "omnipotent", there seems no point.

I don't agree with a definition, that one man came up with, which he
couldn't possibly know anything about.

Would you agree with a witch doctor, if he told you he could remove
your brain tumor?


I am in no way a creationist, but if you ever read genesis, it says
"let us create man" *After* everything else was created!
How does that contradict what you know?

It's clear that the god of Genesis is not omnipotent. He's some kind of
powerful wizard. But he has to work with pre-existing materials. He has
to make Adam out of dust, and finds it easier to make Eve out of a rib
than to make her from dust too.

No, he first created the heavens and then the earth. So by extension,
creating "man" out of the dust, is akin to making hamburgers out of
the cow you just bread!

The you're proposing a breaded cow? Is that chicken-fried steak? This
doesn't seem to be a response to my statement.

I dont understand that last statement, but let me simplify your
earlier argument.

If someone created some rock, make concrete and then build a house.
How is that relying on preexisting materials, since you made them in
the first place?



By the way, man comes after the other animals in the first story, but
the animals come after man in the second story (the Adam & Eve one).

You will have to cite, as far as I see it,

In Genesis 1, Man is created on day 6, and the other animals are created
either on previous days or on day 6 but before man. Agreed? Now look at
Genesis 2: God creates Adam, but Adam is lonely, so God creates various
animals to be his companions. None of them is satisfactory, though. So
finally he creates Eve. Thus the Genesis 2 sequence is 1) male human
Gen. 2:7), 2) animals (Gen. 2:19), 3) female human (Gen. 2:21-22).

Or could that be, that he was still working? He rested the next day!


There is 1 story and 1 redefinition. A common habbit in literiture, do
you want me to cite examples?

No.

Yes!



Sometimes 2 contradictory statements are actually in unison, when read
in the correct context!

Or sometimes they're just contradictory.

Just saying so is useless. Cite!

I just did. By the way, I find it interesting that someone who claims
not to be a creationist is so interested in Genesis.

I find it more interesting that an evolutionist is so well versed in
biblical accounts.

Let me redefine, a creationist believes that the universe and
everything in it was created in 6 days. That is just plain wrong.


It's further analagous to"repetetive" elements in DNA.
I'm sure if you read the "source code" for Vista, there are millions
of "repetetive elements".

This is one of the dumber of all computer analogies, and doesn't fit the
idea of nested hierarchy anyway.

Well calling it dumb "obviously" makes you right and me wrong!

Woops! wrong universe, you are just stuck with me and an analogy you
agree with but are biting your lip over!

Repetitive elements have nothing to do with the point we were arguing
about.

But they are analagous.

Only in that they are repetitive. That's an analogy that has nothing to
do with the subject.

They are repetetive.


And genetic repetitive elements (retroviral insertions or
descendants of retroviral insertions) have nothing to do with repeated
bits of code in Windows, if indeed there are any.

Let me assure there are!

And let me further assure you that if its good enough for software
developers??

You know the rest!

No. I have no idea what the rest would be.- Hide quoted text -

I notice you did not argue. They are repetetive!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... the christians, they are not an old man with a beard and they do not ... But the laws of physics cannot beGodas you define him to be. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... you have zero proof of any existence of yourgod. ... But the laws of physics cannot beGodas you define him to be. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: If ID were true, what would that tell us about the designers
    ... laws of physics, it is obviously wrong. ... argue that the supposed creator is not omnipotent, just very powerful, ... It's as easy to create a new universe as it is to ... Andrew you are not doing so good. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... you have zero proof of any existence of your god. ... According to the anthropic principle the laws of physics have ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... omnipotent and were our creator. ... But the laws of physics cannot beGodas you define him to be. ... spirit, and no one has ever seen Him. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading