Summations Only

(quotes are from 2004 topic as well as current topic. Source will be noted.)To start with, I am theological by belief, though allowing for philosophy rather than undefined orthodoxy. In other words, I try and use logic when at all possible. In order to discuss such a topic as this, we need to concede that God exists. Those disagreeing with that belief can't really engage in this debate...since Buzsaw is using his belief as one of the initial argumentative points. Thus, God is allowed, but I maintain that since we are discussing closed systems, human wisdom is our only source for defining Gods characteristics.Any sort of divine revelation or rhema word of knowledge simply cannot be considered ...in fairness to all participants. (Unless we all agree, of course.)Personally, I am in favor of using the Bible to describe or define the God we are agreeing to. Again, however, humans disagree on many points. We need to keep this in mind and agree to disagree.OK, now for my 2 cents as I jump into waters I have not swam in before. First, I want to elaborate on my point that human wisdom is all we have to define supernatural characteristics. What other source could we possibly use? Buz, I know you will argue that the Holy Scriptures will provide these answers, and welcome your contributions regarding this matter. I am not sure that we can put God in a box. To say that He is part of a closed system sends alarm bells to my intellect.In 2004, Buz, you quoted Dr.Grote Reber.

quote:

---

Time is merely a sequence of events. There is no beginning nor ending. The material universe extends beyond the greatest distances we can observe optically or by radio means. It is boundless. The energy from hot material is recycled by electrodynamic (not thermodynamic) means. The material from dying galaxies is recycled into new galaxies. Details of material and energy distribution change on a small scale. Over any large volume and long time the gross features of the universe remain stable. I am not offering a finished product. I am attempting to instill thinking about the Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe.

---

Keep in mind, however, that if we include God in this closed system known as "all that there is, seen and unseen" that we would be drifting more from monotheism into pantheism.Jar argued that in a closed system, an infinite A cannot transfer energy to B without adding energy to the system. (essentially an infinity+1 math argument) My observation is that in a closed system, if A is infinite there is no B. Only A. (Pantheism)We measure the size of the universe in light years. The distance that light travels and the time that it takes to get from point A to point B. The paradox of infinity in regards to the universe is that light theoretically travels an infinite distance between one point in the object to another point in the object. Yet we can only measure in terms of finite reality.Buz, I noted your arguments in 2004. I cant disagree with them nor prove them in any way. For now, we are in a state of philosophy regarding these hypothesis.Feel free to explain what more you may have learned since 2004.

Can you (or anyone) explain to me what the 3Lot's are? Im not much of a science guy. And the wonderful thing about this topic being in free for all is that all sides can use whatever argument, scripture, or law that they choose to support their basic assertions. Just so I'm clear on this: Is the infinite energy the mass of the universe itself? Is it GOD?(Jehovah) Im well aware that the content of A is infinite. My question regards the source of creative energy. One would think that an Intelligent Designer would have full access to all of the energy needed. Need this energy be infinite or merely "very great"? Perhaps a better question is this: Is "infinite source A" the ONLY source of energy within the closed system? If so, I would argue that source A is playing games with itself, as it has all of the energy anyway, regardless what it claims to assign to subset B, C, or D. Edited by Phat, : clarification---NOT jars position

You have now introduced the non ID side of the argument.Namely, that an Intelligent Designer may have, but need not have created the universe. You have now switched the source, however, to human wisdom.My question regards the topic assertion that cavedivers universe is not only in no need of an intelligent designer, but is also temporary.This whole idea of temporary is somewhat unsettling. I suppose that we, being temporary lifeforms, can dare make assumptions about an eternal universe. Oh well....

An Intelligent Designer is a belief, not a fact. the hypothesis is that such a designer exists. There are no facts to prove or disprove such a hypothesis. I could ask you what you hope to prove by claiming such a designer fictional.Bottom line: Neither of us can prove anything. That's why this discussion is in the free for all section. It is not scientific and it is open to any theory, fantasy, or belief.My belief is that God exists. God existed before any human had a brain developed enough to even think of Him. Humans have reasoning capacities, to be sure, but we are of a finite wisdom, and it is hubris to try and theorize the development of a universe without considering at least the possibility of a designer. We are talking of quantities and distances that are infinite, as far as we know, and we simply do not have the computing nor rational capacity to conclude anything at this point.Edited by Phat, : added