Can God Think?

[greylorn]

You cannot give what you do not have. We received the gift of thought. From Whom?

Interesting perspective. Thanks!

 

[LindaSK]

Can Greylorn Think?

This is actually a perfect answer. We are created in God’s image.

 

[yppop]

YP,
I did not peruse your entire post because of the error in your first statement, “The Big Bang Theory establishes a beginning for the universe and hence the existence of a Creator”.

The Big Bang Theory establishes a beginning for the universe and hence the existence of a Creator. That statement represents one of two alternatives for creation: there is a Creator or there is some kind of quantum event. The quantum event leads to an infinite-regress; whereas, the Creator leads to infinite nothingness, which can be imagined at least. The argument that the big bang implies a creator is a commonly recognized idea, especially to those who reject it.

I did review your post, which sounds like ideas taken from “Our Undiscovered Universe”

I assure you that I did not steal any ideas from that book — in fact, I had never heard of it — and I think it is impertinent for you to suggest as much.

“Gaps in space,” has potential, but not if the best you can do is present it as an unsubstantiated assertion.

Singling out “gaps in space” and calling it an unsubstantiated assertion leads me to believe that you might not be familiar with the nature of the real number line. Had you asked I would have told you that discrete space, by definition is rife with gaps? In order for Richard Dedekind to define continuity, he had to fill the “gaps” left by the rational numbers with the irrational and transcendental numbers.

What is difficult is the translation of ideas into concepts which others (never everyone) can understand. That is very difficult, as you will learn if you have the courage to continue.

I don’t need any more evidence than your post, to learn that not everyone will understand; you have just given me a shining example of failure to do so! What’s with the courage bit? No courage is needed; what I don’t have is the time to waste dealing with censorious discussions.

Your synopsis doesn’t make sense to me, Be prepared for the possibility that your ideas are not yet ready for primetime.

I appreciate that you’ve written 125 pages about your ideas. That is a good start. I began while you were in your previous lifetime, with a prospective book cranked out on a typewriter built in 1927, 107 pages. I submitted it to publishers and have the rejection slips to prove it.

Since then I’ve written 70,000 pages describing my brilliant insights into the nature and purpose of the universe, subsequently discarding 99%l of the words and most of my ideas.

A synopsis isn’t intended to make sense, but merely to outline the sequence of ideas that are to be explained in the body of the text. When I alluded to the 125 written pages, I was merely indicating the size of the argument needed to explain what was presented in the synopsis. It wasn’t intended as a measure of my writing proficiency especially since you saw fit to trump it with your 70,000 pages (hyperbole, of course?).

Inventing ideas about the origin and purpose of the universe is a worthy challenge, but given your hastily composed synopsis of ideas, don’t expect a whole lot of admiration from someone who’s been there and done that.

No admiration asked for! Hastily composed? Not a very subtle with your impertinence, are you?. You may have been there and done that, but 99% is in the garbage can whereas the book I am writing still has legs.

Continue your efforts to understand the universe, but get your first sentences right. Initiate a science vs. religion thread when you are qualified to do so, The prerequisites are clear. The first is that, as a father and husband, you understand the minds of your children and teach them what they need to learn, not what you have been taught. The second is that you cherish your wife. If she is ever alone in bed while you are expressing your opinions on the internet, one of you is in the wrong place.

Can you not see that what you may intend as advice is nothing more than unadulterated condescension. I am a 75 year old retired engineer with two physics degrees, who worked with the science of semiconductors (not as a technician) for thirty-five years. I am an avid reader (30 books a year) of science, mathematics, philosophy, and history. When do you suggest I might be “qualified to do so”?

For your information, I don’t think I need much advice for raising a family. My wife and I are in our fifty-first year of a very happy marriage. We raised 8 well adjusted and happy children, all of whom were members of the National Honor Society and graduated from a four year college. Seven of my children are happily married, the oldest for 25 years, and the youngest for nearly ten years. The unmarried child, my middle son is a Catholic priest, a monsignor and a canon lawyer. My children and their spouses are all, with the exception of one son-in-law, practicing Catholics, and he is very supportive. Two of our son-in-laws and a daughter-in-law are converts. We also have 22 well adjusted and intelligent grandchildren ranging in age from 3 to 25. The foundation for successfully rearing our large vibrant family is our Catholic religion. I hope you as many blessings as I have be fortunate to receive.

As a model for the expression of complex ideas, I recommend Michael Behe, also a Roman Catholic.

I’ve read Behe; I know who he is; I 've read his books.

Primum vivere, deinde philosophe

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

The Big Bang Theory establishes a beginning for the universe and hence the existence of a Creator. That statement represents one of two alternatives for creation: there is a Creator or there is some kind of quantum event. The quantum event leads to an infinite-regress; whereas, the Creator leads to infinite nothingness, which can be imagined at least.

There is no logical relationship between your reiteration of Big Bang dogma and the existence of a Creator. If you believe that there is, why not detail it?

Exactly what kind of “quantum event” do you know of which leads to an “infinite regress?” Sounds like made-up stuff. Your statement that the “Creator leads to infinite nothingness,” does not mean anything.

Serious scientists who produce the bulk of mainstream science do not find that Big Bang theory implies a Creator. Perhaps you know some people who have taken a physics course and who believe in God. Have any of them published? If so, what level of credibility have their publications achieved?

I happen to believe in a Creator, and I think that Big Bang theory is absurd. Nonetheless, thank you for your unsupported assertion.