Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[Guy Threepwood]

Then like I say, this eliminates the possibility of the Christian heaven as being a place where there is no evil.

That's why heaven is not granted, it's a choice- that you make here on Earth, where you know both good and evil, and are given the free will to choose between them.

[Divine Insight]

Then like I say, this eliminates the possibility of the Christian heaven as being a place where there is no evil.

That's why heaven is not granted, it's a choice- that you make here on Earth, where you know both good and evil, and are given the free will to choose between them.

A failed theology. Adam and Eve weren't given a fair choice. They had no clue what the difference was (by your own definition)

So again, gotta move over to Buddhism if you want a sound theology.

[Swami]

Knowledge comes through many sources; science cannot tell someone what it is like to jump out of a plane (with or without a parachute). It has to be experienced to be known. Science cannot know what it is like to compose a symphony; it has to be directly experienced to be known. There are many ways to knowledge. It is either narrow minded or arrogant to say 'our way is the only way'.

Agreed!! I think Bertrand Russel's essay captures this point:

Mysticism and Logic.

These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8).

I think the way of intuition can really fall under the subjective aspects of knowing that you bring up. I also brought this point up in one of my other threads on meditation.

[AgnosticBoy]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

Please forgive the late response, but I'm a bit leery about claims of impossibility that are based on the laws of nature. The only things that are impossible in my view are things that violate the laws of logic (i.e. the law of non-contradiction). My reasoning is that while we know about some of the laws of nature, however, we don't know the nature of these laws. For instance, you might say that someone can't come back from the dead because of law x. But if that law was different, then you could say otherwise. In other words, the laws of nature don't have to be the way they are or there's nothing to show that they have to. They could be conditional, change over time, be based on computer code and can therefore be modified with the keystroke of a keyboard, etc.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Divine Insight in post #1]

You also just proved the universe can't exist, unless, at some point, the second law of thermodynamics was not in effect.

[William]

[Replying to Divine Insight in post #1]

Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal.

Why can't there be both intelligent eternal and intelligent non-eternal systems?

Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question" makes a good case for that.