wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I mean laws the control gods or that gods
> must obey...
>
> Those would be the "natural laws". Be definition,
> gods (forces!) make and control all the natural
> laws.
Why should forces be equated with gods, who have a consiousness? Forces do not have to have a consiousness, and are most often perceived not to have a consciousness. Presumbably gods do or why pray to them?
> > Prove it, and good luck...
>
> Joanne, the rational is actually very simple!
> First chaos is disorder. Therefore, since "order"
> seems to emerge from chaos via the various natural
> laws, then, by definition the gods (forces) must
> use such natural laws to bring structure and order
> into the Universe from the chaos...
Again, you assume facts not in evidence. Why should we think gods = forces, as opposed to gods control forces? I was asking you to prove the existence of gods and also their nature. That's why I said "good luck."
>
> In other words, there is no evidence that gods
> operate outside nature and its natural laws...
>
> > > Why do you assume that Gods can do
> anything?
> >
> > If not, what's the point of being a god? You
> get blamed for a lot; there ought to be
> > some perks...
>
> Well, I suppose that my definition of a god is
> then different than yours!
Yes, I think it is.
> Either case, I think
> that the "perks" are the fact that they (the gods)
> can manipulate and control the natural laws by
> modulating or changing the intensity and duration
> of the various forces...
How do you know that? Many religions conceive of gods or god as being above natural law, i.e., not subject to natural law. Some have argued that natural disasters are not the will of god, but simply a force of nature that god or gods permit (but presumably could control if that was wished). Anyway, if you concede that a perk is the ability to manipulate or control natural laws, that itself is different than being subject to those laws.
>
> That is also the rawest and most basic definition
> of intelligence...
>
> > > If they could, then why don't they just
> do it?
> >
> > What makes you think they don't just do it?
> Evidence, please.
>
> Well, I could ask you the same. What evidence do
> you have please that they "just do it"!? vs. they
> "DON'T just do it"!? in terms of working outside
> the natural laws?
You asked first, and I asked you in return to show you (I hope) that it is an unanswerable question.
> > No, one only has to try to explain what one
> conceives. If the universe is sacred,
> > one has to understand the gods and their
> will. If the universe is mechanical and
> > is controlled by natural laws, then one can
> attempt to understand those laws.
>
> Well, I prefer to not disassociate the gods from
> us since we all share NATURE! Meaning that even if
> the Universe was just "mechanical", for anything
> mechanical to work with some sort of intelligence,
> then THERE HAS TO BE AN OPERATING SYSTEM
> (software, code) and once that is the case, then
> there has to also be some "source code", even if
> it is a very simple and straight forward source
> code!
>
> So, by definition, the source code, comes from the
> source and hence there is also "a source", even in
> a mechanical Universe! So, you and I just cannot
> escape from it. Those are the simple facts...
You are entitled to your own beliefs about this. However, what you say here aren't facts; they're opinion.
> > Not all people in all cultures see things as
> you do. That's my point.
>
> Yes, group reality is different places and
> cultures. But we can still try to communicate!
Agreed.