Who's on First?

[Greatcloud]

We are created in Gods image and he is alive. So the answer is life.

":^)

 

[pgp_protector]

Being a Christian i obviously voted life, as I believe God to BE life (in a sense), and that He always existed, always was, is and will be living.

Last I checked though God doesn't reproduce.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Last I checked though God doesn't reproduce.

He did once, but the offspring was infertile.

 

[tansy]

He did once, but the offspring was infertile.

No it wasnt..He produced many sons and daughters. ..born of the Holy Spirit..so there!

 

[tansy]

as for what we will find out, I kinda think we will find out the same thing we did before we are born....eternity can go by but you wont know it.

Oh well, we'll have to agree to differ on that

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No it wasnt..He produced many sons and daughters. ..born of the Holy Spirit..so there!

And the Merovingians! Ask Dan Brown, he'll explain it to you.

 

[Cabal]

And the Merovingians! Ask Dan Brown, he'll explain it to you.

Dan Brown should write some creation science. He'd be so good at it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Last I checked though God doesn't reproduce.

That's what happens when you first rule God out of the picture, then reduce empirical observation down to software, program a computer with it, then reject anything that the computer rejects.

You end up rejecting the wrong thing --- just because it gives your computer a 404.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

OK, voted "non-life". Whats the trick?

 

[AV1611VET]

We are created in Gods image and he is alive. So the answer is life.

Go vote, please.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Isn't life a physical property? Only found in things with cells? Is God composed of cells?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Go vote, please.

Mind telling us what this is about?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Isn't life a physical property? Only found in things with cells? Is God composed of cells?

Well, all known life is cell based, but the definition of "life" doesn't necessarily require it.

 

[Cabal]

That's what happens when you first rule God out of the picture, then reduce empirical observation down to software, program a computer with it, then reject anything that the computer rejects.

You end up rejecting the wrong thing --- just because it gives your computer a 404.

So you're saying God does reproduce?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're saying God does reproduce?

Cute.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Cute.

What's cute? pgp_protector said that God doesn't reproduce. You responded with a post essentially claiming that one arrives at this conclusion only when starting with false assumptions, indicating that God indeed reproduces. Now you're evading the question. There is no middle ground here. Either God reproduces or not.

 

[Cabal]

Cute.

Hey, I'm not the one dodging the question. Was the "computer" meant to show that God reproduced, if programmed correctly?

Because I'm having a hard time here seeing if you were able to address the point, or unable and hiding it with a daft analogy.

By the way, did you clarify which definition of "life" you're using? Because you ain't getting my vote without that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, I'm not the one dodging the question. Was the "computer" mean to show that God reproduced, if programmed correctly?

Plug Jesus walking on water into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug Jesus' resurrection into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug creatio ex nihilo into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Like I say --- you guys program these computers according to uniformitarian expectations, then cry because it 404s when a miracle is inputted.

 

[Cabal]

Plug Jesus walking on water into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug Jesus' resurrection into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug creatio ex nihilo into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Like I say --- you guys program these computers according to uniformitarian expectations, then cry because it 404s when a miracle is inputted.

Yeah, that's nice, empiricism and miracles don't mix, we get it.

Does God reproduce, then? I really don't want to have to point out the flaws in this tactic again.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Plug Jesus walking on water into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug Jesus' resurrection into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug creatio ex nihilo into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Like I say --- you guys program these computers according to uniformitarian expectations, then cry because it 404s when a miracle is inputted.

Miracles aren't necesarily contrary to natural laws... just not obviously mechanistic in their initial observation. See also Clarke's law.

I see no reason why God, with access to infinite energy and processing power, should necessarily break his own laws to perform the miraculous.