.

Dear Oliver,

.

"Can God create a better designer, more capable than himself? Or is god constrained by laws of entropy?"

In other words "can god surpass himself, his own limits?" Or, "what are his limits?"

For what it is worth, my opinion is that the limits of god are those of the limits of imagination of each and every one of us.

They vary from zero for a large proportion of humanity to something quite inordinate in the case of people like Paul Davies, the physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, monotheist and popular author of science fiction.

Forgive me for being so banal.

"One above god" may possibly be able to come up with a number though I am not sure his computer has the necessary capacity.

We shall just have to wait and see.

.

Hey Oliver, sorry I didn't think your response required a response. I try not to respond just for the sake of argument, generally.
I understand the distinction your Polanyi makes, I think; between a 'fact' (apparently defined as a 'universally, intrinsically, indisputably accepted datum) and a 'declarative sentence'. This of course begs the question: can there be such an critter, as these 'facts'?
I seem to recall pondering this question when I was about 14, or so (and thinking myself very deep, for so doing). This was long before I had even heard of Heisenberg, who eventually gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
"Indwelling", from your usage of the term, I hazard to define as 'preferring or having a bias towards my own theories, as compared to your theories'.
Again, with respect, hardly revelatory stuff, although I freely admit I'm probably missing the subtle nuances of Polanyi's argument.
But then I always cease to be amazed by people who use big words to make more profound some fairly basic questions.
I refer of course to Polanyi here, rather than your good self, Oliver, whose posts I have always found interesting.
As to the question of "Can the Creator create something greater than himself", don't we do that on a regular basis?
We build boats that can negotiate water better than we can, cars that can travel faster than we can, computers that can process data faster...
I'm still wondering what it is that we can do, that a putative Creator can't.
"What are we for" has to be the most basic question of all.

Dear OUG,

You wrote: "its easy to grasp that of god...its ALL GOOD
any vile...isnt of god"

The above is not what the Bible says. Everything comes God according to the Bible, bad and good. If not you are assuming there is another creator.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

However, I appreciate your talent. You have elevated confusion to an art form.

dear david..my artform...that you call con-fusion..comes about because...most of my life...things seemed so certain...in time i realised that certainty...was because we dont get the right answers[even if the question is right]

the difference betwixt us is that...you still claim certainty..you still believe in santa clause[satan/claws]..you still accept the spin

you believe the science...yet the science...has been...is being used to blind us....evolution is a scam...as in species...evolving out of genus...

but being based on species/evolving.;.it rests/superficially..on science..but then goes the broad/brush of spin..when that is expoliated as genus/evolving

its much the same re/god...or the bible..or law..or poli-tricks..to exzemplar...law..is based on some constitution/document..that establishes courts...but these courts...are civil...[ie contract law...and criminal...where there is a victim]

but what is the use ex-plain-ing....that a constitution/autherises...servants power...powers...and limitations...

to limit the servant...claiming the statuted power...not the citisen...autherising the power's...

eg..[income/tax...does not include wages...they are wages...earned..via work...whereas income=gain made via no input]....

..civil servants need licences...not the people

but whats the use ex-plaining..to one with such/deluded certainty...so as to thing the for-rest...is just for trees

ditto the bi=two/books..they talk of the lord...and talk of god
the lord of these realms...is the lord of which they speak..[not god]

where issiah speaks of light..it speaks of earthy/earthly light
gods light is the outer realms...the heavens...dealing in matters of spirit...

whereas the lord of these realms...deals in the matters of matter/..flesh...noting one...cannot serve two masters...

i make myself clear..by obeying the call of love...
the inner of the creator;sustaining alm living from within...the ..gace/mercy..good/god..the living loving the spirit

let the dead...lead the dead...its like the blind leading the blind
i moved beyiond the two books...and read many more...

try reading swedenberg..[a scientist..or the secret of life/glakhovsky..a/scientist].or the changing universe/john pfeiffer..waves that heal/mark clemmet..through space and time..sir james jeans..proceeding ofroyal/society..of medicine..vol27,part2..

heck just chose to remain ignorant
its a heck of a lot easier for me

CJ Morgan,
Have you reverted to believing that Wikipedia is authoritative?

Bugsy,
You said you don't think you'll get into much discussion on this one. But here we go again. You’ve thrown out the challenge, and it’s a not a bad one.

You’ve said there lots of research that uses evolution theory as a basis. Can you show where evolution is producing anything useful that exceeds what would be achieved by using a design framework?

Hi Dan. I've already said that I don't regard Wikipedia as authoritative. Do you have a memory problem?

That last article to which I referred is from the Courier Mail, not Wikipedia - and no, I don't regard it as "authoritative" either. It does, however report the news reasonably accurately, and that was a news story.

I think that moving Creationism/ID from the Science curriculum to the Ancient History curriculum would be a good move for Qld schools, assuming the report is accurate.