Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God, The Supernatural And the Three Laws
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 147 (167671)
12-13-2004 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by General Nazort
12-13-2004 1:04 AM


Re: Natural World
I am asking about the natural world, not the universe. Why should God have to follow natural laws if he is supernatural and created the natural world?
You're missreading me. Please tell me where you think I have said God must follow natural laws. Go to my op.
1. True or false? The Biblical texts cited in my op involve what we consider to be the supernatural.
2. True or false? One or more of the three natural td laws were violated in the text events cited in my op.
I have not contended that God must follow what we consider to be natural laws. I have hypothesized that the observable td laws which we consider to be natural also appear to be applicable to the Biblical spiritual as well. I don't see what you people consider to be so crazy about this hypothesis. I'm not asking anyone to believe in the supernatural, but if it does exist, why do members think it's cool and proper to insult and belittle another poster for bringing up this possibility for discussion by the group?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by General Nazort, posted 12-13-2004 1:04 AM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by General Nazort, posted 12-13-2004 1:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 142 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2004 1:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 143 by Admin, posted 12-13-2004 3:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 137 of 147 (167673)
12-13-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buzsaw
12-12-2004 2:20 PM


God is not subject to natural law
Buzz writes:
Now that I'm caught up on responses, I've been thinking about this discussion about God, the supernatural and 2ltd relative to the sabbath day, as initiated in Genesis one. Genesis one states that after God finished his work involving six creation days, he rested on the sabbath/7th day. This's interesting, relative to his power. It appears to implicate that God's entropy did, as per 2ltd, increase to the point of having need of a rest day for resustenance to his desired power maintenance. This also seems to indicate that there is an ebb and flow of energy and entropy between God, the creator and his created universe.
Again, this speaks of pantheism. God no more needs to rest than does any Omnipotant Deity.
(Is there any others?)An Omnipotant being cannot "lose" energy. The fact that He rested in the Bible is a good question to ask of a Biblical Literalist. When you tie in the energy exchange as an ebb and flow between Creator and creation, you cross over into pantheism by definition.
pantheism \pan-the-i-zem\ n : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe pantheist \-ist\ n pantheistic \pan-the-is-tik\ adj
God may well have rested as Jesus may well have felt energy leave Him. You of all people should know that God is not a finite and limited source. There is no ebb and flow. There is only flow.
From a monotheistic perspective, that is. If God lost some of His energy when He created the Universe, this would be a pantheistic fact.
If He did not, it would be in line with classic monotheism.
Here is where you suggest that God(or Jesus) may be incorporated within and subject to the natural law:
Buzz writes:
Correct me if mistaken, but aren't energy and heat related? I've read some definitions of the 2nd law where energy is applicable. The unhealty person lacked energy. Power/energy proceeded forth from Jesus, the powerful one and entered into the weak one who lacked energy, effecting a measure of equalibrium of energy. Thus we see the 2nd law satisfied, do we not?
Maybe your belief is different from mine, but if you are a Christian, stick to the absoluteness of your theology. Don't try and explain God through the laws that He created. He is unprovable in all measure of science. He is not subject to some puny law that He made. When He rose from the Dead, He broke numerous natural laws. There is no reason to suggest that He is neatly within a natural explanation.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-13-2004 10:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2004 2:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by MrHambre, posted 12-13-2004 10:53 AM Phat has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 138 of 147 (167688)
12-13-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Phat
12-13-2004 9:57 AM


When Is a Miracle Not a Miracle?
Phatboy states:
quote:
Don't try and explain God through the laws that He created. He is unprovable in all measure of science. He is not subject to some puny law that He made. When He rose from the Dead, He broke numerous natural laws. There is no reason to suggest that He is neatly within a natural explanation.
If natural law is not inviolable, then not only should realistic scientific endeavor be absolutely impossible, but the very notion of a 'miracle' (the temporary nullification of natural law) would be meaningless. Either certain things are possible or they're not, but saying that they are impossible unless God decides to do them is just too convenient.
As I've said many times before, natural law seems consistent and inviolable, which is just what we'd expect in a Godless universe. If there weren't this consistency (i.e. if the laws truly were subject to the fiddling of an omnipotent being), scientific inquiry would not be able to tell us so much about our world, our history, and our universe.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Phat, posted 12-13-2004 9:57 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Phat, posted 12-13-2004 11:05 AM MrHambre has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 139 of 147 (167692)
12-13-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by MrHambre
12-13-2004 10:53 AM


Re: When Is a Miracle Not a Miracle?
In a Godless Universe, yes Mr. Hambre.
In a Theistic source Universe, we have issues.
It all goes back to the question:
Is God the source or is Human Wisdom the source?
My rebuke of Buzz was presupposing that He agreed with me that God was the source in this Universe. Is it too convenient to presuppose God, Mr. Hambre? I am a theologian and not a scientist. He thinks therefore I am.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-13-2004 11:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by MrHambre, posted 12-13-2004 10:53 AM MrHambre has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 140 of 147 (167698)
12-13-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
12-13-2004 12:07 AM


Re: Thanks Mike.
Now there you go again. We've talked about this and I thought you had learned a little something. You're bearing false witness again, Buz. I know the big words can be confusing, but that means lying. Your mythology has a direct injunction against doing that, right there in it's so-called "Ten Commandments".
Hypocrisy is no way to champion a set of beliefs, Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 12:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 147 (167719)
12-13-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Buzsaw
12-13-2004 9:46 AM


Re: Natural World
Hey buzz, I'm sorry if I have offended you, I did't mean to.
You're missreading me. Please tell me where you think I have said God must follow natural laws. Go to my op.
You seemed to be implying it in this post, where you make no distinction between the entire universe and the created natural world:
I'm not telling you to believe anything. I'm simply presenting to you and others that it appears from the texts cited that these laws are satisfied by the supernatural. After all, if the supernatural exists, it is part and parcel of the universe. So it has a whole lot to do with the universe and it's laws, and I think it's facinating to see how it works within the three laws.
When you say The universe and it's laws this seems to imply the laws of the natural universe such as the 3 td laws you are talking about.
I guess I could see how the supernatural transfer of power may be somewhat similar in appearance to the transer of heat of the td laws, but they are so dissimilar that making a comparison is a stretch at best and all in all un-usefull.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 9:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 142 of 147 (167722)
12-13-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Buzsaw
12-13-2004 9:46 AM


Belittleing
but if it does exist, why do members think it's cool and proper to insult and belittle another poster for bringing up this possibility for discussion by the group?
Buz, we aren't belittleing the bring up of the supernatural. You have tried to mix the supernatural (theology) and science. It is your abysmal lack of understanding of the science that we are belittling. Most people seemed to have started reasonably politely. You got what is coming to you when you started into areas you don't understand and refused to carry it through.
It seems you have managed to upset some of the believers too by mixing this all up into a great hodge podge of words that you think mean something but only show that you don't know what in heck you are talking about. As noted, you know so little you don't even get just how far out of whack you are.
Not the first time, not the last I would guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 9:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 143 of 147 (167754)
12-13-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Buzsaw
12-13-2004 9:46 AM


Re: Natural World
Hi Buzz,
Well, here we are again, in the middle of the familiar pattern. Most everyone is telling you that you know not of what you speak, while you earnestly, persistently and determinedly protest that you do too. Once again, the world is wrong and Buzz is right.
EvC Forum is for productive and constructive debate and discussion about Creation/evolution, not for members to engage in extended defenses of their pride and self-esteem, which is what I believe lies at the root of the problem. I suggest you give this thread a hiatus of a week or so while you go off and read everything you can at the layperson's level about energy and thermodynamics. When you're ready to discuss the topic intelligently, to the point where you can bring a halt to the deluge of bemused and frustrated comments about your determined ignorance, then please resume.
You can instead simply continue as you are if you wish, but nonsensical threads will be closed.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 9:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 8:07 PM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 147 (167846)
12-13-2004 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Admin
12-13-2004 3:27 PM


Re: Natural World
You can instead simply continue as you are if you wish, but nonsensical threads will be closed.
Hi Percy. It's a shame when one must have a following for one to express one's opinion here. New thought is chastized and outright banned. I've been shouted down by a pack, not one of who has refuted my op, showing that if the Biblical texts cited were true, the supernatural events in them would not violate the 3td laws. That means that so far I've won this debate and the frustrated counterparts have managed in their/your frustration, to censor me for confounding them/you.
Now how nice of you to allow me to continue, with the addendum that "nonsensical threads will be closed." Since you've already judged my win here in this thread to be nonsense, you can shut it down and I'll look around for a place where I can talk nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Admin, posted 12-13-2004 3:27 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2004 8:13 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 146 by nator, posted 12-13-2004 8:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 145 of 147 (167848)
12-13-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Buzsaw
12-13-2004 8:07 PM


OP
showing that if the Biblical texts cited were true, the supernatural events in them would not violate the 3td laws.
You showed this? Just how did you do that?
You were asked for the thermodynamic calculations involved. You didn't produce them. You've showed nothing. These are, you need to understand, quantifiable. That is the energy balance can be quantified, calculated, given a number.
You did no such thing. You used some words you've read somewhere. You don't understand them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 8:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 8:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 146 of 147 (167852)
12-13-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Buzsaw
12-13-2004 8:07 PM


Re: Natural World
Way back in the second page of this thread, this claim of yours was addressed, but you didn't reply.
What is your rebuttal to this?
If you know anything about thermodynamics, you should be able to discuss these points.
If you don't, you won't be able to.
quote:
They are the same thing. Energy is heat, and power is the amount of energy applied over a span of time.
That cannot be the case because we have gravitational energy that is not related to heat.Also power is the amount of work over a span of time. Energy is the capacity to do work, common in many textbooks is wrong because energy can be unavailable to do work.
According to Richard Feynman we have no idea what energy is.We allow an event to go through its motions and if we take into account all the different interactions of forces before the event and after we arrive at a numerical value which conserves the quantity we call energy.
quote:
It's a shame when one must have a following for one to express one's opinion here.
You can express your uninformed opinion, and then your errors and misconceptions will be corrected by those who are informed.
If you refuse to correct your mistakes and choose to remain uninformed, it is your problem at that point.
quote:
New thought is chastized and outright banned.
If you cannot discuss your claims intelligently and in an informed manner, you aren't expressing "new thought".
You are just pulling a bunch of nonsense out of your backside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2004 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 147 (167854)
12-13-2004 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by NosyNed
12-13-2004 8:13 PM


You showed this? Just how did you do that?
By challenging you and your friends to refute my op and getting no scoring hits.
You were asked for the thermodynamic calculations involved. You didn't produce them.
I have stated the 3td laws along with the text and challenged someone to show that they violate the laws as stated. So if thermodynamic calculations are required, why the heck didn't you produce some thermodynamic calculations to prove me wrong? And btw, do you have the thermodynamic calculations to verify that Rich Gore's so called scientific particle of space satisfies the 3d laws? Can you qantify that submicroscopic particle of his? Hmmm?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2004 8:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024