God, The Supernatural And the Three Laws

You have handed out no punishment and you may rely upon the fact that we are not friends.I am sticking to the thread. I am pointing out, and you are stupidly ignoring, the fact that your core assumption, that Christ or the Christian god had some sort of "power", is not true. That stops you right there, if only you could see it. Sadly, a common side effect of your kind of beliefs is such blindness.Prove that this Christ person existed, that he did the things you claim. and then we can address the means that was used to do it. Do that and we'll have something to address. Right now all we have is your rather dimwitted and unfounded personal opinion.

Buz, I don't understand why you're so intent on proving that God follows natural laws. Surely, if he could only follow natural laws, He wouldn't be a supernatural being. As such, nothing He did could be considered supernatural.Surely if God is all powerful, He can do things outwith natural laws? This means that you're OP is trying to prove that God isn't all powerful.As a Christian I believe that God is all powerful, but as a scientist I accept the laws of thermodynamics for natural systems, since they are only intended to describe natural systems. That means I have to accept that God is outwith the natural laws so it is pointless to try to ascribe the properties of natural laws to His actions.By all means continue your attempts to prove that God is not all powerful and that His actions are forced to follow natural laws, but you then lose any claim that the supernatural follows natural laws because you'll have succeeded in proving that there is nothing supernatural about God at all.I have to say that I'm astounded that you haven't realised just what you are trying to argue, you haven't thought through the implications of your theory. The bottom line is that if you "prove" your theory, you've disproved it - not a very promising line to take.

I'm game. I was simply responding to stuff you and others brought up. Fine, we'll fine tune to topic, but don't come at me for not responding to some related stuff that heads us off.

Buz 1. This thread is about my hypothesis that the supernatural exists in the universe and exists without violating the three laws as per my op. Whether you believe that or not is irrevelant. Your job is simply to prove that one or more of the laws is violated. You think my hypothesis is myth. Fine. Allow me to think the same about yours, but if you're going to say there's no relevancy of these laws to my hypothesis then please stick to refutation rather than spurilous attacks on my hypothesis. I showed where the Biblie which I am using as my guideline teaches that when miracle was effected by the divine, energy was not created or lost, but was transfered. Whether we're talking miracle or not, the miracle I cited in Luke and Mark implicated application of thermodynamic law. Because that's not how it works. The universe, imo, proceeds from God and consists/operates by and through his working. So is Rich Gore's theory. This thread is not about all of science. It pertains to those stated in my op. Please stay on topic. Please! We've already gone over that. Then please stick with showing how the supernatural cannot exist within the three laws and how they don't apply. This statement is yada and proves nothing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to be civil. Maybe you'd do better talking to your friends elsewhere. Post something on topic in a civil manner and we'll talk. Otherwise please stop wasting our time and thread bandwidth.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-10-2004 08:38 PM

Hi Trixie.1. Please cite anywhere in this thread where I've stated that God only follows natural laws. Have you read my op carefully? I have clearly itemized Biblical texts which involved miracle, i.e. the supernatural. The thread is about how these, as stated in the cited texts, implicate coherance with the three laws mentioned. We usually think of creation or miraculous healing of something or someone by God as a violation of scientific law, but I have shown in this thread how the Bible actually states that when healing is done miraculously, for example, energy does not simply emerge from nowhere, but it is transfered from "A" to "B", satisfying certain observed laws of nature. Personally, I think this's cool. I should think that you too, as a Christian, might be interested in this observation. I've stated in the thread that God is omnipotent, having unlimited power/energy. Have you read the thread? My hypothesis in no way limits God. It simply says that he appears to be working within the three TD laws, according to Biblical text cited. 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. Come, now, madear. Please read the thread and document where you got this notion that my hypothesis dimishes the power of God. Jar tried to put me in that box, but imo, failed. Feel free to try, but I think you're mistaken.

Let's get the trivialities out of the way first. Buz responds

quote:

---

So is Rich Gore's theory.

---

Nonsense buz. There is evidence to support Rich Gore and NO evidence to support your hypothesis. It is also just another attempt by you to change the subject.Now back to the OP.If you wish to say that GOD does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and that he exists within a closed system, you simply show that GOD is just another force, not supernatural, constantly diminishing, of no real concern to anyone and that in the future GOD will simply become more background noise.In addition, you make it impossible for GOD to have existed any longer than the Universe or to exist once the Universe is gone.You can try to get around that by pulling in miricles, infine power within a closed system, more giddunit, but as soon as you bring in the goddunit factor, the physical rules go out.The answer to your OP is that either GOD violates all the Laws of Physics, or GOD is simply another minor source of energy like a star. Buz, I understand that you are incapable of seeing this.I've said about all I can think of on this subject. Your OP is simply wrong. It's fine if you want to believe such things but you cannot support them with any evidence or logic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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 evemt to go through its motions and if we take into account all the different interactions of forcesbefore the event and after we arrive at a numerical value which conserves the quantity we call energy.

There is no evidence that a particle of space exploded to produce everything. Besides, this topic is not so much about evidence perse. It's about whether the Biblical model as set forth in the Bible satisfies the three laws. The god of the Bible is stated in it to be omnipotent, having unlimited power. It appears that the debate boils down to whether omnipotence can exist in a closed system. If, I say if, my hypothesis of an omnipotent god in a boundless universe is correct, it is a closed system by definition with no possibility of anything outside of it to introduce energe into it. Thus it satifies the three laws. If you can show that my universe is not closed, you've got me. Otherwise, I don't see how your argument holds. I have always contended that the universe has forever existed and that it will have no end. It only changes. This also accomodates the first law that nothing can be created or destroyed. your notion that the Universe will sometime be gone does not appear to be good science, for it violates the first law. .You can repeat that falacy until the cows come home, Jar. You need to stick to refutation of my op. But you simply keep on keeping on repeating this yada. You have not proven anything. ......more substanceless yada.

I am completely on topic, and you can duck and run if you like. It isn't unexpected. I still haven't heard you support your position with anything other then unfounded assertions of personal opinion and repitition. Can you do anything else?Again, in case you missed it the first few times, defend the core question I have posed, if you can. Prove that this "Christ" person has any "power" that may or may not conform to the laws of thermodynamics. Prone that this god you speak of has any "power", infinite or otherwise. Till you do that, you're simply blowing smoke.I have tried civility with your ilk and gotten nothing for my trouble but aggravation, so, when you show the use of reason, I will start showing you civility.

The relative status of your opinion and Rick Gore's views has no connection to the clear non-sequitur in your post. Thus you respond to evidence that you failed to think about what you were writing with a failure to think about what you are replying to.Moreover you failed to think about my point that we require the numbers. The OVERALL entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Any local decrease must be offset by an equal or greater increase elsewhere in the system. Thus to show that the second law HAS been satisfied we need the numbers to show that this is so. (Moreover I would have to ask how we could consider the entropy of an infinite energy source to increase - surely no matter what happens the energy it has available to do work can never decrease).

I stated facts - you may call them "biased opinions" but facts they remain.Moreover you were the one who failed to substantiate his claims and ran away from the argument. I on the other hand provided evidence and reasoning. But thanks for confirming again that you consider the Bible idealogically opposed to your beliefs.

I will be outa town today at Sabbath school and church, etc. I've been doing some thinking and it appears that 2ltd is where the problem in this debate arises in regards to the equilibrium, etc. I have some thoughts on that and will address them when I can get to it. I will also address the unresponded to posts. Have a good day, all.

Oh, dear I think your right!

Buzz writes, I thought the definition of supernatural was the exact opposite. Supernatural means "above nature," the universe is part of nature, so if God is supernatural he is not part of the universe. Unless your definition of the universe is everything that exists. In that case what word would you like to use to refer to the universe in the first sense? So you don't believe in Genesis 1:1?

---

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