From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 12:44:21 MST
ben wrote:
> [Bill] Divine intervention would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
>
> [ben] I don't follow that this is true. The second law states that energy
> diffuses, does it not? Why would a divine intervention neccessarily break
> this law? Of course, we have not defined what constitutes "provable divine
> intervention" either, another kettle of stinky fish.
Bill: It would voilate the 2nd because it means that energy from outside the
universe would be input into this universe. Which means that there would be a
surplus and a march away from entropy.
> [Bill] which means God would have to exist only in our Universe to operate
>
> [ben] Again I question the premise. If something were able to avoid such a
> fundamental observation of our science, is it not possible that it could
> also be exo- or inter- (intra- even?) Universal?
>
There is one premise I made - The 2nd law is the premise. As far as I know it is
a foundation of science - never broken in theory or practice. As nothing has
ever, in cany way come close to breaking the 2nd law. My premise is the 2nd -
You argument relies on another premise you are using to fight that 2nd: "What if
something broke the law" You might as well ask "What if 1+1=3". Well, if 1+1=3,
then everything would be different, but all evidence leads to 1+1=2 without
exception. In the same way, everything leads to the 2nd law being accurate -
thus far without exception. It's a bigger jump to suggest that the second law is
wrong, then to suggest that there is mysterious being, that existed previous and
external to the Universe and can put his fingers into this universe at will to
play around.
>
> [Bill] and if that is the case, tell me which part of our Universe houses
> heaven and hell.
>
> [ben] The implied conclusion is that "heaven and hell can't be in our
> Universe, therefore according to the two premises above there can be no
> divine intervention, therefore there can be no proof of god" unless I
> misread you. However, that conclusion relies on other premises as well:
Ahh, but I thought we were limiting the discussion to the Judeo Christian God.
This means one must have a soul seperate and individual from our beings. It
means God frequently interfered. It means God made the Earth, and the sun and
stars all for us. it means an entire chain of events had to happen - that
certainly, beyond any doubt, did not happen. Where heaven and hell is housed is
more of a metaphor for "What is the soul, why is the basic info so wrong of
human and the animals origin so off, etc..." The Judeo Christian religion, like
all others I am aware of, relies on such a huge number of "sky hooks" that defy
any number of basic laws and realities that I question the notion of a god
entirely.
I go with occam - Zero evidence "for" and lots "against" probably means "no".
Lots of evidence "for" and zero "against" probably means "yes".
> A) the common belief that heaven and hell are somehow "on a different plane"
> B) the expectation that they are physical places
> C) the belief that we would be capable of finding either if it did exist,
> and recognizing it as such.
>
> -ben
Show me the soul, and I'll concede everything. Show me a flaw in the second and
I'll concede.
A> are you suggesting that Heavan and Hell are NOT on a seperate plane? (read
"somplace not in this universe")
B> If not physical places, and not on a seperate plane (read "somplace not in
this universe")
C> Are you suggesting that if we found something (as you say in B - it's not a
physical location - so it has no locations at all?), but lets say we did find
something in our universe, that has no location of physicality (can it be part
of the Universe without location of physicality? - which means not even sub
atomic particles are there, right?) that we would not recognize it?! - sure we
could - for what else manifests itself without physicality and location but is
in the Universe and our unphysical, unlocalizable souls go there, if we believe
in another non-localizable, non-physical, in our universe god!
I think the 2nd is more likely - but I sure would not want to push that on
anyone else.; )
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT