From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 14:32:23 MST
<introductory disclaimer - I am not a "theist", and certainly not trying to
convert anybody. I'm merely following this argument for the enjoyment it
gives me, and the possibility of learning something in the process. Call it
"playing Yaweh's advocate...>
[Bill 0] Divine intervention would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
[ben 0] I don't follow that this is true.
[Bill 1] 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.
[ben 1] Ah, now I've got a clearer picture of what you're getting at. So
therefore, the energy invested in the intervention would have to originate
inside the Universe, meaning that the divinity must also reside inside the
Universe. My argument has no problem with that, being that "divine
intervention would not necessarily break the 2nd law". Provided that the
divinity uses energy already existent in the universe being tampered with, I
see no breakage.
[Bill 0] and if that is the case, tell me which part of our Universe houses
heaven and hell.
[ben 0] 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:
[Bill 1]Ahh, but I thought we were limiting the discussion to the Judeo
Christian God.
[ben 1] OK, I didn't recognize that limitation. Given that, "Yaweh created
the universe" according to Genesis, and therefore must have existed previous
to it. However, how can we be sure that the original word for "universe"
meant the same thing as we are attributing to it? Is it possible, in the
model we are discussing, that god was the first object/being in the
universe, possessing all the potential energy currently dissipated
throughout it, and then created the rest, with the reporting of said action
being inaccurate due to either the level of understanding of the reporting
parties or various edits/translations throughout the time since?
[ben 0] A) the common belief that heaven and hell are somehow "on a
different plane"
[Bill 1] A> are you suggesting that Heavan and Hell are NOT on a seperate
plane? (read
"somplace not in this universe")
[ben 1] What we end up with is "Heaven and Hell, if they are places, are
someplace in this universe" which is the possibility I was suggesting in A.
[ben 0]B) the expectation that they are physical places
[Bill 1]B> If not physical places, and not on a seperate plane (read
"someplace not in
this universe")
[ben 1] I was suggesting the possibility that they are not physical places
in any universe, but are more like states of being. States of existence are
commonly referred to in English by the same mechanisms as physical places:
"Person X is in ecstasy" or "Person X is in a foul temper" or "Person X is
on the net" - another linguistic detail that could have been lost over time.
[ben 0]C) the belief that we would be capable of finding either if it did
exist, and recognizing it as such.
[ben 1] Back to the possibility that they _are_ physical places... I can see
why my original message might not have been clear. The order of B and C
should have been switched, and B should have been presented as the flipside
of the AC combination. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
[ben 1] The reason we don't believe in souls is that we have no evidence to
support that belief. Perhaps we have no evidence because we lack the
instrumentation to measure them... if so, even if we stumbled on "the Heaven
quadrant" of the universe, we wouldn't "see" the souls, and therefore would
not recognize what we had found for what it would be.
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT