From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 20:27:37 MST
On 25 Jan 2002 at 19:44, ben wrote:
> That reminds me - Joe brought up the point that god could not be both
> omnipresent and omniscient, because one requires an external frame of
> reference relevant to an object to be properly 'scient' of it. Following
> that line, it is then impossible for us, being within the Universe, to
> properly comprehend same, is it not?
>
It,s worse than that; we can never know any single object from all
possible perspectives (since we are finite and there are an infinity of
possible perspectives from which to view any object) in all possible
perceptual modalities. Any concrete object is phenomenologically
inexhaustible. All that we can say is, whatever the whole might be, it
must noncontradictorally contain the parts which we have apprehended
as parts or aspects of that whole, for part of the whole story of any
object is that when presented to one of our perceptual apparati from a
particular perspective, our specific perception of it results.
>
> -ben
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
>
>
> On 25 Jan 2002 at 18:03, Bill Roh wrote:
>
> > This is not a correction to Joe - but it is a way to think around Joe. Our
> > Universe exists. We know that. Because it exists, one cannot rule out that
> it has
> > not happened before - seperately or will elsewhere. (even though there is
> no
> > elsewhere - I know it's tough to grapple with). The problem is that we
> cannot use
> > our notions of time and place to describe it. If there are other Universes
> there
> > is no way to get there from here - exchange energy - or to even be aware
> of their
> > existence. Instead of thinking of the Universe as all that is, think of it
> as all
> > there is and all we could, at the best, ever know.
> >
> Right.
> If there were any kind of effect or transfer from 'one' to the 'other',
> 'they'
> would have to be considered as components of the single universe, by
> definition, for universe means one world, or all that is the case.
> For this reason, speculation concerning same is destined to be forever
> sterile and unproductive.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > > On 25 Jan 2002 at 16:45, David Hill wrote:
> > >
> > > > Couldn't the God add energy from outside AND remove similar energy.
> Just
> > > > moving things around from an orthagonal direction as it were. If this
> was
> > > > done, we the observers looking for second law violations couldn't tell
> if
> > > > the 2nd law had been violated (say on a microscopic scale) and
> therefore it
> > > > wouldn't have been. If God causes a 2nd law violation and nobody
> notices,
> > > > did it really happen? I know, I know it's old but it's a goodie.
> > > >
> > > Universe means never getting to say 'outside'.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On
> Behalf
> > > > Of ben
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:32 PM
> > > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > > Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
> > > >
> > > > <SNIP and I don't know what proper SNIPPING conventions are. I did
> like
> > > > Hermit's idea of mechanizing it, but can he get the project funded?>
> > > >
> > > > [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.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT