|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: My fridge disproves the resurrection of humanity
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
I've long since known that the less cleaned areas of my fridge demonstrate the validity of the theory of evolution. Indeed, there's an apricot yoghurt in there that has evolved to the point where I feel it right to share my faith with her.
However according to Brian Cox, in a balanced and unDawkins-like interview, it can also be used to demonstrate there's no life after death. (He adds his own sensible caveat.) Here
quote:
Using physics that is beyond me, Prof Cox explains how his fridge shows that there is no afterlife (thermodynamics, apparently). But then he qualifies himself. “Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive...”
I find myself wondering how that explanation goes. I realise there's next to no information to go on, but I wonder if some of our more scientific posters might be able to outline what his line of reasoning might be.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Brian Cox makes me miss Jacob Bronowski so much.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However the explanation goes, it would have to involve defining life in physically measurable terms.
We typically do though, don't we? I'm pretty sure that any murder trial defense that was based on the argument that while the victim may appear to be dead in "physically measurable terms", he was actually still alive in some other sense and thus no crime had been committed would quickly founder.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I guess he might be making a point about progression of entropy ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I've long since known that the less cleaned areas of my fridge demonstrate the validity of the theory of evolution. Indeed, there's an apricot yoghurt in there that has evolved to the point where I feel it right to share my faith with her.
However according to Brian Cox, in a balanced and unDawkins-like interview, it can also be used to demonstrate there's no life after death. (He adds his own sensible caveat.) Here
quote:
Using physics that is beyond me, Prof Cox explains how his fridge shows that there is no afterlife (thermodynamics, apparently). But then he qualifies himself. “Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive...”
I find myself wondering how that explanation goes. I realise there's next to no information to go on, but I wonder if some of our more scientific posters might be able to outline what his line of reasoning might be.
If you leave it long enough the Yogurt might share its faith with you
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
slightly seriously...
Thermodynamics - they will balance energy and mass IN and anergy and mass OUT and have a zero balance when life has gone - i.e. no change.
The energy balance will also have to take into account the fact that order/organisation requires energy to maintain it, and dead things are less ordered, so there has to be a way of accounting for the loss of order that happens at death ("entropy") Therefore, if everything balances to zero change life has zero energy and mass, therefore life does not physically exist... errr
actually there have been some physics experiments that appear to show that life does release energy when it "leaves" - probably a lot of heated debate around that - here everyone is relatively polite. Defining the energy released by an increase in entropy when the bacteria meet their maker is not trivial. There are also experiments that show that life is capable of transmutation of certain elements - something called cold fusion. Again, blood has probably been spilled on the floors of several academic institutions, careers lost in mid flow, etc etc For anyone of a scientific bent, this is interesting reading http://www.ludkow.info/cf/406bio_alchemy.pdf
The philosopher OTOH would say that we may not be measuring everything that is relevant, and furthermore we can't possibly know whether we are (or not).
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One interesting aspect of entropy is that things don't organize themselves. For example, if you vacated a house for ten years, when you came back, it would have deteriorated in various ways. If it looked spruce and clean, you could conjecture that someone had been doing the organizing, (and maintaining order).
Similarly, if you unplug a fridge or a freezer, it will be unable to function as a fridge. Well, this would be a 24 carat miracle. The system will fall into disorder, without the constant energy input.
So when you die, the corpse cannot organize itself back to life.
However, of course, this ignores what the after-life means in spiritual or supernatural terms, which would probably be said to produce a new kind of organization or order.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Thermodynamics - they will balance energy and mass IN and anergy and mass OUT and have a zero balance when life has gone - i.e. no change.
Yes, but only at the level of the system (i.e. the universe) as a whole. Individual bits of it can take in more energy than they put out (or vice versa) so long as that energy is coming from (or going to) somewhere else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You could also say that many religions provide an antidote to entropy. I mean, that if we accept that most things move towards disorder (high entropy), this can be halted by injections of energy of different kinds. Thus, if you have an old car, it is quite likely to break down, but if you keep it regularly serviced, it is less likely. You are making efforts to slow entropy down.
But many religions offer more than that - they offer a new order of things, handsomely improved, and with zero entropy!
There is something here about time as well, since one way we measure time is by increasing disorder - so, the old car is getting ropey, and we will all get sick one day and die. But we hope to reverse or stop time in eternity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Isn't half the cosmetics industry predicated on the functionality of time-reversal creams? At least as judged by Mrs. B's collection of goods. Though I guess that's another belief system.
Would it not be more accurate to say that religions (speaking generally) don't look to stop - even less reverse - time in eternity - rather to transcend it?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However the explanation goes, it would have to involve defining life in physically measurable terms.
We typically do though, don't we? I'm pretty sure that any murder trial defense that was based on the argument that while the victim may appear to be dead in "physically measurable terms", he was actually still alive in some other sense and thus no crime had been committed would quickly founder.
That seems to have been the excuse used by relatives of the late Mr. Kato, who insisted that he had simply become a "living Buddha". The Japanese police appear to think otherwise.
However - do we define life in physically measurable terms? We certainly use quantitative physical methods to detect it. But to define it?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One interesting aspect of entropy is that things don't organize themselves. For example, if you vacated a house for ten years, when you came back, it would have deteriorated in various ways. If it looked spruce and clean, you could conjecture that someone had been doing the organizing, (and maintaining order).
Similarly, if you unplug a fridge or a freezer, it will be unable to function as a fridge. Well, this would be a 24 carat miracle. The system will fall into disorder, without the constant energy input.
So when you die, the corpse cannot organize itself back to life.
However, of course, this ignores what the after-life means in spiritual or supernatural terms, which would probably be said to produce a new kind of organization or order.
To say nothing of an Agent capable of imposing that organization or order.
Does anyone really believe that the afterlife just sort of happens? Practically every afterlife idea I'm familiar with posits a being or group of beings in charge of setting up and administering it.
And if God created the universe, and with it the physical laws under which it operates, why would it be difficult to believe that he could suspend those laws, or create other realities/planes of existence where those laws might be different?
Once again, it seems as though an atheist is attempting to "disprove" a religious concept by misreading or misunderstanding God. Referring to him in terms such as "magical sky-daddy" betrays the fact that they are conceiving of him as basically a human being, however impressive his supernatural powers might be, with a human being's motivations and emotions and subject to the limitations of our material universe. In essence, cutting God down to size so they can more easily grapple with him; trouble is, nobody I know believes in that God.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Isn't half the cosmetics industry predicated on the functionality of time-reversal creams? At least as judged by Mrs. B's collection of goods. Though I guess that's another belief system.
Would it not be more accurate to say that religions (speaking generally) don't look to stop - even less reverse - time in eternity - rather to transcend it?
Yes, you could have a new range of anti-wrinkle creams, with the snazzy title, 'Defy entropy! You're worth it'.
Yes, you're right about time.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
However - do we define life in physically measurable terms? We certainly use quantitative physical methods to detect it. But to define it?
Only for the purpose of a physics-based proof that there can be no life after death.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Fr Weber wrote:
And if God created the universe, and with it the physical laws under which it operates, why would it be difficult to believe that he could suspend those laws, or create other realities/planes of existence where those laws might be different?
Yes, this is certainly possible; whether it's difficult to believe depends on one's prior assumptions.
I suppose also that people wonder why God would create a system of low entropy, at the beginning of the universe, moving to high entropy; or in fact, why create 100 billion galaxies? Because it pleased him, maybe.
I suppose another problem is to do with low constraints; if God could do this, is it more likely than super-aliens in Alpha Centauri making an experiment on earth?
[ 08. October 2014, 16:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr. Weber:
quote:
Once again, it seems as though an atheist is attempting to "disprove" a religious concept by misreading or misunderstanding God. Referring to him in terms such as "magical sky-daddy" betrays the fact that they are conceiving of him as basically a human being, however impressive his supernatural powers might be, with a human being's motivations and emotions and subject to the limitations of our material universe. In essence, cutting God down to size so they can more easily grapple with him; trouble is, nobody I know believes in that God.
I think Cox is aware of that, hence his wry remark about philosophical naivety and his subsequent comments about Kant and Leibniz. I'd bracket him with Sir Peter Medawar and Jacob Bronowski (sorry Demas) rather than Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking in the whole science and religion thang.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I've long since known that the less cleaned areas of my fridge demonstrate the validity of the theory of evolution. Indeed, there's an apricot yoghurt in there that has evolved to the point where I feel it right to share my faith with her.
If you leave it long enough the Yogurt might share its faith with you
Apparently I left some pasta in the fridge one night, and some of the more sentient denizens are certain they saw it fly around. I forget what they call this monstrosity.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
I do suspect that our resurrection body, and new creation generally, may be entropy proofed in some way.
I wonder if that is the thrust of his argument, though.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I do suspect that our resurrection body, and new creation generally, may be entropy proofed in some way.
I wonder if that is the thrust of his argument, though.
I think he is wryly aware that a physical disproof of resurrection is not the end of the story. He seems quite mellow about it to me, not really a God-hater. Using a fridge is surely partly a joke?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Another interesting point about entropy is that it shows how things are inter-connected. Our fridge relies on a power supply; the acorn falls on the ground, but now needs soil, sunshine, rain, in order to grow.
Some mystics have extended this to a sense that I (and others) am the means whereby the universe is manifest - through me, the stars are seen, and through the stars, I know myself as a star-seeker.
So some Sufis for example, might say that the rose in inside me, and I am inside the rose. Actually, some Christians have said that also, e.g. Angelus Silesius. Oooh, spooky, panentheism looms!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Thermodynamics - they will balance energy and mass IN and anergy and mass OUT and have a zero balance when life has gone - i.e. no change.
Yes, but only at the level of the system (i.e. the universe) as a whole. Individual bits of it can take in more energy than they put out (or vice versa) so long as that energy is coming from (or going to) somewhere else.
What Marvin said. My initial thoughts after skimming the thread so far, is that there is a balance within the system, the universe as a whole. Nothing of me that is in the system survives the system.
But if there already exists something of me that is already outside the system this would not be affected by the physics.
This is an early thought, you may now shoot my hypothesis down in flames. Actually I am being arrogant in the use of hypothesis. It's not even a guess yet, but it is still an idea to add to the mix: Is there any spiritual dimension of us that already exists outside the system of the universe as a whole?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What Marvin said. My initial thoughts after skimming the thread so far, is that there is a balance within the system, the universe as a whole. Nothing of me that is in the system survives the system.
But if there already exists something of me that is already outside the system this would not be affected by the physics.
This is an early thought, you may now shoot my hypothesis down in flames. Actually I am being arrogant in the use of hypothesis. It's not even a guess yet, but it is still an idea to add to the mix: Is there any spiritual dimension of us that already exists outside the system of the universe as a whole?
I like this idea. The NT makes it clear that the resurrection body is physical in nature, so the idea of escaping physics into some entirely non-physics based world doesn't seem the road to travel to me.
However that's not to say that there could be aspects of 'science' not involved in current models that would kick in post general resurrection.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
... However that's not to say that there could be aspects of 'science' not involved in current models that would kick in post general resurrection.
Interesting to speculate about a prophesied general resurrection (or any predicted large scale miraculous event).
Clearly if we are assume any continuity with known physics we would have to assume an external and focussed source of energy directed by a very superior organising power.
Is there any difference between that and assuming a divine operation which would be essentially beyond our understanding?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is a bit like some arguments concerning the Big Bang, which brought about a low entropy universe. You could speculate that only an intelligence could bring that about, but that would be rather empty speculation, since there are so many discussions going on about the Big Bang, and pre-Big Bang, and so on.
I am still curious why God would create a 100 billion galaxies. This is fine tuning with overkill.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's probably a numbers thing
I don't know - maybe it's boring just to make stuff up rather than watch it evolve itself. However, whatever - heavy elements like gold require several generations of star deaths to produce them including some pretty ginormous explosions that wipe out any life (organic) within hundreds, if not thousands of light years. And it would appear that space is blessed with quite a lot of water and organic compounds, so again there has to be some time (and space) for all this to happen. There might only be a handful or so intelligent organic civilisations of the kind we have in the entire universe at any one time - time being so vast, all the right factors having to come together at once, etc.
And maybe it was for the joy of it. Maybe something infinite needs something nearly infinite to take on as a temporary body.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, sure, lots of maybes. The trouble with maybes is that they tend to proliferate, and they seem to have no constraints. Maybe a gigantic alien intelligence is prowling the universe, cackling at our feeble attempts to launch space probes. Well, maybe.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, sure, lots of maybes. The trouble with maybes is that they tend to proliferate, and they seem to have no constraints. Maybe a gigantic alien intelligence is prowling the universe, cackling at our feeble attempts to launch space probes. Well, maybe.
That is the problem with thought - it is a string of possibilities with no ground to them.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
If we take Romans 8 seriously, it seems that Paul saw what we would now call "entropy" (and he calls the law of sin and death) as the consequence of the fall, and as being reversed by the resurrection.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If we take Romans 8 seriously, it seems that Paul saw what we would now call "entropy" (and he calls the law of sin and death) as the consequence of the fall, and as being reversed by the resurrection.
Well, again, is the production of a 100 billion galaxies a consequence of the fall, or is it part of the original creation? All of those galaxies may be facing heat death in the distant future, which is the inevitable direction of entropy, when there is no information at all anywhere.
Of course, there are alternative scenarios such as the big crunch, or the multiverse. I wonder if God has one of those in mind, or maybe he is playing roulette. All guesswork, of course, at the moment.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If we take Romans 8 seriously, it seems that Paul saw what we would now call "entropy" (and he calls the law of sin and death) as the consequence of the fall, and as being reversed by the resurrection.
Do we need to agree with Paul on this?
(I keep reading the title of this thread as 'My fridge disapproves of the resurrection of humanity'!)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose juxtaposing the idea of the fall with the creation of a 100 billion galaxies seems odd, since the original idea of the fall would have presumably been geocentric. That is, if the earth was seen as the centre of the universe, then the fall could be seen as affecting this centre.
However, if the earth is seen as a small planet in one of billions of galaxies, it is more difficult to 'place' the fall. Is it local or universal?
Did the fall affect a galaxy at a distance of billions of light years away? You could use the notion of entropy to say yes, since that distant galaxy is also subject to it. Perhaps though this is a rather circular argument.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Did the fall affect a galaxy at a distance of billions of light years away? You could use the notion of entropy to say yes, since that distant galaxy is also subject to it.
But did its effects travel faster than the speed of light?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Did the fall affect a galaxy at a distance of billions of light years away? You could use the notion of entropy to say yes, since that distant galaxy is also subject to it.
But did its effects travel faster than the speed of light?
That's a very nice question, in the old sense of 'nice'. The trouble is, once we accept the idea of a universe with billions of galaxies, we have to give up the idea of a fall caused by Adam and Eve, unless you see that mythically, or maybe the effects of the fall radiated backwards in time. (Idea of a sci-fi novel?).
Incidentally, another ancient belief was that heavenly bodies were perfect, and moved through crystalline spheres. Hence, the discover of 'dark spots' on the moon (craters), disturbed that view, since the moon appeared to be imperfect. Well, the rest is history.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Maybe we have to let entropy be fully realized before the process of resurrection is possible.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Last I heard, that will take so extremely long that it will be not just many trillions* of years, but many millions of trillions of years for every atom in the entire [currently] observable universe. Which means that the allotment of time for the current age of the universe (several billion years) is less than a billionth of the total time allotment for only a single atom.
Personally, I'm hoping we don't have to wait that long.
* Using U.S. style names, not British names.
[ 12. October 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe we have to let entropy be fully realized before the process of resurrection is possible.
Well, it's not really a problem, is it, for the theist? God could do anything, I suppose, at any time, with anybody.
It's just strange to compare the ancient view of the earth at the centre of the universe, with our view of the earth as a peripheral speck in a colossal universe. So where does the fall happen, and where did it begin?
The image of the fridge in the OP doesn't really help, since the fridge is a physical unit, which needs a physical power source. That shows the inter-connection of things.
But resurrection would not be like this, even if it where physical, since you can't plug a corpse into a power source, except of course, a supernatural one!
I guess there's no need to worry about it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I was trying to work out a convoluted answer to W Hyatt that boiled down to the same thing-- why would time matter once we are out of it?
Ok, let me take a stab at it-- the energy - entropy dynamic is how the universe runs. It is a neccesary process for existence in this reality and thus it makes sense to me that the completion of that process is important in whatever the heck God has going next.
However God-- and, I would suspect, whaever spiritual components there are to our natures-- are not bound to this reality. We might have one foot in it, but we are not of it ( theoretically) So, the unravelling of the Universe is something our resurrected selves can observe, the way we observe tree rings fon a log slice, but the actual process is still going on among those rings. But when we are resurrected, we see all the rings-- the completed process-- because the completed process is what allows resurrection.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I've been thinking about this. The Universe will go to its enthropy death ok. But we can slow this down locally.
Basically, that's what a fridge does. It slows down the decrease of enthropy inside of it, while accelerating it in other places (by burning fuel; by releasing heat at its back ...)
In a couple of trillion years, we could do this at a large scale. We could burn a chunk of the Universe to maintain a bubble in which humanity stays. This way, we could survive the heat death of the Universe for a long time.
Basically, we could put humanity in a fridge.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are some great sci-fi plots in this thread. Possible titles: 'The Ice-man comes, and the Fridge door opens'; 'Open the fridge door to infinity - do you dare?'; 'I voyaged in a fridge to Alpha Centauri'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I was trying to work out a convoluted answer to W Hyatt that boiled down to the same thing-- why would time matter once we are out of it?
Ok, let me take a stab at it-- the energy - entropy dynamic is how the universe runs. It is a neccesary process for existence in this reality and thus it makes sense to me that the completion of that process is important in whatever the heck God has going next.
However God-- and, I would suspect, whaever spiritual components there are to our natures-- are not bound to this reality. We might have one foot in it, but we are not of it ( theoretically) So, the unravelling of the Universe is something our resurrected selves can observe, the way we observe tree rings fon a log slice, but the actual process is still going on among those rings. But when we are resurrected, we see all the rings-- the completed process-- because the completed process is what allows resurrection.
Some Buddhists have views a bit like that. I know a guy who talks about being pure awareness, but he can step into being John Ramsbottom, or whatever, but then back out of it again, into awareness. So the awareness is pure and eternal, and has no change in it, but John Ramsbottom will die.
Well, it's not Christian, I know!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Why not? In fact the first rudimentary version of this theory I heard was in a Lutheran Bible Study. Missouri Synod, even.
or wait-- I guess the idea of God being outside of time and space is pretty typical, and in my own mind that made us-- as spiritual beings, if that is what one believes-- what Lewis called "amphibians," meat puppets with a spiritual core that not just endures beyond this world, but in some sense lives beyond it while we are yet living. Is that the un orthodox bit?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why not? In fact the first rudimentary version of this theory I heard was in a Lutheran Bible Study. Missouri Synod, even.
or wait-- I guess the idea of God being outside of time and space is pretty typical, and in my own mind that made us-- as spiritual beings, if that is what one believes-- what Lewis called "amphibians," meat puppets with a spiritual core that not just endures beyond this world, but in some sense lives beyond it while we are yet living. Is that the un orthodox bit?
I don't really know if that's non-Christian or not. I suppose many religions have those kinds of ideas, for example, my old Sufi friend used to talk about them. So what is the point of Christianity, if a Sufi and a Buddhist can find shared ideas like this?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
May as well ask "Why be a Sufi of Buddhist"? I for one am willing to joyfully exchange these similar findings without asking why people are what they are.
All goes back to that Jesus dude-- the intoxicating idea that God decided to become amphibious for a while.
[ 12. October 2014, 23:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Kelly Alves: All goes back to that Jesus dude-- the intoxicating idea that God decided to become amphibious for a while.
And then a princess kissed Him. Oh wait, different story.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
All goes back to that Jesus dude-- the intoxicating idea that God decided to become amphibious for a while.
This is probably the main reason I gave up being a Christian. Well, I still like it, but when I find that I can talk to my Sufi friend and my Buddhist friend about the same stuff, then I am a sort of universal religionist.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I'm sorry I was editing while you replied. And I should have added, "That what it is for me." Which-- I guess you find it silly from your response, but whatever.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
All goes back to that Jesus dude-- the intoxicating idea that God decided to become amphibious for a while.
This is probably the main reason I gave up being a Christian. Well, I still like it, but when I find that I can talk to my Sufi friend and my Buddhist friend about the same stuff, then I am a sort of universal religionist.
I find I can do the same without abandoning those things in Christianity which I still find worthwhile.I don't understand how this relates to the OP, though.
The only thing I was challenging was whether the idea of transcendent human nature was or not an anti-Christian idea-- which I don't think it is-- so I am not sure why we are suddenly on "why Christianity at all?" There are loads or religions-- Christianity is one of them. So?
[ 13. October 2014, 00:00: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm sorry I was editing while you replied. And I should have added, "That what it is for me." Which-- I guess you find it silly from your response, but whatever.
It's certainly not silly. It doesn't matter to me any more, I mean, which religion you are, or none. It reminds me of Eliot, 'I Tiresias, have foresuffered all'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
