Heaven - A Fool's Paradise - DPChallenge Forums

04/24/2010 10:26:38 PM · #53

Sorry Louis, I'm just going to have to say I don't feel compelled by your argument. It's a common one, but tired and played out.

04/24/2010 10:29:37 PM · #54

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.

The quote only sounds sensible to you because it seems to support your position, NOT because it makes any sense. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, yet God is claimed to have created matter: the intrinsically impossible. Talking snakes, flooding the earth, parting the Red Sea, creating plants before there was a sun... all intrinsically impossible. Miracles ARE what would be considered nonsense if claimed by a "regular" human, and nonsense remains nonsense even in the context of religion.

04/24/2010 10:30:38 PM · #55

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as I can't fathom what heaven is like, I also can't fathom hell.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wouldn't it stand to reason then that the existence of either is unlikely?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Possible. But I can't fathom a ton of quantum mechanics either and I don't think that makes it unlikely. My brain definitely has limits.

Ah! But there *are* people out there who can wrap their heads around quantum mechanics and can prove it.

Not so with heaven and hell. Quite a difference.

Haha. You've got to be kidding Jeb. So now the only things that are likely to exist are those that someone, somewhere has understood completely? Doesn't leave a lot of room for discovery. Would you tell me that EVERYTHING you believe in qualifies under your rules above? If you did, you'd be a liar (and I wouldn't have to track very many posts down to get you to say as such). So why are you holding me to some standard you don't even hold yourself?

04/24/2010 10:50:25 PM · #56

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.

The quote only sounds sensible to you because it seems to support your position, NOT because it makes any sense. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, yet God is claimed to have created matter: the intrinsically impossible.

I think you have a really weird definition of "intrinsically impossible".

04/24/2010 10:58:56 PM · #57

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you have a really weird definition of "intrinsically impossible".

So you think it's possible to poof things into existence, for snakes to talk and grass or fruit trees to exist on a planet with no star? If those aren't "intrinsically impossible," then what is?

04/24/2010 11:12:44 PM · #58

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you have a really weird definition of "intrinsically impossible".

So you think it's possible to poof things into existence, for snakes to talk and grass or fruit trees to exist on a planet with no star? If those aren't "intrinsically impossible," then what is?

Things that are logically impossible. Hell, we haven't felt that matter cannot be created for more than a hundred years (and actually many people were saying it could even in the 70s). In fact, we know matter/anti-matter pairs are created all the time. You are so confident with this idea that you have raised it to the level of "intrinsically impossible"? That is really quite an arrogant position and I doubt most serious scientists would join you.

04/24/2010 11:26:56 PM · #59

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hell, we haven't felt that matter cannot be created for more than a hundred years (and actually many people were saying it could even in the 70s). In fact, we know matter/anti-matter pairs are created all the time. You are so confident with this idea that you have raised it to the level of "intrinsically impossible"? That is really quite an arrogant position and I doubt most serious scientists would join you.

Rest assured that competent chemists and physicists are quite familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy or the First Law of Thermodynamics. Those laws haven't been repealed, nor do they get you off the hook on the talking snake and other impossibilities you're trying to avoid. Your quote fails its own assertions badly.

04/24/2010 11:40:50 PM · #60

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hell, we haven't felt that matter cannot be created for more than a hundred years (and actually many people were saying it could even in the 70s). In fact, we know matter/anti-matter pairs are created all the time. You are so confident with this idea that you have raised it to the level of "intrinsically impossible"? That is really quite an arrogant position and I doubt most serious scientists would join you.

Rest assured that competent chemists and physicists are quite familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy or the First Law of Thermodynamics. Those laws haven't been repealed, nor do they get you off the hook on the talking snake and other impossibilities you're trying to avoid. Your quote fails its own assertions badly.

What do you have to say about Baryogenesis? It's cute how you think we know everything.

BTW, the First Law of Thermodynamics concerns energy, not matter.

Message edited by author 2010-04-24 23:43:13.

04/24/2010 11:49:01 PM · #61

I'm going to get off the crazy train here. No use talking in circles and down rabbit holes when the real issue was the understand that when Lewis said "intrinsically impossible" he meant "logically impossible" not "unlikely based on our experience". The creation of matter clearly fits the second and not the first. Imagining matter "poofing" out of nowhere is nothing like imagining a "round square".

04/25/2010 12:59:15 AM · #62

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

First Law of Thermodynamics concerns energy, not matter.

Very good, Jason. And you also know that energy can be converted to matter, and vice-versa, right? So if energy can be converted to and from matter, but cannot be created or destroyed, then...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What do you have to say about Baryogenesis?

I'd say it still concerns the conversion of matter and energy. There is no creation from nothing. What do you have to say about talking snakes or the possibility of plants and grass on a planet with no star? You can play with words all you like, but you're still stuck with impossibilities.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's cute how you think we know everything.

Knock it off with the personal attacks. They don't help your argument.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/25/2010 01:45:52 AM · #63

Hey Shannon, if you had said energy in the first place we wouldn't have been having the conversation. Although one can be transformed into the other, energy and matter are not the same thing. Sheesh! The only thing really impossible around here is having a conversation with you...

Do you understand the difference between a logical impossibility and an experiential one yet? Talking snake? Impossible in my experience but not illogical. I can easily imagine it (I've seen Aladdin numerous times). Round square? I don't even know where to begin. Maybe I should start by imagining a square circle and go from there?

Message edited by author 2010-04-25 01:54:51.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/25/2010 06:34:42 AM · #64

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just as I can't fathom what heaven is like, I also can't fathom hell.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Wouldn't it stand to reason then that the existence of either is unlikely?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Possible. But I can't fathom a ton of quantum mechanics either and I don't think that makes it unlikely. My brain definitely has limits.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Ah! But there *are* people out there who can wrap their heads around quantum mechanics and can prove it.

Not so with heaven and hell. Quite a difference.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Haha. You've got to be kidding Jeb. So now the only things that are likely to exist are those that someone, somewhere has understood completely?

No, that's not what I said. I merely pointed out that your example failed.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Doesn't leave a lot of room for discovery. Would you tell me that EVERYTHING you believe in qualifies under your rules above? If you did, you'd be a liar (and I wouldn't have to track very many posts down to get you to say as such).

Jason, you're the one who used the bad example.....I made no such claim.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So why are you holding me to some standard you don't even hold yourself?

Again.....the only thing I was pointing out was that you said that quantum mechanics, as you understand it, isn't any more likely than heaven or hell. That's just incorrect.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/25/2010 06:37:59 AM · #65

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you understand the difference between a logical impossibility and an experiential one yet? Talking snake? Impossible in my experience but not illogical. I can easily imagine it.

Are you serious?????? How you gonna get around that no vocal chords thing? It's more than a little illogical.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/25/2010 08:22:07 AM · #66

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I would seem to be likely that his "point" here is that it can be proven, empirically, that the modern concept of heaven is a recent invention, and this might make for an interesting discussion?

Oh, well, I agree there. The concept of "what is heaven like" is likely to be greatly shaped by the current culture, but this needs to be separated from the idea that heaven itself is a modern concept. That is not.

This thread has been unusually devoid of any scriptural evidence for what heaven is.

From a brief bit of research, I conclude that there is nothing substantive in the bible and that early Christians believed in a coming heaven on Earth - that is until it didn't happen within their lifetimes at which time they opted for the concept of heaven after death.

In terms of "modernity", I think that the development of the idea of heaven as a physical place in medieval times (stars being pinpricks in the heavenly veil) still counts as being modern: it has been tacked on in the last few centuries (at a time of general ignorance of the nature of our physical universe). Furthermore, Jews and the ancient Egyptians had versions of heaven as a physical place, but the idea that it is a general meeting place for the faithful dead appears to be a very modern concept.

The constantly changing nature of this "carrot" for belief, in my opinion, exposes one of the very human constructs upon which organised religion is founded. It seems, to me, to require a good dose of doublethink to ignore the obvious human motivations in history ands still to aver the truth of this concept.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2010 11:47:59 AM · #67

This is a side discussion, but Shannon's talking about thermodynamics got me thinking and I can't postulate the answer for this. How does our current universe not violate either the first or second law?

The first law states that energy cannot be created. That would imply that the energy of the universe is eternal.

The second law states that for a closed system entropy increases over time. If the energy of the universe is eternal, why would we not have already suffered an entropic heat death?

Anybody have an answer?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/25/2010 01:16:52 PM · #68

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The second law states that for a closed system entropy increases over time. If the energy of the universe is eternal, why would we not have already suffered an entropic heat death?

Anybody have an answer?

Because not enough time has passed for entropy (disorder) to have reached its maximum state. Isaac Asimov has a fascinating fictional treatment of this issue in his story "The Last Question," available in his Opus 100 and other collections.

04/25/2010 01:22:44 PM · #69

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The first law states that energy cannot be created. That would imply that the energy of the universe is eternal.

Yep.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2010 02:04:41 PM · #70

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The second law states that for a closed system entropy increases over time. If the energy of the universe is eternal, why would we not have already suffered an entropic heat death?

Anybody have an answer?

Because not enough time has passed for entropy (disorder) to have reached its maximum state. Isaac Asimov has a fascinating fictional treatment of this issue in his story "The Last Question," available in his Opus 100 and other collections.

But think about it Paul. We just said that energy is eternal. How is that not enough time?

You can take a stab at it too Shannon since you agree the energy is eternal.

EDIT: Think about it this way: If the second law demands that entropy is always increasing, then as we go back in time entropy will always be decreasing. Since there is a finite (although undetermined) amount of entropy in the universe today, as we proceed backward in time, we would eventually get to a state where entropy equals zero. If you go further back you will either violate the first or second law. Either that was the beginning and the energy was created at that point, or there was a period where entropy was not increasing. Either scenario violates one of the laws.

Message edited by author 2010-04-25 14:27:26.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/25/2010 02:25:39 PM · #71

I don't understand your point. As I understand it energy is neither created nor destroyed, but can change form.

At this point there is a certain degree of organization to that energy, but over time it will ultimately proceed towards a state of increasing disorder (entropy) until at some point it will be evenly distributed throughout the universe. The duration required to go from Big Bang to Maximum Entropy is a matter of speculation -- the only thing of which we can be reasonably sure is that it hasn't happened yet.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2010 02:26:45 PM · #72

Originally posted by GeneralE:

See above. I was editing while you were writing.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/25/2010 02:30:27 PM · #73

I don't think the Laws of Thermodynamics are supposed to apply to whatever was there "before" the Big Bang, only to the universe in the state we currently experience it.