Physics

[Physicist]

an athiest wont recieve that. i was wondering where you going with this

i dont think the lord always heals miracously though he can.

some miracles arent miracles but rather miraclous deliverances. you need money
you pray and the person whom the lord sends gives you what you need. is that a miracle of the violate the laws of universe, no

but it is one none the less

Like I said, I was hoping to get Physicist to bite on this. Is he an atheist?

Otherwise, my point would be the same as another topic I just started—that the Lord can do anything. I seem to be running into a lot of people who doubt that. If we doubt the ability of the Lord to do anything he chooses to do, then our whole theology becomes skewed, doesn’t it?

Dear Elijah and other forum friends,

My apologies for not answering sooner but work has prevented me from engaging in outside interests.

I would say that God could not violate the laws of Physics, but not for the reasons that you might think. Physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive like ordinary civil laws. Scientists do not say, "thou ought to do this or ought not to do that." Instead, they say that like electric charges repel each other and opposite charges attract. If God did a miracle and made opposite charges repel in certain circumstances, then scientists would modify their laws to say that opposites usually attract but, in certain circumstances might repel each other.

Best Regards,

Physicist

 

[izzy]

I would say that God could not violate the laws of Physics, but not for the reasons that you might think. Physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive like ordinary civil laws. Scientists do not say, "thou ought to do this or ought not to do that." Instead, they say that like electric charges repel each other and opposite charges attract. If God did a miracle and made opposite charges repel in certain circumstances, then scientists would modify their laws to say that opposites usually attract but, in certain circumstances might repel each other.

Best Regards,

Physicist

I think I agree with you, Physicist. Sometimes people try to deny the omnipotence of God with statements like, "if God can't do evil, then he is not all-powerful" or "can God make a rock that he cannot lift?" God's omnipotence is in line with the rest of his attributes. He cannot do evil because it is against his nature. There never will be a rock too big for him to lift, because that would be ludicrous and it would defy the laws of physics (after all, a planet can be considered a really big rock, but it is "held up", if you will, by gravity, centripetal force, etc).

God is orderly and his creation reflects that order. When he performs a miracle, I would say that he merely introduces causes that were not there before, but that still function by the laws of physics. I'm not sure how Jesus walked on the water, but couldn't a change in pressure, density, surface area, or temperature of the water have achieved the desired result? It does not necessarily mean that God violated the laws of physics and chemistry - laws that he had instituted - to perform the miracle. I would probably say that for God to violate those laws would be to go against his own nature.

This does bring to mind a few questions, however. What about the second law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends towards chaos? What about death that will eventually claim every living thing? Are these laws that stem from God's perfect and orderly nature, or are they temporary laws put in as a result of the fall of mankind? Does the universe really in a sense revolve around humanity and God's dealings with humanity? The Bible states that one day death will be defeated, there will be a physical resurrection of all people, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. When Jesus was raised, he was raised with a physical body that was incorruptible and would never experience death again. Do these physical laws work in a sense like the old covenant of the law of Moses that was fulfilled and surpassed by Christ's atoning work? Will they also one day fade away?

It is interesting to ponder why there is order in the universe. If we induce that the second law of thermodynamics has always held true and that it hold true everywhere, the conclusion would be that the universe was initially even more highly structured than it is now and that it has been slowly getting more chaotic.
"The conundrum is this. If the universe is simply an accident, the odds of it containing any appreciable order are ludicrously small. If the big bang was just a random event, then the probability is neigh impossible that the emerging cosmic material would be in thermodynamic equilibrium. As this was clearly not the case, it appears hard to escape the conclusion that the actual state of the universe has been chosen or selected somehow from the huge number of available states, all but an infinitesimal fraction of which are totally disordered. And if such an exceedingly improbable initial state was selected, then surely there had to be a selector or designer to 'choose' it."
Paul Davies, Physicist, Arizona State University

 

[logical bob]

What about the second law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends towards chaos? What about death that will eventually claim every living thing? Are these laws that stem from God's perfect and orderly nature, or are they temporary laws put in as a result of the fall of mankind?

There's no evidence to suggest that physical laws were different during the billions of years before mankind existed. This question only has any force if you believe in YEC, but if you can reject science enough to accept YEC you're way beyond the point of worrying about the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Physicist]

I'd say walking on water qualifies as changing the laws of physics. Stopping the sun in mid-day so Joshua can win a battle, Jos. 10:12...
The laws of physics don't apply to God or God's will, these laws OBEY Him.
Physicist sure appears to be atheist, which makes sense since he thinks the laws of physics can't be altered.
Parting the Red sea, holding up the river Jordon.
Bottom line: You have to be a true believer to recognize that God is Almighty and has control over all things.
How about resurrection? Physics or Faith?

I can’t think how the laws of physics would allow a resurrection. I would call the resurrection a "spiritual" event, I think.

The probability of it would be quite low if we assume that decay had started on the body of Jesus. However, if the laws of science are your only constraint, then fanciful explanations such a Jesus being
an alien from an advanced civilization that can mimic death become possible.

From a historical point of view only, the most probable answer for the resurrection would be as a vision to the followers of Jesus. This violates no physical laws and is consistent with other legends.

 

[doubting thomas]

Question is, does this basic assumption give you a worldview that actually works? For instance, do good and evil exist? If so, wouldn't this be an objective reality that exists outside of time and changing society?

this is the difference between ontology and epistemology. the theist can state that evil exists, theoretically, where the atheist can not, but the theist is still at a loss to say how he or she can know what is and what is not evil.

Question is, does this basic assumption give you a worldview that actually works? For instance, do good and evil exist? If so, wouldn't this be an objective reality that exists outside of time and changing society?

I don't think you should expect to derive morality from science. These are two very different sets of questions and past attempts to mix the two have resulted in unfortunate things like social Darwinism and eugenics.

no, but you can expect science to explain morality.

Basic assumptions about reality, such as that the world we sense is real, are needed to come up with any significant conclusions about our world. All scientific endeavor assumes that there is orderliness in the universe, that what we observe can be comprehended, that nature is uniform and follows certain laws, and that math and numbers exist and are applicable to the study of the universe.

arguing that reason is its own tautology is in a sense meaningless. science isn't first assuming the that universe is ordered and understandable. all evidence has shown that the universe is ordered and understandable. it's deductive, not inductive.

and even if the universe is not completely understandable to humans, we have no reason not to believe that natural phenomena (like the big bang, or abiogenesis) do not have a natural explanation. it is more logical to assume a natural explanation beyond man's evolved brain than to assume a supernatural explanation.

There is no right and wrong - these are merely programmed into the human mind as is any religious notion

but a natural moral law is inherently arbitrary. and unverifiable

Man is only a complex machine descended from goo. No soul.

but man is a very, very, very complex machine descended from goo. this to me is as amazing as the resurrection is to a christian! as for the soul, neuroscience can, in fact, explain our notions of free will and "the self"

Only the fittest survive (or are worthy of surviving)

not quite. only the best adapted to their environment survive. and in many cases, the best adapted to survive are those who are the most empathetic and altruistic

no, you tell me. all we do is in vain. sooner or later we will die out and all is nothing under the sun. is that what you truly believe.? if i truly did then i would do what i want and not care about anyone else.

finding companionship, spirituality and beauty in life is not dependent on the existence or love of god. even without god, i think you would still care about your family and friends. and you would still empathize with the suffering and the outcast. is this not how god will judge your true heart? were you good for the sake of being good or for the sake of being rewarded? love and compassion is it's own reward.

if the question is one of meaning, i fail to understand how the christian finds more meaning than the atheist, as the christian "meaning" seems arbitrary. is the meaning of life to love and be one with god? what is the meaning of this?

 

[doubting thomas]

There's no evidence to suggest that physical laws were different during the billions of years before mankind existed.

well, yes there is. in the micro seconds after the big bang (something like 10 to the power of negative a million or something.

 

[izzy]

There's no evidence to suggest that physical laws were different during the billions of years before mankind existed. This question only has any force if you believe in YEC, but if you can reject science enough to accept YEC you're way beyond the point of worrying about the second law of thermodynamics.

I hold any theories about the time span of Genesis quite loosely. I agree that it would certainly appear that the earth has a far longer history than merely 10000 years. However, I also see some problems with a theistic evolution approach, namely the missing fossil links and things like the Cambrian explosion. Microevolution is a fact, but species changing into another species?
One interesting theory on Genesis hinges on a reading of Genesis 1:2. Instead of "and the earth was formless and void", the Hebrew can be translated as "and the earth became formless and void", giving the idea that the Genesis account might be a re-creation of a devastated world. The "heavens and the earth", meaning the majority of the cosmos, had already been created before this point. It might also solve the problem with entropy I raised earlier because it depicts a world that succumbed to chaos and then was, in a sense, "infused" with order again.

There are some things from the Genesis account I have to hold in order to be a Christian:

• 1. God created the universe from nothing through His Word (Christ = the Word = logos in John 1).
  2. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were all present and active in creation.
  3. God had no beginning, He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and holy. There is no evil in Him.
  4. God created a perfect world in which humankind experienced no death until Adam and Eve sinned (this could be a problem for theistic evolution because evolution entails death and mutation through generations). Did any of the animals die, though?
  5. Humanity was created in the image of God and is therefore above the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are placed as stewards over God's creation, not masters to do with it as they please.
  6. God is a personal deity that desires fellowship with humanity, though that fellowship was broken by the sin of Adam and Eve and repaired only by Christ' atoning death.
  7. Creation and humanity was cursed, to an extent, because of the sin of Adam and Eve. The curse will only be lifted after Judgement Day with the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
  8. Evil is not the opposite of good - it is a rebellion against good. God allowed for the possibility of rebellion (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

arguing that reason is its own tautology is in a sense meaningless. science isn't first assuming the that universe is ordered and understandable. all evidence has shown that the universe is ordered and understandable. it's deductive, not inductive.

and even if the universe is not completely understandable to humans, we have no reason not to believe that natural phenomena (like the big bang, or abiogenesis) do not have a natural explanation. it is more logical to assume a natural explanation beyond man's evolved brain than to assume a supernatural explanation.

Epistemology or the study of how we know. The evidence that the universe is ordered and understandable came about through scientific endeavor. Science uses human senses, repeatable tests, and reason to come to conclusions about the physical world. How do we know that human senses and reason are truth? There's deduction, but also a lot of induction in science. By the way, since when did science become the only means of knowing truth? Why does the modern mind think that only the material world exists? What about this mystery: mind is composed of matter and yet it can control a material body; the mind can conjure up the realm of mathematics from which the laws governing the physical universe emerge and yet only a small portion of mathematical possibilities actually play out in the physical world. Are the things of the mind that are "spiritual" and the parts of the realm of mathematics that do not directly apply to the material world illusions? How about the fact that the same factors that have allowed humanity to make such amazing discoveries about the material world (full solar eclipses, a clear atmosphere, our place in the galaxy, magnetic poles) are the same kind of factors necessary for human survival (a large moon to influence tides, a certain combination of gases in the atmosphere, a place far enough from the center of the galaxy and still in the area where heavy metals exist and outside the gaseous density of the spiral arms, and magnetic poles to shield from solar radiation)? Is this coincidence or does this suggest design?

 

[izzy]

I'd say walking on water qualifies as changing the laws of physics. Stopping the sun in mid-day so Joshua can win a battle, Jos. 10:12...
The laws of physics don't apply to God or God's will, these laws OBEY Him.
Physicist sure appears to be atheist, which makes sense since he thinks the laws of physics can't be altered.
Parting the Red sea, holding up the river Jordon.
Bottom line: You have to be a true believer to recognize that God is Almighty and has control over all things.
How about resurrection? Physics or Faith?

I can’t think how the laws of physics would allow a resurrection. I would call the resurrection a "spiritual" event, I think.

The probability of it would be quite low if we assume that decay had started on the body of Jesus. However, if the laws of science are your only constraint, then fanciful explanations such a Jesus being
an alien from an advanced civilization that can mimic death become possible.

From a historical point of view only, the most probable answer for the resurrection would be as a vision to the followers of Jesus. This violates no physical laws and is consistent with other legends.

Physicist, you are assuming that Jesus was resurrected with exactly the same body he died with. This is not what the Bible states. It was a physical body. That much is evident when he told Thomas to touch him (John 20:26-27) and from Luke 24:36-43. Jesus could eat, but also disappear and reappear at will. There are also a few times where people initially had trouble recognizing him. This clearly indicates that the body of Jesus after the resurrection was different than an ordinary human body, but it was still physical. Apart from the Gospels, a clear passage on the physical resurrection is Philippians 3:20-21.

Not that God can't raise someone who has started to decay. That was exactly what happened with Lazarus in John 11. Lazarus was dead for four days before being raised and was "starting to stink."

 

[doubting thomas]

How do we know that human senses and reason are truth?

we dont. but it's all we have. and we've done alright with it thus far. god, on the other hand, decided to tell us nothing about science. he left it to human senses and reason to discover important things like medicine and the laws of physics.

By the way, since when did science become the only means of knowing truth? Why does the modern mind think that only the material world exists?

because it's all we have access to. we have no reason to think there is anything else. only people who assume belief in god from their social conditioning use the "god of the gaps" argument

What about this mystery: mind is composed of matter and yet it can control a material body; the mind can conjure up the realm of mathematics from which the laws governing the physical universe emerge and yet only a small portion of mathematical possibilities actually play out in the physical world

science can explain the mind. and math can explain the universe, often before we've verified this math with observation. but math is just as much a part of the material world as language.

is this coincidence or does this suggest design?

it suggest science, and the human limits of understanding it.