If the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created, then god did not create it.
These things you are talking about all become problematic because you invoke concepts like outside and inside. These concepts are meaningful in the context of our everyday lives, but their meaning is given to them by dualism and our dualistic perception.
But when speaking about the universe as a singularity, which you are doing when thinking about something outside of it, these concepts of outside and inside, before and after, are completely meaningless.
I would like to propose another axiom, if it can be called that...
The supernatural is nature viewed as a singularity. Nature does not affect this singularity, since this singularity is nature's total effect upon itself. This is the singularity referred to as universe, god, brahma, the living everything etc.
Cyr, I believe it was Ros who suggested in another thread that there might exist something outside the universe.
Matter, in its simplest sense, is merely organized energy. Which is why mass is noticeably depleted in an atomic reaction. A similar, though barely measurable, depletion occurs in the fire you use to heat your living room.
I find it interesting that the one who calls himself "He who causes to become" also describes himself as abundant in energy. (Isaiah 40:26)
Taking reality as a whole, would it be possible for the sum total of matter plus energy to be added to or depleted? I don't think I feel qualified to venture an answer.
Energy cannot be depleted. It can only alter it's form. We can burn all the fuel we have, and then a source of energy known to us will be depleted, but the energy of that source will be redistributed.
Re: Axiom(s) relating to belief in God.
neologist wrote:I propose a single axiom:
(I would be most interested if any find weakness in this.)
All things have come about through the operation of natural laws, including those we have yet to discover.
I'll agree with this statement. If there is a god, it would mean that god would have to create by natural means. This would thus make God not supernatural at all, and additionally demand empirical evidence of it's existance.
However, with the evidence currently avalible, any theory currently existing on god, would be contrary to the above axiom.
T
K
O
I do have one objection to your axiom. The natural laws do not govern anything. They are merely an expression of what we have observed.
The natural laws have come about through observation of the operation of all things, and may still alter as we discover new things.
Another axiom could perhas be: Within the singularity called nature every percieved subject exerts it's influence according to the state and amount of it's energy.
But I do not think that seves to hit the mark to which you aim...
IMO The only axiom required by a monotheistic believer is that existence/creation/the universe is a closed system and the agent of closure is "a divine entity" which itself is not subject to closure. Such closure for the believer manifests itself as psychological quality of a womb-like security from which the believer emerges and to which he returns, never losing the umbilical connection he calls "faith".
Cyracuz wrote:I do have one objection to your axiom. The natural laws do not govern anything. They are merely an expression of what we have observed.
The natural laws have come about through observation of the operation of all things, and may still alter as we discover new things.
Another axiom could perhas be: Within the singularity called nature every percieved subject exerts it's influence according to the state and amount of it's energy.
But I do not think that seves to hit the mark to which you aim...
Future discovery is included in the axiiom. What is not included is the possibility that natural laws have an author, or lawgiver. That I have left to argument.
fresco wrote:IMO The only axiom required by a monotheistic believer is that existence/creation/the universe is a closed system and the agent of closure is "a divine entity" which itself is not subject to closure. Such closure for the believer manifests itself as psychological quality of a womb-like security from which the believer emerges and to which he returns, never losing the umbilical connection he calls "faith".
Perhaps another way of saying that natural laws may have an originator?
No.
"Laws" are generally a projection of human propensity to seek "pattern" relative to their cosmologically insignificant lifespans. The only "laws" of theistic significance are those of "conservation" since they reflect the axiom of closure. The divine enity, by definition, is above "natural law" hence such "patterns" constitute no basis for belief except by those (ID-ites) who anthropomorphically attribute such a limitation to the "divine entity".
fresco wrote:IMO The only axiom required by a monotheistic believer is that existence/creation/the universe is a closed system and the agent of closure is "a divine entity" which itself is not subject to closure. Such closure for the believer manifests itself as psychological quality of a womb-like security from which the believer emerges and to which he returns, never losing the umbilical connection he calls "faith".
Very good fresco. In fact I think thats sorted it. Off to watch Utd thrash Fulham.
neo wrote:What is not included is the possibility that natural laws have an author, or lawgiver. That I have left to argument.
That was my point with this:
"Another axiom could perhas be: Within the singularity called nature every percieved subject exerts it's influence according to the state and amount of it's energy."
There are no laws. Therer is only energy in different states of being, and the interplay between these "different energies", which would be more accurately described as the inner workings of this energy. This process is the "author" of the natural laws. Anything goes, and the only restrictions are those set by other energy influencing the percieved object.
If you're looking for a personal God, I think you demolish the idea with ease when you place that God outside of the system which of course for many, it has to be or else it loses many of the key attributes that make it worth submitting to. What we can say about such a God that is "supernatural", beyond cause and effect or free will or whatever else you want to attribute him to? Absolutely nothing IMO. Of course I tend to think like a number of others that the creator no more defines the creation than vice versa which brings a whole load of relativity down upon it. I'd just like to here a few more people admit that they believe X is wrong, not because that is what they're God says but...dig a little deeper, because that is what they themselves have concocted.
If I were considering an axiom of God/reality, I'd focus on the symmetry I perceive in my notions of the world around me like positive/negative and the way they mutually define each other and balance each other, maybe the same (seeing as it's got a bit theoretical) for matter/anti matter. Also, the way in which energy stays consistent in a closed system, manifesting itself and reacting to itself but that consistency seems interesting. Maybe lastly, the probabilistic nature of quantum theory allowing for all to exist simultaneously but perceived separately etc. Hope I have some of this right anyway. Some of the theories I read are mind blowing really.
The only thing I can envision that is beyond the workings of cause and effect is the very "engine" of cause and effect itself, since it contains all causes and effects within it. If cause and effect is to be called natural, then such an "engine" could be called supernatural.
Cyracuz wrote:If the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created, then god did not create it.
Why not?
Cyracuz wrote:These things you are talking about all become problematic because you invoke concepts like outside and inside. These concepts are meaningful in the context of our everyday lives, but their meaning is given to them by dualism and our dualistic perception.
But when speaking about the universe as a singularity, which you are doing when thinking about something outside of it, these concepts of outside and inside, before and after, are completely meaningless.
I would like to propose another axiom, if it can be called that...
The supernatural is nature viewed as a singularity. Nature does not affect this singularity, since this singularity is nature's total effect upon itself. This is the singularity referred to as universe, god, brahma, the living everything etc.
My view is not one where the universe is all.
The Christian view is that God existed before the universe, is not part of the universe, etc.
real life wrote:The Christian view is that God existed before the universe, is not part of the universe, etc.
Pure speculation on your behalf. If God existed before the universe, he was part of a supra-universe in which God existed. In which case who created the supra or meta universe? My utter conviction, which is as valid as yours, is that the Earth and the Universe are products of the higher thought processes of Mice (aka Douglas Adams) who live on a planet yet to be discovered.
real life confirms the closure axiom. From there his "God" can alternate between an intervenionist or non-interventionist entity as suits "his mysterious purpose".
Perhaps you should state your own view, so that you don't continually misstate mine.
real life wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:If the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created, then god did not create it.
Why not?
Because it cannot be created.
Quote:The Christian view is that God existed before the universe, is not part of the universe, etc.
Are you suggesting that there is someplace elsewhere than the universe in which god resides? Or are you saying that the christian view is that god doesn't exist?
Thing is, if it's not in the universe, it's not anywhere or anytime, and if it's anywhere or anytime, it's in the universe.
fresco wrote:No.
"Laws" are generally a projection of human propensity to seek "pattern" relative to their cosmologically insignificant lifespans. The only "laws" of theistic significance are those of "conservation" since they reflect the axiom of closure. The divine enity, by definition, is above "natural law" hence such "patterns" constitute no basis for belief except by those (ID-ites) who anthropomorphically attribute such a limitation to the "divine entity".
You have a very convoluted way of saying exactly what I wrote. Recall that my initial axiom included laws we do not yet understand and excluded mention of a creator who may be
above natural law. I italicised the word 'above' because it has insufficient definition for this argument. The "divine entity" might be considered
above natural law only in our limited understanding.
