Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Thermodynamics


Guest queen annie

Recommended Posts

Guest queen annie

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics

  • #1 Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant.
  • #2 In a closed system, entropy always increases.

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 KJV

 

The ‘dust’ is the ‘mechanical work,’ and the ‘spirit’ is ‘heat.’ The sum of creation, both seen and unseen comprises ‘energy’ and is contained within the Most High, God the Father, who is ‘pure spirit.’

 

The fundamental ideas of light, electricity, and magnetism are the principle elements of God’s nature:

  • Light
    • Genesis 1:1-4
    • John 1:1-9
    • John 5:35
    • John 14:6

    [*]Electricity

    • Matthew 24:27
    • Matthew 28:3
    • Luke 17:24

    [*]Magnetism

    • John 6:44
    • John 12:32
    • James 4:8

Concerning the existence of the human soul:

 

Think of a TV set. Its physical components are the ‘mechanical work’. The electricity that it requires to function is the ‘heat.’ It is obtained by a connection that is the form of a power cord. The electricity is not part of the TV itself, and left alone and not used, the TV will return to the ‘dust’ due to the inevitable process of entropy (albeit some parts much sooner than others).

 

When the TV is plugged in and turned on, it seems to come to life, after a fashion; and indeed someone who had never lived with such modern inventions might actually think it was alive. Ask a child where the picture goes when the TV is turned off and they will probably say, ‘I don’t know.’ That picture is an ethereal wonder of ideas transferred in vibrational energy (waves)—a moving image of color, with sounds, that presents to the human observer a progressive presentation of ideas originating from another human mind. This presentation becomes a part of the viewer’s existence by leaving an impression of a relatively permanent nature in their mind, whether it is merely the recollection of a movie watched in the past or added knowledge about the world such as what might be gained watching the Discovery or History channels.

 

Now, think of the TV as your physical body, and the electricity as the Spirit of God, which He breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make Adam a ‘living soul.’ Now, think of the picture on the TV screen as the ‘living soul,’ and the power cord as the ‘silver cord’ written of in Ecclesiastes.

 

Religious theory is completely divorced from Sciencific theory. Science never reaches a complete conclusion because it seeks, generally speaking, to divorce itself from things not observable. Spiritual pursuits are only one half of the whole, and Science provides the other half. They are not rightly put in opposition to one another, and only through their unity can complete understanding come about. Religion flatters itself as being Science's rival, but in truth competes in the arena of politics and superstition.

 

From an enlightened perspective, science is actually the observations man is able to make concerning the results of God’s workings:

 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:19-20 KJV

 

‘Eternal life’ and ‘salvation’ as presented by christianity are not resolved in a logical manner.

 

Concerning the biblical concepts of salvation, life and death, these ideas seek to represent the understanding that the only ‘rescue’ (salvation) from ‘death’ (which is being bound in by the limited perception of material existence as a complete reality) beyond the ‘gates of hell’ (essentially the grave which is inherent within the closed system of organic nature). The narrow way that end at the narrow gate is the only way out of the closed system that is the material realm. All things bound within nature’s boundaries are a part of a perpetual food chain and cyclic exchange of oxygen/carbon dioxide that define ‘life’, and will experience, without exception, individual death of their material carbon based components. However, nature as a whole is an eternally living entity, because of the cycle of life-->death-->life.

 

When Messiah said ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Light’ and that no one could reach the Father except through Him, He was not founding a religion, He was not setting the stage for the exclusive unrighteousness of Christianity. Unrighteousness is injustice and an unfair, biased judgment--the out-workings of hypocrisy, blindness, and self-orientation which denies connection with other life. God is righteous and so must we be in all our relations with each other, keeping always in mind that we are all made of the same elements put together in the same way, and we all have the same potential within us.

 

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 6:33 KJV

 

When we seek His righteousness we are loving one another without respect to persons and devoid of condemnation and comparison. His kingdom is the whole--comprised of both the material and the spiritual. Only by first making love and truth priority can God be sought. This is how understanding is then arrived at--and what is meant by 'all these things will be added unto you.'

 

He was instructing, in allegory and with parables, on the only way to overcome the entropy (death) of nature’s closed system (grave) by turning away ('repenting') from the worldly view and focus that says material existence is complete (which is 'sin')--because it is only one-half of the complete whole and can not provide any lasting benefit to us.

 

There is just one possible way out, according to the fundamental structure of creation as governed by the Laws of God (which, in fact, are not legalistic ordinances but the principles of thermodynamics and quantum physics which provide order and function to all systems, perceived by humanity as ‘love’, ‘truth’, ‘balance’, and ‘order’). The Resurrection was a demonstration that life is something not confined to either one of the two halves. Unless we believe that life lies beyond our current conception, then we will not be able to pass through.

 

By serving us as the appointed manifestation of God and man, Christ is the demonstration and embodiment of both this system and the other half which lies outside of human experience. Therefore He is truly the only hope we have, but each of us, individually—outside of religious doctrines and scientific experiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how this consistutes as proof, though, Queen Annie. It looks more like you are using the scientific knowledge we have today to apply to poetics in the Bible and interpreting it in a way that fits with Science....which happens all the time with Christians, but it doesn't have any bearing in reality. It's an interesting idea, sure...but it's just your ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
  • #1  Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant.
     
  • #2  In a closed system, entropy always increases.

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.  Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 KJV

 

The ‘dust’ is the ‘mechanical work,’ and the ‘spirit’ is ‘heat.’  The sum of creation, both seen and unseen comprises ‘energy’ and is contained within the Most High, God the Father, who is ‘pure spirit.’ 

 

The fundamental ideas of light, electricity, and magnetism are the principle elements of God’s nature:

  • Light
    • Genesis 1:1-4
    • John 1:1-9
    • John 5:35
    • John 14:6

     

    [*]Electricity

    • Matthew 24:27
    • Matthew 28:3
    • Luke 17:24

     

    [*]Magnetism

    • John 6:44
    • John 12:32
    • James 4:8

Concerning the existence of the human soul:

 

Think of a TV set.  Its physical components are the ‘mechanical work’.  The electricity that it requires to function is the ‘heat.’  It is obtained by a connection that is the form of a power cord.  The electricity is not part of the TV itself, and left alone and not used, the TV will return to the ‘dust’ due to the inevitable process of entropy (albeit some parts much sooner than others). 

 

When the TV is plugged in and turned on, it seems to come to life, after a fashion; and indeed someone who had never lived with such modern inventions might actually think it was alive.  Ask a child where the picture goes when the TV is turned off and they will probably say, ‘I don’t know.’  That picture is an ethereal wonder of ideas transferred in vibrational energy (waves)—a moving image of color, with sounds, that presents to the human observer a progressive presentation of ideas originating from another human mind.  This presentation becomes a part of the viewer’s existence by leaving an impression of a relatively permanent nature in their mind, whether it is merely the recollection of a movie watched in the past or added knowledge about the world such as what might be gained watching the Discovery or History channels. 

 

Now, think of the TV as your physical body, and the electricity as the Spirit of God, which He breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make Adam a ‘living soul.’  Now, think of the picture on the TV screen as the ‘living soul,’ and the power cord as the ‘silver cord’ written of in Ecclesiastes.

 

Religious theory is completely divorced from Sciencific theory.  Science never reaches a complete conclusion because it seeks, generally speaking, to divorce itself from things not observable.  Spiritual pursuits are only one half of the whole, and Science provides the other half.  They are not rightly put in opposition to one another, and only through their unity can complete understanding come about.  Religion flatters itself as being Science's rival, but in truth competes in the arena of politics and superstition.

 

From an enlightened perspective, science is actually the observations man is able to make concerning the results of God’s workings:

 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:19-20 KJV

 

‘Eternal life’ and ‘salvation’ as presented by christianity are not resolved in a logical manner.

 

Concerning the biblical concepts of salvation, life and death, these ideas seek to represent the understanding that the only ‘rescue’ (salvation) from ‘death’ (which is being bound in by the limited perception of material existence as a complete reality) beyond the ‘gates of hell’ (essentially the grave which is inherent within the closed system of organic nature).  The narrow way that end at the narrow gate is the only way out of the closed system that is the material realm.  All things bound within nature’s boundaries are a part of a perpetual food chain and cyclic exchange of oxygen/carbon dioxide that define ‘life’, and will experience, without exception, individual death of their material carbon based components.  However, nature as a whole is an eternally living entity, because of the cycle of life-->death-->life.

 

When Messiah said ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Light’ and that no one could reach the Father except through Him, He was not founding a religion, He was not setting the stage for the exclusive unrighteousness of Christianity.  Unrighteousness is injustice and an unfair, biased judgment--the out-workings of hypocrisy, blindness, and self-orientation which denies connection with other life.  God is righteous and so must we be in all our relations with each other, keeping always in mind that we are all made of the same elements put together in the same way, and we all have the same potential within us. 

 

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 6:33 KJV 

 

When we seek His righteousness we are loving one another without respect to persons and devoid of condemnation and comparison.  His kingdom is the whole--comprised of both the material and the spiritual.  Only by first making love and truth priority can God be sought.  This is how understanding is then arrived at--and what is meant by 'all these things will be added unto you.'

 

He was instructing, in allegory and with parables, on the only way to overcome the entropy (death) of nature’s closed system (grave) by turning away ('repenting') from the worldly view and focus that says material existence is complete (which is 'sin')--because it is only one-half of the complete whole and can not provide any lasting benefit to us.

 

There is just one possible way out, according to the fundamental structure of creation as governed by the Laws of God (which, in fact, are not legalistic ordinances but the principles of thermodynamics and quantum physics which provide order and function to all systems, perceived by humanity as ‘love’, ‘truth’, ‘balance’, and ‘order’).  The Resurrection was a demonstration that life is something not confined to either one of the two halves.  Unless we believe that life lies beyond our current conception, then we will not be able to pass through. 

 

By serving us as the appointed manifestation of God and man, Christ is the demonstration and embodiment of both this system and the other half which lies outside of human experience.  Therefore He is truly the only hope we have, but each of us, individually—outside of religious doctrines and scientific experiments.

 

As I might say to my first years, too much interpretation, not enough analysis. Can you give me something besides paraphrasing? As Asimov said, this is all very interesting, but nothing that you could not bypass with a simple "I don't agree". Kind of like someone saying Megaman could beat up Spiderman. Someone can come along and say "I don't agree" and that would be that.

 

Is there anything more than alternative interpretation of the bible you are offering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...

 

John 6:44 talks about anti-gravity, as does John 12:32, while James 4:8 talks about gravity...

 

Matthew 24:27 talks about natural lightning, but not about what this lightning is... Same with Matthew 28:3, but at least this one refers to washing powder... while Luke 17:24 is talking about the effect of lightning, again no mention of what it IS.

 

Genesis 1:1-4 is one of the worst you could refer to about Light... (light without source... impossible) but I suppose God could have been flipping a switch to turn on the light... powered by the lightning, no doubt.

John 1:1-9 is talking about words... since words = knowledge, then the light that John 1:1-9 also refers to would be the light of human knowledge.

John 5:35 is talking about summer... since that is a "season" in which we "rejoice in his light". (it describes him as "a burning and a shining light"... obviously a reference to him being a star, which in this case would be the sun itself. See... it's talking about summer)

John 14:6 seems to be talking about construction... Jesus has become the equivilent of an 8-lane highway.

 

 

 

Interpretation is such a good thing, isn't it? :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I will give you credit, upon seeing the title, and after seeing your Wyatt post debacle, I figured this would be the old 2nd law canard, but it wasn't quite that.

 

But you fucked up the TV analogy that is used to try to show how consciousness might be some immateriale thing not associated with the brain.

 

The way the analogy is supposed to go is to suppose that the brain is like a radio, and that that the "soul" or "consciousness" is like the music the radio plays.

 

You can damage the radio (or the brain) but this does not mean the transmission (or the soul) has stopped, only that the device which recieves it has stopped working.

 

That is, I think how the analogy goes.

 

Of course it is flawed in that 1) it is only an analogy and that 2) there is no evidence at all to suggest that the way the brain behaves has anything to do with recieving any remote sort of soul-waves, and 3) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the work done by the mind is actually done by the brain (e.g. virtually every neuroscience study ever done, the way the visual system works, the fact that software simulations of brain inspired "neurons" are routinely used to do useful work (e.g. voice recognition systems in routine use (e.g. by Sprint and other phone networks.))

 

Basically, this analogy amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

There is just one possible way out, according to the fundamental structure of creation as governed by the Laws of God (which, in fact, are not legalistic ordinances but the principles of thermodynamics and quantum physics which provide order and function to all systems, perceived by humanity as ‘love’, ‘truth’, ‘balance’, and ‘order’). The Resurrection was a demonstration that life is something not confined to either one of the two halves. Unless we believe that life lies beyond our current conception, then we will not be able to pass through.

 

You are so fucking full of shit. You know you don't know what you are talking about. You are not just talking about things you don't know, you know you are actively lying now, because you know for a fact that you do not know that what you wrote is true, but you state it as if you did know. You are a liar, plain and simple. Either that, or you're fucking retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie

First of all--this isn't in any way supposed to constitute proof of anything--it is something I wrote for another reason that I felt like posting here. If you were expecting some proof related to my post in the Lion's Den you mis-read what I wrote there that was linking to this post.

 

I am not depending upon science to prove anything--because science is a process of eliminating possibilities and is not any more absolute than anything else. Mathematics does provide, numbers are absolute, so we know there is an ultimate absolute. I don't know what exactly it is any more than anyone else.

 

I addressed that to everyone because all three of you jumped and reacted to some disappointed assumption--so please chill out so we can discuss things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
I'm not sure how this consistutes as proof, though, Queen Annie.  It looks more like you are using the scientific knowledge we have today to apply to poetics in the Bible and interpreting it in a way that fits with Science....which happens all the time with Christians, but it doesn't have any bearing in reality.  It's an interesting idea, sure...but it's just your ideas.

The first and second law of thermodynamics are my ideas? Surely you jest.

 

:lmao:

 

JK--I know what you are saying.

 

But the truth is, whether you believe it or not, is that I did not know science first and then try to make the bible fit into existing theorums. I'm no dummy by a far shot, but as far as math and science goes, the highest math I ever had in school was accelerated algebra in HS and basic algebra in college. The last science class I recall was in the 7th grade, I think. Neither did I know about the creationist claim for the 2nd law disproving evolution until just recently when I was spurred by the 'intelligent design' thing going on in the courts. I don't get into those useless contentions that can never be resolved--like proving or disproving God or creation vs. evolution, etc. either directly or vicariously. They would make me want to pull my hair out and waste time.

 

The bizarre truth is that I learned these 'laws' through reading the bible these last couple of years--they were things I came to understand and didn't know they were 'thermodynamics'. I had heard that term, of course, but I never knew what it meant nor was I interested. I'm a poet, and a graphic artist--I've studied the world from an esoteric perspective, not a logical one defined by scholastics.

 

But the thing that still blows me away, is that I got a lot more understanding and concerning things that I shouldn't understand and didn't really ever have an interest in from a conventional perspective--and I got it only just in the recent few years--after a couple of decades of totally rejecting christianity and all their theologies, yet not rejecting the bible--but I didn't read it, either. Instead I read all sorts of things over the course of several years--such as all sorts of sacred texts and misc: Buddhist, Taoist, Manichean, Gnostic, the Egyptian book of the dead, Greek, Sumerian, Amerian Indian, and Mayan mythology, Edgar Cayce, Rosicrucian, Tarot, Alchemy, and more that I can't recall. It all tells the same story--in a thousand different flavors.

 

Most people search for God and then believe they find truth and God in religion and all it's trappings. But I left church unwounded or scarred, sought 'truth' and ended up finding God everywhere I looked-- and He wasn't at all like what they had said He was in church. Fortunately I had never felt they had it right, from the start, and didn't take it too seriously.

 

I don't expect you to believe what I'm saying--I really don't care to convince anyone--that's not my goal. But I will rebut any kind of assumptions or accusations that are not accurate--because I'm not here to boost my self-esteem or gain your respect, I just have some things to say about what I know and how they came into my understanding, in case anyone needs to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and second law of thermodynamics are my ideas?  Surely you jest.

 

Regardless of what you consciously recall, the knowledge about thermodynamics has been around for 150 years, not to mention the ideas that the Earth will fade away or life after death or even nothingness after death has been around for thousands of years.

 

Regardless of the understand YOU gleaned from the bible, I am sorry to say that because your interpretation fits does not mean

 

1) That the bible is some form of truth.

2) That what you say is true.

 

We could look through thousands of passages in the bible and find things that fit with science....we could also look through other thousands and find things that DON'T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
But you fucked up the TV analogy that is used to try to show how consciousness might be some immateriale thing not associated with the brain.

The way the analogy is supposed to go is to suppose that the brain is like a radio, and that that the "soul" or "consciousness" is like the music the radio plays.

 

You can damage the radio (or the brain) but this does not mean the transmission (or the soul) has stopped, only that the device which recieves it has stopped working.

 

That is, I think how the analogy goes.

No, I didn't fuck up anything--this is not a radio analogy, it is about television--and it's not about the mechanics of the soul and brain waves, but rather about the fact that two things come together in every human being and create a third thing that is dependent upon the two things in combination and cannot survive with just one and not the other.

And I know that consciousness is something not contained only in the brain but is connected with it--and to say consciousness is not associated with the brain--with the mechanical process of neurotransmission--is crazy and not what I am saying at all.

 

Also, I know that consciousness is something beyond the physical--because I have witnessed many human deaths of various causes, and I've witnessed unconsciousness of both the temporary sort and the brain-dead sort.

 

I've never heard that analogy but I don't think it's a good one at all, based totally of what I know of life and death, and consciousness, too.

 

Basically, this analogy amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking.
Probably it does--but that's because you interpreted what I wrote according to what you assumed I meant.

 

You are so fucking full of shit. 
So are you. :shrug:

So what? I can handle being full of anything as long as my mind never closes in on me.

 

You know you don't know what you are talking about.
You haven't heard a word I said--you don't know if I do or not.

 

You are not just talking about things you don't know, you know you are actively lying now, because you know for a fact that you do not know that what you wrote is true, but you state it as if you did know.
What says I absolutely can not know these things? If you can prove these are things I don't know or aren't accurate, then please state your case.

 

You are a liar, plain and simple.  Either that, or you're fucking retarded.
Okay, then, I'm a 'retard' with an IQ of 142--because I definitely am not a liar.

 

BTW, I was under the impression that only christians used the 'liar' accusation as rebuttal--never thought I'd hear it here. :scratch:

So I guess that 'retard' must be the atheist version of 'heretic'...

 

it's worse than heretic, though--at least with 'heretic' you don't risk offending someone else who might be reading this in an effort to discredit me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I didn't fuck up anything--this is not a radio analogy, it is about television--and it's not about the mechanics of the soul and brain waves, but rather about the fact that two things come together in every human being and create a third thing that is dependent upon the two things in combination and cannot survive with just one and not the other.

 

No they don't. You're wrong.

 

And I know that consciousness is something not contained only in the brain but is connected with it--and to say consciousness is not associated with the brain--with the mechanical process of neurotransmission--is crazy and not what I am saying at all.

 

Consciousness is contained only in the brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
Regardless of what you consciously recall, the knowledge about thermodynamics has been around for 150 years, not to mention the ideas that the Earth will fade away or life after death or even nothingness after death has been around for thousands of years. 
No kidding--these ideas don't just go away.

 

But is it common to spontaneously just come to some kind of understanding on a conscious level just because it's accessible on an unconscious level?

 

Regardless of the understand YOU gleaned from the bible,
I didn't 'glean' anything--it is more aptly described as what was revealed to me through reading the bible. There is way, way, more than just these two laws of thermodynamics, far too much to qualify as 'gleaning' it. If I could glean just any book with the same results, then I'd be God.

 

I am sorry to say that because your interpretation fits does not mean

 

1) That the bible is some form of truth.

2) That what you say is true.

No it doesn't. But it also doesn't disqualify that possibility, either. Like I already said--I'm not looking for approval or to evangelize behind a smokescreen--or some sort of validation (that I certainly would never find here.) You guys are a tough crowd.

 

We could look through thousands of passages in the bible and find things that fit with science....we could also look through other thousands and find things that DON'T. 

[/b]

No doubt, that kind of thing has been going on forever. The bible is of absolutely no worth if it used to prove or disprove anything, even the existence of God--and that's basically what everyone does with it. Religion first did it and now it is used to refute religion, as well. It's just a big mess and none of proves anything but there are two axes being ground instead of just one.

 

The only way is to let the truth reveal itself to an open mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it common to spontaneously just come to some kind of understanding on a conscious level just because it's accessible on an unconscious level?

 

Why not? I have had "revelations" about some things without even reading about them (or consciously remembering if I'd heard it from somewhere) and then it turns out that it's already been done or thought of.

 

I didn't 'glean' anything--it is more aptly described as what was revealed to me through reading the bible.  There is way, way, more than just these two laws of thermodynamics, far too much to qualify as 'gleaning' it.  If I could glean just any book with the same results, then I'd be God.

 

I think it's 'gleaning'. I'm interested....did you actually figure out from reading the bible that:

 

1st Law (Conservation of energy): The work exchanged in an adiabatic process depends only on the initial and the final state and not on the details of the process.

 

This is equivalent to a statement of the conservation of energy, because no heat flows during an adiabatic process. This means that the only energy flowing into or out of a system during an adiabatic process is work done on or by the system. The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics was given by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: ‘There is a state function E, called ‘energy’, whose differential equals the work exchanged with the surroundings during an adiabatic process.’

 

This law is equivalent to dU=dQ+dW \, where U is the internal energy of a system, Q is the heat flowing into the system, and W is the work done on the system. The energy received by the system is positive.

 

And that:

 

2nd Law (Entropy): It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck Statement)

 

The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon), however a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the second law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality, constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of Physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.

 

I wonder....did the bible tell you about microscopic systems which violate the Second Law? Did it possibly tell you about the Zero Law? Or the Third Law?

 

What other "revelations" did you receive from reading the bible?

 

Have you heard of the revelations the Muslims have received from reading the Koran regarding science??

 

 

No it doesn't.  But it also doesn't disqualify that possibility, either.  Like I already said--I'm not looking for approval or to evangelize behind a smokescreen--or some sort of validation (that I certainly would never find here.)  You guys are a tough crowd.

 

Of course it doesn't disqualify the possibility. However making statements about biblical truth in regards to science is a disqualification because there is a compendium of scientific fallacy. No, I and a few others are a tough crowd. Why post anything if you don't want criticism? You're gonna get it whether you like it or not.

 

It's just a big mess and none of proves anything but there are two axes being ground instead of just one.

 

The only way is to let the truth reveal itself to an open mind.

 

Then what's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
Um...

 

John 6:44 talks about anti-gravity, as does John 12:32, while James 4:8 talks about gravity...

'To raise up' is to resurrect, not physically elevate by opposing gravity. To 'draw nigh' is to draw near, not 'up' or 'down'. Gravity is more complex than magnetism and it is relative to its location and many other factors, and it's a combination of forces, too, the least of which is magnetism (I think).

 

Matthew 24:27 talks about natural lightning, but not about what this lightning is...
Yes it does, it is some sort of indication of the 'son of man'.
Same with Matthew 28:3, but at least this one refers to washing powder...
And so what kind of washing powder was there back then?
while Luke 17:24 is talking about the effect of lightning, again no mention of what it IS.
Again, something to do with the 'son of man.' A pattern will show itself between those two words.

 

Genesis 1:1-4 is one of the worst you could refer to about Light... (light without source... impossible) but I suppose God could have been flipping a switch to turn on the light... powered by the lightning, no doubt.
That's ridiculous. I'm not going for literal and nonsensical connections here--I'm not talking about light as just something handy to have at night--I'm talking about light as photons, as the wave-force which is a factor for both entropy and growth, as well the source of all the colors we see, and even includes things we only think we see (like mirages) and things we can't see like infrared light at night.

 

John 1:1-9 is talking about words... since words = knowledge, then the light that John 1:1-9 also refers to would be the light of human knowledge.
Do you actually believe that every soul ever born had the 'human knowledge' within them? That's crazy, too, and you've got to admit to that one. Or prove it.

 

The 'Word' is not knowledge, it is the expression of a thought, which becomes manifested from an unseen thing to a seen thing through various mechanisms that all involve vibrational energy of some frequency or another.

 

*by 'seen' I mean something detected with our senses and 'unseen' is what is undetected by the general masses, not something we literally 'see'.*

 

John 5:35 is talking about summer... since that is a "season" in which we "rejoice in his light".

(it describes him as "a burning and a shining light"... obviously a reference to him being a star, which in this case would be the sun itself. See... it's talking about summer)

See? No I don't see that. It's not there even on the surface. A 'season' is a period of time, not just as is defined by our orbit around the sun--in both the Greek and the King's English. A burning and shining light is a star, no doubt. But there are other stars beside the sun we rotate around and there are many other mentions of stars.

 

But the idea of God having to do with stars--which are perfect illustrations in the area of 'thermodynamics'--both heat and mechanical work which undergoes transitions back and forth according to the transfer of energy in their systems, all the way to their 'death'--which is a black hole and could be described as a 'dark pit' where 'light' dies.

 

John 14:6 seems to be talking about construction... Jesus has become the equivilent of an 8-lane highway.
No, it is called 'christianity' and it's even wider than that these days. It's a bunch of human-invented nonsense and it is truly to be avoided in favor of a gate than only one can go through at a time. Which totally discredits the validity of religion of all sorts--because the bible it is not about religion. Man creates religion--it's just another variation on politics.

 

Interpretation is such a good thing, isn't it?  :grin:
I guess it could be, but it's useless. You are attached to ideas, too--and although they are your own, they are still limiting you by being confined in possibility to how you think the universe works. No one truly knows if light is possible without what we perceive to be a 'source' or not--nor can we say for sure that we are aware of all things that cause light. We know a lot about it yet we don't know everything about it and don't even know how much we don't know, and all we really have that is absolute is mathematics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie

Why not? I have had "revelations" about some things without even reading about them (or consciously remembering if I'd heard it from somewhere) and then it turns out that it's already been done or thought of.

But not by you. Where did they come from, then? How many have you had?

 

I think it's 'gleaning'. I'm interested....did you actually figure out from reading the bible that:
Not in so many words, but the concepts I already had as has been defined by scientists.

 

I wonder....did the bible tell you about microscopic systems which violate the Second Law?
I'm not sure--I don't know the mechanics of that part of it. I will say that if it's been shown by science then the bible won't disprove it or contradict it--although it may not be included in it, either.

 

Did it possibly tell you about the Zero Law? Or the Third Law?
I don't know that, either. I only ran across those two earlier today--I didn't know there were more laws because I really don't know much more than the principles of the first and second law and how they are evidenced. I read the third law, something about crystals and pressure but I wasn't compelled to investigate it or even find out what the zero law was.

So, in all honesty I can only say that I don't know until I understand what those two principles describe--and if they can be found in the bible I'll be able to point them out.

 

What other "revelations" did you receive from reading the bible?
You truly want to know? I'll tell you all about them if you really have an interest. There's more than just a couple, though--but understand that revelation is not something that comes from reading--it comes from inside one's mind, not the pages of a book. And even a book which was directly inspired by revelation isn't obvious to every reader.

 

Have you heard of the revelations the Muslims have received from reading the Koran regarding science??[/b]
Actually, I haven't. But what does that have to do with what I'm saying? I've never read the Koran and Islam is one of the few religions I haven't studied in any depth at all. I have no problem at all believing such a thing--'Allah' is surely the same God of Abraham spoken of in the bible as the one that christians claim to follow.

Just because I say these things can be found in the bible doesn't mean they can't be found somewhere else, too.

I'm not a fundie or an idiot--I know truth is available in all things--but

only in part. Perhaps the Koran is just as complete a source of information as the bible is--it certainly appears to have had the same effect in the east as the bible has in the west. Who knows? It's certainly not impossible.

I don't claim that

truth is only in the bible
to the exclusion of every other thing mankind knows or believes. That's totally ignorant but I guess it's the only way to validate christianity using the bible--by refusing to acknowledge reality.

 

Of course it doesn't disqualify the possibility. However making statements about biblical truth in regards to science is a disqualification because there is a compendium of scientific fallacy.
As well as misinterpretation and mistranslation of scripture--neither can prove or disprove the other one--neither stands on their own and neither is completely understood. 'Biblical truth' is not the same as what I refer to as 'truth'. There is no 'biblical truth', as such...it's impossible because truth is something that is recognized and discerned and is present along with delusion in all things that exist.

 

Also, the bible approaches things from an allegorical perspective, whereas science is based on observation and controlled testing of hypotheses--it is impossible to define science with allegorical terms just the same as it is impossible to 'observe' the bible in a controlled environment.

 

No, I and a few others are a tough crowd. Why post anything if you don't want criticism? You're gonna get it whether you like it or not.
Exactly. That's what I meant--that this would not be a place I would seek validation for my indoctrinations, in case I was suspected of being driven by the desire for that sort of thing. I fully expected harsh criticism and profanity delivered with animosity and ridicule in this situation--it's not like I'm not used to it. It is impossible to offend me or hurt my feelings or make me run away.

 

Someone seeking in the manner that christians do, in order to persuade themselves that what they believe is true by persuading others, would not find that kind of help here and I'm sure it would be easy enough to beat them into submission in a short amount of time. Of course, they would have a venomous attack of name calling right before they fell in defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interpretation is such a good thing, isn't it?  :grin:

I guess it could be, but it's useless. You are attached to ideas, too--and although they are your own, they are still limiting you by being confined in possibility to how you think the universe works. No one truly knows if light is possible without what we perceive to be a 'source' or not--nor can we say for sure that we are aware of all things that cause light. We know a lot about it yet we don't know everything about it and don't even know how much we don't know, and all we really have that is absolute is mathematics.

Apart from the God of the Gaps argument, why are you trying to argue that your interpretation is right?

 

I mean, since interpretation is useless, any argument based on it is a total waste of time... and since your post was nothing more than your interpretation of the Bible and Science, you've just managed to show that your post is also useless.

 

 

Now... are you going to re-think your position on this, or are you going to stick to the hypocritical stance that you've just taken?

 

 

 

 

By the way... light must have a source, since light is energy that is moving from one place to another. If light didn't need a source, then it would violate the 1st LoT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want you guys to know that whenever I see the word "thermodynamics" pop up on the forum, I always shudder a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want you guys to know that whenever I see the word "thermodynamics" pop up on the forum, I always shudder a little.

I just shake my head in dismay... saves time in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By serving us as the appointed manifestation of God and man, Christ is the demonstration and embodiment of both this system and the other half which lies outside of human experience.  Therefore He is truly the only hope we have, but each of us, individually—outside of religious doctrines and scientific experiments.

 

And if I believe that the Christ the new testament speaks of is a completely fictional character.........???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement with CT...

 

What exactly is your point in posting this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
  • #1  Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant.
     
  • #2  In a closed system, entropy always increases.

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.  Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 KJV

 

The ‘dust’ is the ‘mechanical work,’ and the ‘spirit’ is ‘heat.’  The sum of creation, both seen and unseen comprises ‘energy’ and is contained within the Most High, God the Father, who is ‘pure spirit.’ 

 

The fundamental ideas of light, electricity, and magnetism are the principle elements of God’s nature:

  • Light
    • Genesis 1:1-4
    • John 1:1-9
    • John 5:35
    • John 14:6

     

    [*]Electricity

    • Matthew 24:27
    • Matthew 28:3
    • Luke 17:24

     

    [*]Magnetism

    • John 6:44
    • John 12:32
    • James 4:8

Concerning the existence of the human soul:

 

Think of a TV set.  Its physical components are the ‘mechanical work’.  The electricity that it requires to function is the ‘heat.’  It is obtained by a connection that is the form of a power cord.  The electricity is not part of the TV itself, and left alone and not used, the TV will return to the ‘dust’ due to the inevitable process of entropy (albeit some parts much sooner than others). 

 

When the TV is plugged in and turned on, it seems to come to life, after a fashion; and indeed someone who had never lived with such modern inventions might actually think it was alive.  Ask a child where the picture goes when the TV is turned off and they will probably say, ‘I don’t know.’  That picture is an ethereal wonder of ideas transferred in vibrational energy (waves)—a moving image of color, with sounds, that presents to the human observer a progressive presentation of ideas originating from another human mind.  This presentation becomes a part of the viewer’s existence by leaving an impression of a relatively permanent nature in their mind, whether it is merely the recollection of a movie watched in the past or added knowledge about the world such as what might be gained watching the Discovery or History channels. 

 

Now, think of the TV as your physical body, and the electricity as the Spirit of God, which He breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make Adam a ‘living soul.’  Now, think of the picture on the TV screen as the ‘living soul,’ and the power cord as the ‘silver cord’ written of in Ecclesiastes.

 

Religious theory is completely divorced from Sciencific theory.  Science never reaches a complete conclusion because it seeks, generally speaking, to divorce itself from things not observable.  Spiritual pursuits are only one half of the whole, and Science provides the other half.  They are not rightly put in opposition to one another, and only through their unity can complete understanding come about.  Religion flatters itself as being Science's rival, but in truth competes in the arena of politics and superstition.

 

From an enlightened perspective, science is actually the observations man is able to make concerning the results of God’s workings:

 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:19-20 KJV

 

‘Eternal life’ and ‘salvation’ as presented by christianity are not resolved in a logical manner.

 

Concerning the biblical concepts of salvation, life and death, these ideas seek to represent the understanding that the only ‘rescue’ (salvation) from ‘death’ (which is being bound in by the limited perception of material existence as a complete reality) beyond the ‘gates of hell’ (essentially the grave which is inherent within the closed system of organic nature).  The narrow way that end at the narrow gate is the only way out of the closed system that is the material realm.  All things bound within nature’s boundaries are a part of a perpetual food chain and cyclic exchange of oxygen/carbon dioxide that define ‘life’, and will experience, without exception, individual death of their material carbon based components.  However, nature as a whole is an eternally living entity, because of the cycle of life-->death-->life.

 

When Messiah said ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Light’ and that no one could reach the Father except through Him, He was not founding a religion, He was not setting the stage for the exclusive unrighteousness of Christianity.  Unrighteousness is injustice and an unfair, biased judgment--the out-workings of hypocrisy, blindness, and self-orientation which denies connection with other life.  God is righteous and so must we be in all our relations with each other, keeping always in mind that we are all made of the same elements put together in the same way, and we all have the same potential within us. 

 

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 6:33 KJV 

 

When we seek His righteousness we are loving one another without respect to persons and devoid of condemnation and comparison.  His kingdom is the whole--comprised of both the material and the spiritual.  Only by first making love and truth priority can God be sought.  This is how understanding is then arrived at--and what is meant by 'all these things will be added unto you.'

 

He was instructing, in allegory and with parables, on the only way to overcome the entropy (death) of nature’s closed system (grave) by turning away ('repenting') from the worldly view and focus that says material existence is complete (which is 'sin')--because it is only one-half of the complete whole and can not provide any lasting benefit to us.

 

There is just one possible way out, according to the fundamental structure of creation as governed by the Laws of God (which, in fact, are not legalistic ordinances but the principles of thermodynamics and quantum physics which provide order and function to all systems, perceived by humanity as ‘love’, ‘truth’, ‘balance’, and ‘order’).  The Resurrection was a demonstration that life is something not confined to either one of the two halves.  Unless we believe that life lies beyond our current conception, then we will not be able to pass through. 

 

By serving us as the appointed manifestation of God and man, Christ is the demonstration and embodiment of both this system and the other half which lies outside of human experience.  Therefore He is truly the only hope we have, but each of us, individually—outside of religious doctrines and scientific experiments.

 

Oh, and there are many many other scientifically accurate descriptions in the Bible... such as in Isaiah where it says He "sits above the circle of the earth." --and, that we (and the other planets) are hung on "nothing." We still don't know what this "nothing" is that holds us in place. We call it gravity... but we don't really know what that is.

 

I don't believe the world ever really thought the earth was flat anyways however... isn't that a myth? I guess I don't know if I can really know... of course it isn't flat though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and there are many many other scientifically accurate descriptions in the Bible... such as in Isaiah where it says He "sits above the circle of the earth."  --and, that we (and the other planets) are hung on "nothing."  We still don't know what this "nothing" is that holds us in place.  We call it gravity... but we don't really know what that is.

 

I don't believe the world ever really thought the earth was flat anyways however... isn't that a myth?  I guess I don't know if I can really know... of course it isn't flat though. :)

Ahem...

 

Circle... 2 dimensional.

Sphere... 3 dimensional.

Circle does not equal Sphere. (circles are flat)

 

Oh, and the Bible is the basis of this website... The Flat-out Truth)

 

 

How can something be hung on nothing? For something to be hung, there must be SOMETHING for it to be hung from.

Gravity, whatever it is, does not equal nothing.

 

 

Do you know how many cultures throughout history have believed the world to be flat? Did you know about how God draped the sky above the world like a tent? Or the Egyptian Goddess who arched above the world and the stars were on her skin? Need I mention the historical mentions of a world on the back of elephants?

 

Your ignorance of history is matched only be your arrogant belief that you know all there is to know about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, don't quote something unless you're actually going to specifically address what is said. If you quote an entire post but only vaguely address the topic, then all you're doing is wasting space.

 

Oh, and there are many many other scientifically accurate descriptions in the Bible... such as in Isaiah where it says He "sits above the circle of the earth."
:lmao: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

 

Well, CT already addressed this one, but I just wanted to add how funny it is that, in the attempt to show scientific fact in the Bible, you pull the one verse most fatal to that premise.

 

--and, that we (and the other planets) are hung on "nothing."  We still don't know what this "nothing" is that holds us in place.
No no, stupid. The planets neither hang, nor are they held in place. The planets MOVE. Not only are they not hanging, but they're actually falling, which is the opposite of hanging. It's a propetual fall, which is what an orbit is. The planets fall toward the sun, but since they're are also in motion, they maintain a stable distance.

 

Really, how can you be so stupid?

 

We call it gravity... but we don't really know what that is.
Well obviously Goddidit then. :jerkit:

 

I don't believe the world ever really thought the earth was flat anyways however... isn't that a myth?  I guess I don't know if I can really know... of course it isn't flat though. :)
Quibble, quibble, quibble. Such quibbler.

 

Do you know how many cultures throughout history have believed the world to be flat? Did you know about how God draped the sky above the world like a tent? Or the Egyptian Goddess who arched above the world and the stars were on her skin?
Ironically, it was the Egyptians who discovered that the Earth was round, and they knew it centuries before Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
I don't believe the world ever really thought the earth was flat anyways however... isn't that a myth?  I guess I don't know if I can really know... of course it isn't flat though. :)

There was a time before the renaissance, that some few scholars seemed to believe it to be so. And again, in the 1870's or whenever Darwin introduced his ideas about evolution, there seemed to arise an ignorant defense on the other side which used the same premise, supposedly gained from the bible.

 

And even as I write this, there exists something called 'The Flat Earth Society' which appears to be holding fast to this proposition strictly due to their own literal skewing of scripture. Do a search and see what I'm referring to.

 

But--that wasn't as bad as when Galileo advanced the idea of heliocentricity--he was declared a heretic for using his eyes and common sense to discover the truth but since it disagreed with the church's idea of what the bible said, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest and excommuncation from the church.

 

He wrote a letter about his ordeal to a friend and he said the following:

 

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.

 

In regard to the work of Copernicus, he said:

 

He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood

 

And in regard to his own perspective:

 

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned.

 

Galileo was a wise man--and he didn't see the need to choose between God and his own ability to think and reason--he was humble enough to not think that what he did not understand was therefore false.

 

That letter, BTW is called 'To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:' and can be found on the Fordham Ancient History Sourcebook site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, don't quote something unless you're actually going to specifically address what is said.  If you quote an entire post but only vaguely address the topic, then all you're doing is wasting space.
With the way he replies, even if he addressed it completely it'd still be wasting space...

Oh, and there are many many other scientifically accurate descriptions in the Bible... such as in Isaiah where it says He "sits above the circle of the earth."

:lmao: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

 

Well, CT already addressed this one, but I just wanted to add how funny it is that, in the attempt to show scientific fact in the Bible, you pull the one verse most fatal to that premise.

To be fair, I can see why they keep using that verse...

 

We say the Bible tells us that the world is flat, not round... and they counter with this verse, because a circle is round. From their point of view, they've proven us wrong... and because we've been imprecise in our wording, they never understand that round, in this context, means spherical...

 

Which is why I'm now specifying "sphere" instead of saying "round". It removes that loophole and makes them look really stupid... :wicked:

No no, stupid.  The planets neither hang, nor are they held in place.  The planets MOVE.  Not only are they not hanging, but they're actually falling, which is the opposite of hanging.  It's a propetual fall, which is what an orbit is.  The planets fall toward the sun, but since they're are also in motion, they maintain a stable distance.

 

Really, how can you be so stupid?

Rhetorical question?
Well obviously Goddidit then. :jerkit:

 

Quibble, quibble, quibble.  Such  quibbler.

Come on Neil... he thinks a circle is a sphere.

 

He can only quibble at us now...

Ironically, it was the Egyptians who discovered that the Earth was round, and they knew it centuries before Christianity.

Hmm... I didn't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Well, I don't know if they were the ones to discover the spherical Earth, but they definitely had it long before Europe pulled its head out of it's ass somewhere around the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

 

It was Eratosthenes of Alexandria who figured it out. In fact, he had the size of the Earth figured out just by using the length of shadows in two cities to figure out their angles from each other and then using the difference of that angle to figure out the radius, and thus the size of the Earth. He was pretty dead on, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.