If Jesus Is God

[Guest end3]

Lack of ability?  I'm lost, sorry.. can you clarify that?

He's saying that the function of many molecules would adequately shift the equilibrium one way or the other in a flux basically where we see all phases.  If we could hold the entire thing at an equilibrium, there would be no phase change.  We just can't do it. 

[RogueScholar]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. The triple point is a function of pressure and temperature acting on a system of molecules. Equilibrium does not mean no phase change when looking at the triple point, but rather the change among the various phases is in equilibrium. This is why some call this dynamic equilibrium.

[Ravenstar]

 

Lack of ability?  I'm lost, sorry.. can you clarify that?

He's saying that the function of many molecules would adequately shift the equilibrium one way or the other in a flux basically where we see all phases.  If we could hold the entire thing at an equilibrium, there would be no phase change.  We just can't do it. 

 

Oh.. okay, thank you.

[Ravenstar]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. The triple point is a function of pressure and temperature acting on a system of molecules. Equilibrium does not mean no phase change when looking at the triple point, but rather the change among the various phases is in equilibrium. This is why some call this dynamic equilibrium.

So, in a vacuum at absolute zero there would be no triple point? I realize this is hypothetical, but it's kind of interesting.

 

Darn, now I have to go look this up.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

I don't think you understand the concept of equilibrium in the context of the triple point. Some of the molecules will be in a liquid phase, some will be in a gas phase and some will be in a solid phase, but the three phases are in a state of equilibrium. The triple point is the point where the three phases can exist in equilibrium. Again, you are wanting to define the state of a single molecule. You asked "what state is it in." Therefore, I have to assume you want me to pick one molecule and say something about it's state. Again, that is not what the thermodynamic concepts discussed look at. They look at large systems of molecules. Once we go away from looking at the bigger picture to a single molecule, we cannot appreciate the intermolecular forces and ignore the very thing that make something a solid, liquid or gas in the context of this conversation.

I think it is a function of our inability to achieve the equilibrium due to the numbers.  Trust me, I hear you, but see your answer as a function of our lack of ability.

 

 

And seeing as humans will always lack the ability to define god, in whatever field they care to explore, whatever language or terminology they use, however long they strive...

 

...therefore the Christian god of the Bible is real?

 

You may not have realized it End, but what you're presenting here is your personal spin on this...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

BAA

[RogueScholar]

Just remember, absolute zero cannot be achieved. Even the cold vacuum of deep space is slightly above absolute zero. To make it even more difficult, the concept of temperature in such an environment ( theoretical deep space with virtually "nothing") would not mean much because temperature refers to the average kinetic energy of a system of particles/molecules, there would not be much in the way of many molecules. Anyway, I wanted to bring that up in the event somebody wanted to come along and start "sharp shooting" what could be a cool discussion. It's been addressed, so now we can move onto the spirit of a great question.

 

The answer is that since pressure is basically nothing, a phase diagram cannot really be used to look at water and the triple point really does not apply. However, we see that water in a vacuum like environment at temperatures encountered in our area of space will "boil" away into it's gas phase. In the cold environment of the outer solar system, the temperatures are so low that water can remain in a frozen form, like comets. Then, as the comet approaches the sun and the inner solar system, the temperature increases and water can go from it's solid form straight to a gas form in a process known as sublimation. Just like a block of "dry ice" or frozen Carbon dioxide does here on Earth.

[Ravenstar]

Exactly... that's why I said hypothetical, because absolute zero cannot be achieved.

 

I watched the NOVA program on Comet Ison the other day and was very interested in the sublimation of deep frozen material as it got closer to the sun.. it has a huge coma. Anyway this discussion remnded me of some of the things brought up about the states of matter in space.

 

Is not pressure the density of matter caused by gravity? (don't know if I phrased that right)

 

One more thought... what about plasma states? That sort of messes up the whole triple state thing, doesn't it? And though very extreme so do neutron-degenerate states and Bose-Einstein condensates.

[Storm]

Just remember, absolute zero cannot be achieved. Even the cold vacuum of deep space is slightly above absolute zero. To make it even more difficult, the concept of temperature in such an environment ( theoretical deep space with virtually "nothing") would not mean much because temperature refers to the average kinetic energy of a system of particles/molecules, there would not be much in the way of many molecules. Anyway, I wanted to bring that up in the event somebody wanted to come along and start "sharp shooting" what could be a cool discussion. It's been addressed, so now we can move onto the spirit of a great question.

 

The answer is that since pressure is basically nothing, a phase diagram cannot really be used to look at water and the triple point really does not apply. However, we see that water in a vacuum like environment at temperatures encountered in our area of space will "boil" away into it's gas phase. In the cold environment of the outer solar system, the temperatures are so low that water can remain in a frozen form, like comets. Then, as the comet approaches the sun and the inner solar system, the temperature increases and water can go from it's solid form straight to a gas form in a process known as sublimation. Just like a block of "dry ice" or frozen Carbon dioxide does here on Earth.

Rogue, thanks for your input. I have learned from your information and it helps. I wasn't addressing you or what you had to say, I was just trying to make a point about the analogy of water and God. I understand that most Christians don't reference a single molecule of water in the analogy, but many molecules which would be the point where we actually achieve the liquid or gaseous or sold state. But I have even heard the single molecule reference too. I was just addressing that particular analogy.

[pawn]

If Jesus is God.... Why doesnt he just show up in this thread and explain this shit to us???

 

O holy Jesus, I pray in your holy, precious name that you manifest yourself in glory and power and let your Shekinah glory manifest physically in this thread, so that all may see your glory and magnify your name...

Amen

 

Just post a few precious words... And leave us your wisdom.

[Kris]

One day I just kind of woke up and thought how totally ridiculous Christianity really is. The father, son and Holy Ghost. The god of the Old Testament was a jealous god who would never have stood for people to pray and worship Jesus, even if he was his son. And Jesus was supposed to sacrifice himself--- to himself (because he and his father were one!). And then you have the Holy Ghost--- what or who is this? If you just stop and think about it, the whole thing is crazy!!

[Storm]

 

 

 

Water, H2O, can be other things, or be part of many other things.  Two molecules of H2O can become 2 H2 + O2.  Add carbon and you can get methane, or a variety of sugars.  Add enough heat and H20 can become a plasma.  Add heat and pressure and you get nuclear fusion.

 

All of this is in accordance with known laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Unless the three gods to which H20 is being compared are subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry, I would suggest it is a category error to try to compare them, even by analogy.

Eh, the well know laws can't seem to define this one...hence the comparison. 

 

This reply doesn't even make sense. It is Christians that are the ones trying to define what exactly the trinity is. So, by your statement you are essentially saying that because current laws of physics and thermodynamics don't seem to apply, they are unable to adequately explain the trinity? And because they cannot explain the trinity, and god is not bound by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, then the comparison is a moot one? The bible certainly doesn't validate the trinity, and apparently Christianity's own attempts to define it aren't sufficient, so then why the trinity? Why do Christians attempt to explain something that does not exist?

 

Feel free to answer the questions I have asked Storm and I will be glad to admit the analogy doesn't fit. 

 

Edit:  I am saying the laws DO apply but we as humans with ALL our knowledge and science can't define this even though we spew that we can, then HOW sir, are we sure we can rule out God. 

 

So please, feel free to answer at your leisure.

 

I am not going to answer any of the previous questions because I think they have been addressed by more qualified people. However, I can easily answer your last question:

"I am saying the laws DO apply but we as humans with ALL our knowledge and science can't define this even though we spew that we can, then HOW sir, are we sure we can rule out God."

 

We can rule out god because the evidence that we have gathered so far in every aspect that we are capable of leads to the truth that god is likely not real. No one is claiming that we know everything or that we are even close, but so far, a whole lot of evidence against god existing is available for the average person to evaluate and see the truth. There is nothing in all that evidence to indicate that a god exists. One can therefore draw a logical conclusion that no god exists. Each new discovery about some unknown law of the universe continues to provide more evidence that no god exists. I am completely aware that even if we finally figure out every last possible thing there is to know about our universe and its laws and properties, this will not disprove god, for a deity is fully capable of utilizing any one of these laws and properties as it would seem fit. However, the extraordinary claims that have been brought forth throughout history have yet to provide any evidence that a god actually exists. Opportunities abound every minute for a god to reveal itself easily and unmistakably, yet it chooses not to. A god could have easily provided information to this planet about itself and how to live and how to interact with it. But it doesn't. I know you are going to say that the bible does that, but everyone here knows that that is not a true statement. The bible is flawed and contains nothing of any significance to indicate that a god actually exists. There has yet to be ever in all of history any evidence that a god actually exists. Therefore, it can be adequately concluded that no god exists. Case closed.

[RogueScholar]

Exactly... that's why I said hypothetical, because absolute zero cannot be achieved.

 

I watched the NOVA program on Comet Ison the other day and was very interested in the sublimation of deep frozen material as it got closer to the sun.. it has a huge coma. Anyway this discussion remnded me of some of the things brought up about the states of matter in space.

 

Is not pressure the density of matter caused by gravity? (don't know if I phrased that right)

 

One more thought... what about plasma states? That sort of messes up the whole triple state thing, doesn't it? And though very extreme so do neutron-degenerate states and Bose-Einstein condensates.

Density is a composite value that looks at mass divided by volume. Therefore, you could compress a large amount of gas into a small volume and increase density. However, under normal circumstances pressure may not change density. A dense metal like gold will not really change it's density if taken into say outer space because neither it's mass nor it's volume would really change.

 

However, gravity can cause matter to form into strange types like supercritical fluids that probably exist on gas giants and degenerate matter like stuff found in neutron stars that has been in a sense "compressed" by gravity into very dense matter. Plasma is basically a "soup" of ionised atoms (Basically, atoms that have lost electrons) and electrons. Remember, the triple point occurs on a phase diagram that plots temperature and pressure. Plasma can exist in outer space, so talking about it in the context of a phase diagram that uses pressure is not particularly relevant. Remember, this whole triple point business is used to explain a phenomenon that occurs under a specific set of circumstances. With that said, there is also something called the critical point of water, beyond which, water exists as a superfluid, a very interesting state to say the least.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, I guess we are back to the original question--Which is better: one god with three heads or three gods with one head?  If I may apply Occam's Razor, I'd suggest no gods with no heads.

[Ravenstar]

(Thanks Rogue, I'll have to look all that up!) 

 

What about animal heads? They were very popular once for gods... I like the aesthetic, and animals seem to act more reasonable most of the time.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

(Thanks Rogue, I'll have to look all that up!) 

 

What about animal heads? They were very popular once for gods... I like the aesthetic, and animals seem to act more reasonable most of the time.

 

I like that idea.

[sdelsolray]

 

Water, H2O, can be other things, or be part of many other things.  Two molecules of H2O can become 2 H2 + O2.  Add carbon and you can get methane, or a variety of sugars.  Add enough heat and H20 can become a plasma.  Add heat and pressure and you get nuclear fusion.

 

All of this is in accordance with known laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Unless the three gods to which H20 is being compared are subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry, I would suggest it is a category error to try to compare them, even by analogy.

Eh, the well know laws can't seem to define this one...hence the comparison. 

 

The known laws often cannot describe, explain or define imaginary constructs, fiction or delusions.  Of course they can be used to describe, explain or define the processes within the human brain that invented such things or can be used to describe, explain or define how or why a particular human may believe such things.

 

Still, a poor analogy remains a poor analogy.

 

Using "water has three states" to describe, explain or define the Holy Trinity (a particular dogma of some Christian sects) is a poor analogy.  A very poor analogy.

[miekko]

The fun thing about the H2O analogy used by many Christians today is that it is very close to modalism - an understanding of the trinity that has been considered heretical for over 1700 years. 

[chrisstavrous]

It's what all christians do, bend, distort and force ancient mythological ideas to fit the scientific facts of our day, and they do it without adhering to any scientific method scientists uses today to test their theories.

[sdelsolray]

Well, they don't have much to work with in the first place.  Attempting to justify superstition is hard work.

[Guest end3]

It's what all christians do, bend, distort and force ancient mythological ideas to fit the scientific facts of our day, and they do it without adhering to any scientific method scientists uses today to test their theories.

With all due respect Chris, you haven't disproven what I have proposed. 

[mymistake]

 

It's what all christians do, bend, distort and force ancient mythological ideas to fit the scientific facts of our day, and they do it without adhering to any scientific method scientists uses today to test their theories.

With all due respect Chris, you haven't disproven what I have proposed. 

 

 

End usually your proposals are a vague idea that isn't falsifiable.  Now it is possible to disprove an idea under rare conditions.  (For example: The Problem Of Evil)  An idea has to be complicated enough to be in direct conflict with the rest of known reality for it to be disproven.  That is why outside of religion ideas are usually expected to be supported by those who propose it.  You need to prove your idea to the skeptics, not they disprove it to you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

It's what all christians do, bend, distort and force ancient mythological ideas to fit the scientific facts of our day, and they do it without adhering to any scientific method scientists uses today to test their theories.

With all due respect Chris, you haven't disproven what I have proposed. 

 

 

End3, I think it would be beneficial if you could clarify what you are proposing.  It may help us to better respond.

[Guest end3]

I'm still holding firm to the notion that given the ability to put the water at an equilibrium at those conditions that we would have a hard time describing what state it was.  Rouge suggests that thermdamnamics is looking at what effect these conditions exhibit on the subject/system, whatever. The Wiki writer seems to hold to the same idea I have.  You would never see a phase change if it WERE at an equilibrium. 

 

The main point of this last statement is I would just like Chris to at least give it some thought before the announcement, "yeah, stupid Christians" when there are obviously numerous people that can't grasp the "final answer" here.

 

 

Edit:  Granted the word is "dynamics" which speaks to what Rouge suggests, but if you could hold all of it simultaneously at those conditions, who knows what you would have....a trinity I expect.

[mymistake]

I'm still holding firm to the notion that given the ability to put the water at an equilibrium at those conditions that we would have a hard time describing what state it was.  Rouge suggests that thermdamnamics is looking at what effect these conditions exhibit on the subject/system, whatever. The Wiki writer seems to hold to the same idea I have.  You would never see a phase change if it WERE at an equilibrium. 

 

The main point of this last statement is I would just like Chris to at least give it some thought before the announcement, "yeah, stupid Christians" when there are obviously numerous people that can't grasp the "final answer" here.

 

I happen to agree 100% with what Chris said.  You are doing a God of the gaps thing.  It's a very standard activity for Christians.  Upon discovering the world must be round the Church did an about face and decided that the Bible always said so.  Upon discovering that the sky only goes up for a few miles and beyond that is a vast vacuum the Church did an about face and decided that heaven was not a dome but rather another dimension.  Does science get credit for discovering dimensions or how they work?  No because the Bible always said so first.

 

Now science is uncovering how the states of matter work and how there are more than the common three and God is just beyond what science knows.  But every answer science gives us uncovers more questions that we couldn't even think of asking before.  There will always be gaps but these gaps get ever smaller.  Religion uncovers nothing and makes no discoveries.  It rides the coat tails of science looking for new gaps in which to hide God.

 

(My up vote on post 95 was an error.  Sometimes I have trouble with the mouse.  You are welcome to the rep point because I like you as a person.)

[Guest end3]

 

I'm still holding firm to the notion that given the ability to put the water at an equilibrium at those conditions that we would have a hard time describing what state it was.  Rouge suggests that thermdamnamics is looking at what effect these conditions exhibit on the subject/system, whatever. The Wiki writer seems to hold to the same idea I have.  You would never see a phase change if it WERE at an equilibrium. 

 

The main point of this last statement is I would just like Chris to at least give it some thought before the announcement, "yeah, stupid Christians" when there are obviously numerous people that can't grasp the "final answer" here.

 

I happen to agree 100% with what Chris said.  You are doing a God of the gaps thing.  It's a very standard activity for Christians.  Upon discovering the world must be round the Church did an about face and decided that the Bible always said so.  Upon discovering that the sky only goes up for a few miles and beyond that is a vast vacuum the Church did an about face and decided that heaven was not a dome but rather another dimension.  Does science get credit for discovering dimensions or how they work?  No because the Bible always said so first.

 

Now science is uncovering how the states of matter work and how there are more than the common three and God is just beyond what science knows.  But every answer science gives us uncovers more questions that we couldn't even think of asking before.  There will always be gaps but these gaps get ever smaller.  Religion uncovers nothing and makes no discoveries.  It rides the coat tails of science looking for new gaps in which to hide God.

 

(My up vote on post 95 was an error.  Sometimes I have trouble with the mouse.  You are welcome to the rep point because I like you as a person.)

 

Not a problem MM, you can label me with gapping, but I prefer "gapping" over "yeah, dumb Christian" especially when we can't make define definite.