Omnipotency Revisited.

[Shike]

If I do regret reading it, will you compensate me for the time I blew?

What is time for someone who thinks that their soul is uncaused?

I like your handle on this. You are dealing with the inevitable conflicts which are the result of internally contradictory beliefs, IMO.

Since I believe that we live in a created universe, I’m unwilling to remove God from the picture. So lets find an analogy that might work for you…

But you must remove God from the picture, because the God you believe in seems to be a part of creation, primarily within the universe.

You accept that God always existed. (If not, skip to the next thread.) Therefore you accept that an entity capable of conscious thought has always existed.

What prevents you, other than dogma, from accepting the idea that other entities capable of conscious thought have also always existed? (e.g.human souls, one of which is you.)

I’m not sure I want to talk about time in this instance. But if there are separate entities, then they must be caused by a single uncaused cause.

Questions like that are issues that you will understand when you understand that there are no categories of understanding

Apparently there are true categories of understanding because it seems that you place all knowledge as having to be empirical.

Thank you for addressing the OP. Are you agreeing with its point, that the Creator need not be omnipotent?

No, not in the way it is phrased. The Creator must needs be omnipotent, but He doesn’t have to use all His power to create the universe.

The literary style of Genesis involves…

This is in the realm of theology revelation… we can discuss it, but note that it is besides the OP.

Belief in the twaddle that old men who knew nothing of the nature and scope of the universe invented about God many centuries ago is not “knowledge.”

Seriously? It is hard to take you seriously. Don’t you understand that the rules of logic are unchanging? What does what century someone lived in have to do with regards to the truth? The philosophical arguments of Aquinas are just that, philosophical, the lesser knowledge of science in his day does not destroy his arguments. I invite you to read Aquinas.

As for mysteries, I do not believe in them. Conan Doyle showed us the nature of mysteries. They are the result of ordinary motivations cleverly brought to fruition with a style sufficiently oblique to confound the ordinary mind.

If you knew absolutely everything, you would be God. So if you’re not God, then there must always be some sort of mystery, not in the sense of an unsolved riddle, but in the sense of surfing on the ocean.

All in all, I’ve yet to see a case where the truths of the Catholic Church and science contradict (and by there nature they actually cannot).

If God created the universe (which means He is some way outside of the universe, for instance at least causally) then science can tell many wonderful things about how He did it. But the reason why is a different question, with different answers that the teachings of the Catholic Church address.

ciao,
Michael

 

[greylorn]

Dear Greylorn,

At this time, I prefer to stay here because the soul is the product of an Omnipotent God. The soul is why it is not sufficient just to have a powerful and intelligent Creator. The soul is the link between God and us. That takes love which is not automatically connected with power or intelligence.

The soul is an essential part of anyone who is an important, unique, special, thinking, sinful, loving, needing, rebellious, curious, stubborn, spiritual, physical, creative, humane, logical, distinctive resident of the universe.

Just because I can’t wrap a tape measure around my soul nor poke it with a pin, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I agree. There are many aspects of physical reality about which tape measures cannot be wrapped, such as the electromagnetic waves which transmit information to your radio and tv.

People do not make clean distinctions between the words physical and material. Material means made from matter, which is the most obvious form of the stuff of the universe. Physical, however, really refers to anything which interacts with matter and any form of energy. Thus, magnetic fields are physical, as is electromagnetic radiation. Likewise gravitational fields.

That what the study of physics is about— how all these fascinating and oft mysterious forms of energy interact with one another to make a universe, life, etc.

If you believe that “your soul” is in any way connected to your brain-body system, and it would seem absurd to me to imagine otherwise, then by definition the soul is physical.

Physical things have physical properties, like it or not.

Does the thud of a falling tree hitting the ground exist if there is no one in the forest to hear it? Are there other colors besides the ones in our present universe? If there are, what would we use to paint them? Can you explain the mystery of a smile?
What makes a poem poetry?

If a tree falls on the head of a philosopher too dumb to move out from under it, does anyone care?

Color is a perceptual function. Our eyes are sensitive to certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (light). Different instruments can detect different e/m wavelengths. When you tune in various radio stations, you are effectively choosing different “colors” in the AM /FM spectrum.

Years ago I wrote some computer code which translated invisible radiation from stars and galaxies into colors (on a video screen) so that the patterns of invisible energy could be made visible to astronomers. We called this, “pseudo-color.”

It is an easy thing, now, to translate velocity or magnetic field strength information into color.

I would be astounded if there are not beings who have a wider perceptual range than human beings, but it will not be much wider. Different ranges of radiation require different sizes of detectors, so that a being which could “see” radio waves would require huge “eyes.”

Because of my soul, I refuse to be limited by science with its dependence on visible, touchable, scanable, verifiable, publishable proof. Because of the free will of my soul, I can flat out refuse to be considered in the class of a determined rock in a determined universe. And as another demonstration of my free will, I will repeat that sentence as many times as I want.

Did some nitwit scientist just run over your foot and drive off, or what?

Does my soul have properties? Never in the sense of the physical, materialistic world. To borrow the thoughts and words of others, my soul has the property of grace, in other words, the life which connects me to God. There is a wonderful Catholic belief that God resides in us giving life to our souls. Why not? Don’t the stars draw our minds out to the wonder of space? Doesn’t the sun warm our inner being? Is the omnipotent Creator of the stars and the sun any less?

It is possible to come up with a physical definition of soul which makes excellent sense and leads to interesting justifications for creation, and which facilitates the understanding of everything you describe above.

Every human being has the opportunity to know God because every human being has a soul. It is true that we can’t even begin to know God as He is. We have enough trouble knowing our own family. The soul gives us the ability to be on the journey to knowledge. My soul tells me that I’m on my way.

The soul seeks truth whether it is knowledge, belief, or a nursery rhyme. The soul seeks the beauty of garden slugs. Knowledge and beauty are signs of a personal God loving us as body and soul. My soul trusts God’s love.

Without a soul, I would be a rock.

Actually, without a soul you would be a cretin.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry greylorn,

I couldn’t read the rest of your post #42 because I was laughing so hard at your reply to

from granny:
Does the thud of a falling tree hitting the ground exist if there is no one in the forest to hear it?

Your answer –

from greylorn:
If a tree falls on the head of a philosopher too dumb to move out from under it, does anyone care?

Besides I have to hop down the hall. Some nitwit scientist ran over my foot on his way to post on a thread.

Blessings,
granny

 

[jkiernan56]

Actually, without a soul you would be a cretin.

I thought I was a BORG … lol

 

[chrisb]

I thought I was a BORG … lol

I was thinking Zombie.

 

[grannymh]

.

Quote: from granny

Does my soul have properties? Never in the sense of the physical, materialistic world. To borrow the thoughts and words of others, my soul has the property of grace, in other words, the life which connects me to God. There is a wonderful Catholic belief that God resides in us giving life to our souls. Why not? Don’t the stars draw our minds out to the wonder of space? Doesn’t the sun warm our inner being? Is the omnipotent Creator of the stars and the sun any less?

Dear greylorn,

Now that I have stopped laughing Sometimes, the best thing is to laugh…

I do have to give you credit for answering two things I’ve been wondering about-- color and energy.

There is no way that I can consider the soul as anything connected to the material or the physical. That’s why I believe that God is all-powerfull because He created something outside of the universe which is not bound by scientific concepts.
That is why I believe that all human life is sacred, i.e., worthy of profound respect.

What is that old saying about crying uncle? I give up.:crying:

I would like to hear the definition of soul which you described above. And any other definitions of soul. I’ll read them in the morning.

Blessings,
granny

 

[greylorn]

Dear greylorn,

Now that I have stopped laughing Sometimes, the best thing is to laugh…

I do have to give you credit for answering two things I’ve been wondering about-- color and energy.

There is no way that I can consider the soul as anything connected to the material or the physical. That’s why I believe that God is all-powerfull because He created something outside of the universe which is not bound by scientific concepts.
That is why I believe that all human life is sacred, i.e., worthy of profound respect.

What is that old saying about crying uncle? I give up.:crying:

I would like to hear the definition of soul which you described above. And any other definitions of soul. I’ll read them in the morning.

Blessings,
granny

Granny,
I’ll bet you won’t read them in the morning, but I do invite you to read them… You already have the pertinent, or impertinent URL. If you really want an understanding of soul, you’ll need to work through the prerequisite background first. For example, since a serious understanding of soul is derived from an understanding of energy and the laws of thermodynamics, well, guess what?

I know that it sounds like a terrible thing to have to do, but you can read a little bit every day while your foot heals up.

The good news is that since there are no other good definitions of soul, you’ll only want to wade through that stuff once.

I got that you are worried that looking into a more complete understanding, even possibly an understanding consistent with science, of the soul might somehow damage or weaken humanity-related beliefs which you currently like. I promise you that this will not happen.

It is true that conventional scientifically derived atheism is contrary to religious beliefs. But I’m not a conventional scientist. I’m not even a scientist. I’m atheism’s worst enemy, because I’ve figured out how to take the same data from which they conclude that there is no Creator, and derive theories which include a Creator and explain the universe better than they do.

Should the forces of logic and reason ever compel you to adopt a concept of soul such as mine, I promise absolutely that you get to remain the kind and loving person you already are, and that you will retain your respect for life and for the Creator. I predict that this respect will be enhanced by a deeper understanding of God’s purpose which is logically consistent with every tiny little bit of evidence, including evolution, human nature, human foibles, etc.

If you prove me wrong I’ll send you my address and a large-bore pistol with my fingerprints all over it.

 

[Pro_Domina]

All of you are speaking of rules like they were intended for God to follow. The Laws of Thermodynamics? The one who sustains them is certainly not subject to them. Since we use laws as absolute principles, what is the absolute principal that sustains these laws? If everything “works” because of an unmutable principle, what holds those very principles constant? Why doesn’t strong nuclear glue stop one day? Why do the stars not randomly stop shining? There must be something intelligent that holds them constant. If not, then all the laws of science are subject to change since there is no law that holds them constant.

God is above the laws, for laws are creatures that come from His infinite munificence. And God is so great, that He does not even govern these laws directly. Angels do.

You know when they say that those alien encounters always leave traces of elements impossible to stabalize, I believe them. I just don’t believe they are aliens. Devils are angels as well, and angels govern nature and it’s laws.

What is a miracle? It is God, who is above laws, who either directly or through angels suspends a law and causes something according to the laws impossible.

Yet this is the ugliest way to look at it. It is a satanical way of looking at it. Immagine a person who feels elavated to God when he sees a striking sunset with amazing colors. Only an animal would go and say, “Oh that is just the smog and dirt from the city that causes the light rays to bend that way.”

It is deplorable to try to look at science as a way of mechanizing God and His Creation, eliminating all splendor and mystery.

You know, for all this crazed talk of eccumenism, one thing that totally blocks off us and the East is the fact that there is no more mystery in the West. Everything is plain, direct, brutish.

[Edited]

 

[Shike]

Granny,
The good news is that since there are no other good definitions of soul…

I of course disagree… I bet you can guess my answer; but I’m not quite there yet in my studies. I agree with the last poster.

I got that you are worried that looking into a more complete understanding, even possibly an understanding consistent with science, of the soul might somehow damage or weaken humanity-related beliefs which you currently like. I promise you that this will not happen.

There is the famous science versus religion debate. I can’t speak for all religions, but the Catholic Church does not have any problem with science (no contradiction).

I’m atheism’s worst enemy, because I’ve figured out how to take the same data from which they conclude that there is no Creator, and derive theories which include a Creator and explain the universe better than they do.

Atheism’s worst enemy is their very own dogma that they adhere to; but perhaps you come in a close third.

If you prove me wrong I’ll send you my address and a large-bore pistol with my fingerprints all over it.

Hope you’re not wrong. I would be more cautious myself, considering human foibles, of course. But one can only guess if your idea of soul is compatible with the Catholic Church.

ciao

 

[grannymh]

From Post 26 by greylorn

So let’s look at hardcore physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That law does not read, in physics books, as ‘energy cannot be created or destroyed except by God.’

I’ll spell it out. If God created energy, then the energy law is invalid. If the energy law is valid, God did not create energy.

:newidea:

So I’m looking at hardcore physics, first sentence above. It sounds o.k.

But that second sentence deserves another look.
Can energy be created or destroyed by humans? Is this statement the same as one of the three things I learned in high school physics–that action equals reaction?

In the third sentence: Where did the assumption come from that God could not create energy? Maybe this kind of creative process is similar to a thread being closed.

Blessings,
granny

 

[jkiernan56]

First law of thermodynamics - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

When Greylorn talks about the first law of thermodynamics, the context is the universal system we live in. In that context, I agree with science.

Where I disagree is the orgin of the energy. The law of thermodynamics clearly says that energy is not created or destroyed in the closed system of our universe.

I believe that there was a time when the energy in our system DID NOT exist. That does NOT negate the law of thermodynamics. It just means that the law only applies to what NOW exists.

I believe before the creation of the universe, only God in Spirit existed. That comes from a personal experience. How God was able to put the “bee in the bottle” is beyond me. But now that the bee is in the bottle, it is a closed system and yes, the law of thermodynamics applies in that sense. It does not apply in the context of what existed BEFORE the universe - although the definition is stretched to mean that the universe always existed.

 

[grannymh]

First law of thermodynamics - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

When Greylorn talks about the first law of thermodynamics, the context is the universal system we live in. In that context, I agree with science.

Where I disagree is the orgin of the energy. The law of thermodynamics clearly says that energy is not created or destroyed in the closed system of our universe.

I believe that there was a time when the energy in our system DID NOT exist. That does NOT negate the law of thermodynamics. It just means that the law only applies to what NOW exists.

I believe before the creation of the universe, only God in Spirit existed. That comes from a personal experience. How God was able to put the “bee in the bottle” is beyond me. But now that the bee is in the bottle, it is a closed system and yes, the law of thermodynamics applies in that sense. It does not apply in the context of what existed BEFORE the universe - although the definition is stretched to mean that the universe always existed.

Thank you.

 

[greylorn]

First law of thermodynamics - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

When Greylorn talks about the first law of thermodynamics, the context is the universal system we live in. In that context, I agree with science.

Where I disagree is the orgin of the energy. The law of thermodynamics clearly says that energy is not created or destroyed in the closed system of our universe.

I believe that there was a time when the energy in our system DID NOT exist. That does NOT negate the law of thermodynamics. It just means that the law only applies to what NOW exists.

I believe before the creation of the universe, only God in Spirit existed. That comes from a personal experience. How God was able to put the “bee in the bottle” is beyond me. But now that the bee is in the bottle, it is a closed system and yes, the law of thermodynamics applies in that sense. It does not apply in the context of what existed BEFORE the universe - although the definition is stretched to mean that the universe always existed.

JK,
I trust that you will accept a small but important correction. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, not the 1st.

The First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics are absolute.

The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and offers no qualifications.

Your beliefs notwithstanding, consider that if God created energy once, He can do it again. There is no agreement in any bible or tidbit of religious lore in which God promises never to create another erg of energy.

Do you understand why science and religion have parted company?

May I ask what your problem might be with the notion that the First Law of Thermodynamics is indeed absolute?

Finally, while I appreciate personal experiences, you are not going to throw every iota of credibility into the biffy by claiming that you were around and conscious at the creation of the universe, are you?

It might be of some value to share the personal experience to which you refer. You and I and many others have had these, but they are rarely spoken of in public. The CAF may be a suitable space for their exposure.

And, thank you for well considered thoughts.

 

[greylorn]

:newidea:

So I’m looking at hardcore physics, first sentence above. It sounds o.k.

But that second sentence deserves another look.
Can energy be created or destroyed by humans? Is this statement the same as one of the three things I learned in high school physics–that action equals reaction?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, period. Believe me, it has been tried. Anyone succeeding in doing so has the power to control our planet and expand outward from there.

Your instincts for physics are excellent. You may have missed your calling. The action/reaction principle, one of Newton’s three laws of mechanics, preceded any understanding of thermodynamics. However, the laws of thermodynamics represent a higher set of working rules, and Newton’s action/reaction law is a derivable consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

You get a Gold Star.

In the third sentence: Where did the assumption come from that God could not create energy? Maybe this kind of creative process is similar to a thread being closed.

It is not an assumption. The First Law is clear, direct, and self contained. It does not require the intercession or permission of a God. It is as absolute as the sum of 2+2. The Law says that energy cannot be created. It does not include an, “except by God,” clause.

Note that this level of principle is different, and higher, than other concepts cherished by those who call themselves scientists. For example, the principle that life evolved thanks to random mutations selected by the vague and impossible-to-define principle of “survival of the fittest” is clearly made-up nonsense from which no facet of evolution can be either predicted or excluded.

The generation of life (and the creation of galaxies and stuff) is, IMO, entirely the province of the Creator. The Conservation of Energy Law is in the same category of reality as God Himself.

I am aware that these ideas conflict with some concepts adopted by theologians who thought that heavy things fell faster than light things. It might be time to consider the possibility that they made other errors.

 

[Shike]

JK,
The First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics are absolute.

They may be absolute, but the real question is if they’re caused or uncaused.

Do you understand why science and religion have parted company?

They only part company if you believe in a god who is part of creation with “things” existing “before” him that were not caused by him.

May I ask what your problem might be with the notion that the First Law of Thermodynamics is indeed absolute?

I have no problem… but then again I wasn’t asked.

 

[greylorn]

I of course disagree… I bet you can guess my answer; but I’m not quite there yet in my studies. I agree with the last poster.

There is the famous science versus religion debate. I can’t speak for all religions, but the Catholic Church does not have any problem with science (no contradiction).

Atheism’s worst enemy is their very own dogma that they adhere to; but perhaps you come in a close third.

Hope you’re not wrong. I would be more cautious myself, considering human foibles, of course. But one can only guess if your idea of soul is compatible with the Catholic Church.

ciao

I’ve not fully described my soul-concept on this site. Whether it would be compatible with the Church’s concept of soul in either full form, or in the attenuated versions presented here, is pretty much impossible to determine, IMO. But offhand, I’d guess not.

That is because my soul-concept is well defined, and is defined within the context of basic physics. I’ve not been able to figure out exactly what the Church’s concept of soul is. Whatever, the Church seems to have carefully defined the soul as something which exists outside the physical universe. I’m certain that Church authorities would not approve of any concept which attempted to connect the soul to reality.

That is why there is a conflict between religion and science, never mind followers who parrot the approved line that no conflict exists.

The notion that the Church “has no trouble” with science is actually pretty silly. I’d like to find a nicer way to put that, but that’s the way it is. I’ve been trying to reduce these conversations to basic principles, but no one here gets it. Refer to other posts detailing the energy conservation law and its relationship to the omnipotent God concept, then come back with your “no contradiction.” claim, and justify it.

I do not believe that you can do that.

 

[greylorn]

They may be absolute, but the real question is if they’re caused or uncaused.

The conservation of energy law is an explicit declaration that energy is uncaused. By implication, the 2nd/3rd laws of thermodynamics which elucidate the behavior of energy are likewise uncaused.

The entire issue of science vs. religion turns on this issue.

Various posters continue to persist in their claim that there is no conflict between science and religion. Yet, here at the most fundamental level of physics is an obvious contradiction between a basic law of physics and a religious principle.

The law of physics is plain, simple, and clear. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Yet you and other followers of religious beliefs insist upon claiming that God created energy.

What is there about the relatively clear and simple word “conflict” that you do not understand?

They only part company if you believe in a god who is part of creation with “things” existing “before” him that were not caused by him.

An implication of the conservation of energy law is that energy co-existed or preceded the entity who shaped it into the universe.

Some people seem to think that such a proposal somehow denigrates the power of God. I’d like to see them figure out how to manufacture matter from energy, stars from matter, galaxies from stars, living and self-reproducing critters from hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen---- or even find their way out of a wet paper bag with holes on both ends.

Any one of those accomplishments (except the paper bag escape) will earn Nobel prizes galore and your picture on a Time magazine cover.

There are many other reasons which demonstrate the estrangement between science and religion (I’ve addressed Darwinism elsewhere), but while pepsi drinkers are posting on this thread we should keep it as simple as possible.

I have no problem… but then again I wasn’t asked.

Actually you were, indirectly of course. When discussions get complex, I tend to make assumptions about the participants’ level of engagement based upon what they have already stated. I thought that you understood the arguments you were posting. I apologize for my mistake.

 

[jkiernan56]

JK,
I trust that you will accept a small but important correction. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, not the 1st.

The First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics are absolute.

The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and offers no qualifications.

Your beliefs notwithstanding, consider that if God created energy once, He can do it again. There is no agreement in any bible or tidbit of religious lore in which God promises never to create another erg of energy.

Do you understand why science and religion have parted company?

May I ask what your problem might be with the notion that the First Law of Thermodynamics is indeed absolute?

Finally, while I appreciate personal experiences, you are not going to throw every iota of credibility into the biffy by claiming that you were around and conscious at the creation of the universe, are you?

It might be of some value to share the personal experience to which you refer. You and I and many others have had these, but they are rarely spoken of in public. The CAF may be a suitable space for their exposure.

And, thank you for well considered thoughts.

Greylorn, when it comes to understanding science, I will be the first to acknowledge how very little I know. I am like a 1st grader in a class of physics when comparing myself to your understanding of science. I have no problem admitting that. I think one of the first signs of intelligence is being able to admit one’s ignorance and need for learning. I know there is a great deal I need to learn. Having said that, my postings here are mostly shooting from the hip. I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about what I’m going to say, although I do enjoy pondering the issues when I am away from the computer.

As far as my personal experience(s) and their validity to the discussion, in no way am I trying to impose my experience or beliefs. I am only trying to share what I know to be true from my experience. People are free to believe or not believe according to their own undersanding. There is no attempt at arm twisting here. Just an honest discussion about the issue and at least for me, my experience validates the truth - for me.

You mention that the 1st law of Thermodynamics is absolute. I do not deny or argue against that. It would be like me tryng to argue against the law of gravity - futile and total stupidity. What I do argue about is the current understanding of the law of thermodynamics as it is being discussed in this thread. We both agree that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is like a “bee in a bottle” that cannot get out. Where I differ from you is how the bee got into the bottle. I do NOT think the definition of the law of thermodynamics means that “energy was NOT created.” I believe and know the energy contained in our system was created (brought into existence). The energy that does exist - nothing can be added to it or taken away from it - by any created thing. It is an absolute. Nothing can be added or taken away from the “bee that is in the bottle.” But I do believe (and know from experience) that the “energy that cannot be created” in our system - was in fact created. It was brought into being (ie - created) and it continues in being because of the mind and will of God the creator. So while human beings (who are limited and finite) cannot create energy and add to the economy of thermodynamics, the energy that DOES exist was created is held in existence. So long as I will to think a thought, that thought exists. Once I will to cease thinking of a particular thought, it no longers exists at that moment in time for me. So too, I know that all of the universe is held in existence by the sheer mind and will of a BEING who is not an impersonal force.

Here is my basic premise I know to be TRUE (absolute) - “NOTHING need exist BUT God.” Thats it in a nutshell. God could have continued in BEING without ever having created the system of energy (that cannot be added to) by any created thing. So my interpretation of the law of thermodynamics is different from yours. I agree that the system is closed. But there is a reason that the system exists in the first place. And that is where my understanding parts from yours.

 

[jkiernan56]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, period. Believe me, it has been tried. Anyone succeeding in doing so has the power to control our planet and expand outward from there.

It is not an assumption. The First Law is clear, direct, and self contained. It does not require the intercession or permission of a God. It is as absolute as the sum of 2+2. The Law says that energy cannot be created. It does not include an, “except by God,” clause.

The generation of life (and the creation of galaxies and stuff) is, IMO, entirely the province of the Creator. The Conservation of Energy Law is in the same category of reality as God Himself.

Yes, the Law of Thermodynamics is TRUE. What it doesn’t contain is the fullness of the truth. While energy in our system cannot be created or destroyed, it did not create itself (nor does it exist on its own independant of another cause - again from my personal experience … sorry Greylorn … I had to throw that in there).

Science cannot take on the exception clause because it does not delve into theology … the cause of its existence. It cannot answer the why … only the what. I do acknowledge the law of thermodynamics, and I do add on the exception clause. If one wants to stay strictly on scientific grounds, then that is an impossibility to add the theological basis.

 

[jkiernan56]

Your beliefs notwithstanding, consider that if God created energy once, He can do it again. There is no agreement in any bible or tidbit of religious lore in which God promises never to create another erg of energy.

Do you understand why science and religion have parted company?

I agree there isn’t any promise never to create another erg of energy. I do believe there are promises of God to never annihilate his creation (ie - stop thinking and willing its existence).

What I have come to learn is that there is another creation going on that far exceeds the physical world. It is called conversion and growth in holiness. God is re-creating the world from within - giving people new lives with new hearts … a creation that is still going on and will continue until the 2nd coming of Christ. Oops … let me re-phrase that … actually it is his 3rd coming … since Christ came to the world in a different way through the gift of His Holy Spirit.