Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[greylorn]

My favourite part of all this is that it cannot be turned into “good” wine.

Maybe bad wine, but definately not good wine! :tsktsk:

…gonna join you…

You got the point. If I ever visit GB again, I hope to share a well aged solution of water, various aromatic chemicals, and yeast urine with you and any friends or companions with an equivalent blend of perspicacity and humor.

Why not, “LemonAndLimey,” asks an old Sean Connery appreciator?

 

[Spock]

No explanation is possible to those who do not believe, not because it is impossible for God to provide, but because the explanation is impossible for one whose heart and intellect are hardened and dulled by unbelief to hear and understand it fully. A bit like trying to get a 3 year old to understand why eating a pound of candy on Halloween is a really dumb idea.

Mind you, God often remedies the situation, and takes the scales off people’s eyes. Not by changing the explanation, but by enlarging our hearts and understandings enough to see its sense and accept it.

Nonsense. I am willing to change but only if I would see evidence. You know, real evidence, not ludicrous hearsay stuff, which is not even second-hand or third-hand, but who-knows-how-many-hand… and which is refuted every moment by actual, valid science. By the way, there is nothing wrong with my “heart” (this idiotic euphemism is getting real old now) nor with my intellect. I scored 100% on the “openness” trait in several phsycological evaluations.

As a matter of fact, I would be most happy to become convinced of the error of my ways. It would be wonderful if there would be some afterlife, but just wishing for it will not make it happen. Unfortunately looking around here that is not very likely. The average quality of the posts is not reassuring. But I keep hoping.

 

[greylorn]

Oooh, right below the belt.

You needn’t be concerned. My enormous codpiece deflected the sissified blow.

 

[Spock]

How is it possible to know so much about something which does not even exist?

Elementary, my dear Watson! Logic is the way to figure out how this being would be, if he existed. There are no “iron nosed witches”, but we can figure out how would they behave, if they existed.

 

[Jmd96]

You are correct in saying that it is impossible to transform water into wine within the laws of nature. However, a miracle is, as I understand it, God breaking the laws of nature. If God, existing outside our material universe, outside of time, invented the rules of the game, he can break those rules.

Whatta rebel.

 

[Jmd96]

Nonsense. I am willing to change but only if I would see evidence. You know, real evidence, not ludicrous hearsay stuff, which is not even second-hand or third-hand, but who-knows-how-many-hand… and which is refuted every moment by actual, valid science. By the way, there is nothing wrong with my “heart” (this idiotic euphemism is getting real old now) nor with my intellect. I scored 100% on the “openness” trait in several phsycological evaluations.

As a matter of fact, I would be most happy to become convinced of the error of my ways. It would be wonderful if there would be some afterlife, but just wishing for it will not make it happen. Unfortunately looking around here that is not very likely. The average quality of the posts is not reassuring. But I keep hoping.

I can only speak for what I’ve seen on this thread, but if you’re looking for evidence for Christianity’s claims, I’d advise that the miracle at Cana isn’t a good place to look. You’d be hard pressed to find a Christian who based their belief system on this story. Christians believe it after having accepted the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of scripture, for various (and hopefully well thought-out) reasons.

I encourage you to keep up the hope. A lot of people here are defensive about their faith, and understandably, if you consider the implications of it.

I’m curious, what books have you read arguing for theism/Christianity?

 

[Spock]

I encourage you to keep up the hope. A lot of people here are defensive about their faith, and understandably, if you consider the implications of it.

I’m curious, what books have you read arguing for theism/Christianity?

A very nice and kind post! Thank you for it. Indeed the “defensiveness” is visible. Of course they deny it, and try to project it on me (saying that I “hardened my heart”, and other assorted nonsense). But, what the heck; it only reflects on them. I used to be a believer a long time ago, but grew out of it.

I did read books dealing with apologetics, and I was astonished at the low level of rationality displayed in them. I would rather not list the authors, because I do not want to violate the rule of disparaging others and quote their names. But, rest assured, they were celebrated “apologists”. There is one counter example, however. I also read Rabbi Kuschner’s excellent book: “When bad things happen to good people”. Now he is smart and honest.

 

[greylorn]

Nonsense. I am willing to change but only if I would see evidence. You know, real evidence, not ludicrous hearsay stuff, which is not even second-hand or third-hand, but who-knows-how-many-hand… and which is refuted every moment by actual, valid science. By the way, there is nothing wrong with my “heart” (this idiotic euphemism is getting real old now) nor with my intellect. I scored 100% on the “openness” trait in several phsycological evaluations.

As a matter of fact, I would be most happy to become convinced of the error of my ways. It would be wonderful if there would be some afterlife, but just wishing for it will not make it happen. Unfortunately looking around here that is not very likely. The average quality of the posts is not reassuring. But I keep hoping.

I submit, with a note of respect for someone who’ve I come to associate with cogent, well-considered posts, that you are not entirely open about this. (Methinks already that thou doth overmuch protest thy openness.) A subconscious clue arrives in your misspelling of phsycological, which could be tweaked to read, psychocolonogical, implying an unadmitted suppression. You rarely misspell, so this particular misspelling engaged my curiosity. Don’t worry about defending this notion because it is none of my business and probably wrong.

IMO your “heart” and your intellect are just peachy, and that the only mistake you’ve made is that of searching for truth in all the wrong places. You sure won’t find much on a forum dedicated to supporting belief in a God in Whom you’ve already chosen to disbelieve. So why are you here, yet not ranting like a dogmatic atheist? My guess is that you’ve had some psychic experiences which science cannot explain and which you are too honest to blow off, and you are not finding the answers you need in establishment science.

I propose that you, like many others, might be afraid of the very ideas you claim to seek, and thus shy away from them. For good reason. IMO you will not like them. Your “heart” seeks the assured comfort of religious belief, while your mind demands reason and honest logic. That’s not happening. You’ll not find a car with the comforts of a Cadillac and the handling of a Maserati.

May I recommend that you stick around, but take a different approach than you’ve done? Start looking around CAF for people with ideas and when you find one, work with them. Like panning for gold— when you find a tiny nugget, you don’t move on to a different creek because it was too small, like you’ve been doing, or quibble because you were expecting a newly minted quarter eagle. Nourish the ideas with your own contributions. Help create the very gold mine you seek.

I apologize if you find this post too personal and promise not be offended if you inform me that I’m F.O.S. I thought about making this a PM, but believe that it includes notions which may apply to others less outspoken than you.

 

[Spock]

I apologize if you find this post too personal and promise not be offended if you inform me that I’m F.O.S. I thought about making this a PM, but believe that it includes notions which may apply to others less outspoken than you.

There is no need to aplogize. To my best knowledge I never had any “strange”, unexplained experience, which cries out for an explanation. I would like to live much longer, that is for sure. I read once a very smart observation: “people do not want to live forever, they just don’t want to die”. The idea of “eternal existence” is horrifying for me.

And don’t read any Freudian slip into my misspeling

 

[CEM5]

In order for water to be changed into wine, carbon atoms must be created. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen— H[sub]2[/sub]O. Ethanol, an essential ingredient in all booze requires carbon. Its formula is C[sub]2[/sub]H[sub]6[/sub]O. But wine is more than a mix of alcohol and water— it includes complex tannins, esters, and unidentified exotic hydrocarbons, A fine wine will contain more than 1000 different chemicals, all sensitive to temperature and pressure. As any pretentious snob knows, fine wines will be destroyed by excessive temperature.

It is chemically impossible to manufacture ethanol from water because water has no carbon. However, it is atomically possible. Three water molecules could supply the necessary atoms. If two Oxygen atoms (each with 6 protons and electrons) were stripped of a pair of protons and electrons, they would become two Carbon atoms (4 protons and electrons). Unfortunately the extra parts do not disappear into la-la land, but will probably end up as a pair of Helium atoms, plus the excess binding energy which held the original Oxygen atoms together.

That excess binding energy is described by the simple equation, E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

Much of this excess energy will be released as ordinary heat. It turns out that the splitting of Oxygen into Carbon and Helium will have a similar effect as the splitting of Uranium-235 or Plutonium into other stuff. This will cause a sudden and violent release of nuclear energy, commonly referred to as nuclear fission, as what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the nuclear reduction of only a few pounds of material.

A 10-gallon cask of water, enough to finish off a good party if it was transformed into wine, would weigh about 83 pounds. I’m too far away from my last atomic physics class to do the calculations, but given that a good wine needs at least 10% ethanol, converting 10% of a 10 gallon (83 pound) keg requires the nuclear fission of about 8.3 pounds of matter, roughly the amount in the Nagasaki bomb,

The heat would have surely ruined the wine.

And your point is???

Oh, wait! I know! You are referring to Jesus changing the water into wine!! Of course - silly me! :doh2:

Well, just as God created everything from nothing, starting with a great big BANG! and from the void and darkness we have the beginning of His universe which God filled with light, stars, moons and suns, solar systems, and then from this nothingness, He made WATER! Wow! Imagine that! Then came the beginnings of lifeforms, and finally – HUMANS.

So…for God through Jesus, to turn water (which He created first) into wine is nothing for God to then change this matter into a slightly different matter: WINE. God is energy and God created matter, and without God we’d not have that wonderful formula of E=mc2.

We are all energy and matter for that matter :yup: and most of our bodies are comprised of H20 - about 60 to 70 %.

With God nothing is impossible.

 

[CEM5]

Here is another point regarding the OP “re: Wate cannot be transformed into good wine.”

Well, without water you’d not have any wine - good or bad.

Wine is comprised of about 90% water.

For any type of alcohol you first need plenty of water!!! (No “matter” where that H20 comes from!)

 

[CEM5]

Nonsense. I am willing to change but only if I would see evidence. You know, real evidence, not ludicrous hearsay stuff, which is not even second-hand or third-hand, but who-knows-how-many-hand… and which is refuted every moment by actual, valid science. By the way, there is nothing wrong with my “heart” (this idiotic euphemism is getting real old now) nor with my intellect. I scored 100% on the “openness” trait in several phsycological evaluations.

As a matter of fact, I would be most happy to become convinced of the error of my ways. It would be wonderful if there would be some afterlife, but just wishing for it will not make it happen. Unfortunately looking around here that is not very likely. The average quality of the posts is not reassuring. But I keep hoping.

Hi Spock,

You want real evidence? Then look in the mirror for you were created in the image of God. Your existence is a miracle in itself. How do you think all life came into existence? We didn’t just “happen”. Everything had to be created in such a way as to co-exist at all the same time.

How do you explain male and female life forms coming into existence at the same time so as to reproduce? How do you think one-celled amoebas with no brain or any type of “thought” or intelligence, all of a sudden “decided” to get together and then create new life forms with reproductive organs, eyes, digestive systems, and create male and female “partners” all at the same time. Don’t forget – those mammals that were created had to all be created at the same time as well so as to be able to devour other life forms to sustain their own life.

And all of this from nothing???

How do you explain your existence?

blessings,
CEM

 

[StrawberryJam]

Water cannot be transformed into medicine either. Homeopathic treatments are bottles of really expensive water.
I stick with Vodka. It’s easier and no theology getting in the way of a good drink.

 

[Spock]

You want real evidence? Then look in the mirror for you were created in the image of God.

Oh, puhleeze! Not that again.

 

[LilyM]

Oh, puhleeze! Not that again.

Why not? Looking in the mirror is proof enough that YOU exist, that your parents exist (they must in order for you to be), so why isn’t it good enough evidence that God exists?

 

[CEM5]

Oh, puhleeze! Not that again.

Why not? And you haven’t addressed my other questions/comments. Do you not have an answer? I was being sincere. Have you ever really pondered those questions and the answers to them that I posed to you?

 

[greylorn]

Come on GL,
I think your spending too much time on wikipedia and are becoming a wiki-head! You know darn well that the carbon came from the wooden cask and He simply slipped a carbon and 2 hydrogens into the wood alcohol to convert it to ethanol, added a few tannens and walla! wine. I bet you drank worse.

Do you realize that, these kinds of posts incites the Vulcan guy with the pointy ears, and the flapping tongue to come out of the woodwork with hand-waving pronouncements devoid of all intellectual content. Quit it now! Get back to your book. I’m getting tired of waiting for my autographed copy.

Yppop

Dear Friend—

I herewith defend myself against the Wiki-head slur. I love Wikipedia. It is an unparalleled source of scientific research, opinion, and dynamic speculation. Far superior to scrounging around for tidbits of data in university library stacks, especially when the nearest university is two hours away and I lack a stack permit.

I assure you that this WFW thread is entirely of my own making, but would be surprised if fewer than 200,000 people had not already thought of it. I assume that’s the basis for your Wiki jibe. Someone may have already tossed out the same argument on CAF. I don’t imagine that ideas which are new to me are necessarily new, absolutely.

However, when I present ideas proposed by others, I make it a point to credit the others when I know of them. IMO if we are not all engaged in a search for understanding, what is our point of being? And over the long term, credit is irrelevant. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein and others have my admiration for their awesome insights, but I can’t buy one of them a beer to show my appreciation.

I love your chemical analysis! I’d send you a bottle of parsnip wine in appreciation if I’d not polished it off already. (After 20 years in the bottle, you’d have been surprised!)

I like the pointy-eared guy. If not for Leonard Nimoy’s simple, imperfect, but consistent characterization of the embodiment of pure logic, Star Trek would have been Star Blecch. Subsequent Star Trek knockoffs have been pretty much techie trash for lack of any actor capable of fulfilling that subtle role, with the exception of Alan Rickman in Galaxy Quest.

Our incarnation is IMO one of the good guys. Pointy ears are cool, pointy heads— not so much. He’s chosen a handle appropriate to his style, as have you. This thread is my first opportunity to engage him, and I am glad of it.

I thought that I started this one as a possible relief from writer’s block, but your challenge to get my work done got me doubting the truth of that, and a few shots of vodka cleared the b.s. I’m terrified of publishing again. My other book cost me my wife, fortune, job, spine, and a wrist, leaving me permanently crippled, and it was trivial by comparison with my coming book. I’m not looking forward to my post-publication future, despite my yammering about the value of the material.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to get in touch with feelings. Honestly. I hate feelings, but when recognized for what they are, they can be overcome. Back to work Sunday. Keep your pacemaker battery charged,

And, thank you!

 

[greylorn]

Water cannot be transformed into medicine either. Homeopathic treatments are bottles of really expensive water.
I stick with Vodka. It’s easier and no theology getting in the way of a good drink.

I must cheerfully disagree. Any respectable theology must account for the fortuitous design of the human blood-brain barrier, which allows mankind to drink vodka and other styles of ethanol without dying right away.

My favorite theory is that God created sex to give man a reason for putting up with biological incarnations while cunningly tricking him into procreating the human race, and then created booze by way of compensation for the inevitable discovery that the sex was just one of those things that seemed a good idea at the time.

P.S. You can manufacture your own homeopathics and medicinal herbal tinctures with vodka. They work much better than the water-based variety, and if they don’t, you won’t notice.

 

[greylorn]

Well, that is nice, but I would strongly advice not to give up your day gig for seeking an employment as a prophet. You would not earn your keep. I used to be a believer (when I was young), but grew out of it. True, there is another reason for my presence. I used to be a teacher, and old habits die hard. It pains me to see the ignorance exhibited by a huge percentage on these boards, and I hope to make a small contribution and enlighten those whose views have not hardened yet into orthodoxy (the rest are beyond redemption). Mea culpa, but I still like to educate people. And just like you might feel sorry for me, I reciprocate it, and feel sorry for you. Oh, and I never use my cell-phone, except for calling out. No one is calling me, since I do not give out my number. But, if I would ever want to have a special ring tone, it would be Pink Floyd (14 channels of sh*t on the TV to choose from. )

I hope it would be the opening riffs from Dark Side of the Moon.

 

[greylorn]

I simply find contradictions between human assertions and behavior to be interesting (I did my undergraduate studies in psychology). I certainly don’t think clicking on your profile stats and doing a few seconds worth of calculations amounts to an obsession. You are also “redirecting”. In bringing up my alleged obsession you desire not to acknowledge your own, due to the fact that you deem it to be too uncomfortable to examine objectively.

I didn’t ask for an explanation or even a comment. I clearly said my statements were “food for thought.” So I fail to see how this can be construed as me delving into something that is not any of my business. If you choose to share with me knowledge about yourself that is not any of my business then it is because you elected to do so, not because I asked. Nevertheless, I am interested in your explanations, and I thank you for sharing this information with me.

Which also means that your time on this earth is coming to a close. As an atheist, you evidently believe that your current physical lifespan is the totality of your existence. I think choosing to spend so much time within your last remaining years discussing something you don’t believe in is, to say the least, an odd choice. However, I personally do not object to this. Quite the opposite, I consider it “time well spent” because through it you are exposed to Christian teaching.

That’s one theory. I gave you mine in Post #16. All things considered, I find my theory to be more plausible.

Exactly where did I ever say it “bothered me”?

You’re trying to pass this off as just a hobby, but the statistics I revealed in Post #16 indicate an obsession. Your behavior has the markings of a Catholicism addict, but you are currently in a state of denial.

Once again, I never said that I was bothered by any of this. Rather, I am simply trying to help you with the spiritual journey that you are evidently on, but one which you are trying to deny. That’s why I said that my earlier comments were “food for thought.” I simply think that your explanation of your frequent presence in CAF is an excuse rather than a reason. The excuse is what you tell yourself (and others), but the reason is something else.

Sure, you list your religion as “none” now, but how much longer can you hold out against your subconscious, soul-driven desire to embrace the Catholic Faith? Probably not too much longer. I suspect that one of these days you’ll be on CAF asking people’s advice as to whether to download the “Tantum Ergo” or the “Ave Maria” as your ring tone.

Eric,
How do you feel about keeping this thread more or less on track? A few personal posts help keep a thread engaging, and I often employ them because they are fun, but IMO your preoccupation with Spock is getting obsessive, and needs to be taken to PM.

Thank you for your consideration.