Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[babylonsfalling]

Ok. I’m “ignorant” of Scripture, and you’re ignorant of my attempt at a joke. Fair’s fair.

Actually…I wasn’t even talking about you.

 

[Pieman333272]

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.

Greylorn -

Normally I enjoy your posts, but unless this is a joke or parody, I have to say your comments on the water into wine miracle are… sad. Obviously you should know that God is (at least under Catholicism) not bound by laws of physics! You can’t discredit a miracle simply because you can’t explain it with hard science! Rejecting by default historical issues because of a presupposed worldview or philosophy, regardless of how probable that worldview is, is not history, it is dogma!

That IS strange.
It also shows an ignorance of the Scripture being discussed
John 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse:*** but thou hast kept the good wine until now.***

As a broader question, does “you have kept good wine until now” mean the wine Jesus made was bad, or good, and the guy was praising him for keeping the wine good right up to that point?

 

[Abba]

Hey Spock,

It is a beautiful day here in New England. I don’t know where you are at, but, why don’t you give your arduous search a break today and go to Mass. I’m going to catch the five o’clock Mass. I am sure there is a Catholic parish near you and probably walking distance. Go ahead, take a nice walk and go to a Mass. Look at it as an experiment. Afterall, if I was studying the honey badger, I would like to go to it’s habitat and actually see one in action. Those creatures are amazing, my youngest son just showed me an amazing video of the honey badger. What courage!
Honey Badger Domination:
youtube.com/watch?v=3P9_XV1STkg

 

[Spock]

Obviously you should know that God is (at least under Catholicism) not bound by laws of physics!

Actually, this means that catholicism is wrong. Can God create a temperature lower than absolute zero? That is a physical constraint and yet, God cannot do it. Or move an object faster than the speed of light? Obviously not.

 

[Abba]

Actually, this means that catholicism is wrong. Can God create a temperature lower than absolute zero? That is a physical constraint and yet, God cannot do it. Or move an object faster than the speed of light? Obviously not.

Watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=hyIpE1_qIFM&feature=related

By the way, God is not at our beck and call. I cannot be saying to God, okay; if you do this I will believe in you and now, do that, and how about this…? Come on.

Since ‘holy science’ is so knowing how does it explain all the miracles of Lourdes and the incorruptibles?

Deuteronomy 6:16
"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

youtube.com/watch?v=dApo_Cb-ECQ
associatedcontent.com/article/72396/incorruptible_roman_catholic_saints.html

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Actually, this means that catholicism is wrong. Can God create a temperature lower than absolute zero? That is a physical constraint and yet, God cannot do it. Or move an object faster than the speed of light? Obviously not.

Some laws are contingently true, and others are necessarily true, in that they result in logical contradictions if the restrictions of those laws are surpassed. If a thing cannot move faster than light, it is because it is meaningless to speak of something moving faster than light relative to the nature other laws that are in place; just like it is meaningless to speak of a physical place outside of space. However, in this case we are speaking about what a thing can do, and not how it comes to exist. It is not necessarily true, that the only way the essence of wine can be created is through the natural course of physical events. It just so happens that we experience the manifestation of wine through set laws. You have not shown us that the only way wine can be created is through the normal course of physical events. Greylorn has merely wasted his time telling us that given that natural course of physical events alone, Jesus could not have performed the miracle. This is hardly a refutation given that his argument fails to show that physical events is the only means by which a thing can become manifest let alone that physical laws exist necessarily.

 

[You]

Actually, this means that catholicism is wrong. Can God create a temperature lower than absolute zero? That is a physical constraint and yet, God cannot do it. Or move an object faster than the speed of light? Obviously not.

They are not laws of physics but more laws of logic. Absolute zero is a point on a graph below which presumably it is illogical not just physically impossible.

 

[Abba]

What do you mean ‘absolute’ zero. When I was up in Maine some time ago, it was 40 degrees below zero. If there is a lowest of the lowest temperature it is so because He has made it the lowest and hasn’t made it any colder but, it does not mean that He cannot…

 

[You]

What do you mean ‘absolute’ zero. When I was up in Maine some time ago, it was 40 degrees below zero. If there is a lowest of the lowest temperature it is so because He has made it the lowest and hasn’t made it any colder but, it does not mean that He cannot…

My, probably wrong, understanding of absolute zero is that the particles should stop vibrating at that point. And once they stop vibrating it is no longer possible to measure any further decrease in temperature - because what do you measure when the vibrating particles stop vibrating. So I think its a logical problem more than a physical one.
Physicists can start laughing now at my explanation.

 

[Pieman333272]

Actually, this means that catholicism is wrong. Can God create a temperature lower than absolute zero? That is a physical constraint and yet, God cannot do it. Or move an object faster than the speed of light? Obviously not.

Umm… no. Sorry. Those are both laws of physics AND logic, where anything breaking those laws is a logical contradiction as well as a scientific “impossibility”. God cannot contradict himself - being logic itself, God cannot (and, even if he can, does not) do the logically impossible. Omnipotence only goes as far as not contradicting your essence and traits.

 

[GEddie]

Actually, this means that catholicism is wrong. Can God create a temperature lower than absolute zero? That is a physical constraint and yet, God cannot do it. Or move an object faster than the speed of light? Obviously not.

Such examples pale beside the task of bringing a human body back out of death and HE did that!

How long would you have that -1K vacuole remain? Long enough for you to find it? And how would our positive-kelvin thermometers detect this condition?

How for that matter would we even SEE a trans-C projectile, if the light won’t reach it?

Just as our LORD said, an evil generation craves for signs, but no sign would be given, except the sign of Jonah. Which was a PHYSICAL sign done with His very PHYSICAL BODY!

ICXC NIKA

 

[greylorn]

They are not laws of physics but more laws of logic. Absolute zero is a point on a graph below which presumably it is illogical not just physically impossible.

How many centuries has it been since your last Thermodynamics class?

The zero-degree Kelvin temperature (absolute zero) is indeed a physical constraint. It is officially known as the Third Law of Thermodynamics, and is derived from the First and Second Laws. The First Law includes the implication that energy cannot be created or destroyed either, which is another physical limitation on God.

I realize that ascribing physical limitations to the Creator is not a concept welcomed by individuals who obtained their understanding of physics in Bible class, but if theology is ever going to be brought out of the dark ages, and reconciled with clear principles of science, as eventually it must be, this kind of theoretical possibility needs to be considered.

It is not an idea accessible to the thumpers of ancient scripture, but is worth the consideration of thoughtful men.

 

[wanner47]

mir·a·cle
   /ˈmɪrəkəl/ [mir-uh-kuhl]
noun

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

 

[You]

How many centuries has it been since your last Thermodynamics class?

I forget. Besides, my mind is not constrained by physics laws.

The zero-degree Kelvin temperature (absolute zero) is indeed a physical constraint. It is officially known as the Third Law of Thermodynamics, and is derived from the First and Second Laws. The First Law includes the implication that energy cannot be created or destroyed either, which is another physical limitation on God.

I realize that ascribing physical limitations to the Creator is not a concept welcomed by individuals who obtained their understanding of physics in Bible class, but if theology is ever going to be brought out of the dark ages, and reconciled with clear principles of science, as eventually it must be, this kind of theoretical possibility needs to be considered.

It is not an idea accessible to the thumpers of ancient scripture, but is worth the consideration of thoughtful men.

If matter is the stuff of the thought of God then physical constraints are simply the constraints of God’s own logic. Logical constraints like, God cannot both exist and not exist.

 

[Pieman333272]

The zero-degree Kelvin temperature (absolute zero) is indeed a physical constraint. It is officially known as the Third Law of Thermodynamics, and is derived from the First and Second Laws.

I don’t think You’s point was that that wasn’t a physical law, his point was that it was both a logical and physical law.

The First Law includes the implication that energy cannot be created or destroyed either, which is another physical limitation on God.

While I initially found your view on this logical, I now see it is built on misunderstanding and, in this specific case, a black-and-white viewpoint. The First Law is a **physical **law, but not a logical. From a logical standpoint, there is nothing that says energy cannot be created or destroyed. God is a being that goes beyond physics but IS logic, making him not bound by physical laws that don’t double as logical ones.

I realize that ascribing physical limitations to the Creator is not a concept welcomed by individuals who obtained their understanding of physics in Bible class, but if theology is ever going to be brought out of the dark ages, and reconciled with clear principles of science, as eventually it must be, this kind of theoretical possibility needs to be considered.

While initially I viewed your reforms and ideas as thoughtful and helpful, I now see that they are just as dogmatic as the Churches you dialogue with are in your eyes. You are desperate to throw anything which contradicts your black-and-white view of theology and physics out as “Dogma”, even though many of them are far more open than you. Your reforms, I have realized, are not necessary outside of your ego. Theology is perfectly compatible with science - what you see as an either/or without your reforms is really a both/and, and has been all along.

And while we’re on the topic, the “Dark Ages” no longer refers to the ideas and intelligence of the period but how much data we can get from their records, and I suggest you drop the term from your characterization of theology.

 

[Abba]

My, probably wrong, understanding of absolute zero is that the particles should stop vibrating at that point. And once they stop vibrating it is no longer possible to measure any further decrease in temperature - because what do you measure when the vibrating particles stop vibrating. So I think its a logical problem more than a physical one.
Physicists can start laughing now at my explanation.

Yeah, I suspected that ‘absolute zero’ was referring to something other than temperature. I figured the science lovers could explain or confuse it well with a bunch of formulas to be deciphered and until then…

This reminds me of a friend I had at the university. He was one year short of earning a PhD in mathematics and he just decided that he did not want to finish it. He told me that he did not want to spend the rest of his life looking for the last number and that is where math was at. If discovered a guaranteed Nobel Prize. Well, I don’t know much about that absolute zero.

I understand, it seems to be as cold as it could possibly get with matter. Well, my answer to that would be that we do not know the complete nature of God to be judging him so strictly. It just seems to me that people in their rebellious nature want to find something God cannot do because it would be contrary to his nature and then demean his existence because He could be found not to be able to do something.

I have an appreciation of Eric Filmer ‘German tough love’, although I think that when he mentioned the part about Spock looking for Catholic ringtones he went a little too far. Too far, because then the effects could very well be negative and we do not want to be obstacles for people, much to the contrary, we want to show them the way; someone may continue to rebel just to not give someone the satisfaction of someday saying - you see, I told you so. But, I can also relate to Eric Filmer’s aggravation. It can be aggravating to endure all these little arguments against our faith and God. But, we need to be loving, understanding and peaceful…this is the proper reaction but like Socrates said; Patience is a virtue - but, we are not all so virtuous but, we are trying. I am sure Eric Filmer did not mean any harm, to the contrary he was trying to get Spock to confront his reality.

 

[Abba]

While I initially found your view on this logical, I now see it is built on misunderstanding and, in this specific case, a black-and-white viewpoint. The First Law is a **physical **law, but not a logical. From a logical standpoint, there is nothing that says energy cannot be created or destroyed. God is a being that goes beyond physics but IS logic, making him not bound by physical laws that don’t double as logical ones.

Nice.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn -

Normally I enjoy your posts, but unless this is a joke or parody, I have to say your comments on the water into wine miracle are… sad. Obviously you should know that God is (at least under Catholicism) not bound by laws of physics! You can’t discredit a miracle simply because you can’t explain it with hard science! Rejecting by default historical issues because of a presupposed worldview or philosophy, regardless of how probable that worldview is, is not history, it is dogma!

Pieman,
Thank you for your comment. Be assured that while there is a touch of humor and parody in the OP (not for everyone, of course), I take the business of trying to understand the universe very seriously.

Yes, I know the Catholic God-concept well. It was the centerpiece of my mind for twenty years, but no longer.

The purpose I’ve chosen is selfish— to understand the origin, nature, and purpose of my self. In order to do that I’ve found it necessary to understand as much as possible about the universe which birthed me. This required an attempt to learn some physics.

Out of this process I adopted an entirely different Bible from yours. Yours (once mine, as well) consists of words written entirely by men, which other men have declared to be divinely inspired. As do others, I find many unpleasant contradictions between various groups of words contained in the same document, which is consistent with the hypothesis that they are the uninspired words of men, inconsistent with the notion that they were infallibly inspired and guided by the Creator. So I adopted a better Bible.

Mine is the physical universe itself. It first informed me that it was an engineered universe, constructed over many eons by a large number of participating conscious beings. The most elementary of studies convinced me that this magnificent universe cannot be entirely the product of random chance.

Yet, certain miracles seem to me to be required.

My definition of miracle is quite different from yours, and from the common definition of miracle, which is relative.

For example, an explorer traipsing into the jungle domains of primitive tribes can wow the natives with a Zippo lighter, which from their limited perspective is a miracle. Christ’s cures of blind men are regarded by the men, and His followers as miracles, because they understood no more about the mechanics behind the miracle than primitive tribes once understood about Zippo lighters. Surely Christ did not regard his work as miraculous— after all, He knew how to do it.

The same considerations apply to the Miracle of Creation. For mankind, this is clearly a miraculous achievement, or was— because as we learn more, it looks more like an engineering project. In any case, creation of the universe was, for the omnipotent God of Christianity, a mere flip of a Zippo top and flick of the spindle— hardly a miracle.

Yet, from this viewpoint there is one genuine Miracle, which is the existence of God Himself.

The self-proclaimed science of cosmology (which is really just a mish-mash of the confused neural processes which pass in atheistically programmed cosmologists for thought) declares that the universe began with another Miracle (they don’t call it that), namely the instantaneous appearance from nothing of a physical singularity (which, by definition, cannot exist) which then exploded and became the universe, replete with critters like and unlike ourselves.

I find both varieties of Miracle equally unsatisfactory. Each has logical flaws, and each raises more questions than it provides answers.

So I am required to conclude that we have neglected to find the real miracles behind it all, specifically, the miracle which brought a creator into existence, and the complimentary miracle which provided this entity with the stuff from which to construct a universe. Details of the real miracles are presented in my forthcoming book.

From your perspective this all distills down to the notion that while I share your belief in a Creator, my understanding of the Creator’s properties, and motivation for creation of mankind, is derived from the physical universe itself, not from any religious teachings, and is therefore quite different from yours.

While you cannot reconcile my concepts with your dogma, they have the advantages of being perfectly logical (in the common sense of logic), consistent with all known scientific data (but not necessarily with theory), and have no internal contradictions. They explain the creation of mankind handily, including the variations in human quality, and offer a sensible (but not necessarily comfortable) explanation of the human purpose and possible destinies.

Yet, somehow, no current religious dogma that I know of is consistent with these clear, simple, and self-evident explanations. Go figure.

 

[Spock]

By the way, God is not at our beck and call. I cannot be saying to God, okay; if you do this I will believe in you and now, do that, and how about this…? Come on.

Why not? Is he afraid? Impossible. He can pass any test I can devise.

Since ‘holy science’ is so knowing how does it explain all the miracles of Lourdes and the incorruptibles?

Simple. There are no miracles. Show me a properly conducted, double blind experiment which results in a “miracle”. Better yet, show it to the James Randi Foundation, and you can win one million dollars.

Deuteronomy 6:16
"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Well, I am. If God can pass the test, that is all fine and dandy. If he keeps playing “shy”, it is no skin off my nose. You believers say that God “wishes everyone to be saved”, and to get saved it is necessary to submit to him and to worship him. But that is impossible if I cannot be absolutely assured that God exists. Obviously God does not “really” wish that I would be saved. If he really wished it, he could provide me with the necessary evidence. You see, you guys and gals painted yourself into a very tight corner.

 

[greylorn]

There is somebody there and he has been calling you. Be silent and have courage to at least stand still for a few minutes and listen to his whispers and identify that longing you are experiencing in your soul which only he can satisfy because it is for him that you are longing and it is his calling. He is not on the other side of a wall, he is with you, Spock, loving and guiding you. You wrote that you use to believe but then grew out of it. You may have left him like the prodigal son, but, he has been waiting for you and upon your return will offer a big celebration. I hope to share the joy.

Your attempts to proselytize are off-topic and inappropriate. Kindly thump your Bible in private, or on CAF sections devoted to reiterations of dogma. This is a philosophy section.