Water cannot be transformed into good wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter greylorn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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… 🍿
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.***
 
Interesting that you are so “obsessed” with my presence.
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.
Not that it is any of your business…
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.
…but I am comfortably retired,
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.
…and like to find out about other people’s belief systems, and I have time to do so.
That’s one theory. I gave you mine in Post #16. All things considered, I find my theory to be more plausible.
Maybe I spend about an hour a day on this website on the average. Why does that “bother” you?
Exactly where did I ever say it “bothered me”?
Also, very very rarely I do find someone, who is an intelligent person, with whom I can conduct a mutually rewarding conversation, even if we part without agreeing, and those very rare instances justify my efforts - in my own eyes of course.
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.
If my presence happens to bother you, I am sorry, but you are under no obligation to read my posts (the “ignore” button is your friend), but if you do, then don’t complain. It is your fault, not mine. 🙂
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.
 
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.
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. :))
 
“Water cannot be transformed into good wine.”

I don’t see any logical reason that would prevent an all powerful God from having complete access to all the laws of the universe that He created (laws that mankind cannot grasp in the mind) and using these laws in such a way that certain things come into existence as miracles to the human mind, such as turning water into wine, making the blind see, and raising the dead.

Since God exists above and is independent of time and space, the material universe does not limit Him in the things that He does; hence, God has distinctive features within His own Being that mankind cannot possibly discern. For instance, mankind may know and understand the meaning of the words omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent, but mankind is incapable of experiencing them.
 
Actually, I am REALLY glad this was brought up. I’ve been reading in the threads and comments etc. so often regarding ‘miracles’ that, "the miracles that Christ did can now be replicated by human beings easily’. . .you know, 'bringing back the dead, curing the sick, why He was just using ‘modern’ techniques dontcha know.

But this. . .OOOOH. I would like to those those nattering nabobs explain THIS away. THIS miracle is not SCIENTIFICALLY explainable. It can’t be done by us humans!

I’ll drink to that . . .
 
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.
Do you think God knows all this? lol

bluelake
 
In the sense that 20 years ago you may have deemed a handheld mp3 player containing thousands of tracks chemically impossible?
No, because I was not stupid 20 years ago and had been engaged in the applications of computer technology to physics for 30 years before then. Just because you are ignorant of the difference between chemistry and nuclear physics does not imply that everyone else is, unless there is new evidence that ignorance can be transmitted like swine flu.
 
Do you think God knows all this? lol

bluelake
I am certain that these small tidbits of hard-won human knowledge are, compared to the knowledge of the entity, or entities who created this universe, are as significant as a gnat’s contribution to the total mass of the sun.

If any of the Creators’ minions are listening in, I hope they got a chuckle.
 
Ah, an attempt to wiggle out. This was your assertion: “To those who do not believe, not explaination is possible.” Can God provide a sufficient explanation, or not? You don’t need to answer, of course, and I don’t expect you. Just curious.
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.
 
A creatorless universe could not have naturally evolved from absolute nothing, but that doesn’t stop people from believing it, despite the fact that it is devoid of science.
 
Actually, I am REALLY glad this was brought up. I’ve been reading in the threads and comments etc. so often regarding ‘miracles’ that, "the miracles that Christ did can now be replicated by human beings easily’. . .you know, 'bringing back the dead, curing the sick, why He was just using ‘modern’ techniques dontcha know.

But this. . .OOOOH. I would like to those those nattering nabobs explain THIS away. THIS miracle is not SCIENTIFICALLY explainable. It can’t be done by us humans!

I’ll drink to that . . .
I kind of figured that this OP might pry open some panels in the woodwork. Nope, not scientifically explainable, and exceedingly complex. I did not mention the intricacies behind the questions, such that the additional chemicals which are the components of a a good wine are more complex than hydrocarbons. Other atoms must be manufactured— Sulfur, Sodium, Chlorine, Magnesium, Boron, Nitrogen, and Iron are atop the list. These atoms require considerable energy for their synthesis, so much that they are normally synthesized in the sun, where the sustained million-degree temperatures and awesome pressure in the solar core kind of helps the process along. All the king’s horses and the nuclear physicists at Cern and Fermilab could not manufacture those atoms from water.

But, assuming that it was somehow accomplished, there was still considerable work to do, namely constructing the complex chemicals which give wine its texture, scent, and flavors. These are normally assembled by tedious biochemical processes within plants, then extended within cool oaken casks, over time. Probably no more than a few trillion-trillion of these molecules would be needed. There would be at least 1000 different kinds of these molecules, all combined in perfect balance. (Too many tannins make a wine taste harsh, and too many esters are simply nasty.)

Now if I were Christ and wanted to pull of a showy miracle like this without vaporizing myself, my mother, a nice young couple anticipating the most wonderful night of their lives, and Jerusalem, I would do it differently.

I would plan ahead. First I would cause some shekels to materialize. I would use my psychic skills to locate where some skinflint hoarder had buried some gold pieces without telling anyone before he died, and order a few of my followers to go dig them up in the dead of a moonlit night. I would use these to clandestinely purchase a cask of the finest wine available, ideally from a little known source outside the city.

Then I would pour it into a water cask.

In the dead of the next moonlit night, I and a trusted follower would sneak into the house where the wedding was to be held and squirrel this cask away in the back corner of an obscure closet, We would also abscond with a cask of wine already awaiting the festivities, ensuring that the wedding supply would fall short.

Come wedding day, while the guests were getting themselves thoroughly crocked, my trusted henchmen would retrieve the mislabeled water cask, marked for easy identification, and place it among the other water casks, but back out of convenient reach lest it be opened prematurely.

Then, when the boozy wedding guests started whining about their empty chalices, I would make a show of having them follow me to the back pantry, where I locate the cask of wine, perform an arcane incantation or two, wave my hands, and invite them to open it. Voila! Mission Impossible accomplished!

Of course, I’m not Christ, for which He is surely thankful, so there is no doubt that He would have done this trick the hard way, dealing with the giga-ergs of thermonuclear energy by maybe conducting them into the roots of a nearby fig tree, and performing trillions of complex atomic and chemical transformations in the space of a few seconds. That’s why He’s a God, and I’m a gnarly old crank whose common-sense rants cannot stand up to Biblical Truth.
 
“Religion: None”
Hey, take it easy on Spocky. It seems he’s having a hard time reconciling his expectations for what life should be, versus the reality of how it is. I hope and pray that everyone can find more peace and more answers.
 
A creatorless universe could not have naturally evolved from absolute nothing, but that doesn’t stop people from believing it, despite the fact that it is devoid of science.
I agree with you completely. That’s not something I often write on CAF.

However correct your remark is, it has nothing to do with my OP. Thank you anyway. You might want to initiate a thread of your own on that topic.
 
Haha! That is so funny. 🙂 Reminds me of the engineer’s calculation about Santa Claus. read it here… Of course you made a serious mistake in your calculations. You forgot to take the “magic” into account. As we all know nothing is impossible if enough “magic” (a.k.a. “miracle”) is employed!
I
 
You know there’s a reason we call it a miracle. If it were possible and could happen randomly it wouldn’t be miraculous. But if it makes you feel good to say that what we claim to be a miracle really is miraculous then carry on, thank you.
 
The first part is true. The second part is patently false. But, of course the explanation cannot be a fairy tale. What is really funny that you think God is so impotent, that he cannot supply a proper explanation. And you think you “respect” God, when you have such a low opinion about him?

You know your kind of “argument” (which is all over the place around here) is strongest indication and the most convincing evidence that God does not exist. After all, if he existed, he would have enough self-respect to come donw and kick the living daylight out of his “followers” who spread such demeaning assertions about him! To have the audacity and say that God is unable to provide the necessary explanation - wow…
How is it possible to know so much about something which does not even exist?

-Tim-
 
I agree with you completely. That’s not something I often write on CAF.

However correct your remark is, it has nothing to do with my OP. Thank you anyway. You might want to initiate a thread of your own on that topic.
My point is that if science is forever impotent to find the answer to why we exist, then why worry about the exact science behind changing water into wine? Since it’s physically impossible to change water into wine, then either Jesus was a con artist, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. The existence of the universe either has no reason for it’s existence, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. It’s logical to believe that a creatorless universe SHOULD have a scientific explanation for it’s existence, but it never will, since absolute nothing can’t naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event. So science is wrong “somewhere” in this argument due to the paradox of the creation of a creatorless existence. Since logic dictates that some supernatural event had to happen, then “miracles” are still on the table of “possible” since science is wrong “somewhere.”
 
It also chemically impossible to manufacture a **person **or purpose or love from atomic particles…
Coming from a believer like yourself, that statement is teetering atop the abyss of terminal incompetence.

You and I both believe in a Creator, and that human bodies and brains are the consequence of His Creation.

I don’t know about you, but the idea that atoms were created in stellar furnaces and that biochemical life forms were developed through an extended engineering process, is cool with me. So, persons are mostly assembled from the atomic versions of TinkerToy parts.

Now, love and purpose are other matters. I know that you would like to attribute these higher properties to a non-physical soul, and in turn, I would like to attribute them to a non-material but physical version of a similar kind of entity.

However, life experience has taught me that virtually all of what humans regard as purpose is merely an assortment of commonly shared programs running through their brains, and that most of what passes in us for “love” is just brain-induced horniness plus the need to find someone else to “complete” our own shallow personality and trivial skill set.

I admit that every now and then I get a twinge of some inner feeling of something vaguely reminiscent of those shy moments of briefly shared human affection, but these most often occur when I am looking through a telescope, or microscope, or reading a book (Michael Behe) or technical report on some awesome, mysterious aspect of creation.
 
My point is that if science is forever impotent to find the answer to why we exist, then why worry about the exact science behind changing water into wine? Since it’s physically impossible to change water into wine, then either Jesus was a con artist, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. The existence of the universe either has no reason for it’s existence, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. It’s logical to believe that a creatorless universe SHOULD have a scientific explanation for it’s existence, but it never will, since absolute nothing can’t naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event. So science is wrong “somewhere” in this argument due to the paradox of the creation of a creatorless existence. Since logic dictates that some supernatural event had to happen, then “miracles” are still on the table of “possible” since science is wrong “somewhere.”
Your position seems to be an honest attempt to distill some sense from your faith, and reality. Here’s an alternative, no doubt worth every dime you paid for it… I think that you are qualified to consider it, and hope that you do so. Give it some time to sink in, please.

You first statement is, IMO, incorrect. Science can disclose the mysteries behind the universe, but not “science” as currently in the grip of atheist physicists who have adopted the QM interpretation of Neils Bohr, a scrawny, egocentric socialist— or “science” as in that absurd belief system known as Darwinism.

Only a science which gets smart enough to recognize that both the Big Bang and Darwinism are equally silly can tackle more interesting problems, such as a potential relationship between soul and human consciousness, and the interplay between a serious Creator and the complex mix of physical laws needed to make things work.

This will be facilitated if religions get off their dogmatic butts and start building physics and neurophysiology labs of their own, where they can begin to investigate the physics of the the soul-brain connection.

There is a time and place for both proof and faith. You’d be amazed to learn how many critical principles of science are based entirely upon faith because they cannot be proven.

My water into wine example was intended to illustrate an absurd application of mindless faith, a miracle so complex that it cannot be performed by God Himself. Yet, I have no problem whatsoever accepting the belief that Christ touched the retinas of some blind guys with his mind, maybe cleared out a blood clot here and there, bypassed some blocked nerves, or rebalanced some internal parts to restore the eyes’ normal chemistry. Faith must be balanced against alternative possibilities, else it is utterly mindless. Does mindless faith honor God? I hope not.

Proof is the other side of this coin, and is rarely used in real science. “Proof” is actually a code word meaning “peer agreement,” When a doctrinal scientist, or science camp-follower demands “proof,” he is really asking for the agreement of other scientists. He wants to know if the scientist presenting the theory has a suitable university pedigree, and if his paper has been reviewed by peers, which mostly means by guys who haven’t the slightest idea what the paper is about, but are looking to see if it fits within the constraints of their personal understandings.

“Faith” serves the same purpose in religion as does :“proof” in science. Faith means, does my church agree? Will my churchgoing peers agree? It, too, is a code word for “agreement,” which is the most powerful force controlling the human mind.

Faith and proof are sorely over-rated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top