Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[greylorn]

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.

I propose that there is one Miracle, in the sense of an Absolute Miracle. By that I mean something which cannot possibly be explained. This means that it cannot be attributed to God or any imaginable entity, nor to randomly occurring events, and probably not to any process that might be conceived by the most brilliant of superhuman minds.

It is, simply, that anything whatsoever happens to exist.

I won’t bother to submit this to the Randi foundation, because Randi is a fraud and a jerk, and I would need to commit 2 mil in attorney fees and court costs to get a million back, which would be doled out at the rate of 2% per year. Not a worthwhile deal.

 

[EricFilmer]

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…

If physics and human intelligence is all that is necessary in properly determining who God is and understanding the workings of the universe in its totality then it seems you have done a lot of unnecessary work. Simply find a person with a higher I.Q. than yours, and a higher degree in physics than yours and ask s/he to explain reality to you. You can then accept that explanation as the truth.

Is your I.Q. higher than Einstein, or do you know more about physics than he did? How does your knowledge of science compare with Stephen Hawking’s? If you fall short of their talents then why are you writing your own book rather than simply accepting the views of such people as a more accurate assessment of reality than what you could come up with?

It is, simply, that anything whatsoever happens to exist.

This stems from an age-old philosophical question, “Why does anything exist?” You seem to have phrased the answer differently from the standard response, which is, “Being is its own explanation.” I’m simply mentioning this for the sake of clarity.

 

[greylorn]

You claim to be a theist.

So you believe in a creator God.

With this post, you have practically stated that converting water to wine is far beyond the capability of the God who created the universe out of nothing.

I’ve figured that you never read a word I wrote, or if you did, they rattled around in your brain w/o engaging a single neuron before collapsing from frustration.

I do not believe the traditional God-concept, which is illogical. I believe in a logic-limited creator, and have made my opinions perfectly clear throughout a number of initiated threads, plus posts to others’ threads.

According to the theory I’ve devised, God created the universe out of energy. He is limited by the three natural energy laws as well as by logic, including mathematical logic. He is also limited by the constraints of the secondary physical laws he designed.

(This is a simplified expression of my ideas.)

Be aware that I have no interest whatsoever in defending these concepts to you or other dogmatists, because that would be impossible. My ideas were devised to assist one person, myself, in the understanding of the true nature of the human mind and the purpose of human existence. They have proven useful to a very small number of others, and I present them in various rants and snippets in the expectation that they will be useful to those non-dogmatists who are dissatisfied with current belief systems, especially atheism, which I dismiss as the most utterly stupid belief system of all.

I do ask that you avoid posts like yours which attempt to make me look self-contradictory. Be responsible enough to do your homework first, please. No more similarly disingenuous posts. They are tacky.

 

[Spock]

With respect, WHY must God 'come to your court and submit to your requirements if He wishes you to be saved?

Because that is the only way I can ascertain that he actually exists. Remember, unless I KNOW that there is a God, I cannot take the next step - which WOULD be to find out what HIS requirements are - as you properly observed. Not that I want something he did not do before - allegedly. Just prove it to me that he exists. Maybe you might ask why don’t I accept your word for it. The answer is simple: I don’t trust you. In a matter of this importance I don’t trust anyone, except myself.

Of course if God does not care about my salvation, he is under no obligation to do anything. You see, it is you, the believers who assert all sorts of nonsense about God, like that God “cares” about us. And that God “loves” us. All I am doing is making logical inferences from what YOU say about God.

 

[greylorn]

We could have a wonderful conversation about this subject. Maybe we shall, but in a different thread. Suffice it to say (without going into details) that I consider the concept of “abstract objects” an ill-conceived idea.

You were being generous. I regard the concept of “abstract objects” as a downright horrid idea. I was meaning, mathematical (and geometrical) abstractions, and failed to make that clear.

I’d love to have the threatened conversation.

Yes, you are correct. I could and (should) have chosen a different example, like contemplating a “hydrogen atom” with 25 protons, 13 electrons and 199 neutrons.

I love it! Put me down for a kilogram of them.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve figured that you never read a word I wrote, or if you did, they rattled around in your brain w/o engaging a single neuron before collapsing from frustration.

I do not believe the traditional God-concept, which is illogical.

Depends on what you mean by a traditional God concept and why you think it is illogical.

I believe in a logic-limited creator, and have made my opinions perfectly clear throughout a number of initiated threads, plus posts to others’ threads.

And that a perfectly valid point because God is logical but not limited to our logic otherwise the Creator who made us out of nothing is no more intelligent than us.

According to the theory I’ve devised, God created the universe out of energy.

Where did the energy come from if He didn’t create it as well?

He is limited by the three natural energy laws as well as by logic, including mathematical logic. He is also limited by the constraints of the secondary physical laws he designed.

Why would the God who created energy be limited by energy laws? If He is the creator of energy then it stands to reason that He is beyond energy laws. As a matter of fact, He made those laws and can break them as He pleases.

(This is a simplified expression of my ideas.)

Too simplified that it bears no resemblance to reason.

Be aware that I have no interest whatsoever in defending these concepts to you or other dogmatists,

Who says that I am asking you to defend your concept. I am just here to show the flaws (if there are any) in your thinking.

because that would be impossible.

Not if it is logical and rational. But you make quite a few unsupported assumptions so the theory collapses. No doubt if you put more thought to it you might be able to come up with a better one.

My ideas were devised to assist one person, myself, in the understanding of the true nature of the human mind and the purpose of human existence.

And how are you going so far on those?

They have proven useful to a very small number of others,

Were they clear enough in their thinking to see the gaps? If so were you able to fill them in for them?

and I present them in various rants and snippets in the expectation that they will be useful to those non-dogmatists who are dissatisfied with current belief systems, especially atheis****m, which I dismiss as the most utterly stupid belief system of all.

On that bolded note, we agree.

I do ask that you avoid posts like yours which attempt to make me look self-contradictory.

No I don’t make you look self-contradictory. I show you that you ARE self-contradictory. As a matter of fact, I did not make any statements at all that pertained to dogma to show that you are self-contradictory with this thread.

Be responsible enough to do your homework first, please. No more similarly disingenuous posts. They are tacky.

Nothing disingenous greylorn. Also, what homework should I do?

So take two and this time slowly.

You claim to be a theist. A theist believes in God. A theist believes in a God creator and more than that, believes in a God who is actively involved in his creation.

So stop there and think about that

Once you have thought about that then you can proceed to my next point.

As a theist who believes in a Creator God who created the world from nothing (you seem to like Behe so pick up from there) then He is more than capable of turning water to wine. Are you still with me here?

 

[greylorn]

GL Ole Buddy,
Wiki-head is not a slur, I happen to be one. IMO if we wanted to improve education in this country I would scrap all the enormous waste of paper that our pin-headed education bureaucracies call textbooks and replace them with wikipedia. Save a lot of money and trees. I have read over 150 science books in my lifetime and have over 50 in my own library that I tell my wife I need as reference material (I’m an incurable bibliophile) but if I want to research something I go to wikipedia with all its convenient links.

I consider myself unslurred. I feel exactly as do you about books and wikipedia, and use wikipedia links throughout my book instead of traditional references.

Whether water to wine requires a fission process per the OP or a synthesis (fusion) process per post 32, the point you are making is that the amount of energy required or expended makes the story an impossibility. But isn’t that what we mean by a miracle, something without explanation, at least without explanation in the scientific view of reality that uses a litany of abstractions such as energy, mass, gravity, and others to describe at an explicate level what God created at the implicate level (the ground of reality). At the implicate level, my supposition is that God operates with information instead of energy, discrete space instead of continuous space, and with algorithms instead of mathematical equations. Since all of this occurs within the mind of God, it is a simple matter for Him to change water into wine.

We could argue that, but would need another thread, and I doubt that anyone else would be interested. There are other things I’d prefer to discuss with you.

Offhand, though, by your proposal, Christ would need to come up with a highly complex algorithm, including dealing with both exo and endothermic energy exchanges. My subsequent post provides a simpler plan which bypasses such complex issues.

Parsnip wine, you’ve got to be kidding? Once I drank tomato wine and believe me you don’t want to regurgitate something like that, kinda like eating Mrs. Murphy’s chowder.
Yppop

Not kidding. It actually tasted good, somewhere between a cheap muskat and Gallo cream sherry— a nice dessert wine. It needed only about 10 years of aging. However, the onion, rutabaga, and brussel-sprout wines did not turn out so well, despite the addition of embalming fluid and old pickles.

 

[greylorn]

I thought physics was part of your religion? It’s a quantum level no-brainer.

I suppose so, but I have a brain. QM does not resolve the problem— unless you have a unique solution you’d care to share in lieu of an irrelevant remark.

 

[benedictus2]

yppop:

*Whether water to wine requires a fission process per the OP or a synthesis (fusion) process per post 32, the point you are making is that the amount of energy required or expended makes the story an impossibility. But isn’t that what we mean by a miracle, something without explanation, at least without explanation in the scientific view of reality that uses a litany of abstractions such as energy, mass, gravity, and others to describe at an explicate level what God created at the implicate level (the ground of reality). At the implicate level, my supposition is that God operates with information instead of energy, discrete space instead of continuous space, and with algorithms instead of mathematical equations. Since all of this occurs within the mind of God, it is a simple matter for Him to change water into wine. *

We could argue that, but would need another thread, and I doubt that anyone else would be interested. There are other things I’d prefer to discuss with you.

No it would not require another thread. YPOP’s comment is well within the purview of this thread because you are using an example that is actually classed as a miracle.

So yes, ordinarily, it is beyond the laws of nature for this to happen, but as I have pointed out before, once we start talking of God we go well beyond the laws of nature for the simple reason that He is the author of the laws of nature.

Now, you may argue again that you don’t believe in this sort of God. But since you do believe in a God that created the universe, turning water into wine should be a piece of cake for the one who created the universe out of nothing.

 

[greylorn]

The scientific community had long ago defined the orders of life according to type, as in mammals which had hair, were warm-blooded and give live birth. So, obviously, when the sailors came home form the sea and described the hairy warm-blooded, duck-billed, egg-laying creature, they were laughed at.

You, of course, believe you know something. Like the scientists of former centuries, you do. But your something is only enough to describe the parts of reality it describes. You’ll have to expand your mind a bit to explain the rest of reality. Or, like the senior scientist contemplating the platypus brought back a few years later, you have to say, “There ain’t no sech creature,” and walk away.

This is what atheists do. Here is the issue: there are all kinds of things we call “miracles” - well investigated and proven that happen, well, pretty much all the time. But you don’t know that. So you want to explain “scientifically” that water can’t become wine. And, no matter who has investigated, you change your standard of belief. This is because you practice atheism the way you accuse others of practicing religion: you believe all kinds of things you have never seen yourself and have faith in the validity of experimental results of experiments you haven’t done yourself, because it fits what you want to believe.

But if you are informed of rigorous investigations into scientifically inexplicable healings, for instance, you just refuse to believe. You want to look at xrays yourself, or take them yourself, or you explain it away as lies. Like all atheists do.

The fact is, your science is correct, but your reality is limited.

And, BTW: Metaphysics is part of philosophy. We all get to say the “G” word ITT. OTOH, I’m not sure chemistry is.

You provide a perfect example of the kind of intellectual categorizing of which you accuse me. You’ve read few of my posts, accuse me of being an establishment scientist-type and an atheist, from reading, what? I have over a thousand posts on CAF. Have you read more than two, or anything off this particular thread? Did you get your brain transplant from someone named Igor?

I invite you to learn what you’re talking about, if you are capable of doing so. Else go away, harass your cat if that’s going to make you happy.

 

[Spock]

You were being generous. I regard the concept of “abstract objects” as a downright horrid idea.

We are on the same wavelength then.

I was meaning, mathematical (and geometrical) abstractions, and failed to make that clear.

Abstractions are the product of our mind. Some are based upon physical reality, some are the products of our imagination. As far as I am concerned there are no abstractions in a “mindless” universe. To say that the number “one” exists independent from our minds makes the concept of “existence” downright nonsensical.

When we lok at the physical universe, we see ontological objects (matter / energy) and we see attributes, activities and relationships between these objects. These are not “objects”, but they cannot exist without the objects and some cannot exist without an observer. It would make no sense to speak of a planet being in front of or behind another one in the absence of an observer.

 

[benedictus2]

You provide a perfect example of the kind of intellectual categorizing of which you accuse me. You’ve read few of my posts, accuse me of being an establishment scientist-type and an atheist, from reading, what? I have over a thousand posts on CAF. Have you read more than two, or anything off this particular thread? Did you get your brain transplant from someone named Igor?

I invite you to learn what you’re talking about, if you are capable of doing so. Else go away, harass your cat if that’s going to make you happy.

Aaah greylorn, Julia may have mis-classified you but tsk, tsk, :tsktsk:descending to this kind of replies is not rebuttal. It shows an inability to defend one’s formulation so descends to personal attack. Are you hoping that in doing so the errors in your conclusions will be overlooked?

I think this comment from Julia describes you perfectly: your science is correct but your reality is limited.

 

[greylorn]

Depends on what you mean by a traditional God concept and why you think it is illogical.

And that a perfectly valid point because God is logical but not limited to our logic otherwise the Creator who made us out of nothing is no more intelligent than us.

Where did the energy come from if He didn’t create it as well?

Why would the God who created energy be limited by energy laws? If He is the creator of energy then it stands to reason that He is beyond energy laws. As a matter of fact, He made those laws and can break them as He pleases.

Too simplified that it bears no resemblance to reason.

Who says that I am asking you to defend your concept. I am just here to show the flaws (if there are any) in your thinking.

Not if it is logical and rational. But you make quite a few unsupported assumptions so the theory collapses. No doubt if you put more thought to it you might be able to come up with a better one.

And how are you going so far on those?

Were they clear enough in their thinking to see the gaps? If so were you able to fill them in for them?

On that bolded note, we agree.

No I don’t make you look self-contradictory. I show you that you ARE self-contradictory. As a matter of fact, I did not make any statements at all that pertained to dogma to show that you are self-contradictory with this thread.

Nothing disingenous greylorn. Also, what homework should I do?

So take two and this time slowly.

You claim to be a theist. A theist believes in God. A theist believes in a God creator and more than that, believes in a God who is actively involved in his creation.

So stop there and think about that

Once you have thought about that then you can proceed to my next point.

As a theist who believes in a Creator God who created the world from nothing (you seem to like Behe so pick up from there) then He is more than capable of turning water to wine. Are you still with me here?

Perhaps if I publish my ideas and you read them, several times for clarity, we might then have a profitable discussion. Under these constraints that is impossible. I’ve answered these questions before, which suggests that in order to answer them to your personal satisfaction, I would need to repeat these and other answers in cycles coinciding with those moments when your attention span is active. That seems a lot of effort for no profit or accomplishment.

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps if I publish my ideas and you read them, several times for clarity, we might then have a profitable discussion. Under these constraints that is impossible. I’ve answered these questions before, which suggests that in order to answer them to your personal satisfaction, I would need to repeat these and other answers in cycles coinciding with those moments when your attention span is active. That seems a lot of effort for no profit or accomplishment.

Not necessary. Much can be achieved by clear concise answers.

Firstly, answer the question of where the energy that God used to create the universe come from.
If you answer it was always there (from eternity) then, since as razredge pointed out in another thread, matter=energy, therefore you are saying that matter and energy were never created by God.

Is this your position?

 

[greylorn]

Abstractions are the product of our mind. Some are based upon physical reality, some are the products of our imagination. As far as I am concerned there are no abstractions in a “mindless” universe. To say that the number “one” exists independent from our minds makes the concept of “existence” downright nonsensical.

I understand your complaint, and know of no way to defend my notion against it. Clearly I have poorly conveyed my meaning, which is a sense that mathematics is kind of an absolute abstraction (no clue as to what that means either) which can be discovered, but cannot be discovered differently that what it is.

If one sets out to enumerate objects, one comes up with the integers. When one seeks to manipulate numbers, fractions appear. When one uses numbers to describe complex wave forms, the square root of minus one appears. Are there other options?

Surely an alien from Arcturus 9 would have different symbolic expressions of integers, but would he know a way to enumerate, efficiently, using some mysterious numbers of which we cannot conceive?

The scientists who sent a copy of, The Guide to Planet Earth for Evil Alien Dummies
along with the Voyager probes clearly assumed that they would have discovered the integers, and the circumference/radius ratio of a circle, etc. Would they?

I like to think so, but cannot be certain. I feel the same way about the principle that the laws of physics are the same in distant galaxies. And does it make a difference whether I am right or wrong?

Wish I knew that kind of stuff. I appreciate your perspective and will happily kick such ideas around with you anytime.

 

[greylorn]

Aaah greylorn, Julia may have mis-classified you but tsk, tsk, :tsktsk:descending to this kind of replies is not rebuttal. It shows an inability to defend one’s formulation so descends to personal attack. Are you hoping that in doing so the errors in your conclusions will be overlooked?

I think this comment from Julia describes you perfectly: your science is correct but your reality is limited.

Her posts were personal attacks on me, total misrepresentations. I don’t need a smarmy “tsk-tsk” from you or any other self-righteous churchgoers for defending myself. No one else is going to do it.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve answered these questions before, which suggests that in order to answer them to your personal satisfaction,** I would need to repeat these and other answers in cycles coinciding with those moments when your attention span is active.** That seems a lot of effort for no profit or accomplishment.

There must be some synapse somewhere that is not firing properly because it seems personal attack is all you are capable of in place of reasoned rebuttal. Everytime you are questioned, and whenever you are unable to support your position you descend to the gutter. How can you expect to be taken seriously if you will not move from the terrible two’s when it comes to behaviour? Converse like an adult if you want to be treated as one.

 

[benedictus2]

Her posts were personal attacks on me, total misrepresentations. I don’t need a smarmy “tsk-tsk” from you or any other self-righteous churchgoers for defending myself. No one else is going to do it.

So non-churgoers are exempt from rational discourse? Hmmm.

 

[Spock]

If one sets out to enumerate objects, one comes up with the integers. When one seeks to manipulate numbers, fractions appear. When one uses numbers to describe complex wave forms, the square root of minus one appears. Are there other options?

No question about that. But that does not mean that we merely discover stuff, which is “aready out there”. We actively create brand new “worlds”, so to speak. Your proposition already includes the minds, who do the “enumeration”, and “manipulation” of numbers.

Of course I agree that the property of “enumerable” exists objectively. But the numbers to do the “enumeration” are “created” by the mind. In mathematics the theory of prime numbers is one of the most beautiful concepts. There is the theorem, which says that every positive integer can be factorized by multiplying its factors (prime factors) in one and only one way, disregarding the order of the factors (for example 6 = 2 * 3). An awesomely beautiful theorem… but is it really “universally true”? No, it is not. If those hypothetical mathematicians from the Arcturus would happen to use a different notational system, like defining integers as “a + b * sqrt(-5)”, then the prime number theorem does not hold any more. In that system 6 would be either “2 * 3” or (1 + sqrt(-5))*(1 - sqrt(-5)), two different factorizations.

We tend to take for granted that multiplication is “commutative”, that is “a * b = b * a” and tend to think that it is universally true. Again, it is not. We can create a generalized type of numbers (called vectors and matrices) where “a * b” is perfectly well defined, but “b * a” cannot be defined at all - or, if it can be defined, it will yield a different result from “a * b”. (I am sure you as a physicist already know all that, but I just wanted to point it out for the sake of clarity).

The scientists who sent a copy of, The Guide to Planet Earth for Evil Alien Dummies
along with the Voyager probes clearly assumed that they would have discovered the integers, and the circumference/radius ratio of a circle, etc. Would they?

It is not that simple. In Euclidean geometry the sum of the angles in a triangle is exactly 180 degrees (or “pi”), but in the Riemann geometry the sum is always greater than that, and in the Gauss-Bolyai-Lobatchewsi geometry the sum is always less than that.

The point here is that mathematics, geometry and all the other abstract systems are based upon arbitrarily chosen axioms. Not all axiomatic systems are equally useful, of course, but as long as they are without internal inconsistencies, they are all “valid” - and they are all creations of the mind. Some can be “mapped” quite well onto the physical reality, but that is just a lucky incident.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You provide a perfect example of the kind of intellectual categorizing of which you accuse me. You’ve read few of my posts, accuse me of being an establishment scientist-type and an atheist, from reading, what? I have over a thousand posts on CAF. Have you read more than two, or anything off this particular thread? Did you get your brain transplant from someone named Igor?

I invite you to learn what you’re talking about, if you are capable of doing so. Else go away, harass your cat if that’s going to make you happy.

I’m not required to read all of a person’s posts to respond in a thread and if your posts don’t represent your views accurately, well, I didn’t make the posts, you did. You, however, are required in this forum, to be not-abusive.

When you claim that the God we worship as Catholics on the Catholic forum that this is, cannot do exactly what He has done, then whatever you believe in personally is “not-God.” That is one way to define “a-theist.” Another is “without God.” I see no reason to alter this view from your posts. You seem to believe God is subject to what you personally can understand of the Way Things Work, rather than accept that no one here can possibly grasp the fullness of that.

If you need me to explain why quantum physics solves your problem, then obviously you don’t know enough about it for this to be a reasonable format for that discussion, as educating you from the ground up, is also not my job. I just assumed from your self-styled “religion” you would understand if you gave it some thought, or post your reasoned objections. I erred.

I will reiterate: the things you say cannot happen, do. That’s simply a fact. That you don’t understand how they do, is irrelevant. Logically, considering that they happen now, we have no reason to suppose they haven’t always happened, and so, of course, there being water in the jars at one moment, and wine in them the next, is quite reasonable.

There are several ways that might occur. One way is to alter the substance already present in the jars. This you argue against. Another way, is to remove the substance in the jars and replace it with another substance. I imagine God has a few more ways of making that happen.