Originally posted by twhitehead But not necessarily metabolism - and I would hesitate to call it a 'manifestation'. When I affect my environment, am I manifesting? When I affect you via the internet, can you detect metabolism in your computer screen? Have I manifested in your computer screen?
Well I distance myself from the metabolism bit, but the actions you perform on your computer can potentially have a physical manifestation on mine (since amongst other things, physical actions on your side of the Internet cause a certain rendering of pixels on my monitor that would not otherwise have occured.)
As for "G"od, whatever it would will by magic still has to impart change on the physical. This is highly suggestive of a collection of forces which in the end shall affect some collection of physical “things“.
Originally posted by 667joe Ahhhh! Finally agreement! You admit god is not part of the universe!
Thank you!
Surely that was assume in your OP where you state that God created the universe? I don't see how he could create it and be part of it. It could be part of him I suppose.
Originally posted by Agerg Well I distance myself from the metabolism bit, but the actions you perform on your computer can potentially have a physical manifestation on mine ...
But that is a trivial observation. You are basically saying that if I affect your screen then I affect your screen.
As for "G"od, whatever it would will by magic still has to impart change on the physical. This is highly suggestive of a collection of forces which in the end shall affect some collection of physical “things“. I agree. But this does not necessarily have to leave any specific signature effects on the universe. He could for example merely change the probability of finding a given quark in a given location. He could potentially make major changes without ever being distinguishable from pure chance.
I just think Joes claim that energy expenditure/conversion is a requirement is unfounded.
Anything that interacts with the universe could potentially violate the second law of thermodynamics with impunity. If anything, that is what interaction could be defined as ie a deviation from the expected effects of randomness (kind of contradicting what I said earlier 🙂 )
Originally posted by twhitehead But that is a trivial observation. You are basically saying that if I affect your screen then I affect your screen.
[b]As for "G"od, whatever it would will by magic still has to impart change on the physical. This is highly suggestive of a collection of forces which in the end shall affect some collection of physical “things“. I agree. But this do ...[text shortened]... eviation from the expected effects of randomness (kind of contradicting what I said earlier 🙂 )[/b]
Well I distance myself from the metabolism bit, but the actions you perform on your computer can potentially have a physical manifestation on mine ...
But that is a trivial observation. You are basically saying that if I affect your screen then I affect your screen.
I don't think that is what I was saying ... you were questioning the legitimacy of the term "manifestation" as it applies to "G"od in this context - using your actions on the computer as an example. In response I essentially said that actions performed on your computer lead to actions on my screen, so your physical actions at your physical computer actually have a manifestation (via you changing the data on some server, and my going and getting whatever data is living there). This is not the same as "if [you] affect my screen then [you] affect my screen"
I agree. But this does not necessarily have to leave any specific signature effects on the universe. He could for example merely change the probability of finding a given quark in a given location. He could potentially make major changes without ever being distinguishable from pure chance.
I just think Joes claim that energy expenditure/conversion is a requirement is unfounded.
Anything that interacts with the universe could potentially violate the second law of thermodynamics with impunity. If anything, that is what interaction could be defined as ie a deviation from the expected effects of randomness (kind of contradicting what I said earlier ) In just the same way as changing the probability of rolling a 6 with a given die suggests the die has been loaded, would not "changing the probability of finding a given quark" suggest perhaps that this god has loaded it's parent system of quarks in some way as to find that particular quark with greater probability than finding others (which could be interpreted as a physical action)!?
But yes I too think that joe's claim about energy expenditure/conversion is going a little bit too far.
Originally posted by Agerg ... you were questioning the legitimacy of the term "manifestation"
My objection is that to me, manifestation implies God himself being present rather than merely a result of some action he has taken. If you say that by typing this post, I have manifested on your screen then I find the word unnecessary and would be more comfortable with simply saying I have affected your screen.
It is however not a word I use a lot so I could be wrong about its usage or what it implies to other may be different from what it means to me.
Originally posted by 667joe Theists (of which I am not one) believe that god has created universe. This must mean he can interact with matter. This implies some sort of metabolism and a physical presence. Where does god get the energy for this metabolism, and what happens to the waste products there from? (If atheists are correct, this question is moot).
Read some science fiction and then get back to us. jeez.
Originally posted by 667joe Theists (of which I am not one) believe that god has created universe. This must mean he can interact with matter. This implies some sort of metabolism and a physical presence. Where does god get the energy for this metabolism, and what happens to the waste products there from? (If atheists are correct, this question is moot).
I believe this area of inquiry would be classified as the physics of the metaphysical, which is basically the scientific study of the scientifically unstudiable.
Metabolism
29 Jul '14 17:11
Back to Top