[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics



In a message dated 95-11-13 22:48:04 EST, Dinogeorge writes:

<< This is vacuous blather. Fortunately, it's not YOUR vacuous blather
(you're just quoting); it's theology's vacuous blather. If God is neither
macroscopic nor microscopic, if God is not subject to physical law, if God is
"transcendent" (whatever THAT means), if there is some state of existence
"not a part of the universe" (but nevertheless somehow driving the universe),
then all bets are off and anything goes. I'm my own grandfather, 23 = 4,569,
and horses drink blue bricks. Phooey. >>

Actually no.  The difference between science and metaphysics is not merely of
degree but of kind.  It is one thing to say that something is naturally
impossible or that it dosen't exist.  It is another thing to say that it is
logically impossible or that it couldn't exist.  The  distinction is not
trivial.  The square root of ( -1) is a logical consequence of the number
line yet it represents no known physical quantity.  It is nevertheless useful
for generating fractals which are the basis of several natuarlly occurring
phenomena and has other uses in math and physics.  

God is the same realm.  Transcendence merely means that God is a metaphysical
entity neither defined or contained within the knowable universe.  He is
similar to the transcendental numbers "C" and "Aleph-Null."  These are
perfectly reasonable concepts but their direct relationship to anything in
our experience is analogical at best.  To argue whether such an entity does
or doesn't exist necessarily leads to speculation but not necessarily
contradiction.

Let me give you with analogy.  With regard to the God of traditional western
theism we are in the analogous position of Oliver Twist with regard to
Charles Dickens.  Dickens is neither a macro- nor a micro- scopic entity to
Oliver Twist.  Where is he in the novel?  Nowhere in particular but
everywhere generally.  He wrote it.  The characters in the novel were created
by him directly but if you read the story they also have a history in depth
which is in the "past"and  which defines who and what they are.  They are the
product of historic forces which are simultaneously "teleological" according
to the author's intentions.   How could Oliver Twist ever discover Dickens?
 It would take an act of personal self revelation by Dickens to his creature.
 Would speculation by Oliver about an "Author of All Things" be illogical or
nonsensical?  Not if it lead him to Charles Dickens or something like him.
 And surely Dickens is the one who is "driving" Oliver's world.

Like all analogies this limps and it is overly-anthropomorphic but it is not
illogical.  Nor does it require creationist "pseudo-science" (read "magic")
to explain the nature of things  in a western-theistic world.  Divine
transcendence is no threat to our reality, our science, or our sanity.  It
may though provide answers to metaphysical questions which lie beyond the
singularities that bound our universe.  While (almost) anything is possible
in a Quantum Theory universe, most possibilities never are actualized.  "Why
this and not that?"  Maybe the answer lies in the divine equivalent of
Dickens' plot outline.

Art

P.S.: I wasn't just quoting.