(If you haven't been with us through Myth # 14 with its comments please read it first)
The fanfare of previous graphics and its celebration ends here. The serious work of faithful self examimation begins for some of us. A genuine new birth will begin for some at the conclusion of this Myth. Are we like the wealthy man, who upon self examination turned his back to Christ. Or, are we able to accept what is logically possible and acknowledge the true God revealed in the Bible.
Myth #15 The Triune God Exists and is omnipotent
My premise is that the Triune God is a logically impossible idea and His power within His creation is that of a chiseled idol.
We have reached concurrence that the logically impossible is not truly a "thing". This represents a serious philosophical problem for triune believers who believe God to be three distinctive essences in one individual. This is clearly a paradox. Does this mean that the triune God is not truly a thing? If the Orthodox wish to use their vaunted logic consistently, if a logical impossibility is not a thing, if it is something that cannot exist at all, then it follows the triune God does not exist.
As I had alluded to at the conclusion of my comments in Myth #14, the entire Greek concept that Orthodoxy has depended upon for their definition of God was turned upside down in 1905 when the University of Zurich physicist Albert Einstein derived a simple equation that demonstrates conclusively the equivalence of matter and energy. What was philosophically important about this discovery was not its consistency with Stoic monism, but the ratio of that equivalence.
The formula is e=mc2 (Please excuse my inability in writing the exponent correctly; I do not have Microsoft Exponent installed). It states that if M units of mass could be made to disappear, the units of energy that would be liberated would be M times the speed of light squared! In actual numbers, using the speed of light in a vacuum [2.99793x10(10) centimeters per second], this means that it would require nearly 900 quintillion (9000,000,000,000,000,000,000) units of energy to be equivalent to just one unit of mass!
The theological implications of that ratio have NEVER been considered by triune believers. What it means is the ancient Greeks had their hierarchy of materials in the order exactly the opposite of what exists in the real universe. A being composed of Matter contains, by nature 900 quintillion times more energy(i.e., power) than would a being composed of pure energy.
Thus, the hierarchy of materials conceived by the ancient Greeks, when viewed from the perspective of energy or omnipotence, is exactly the opposite of that which exists in the universe created by God. In His universe, matter is at the high end of the scale. In fact, Einstein’s simple formula suggests that a corporeal God would represent, by nature, a concentration of energy of 900 quintillion times greater than an incorporeal God.
Triune believers might argue that concentration of energy in a corporeal God is irrelevant to any theological discussion of His omnipotence. But, if God is real, and the Bible treats Him as though He were, His omnipotence would require the ability to exercise real power, and real power requires energy.
They may also argue (at the exclusion of Thomisticguy) that, since their idea of an incorporeal God is one who fills the universe, there is no need for God to be corporeal – infinite size being more than an adequate compensation for lack of energy density. Rational consideration of that argument leads, however that an incorporeal entity who is attenuated throughout the universe would simply be weaker everywhere than a corporeal being who would instantaneously travel to any spot of the universe He chose. This would make for one peculiar God previously unimagined.
Under any logical scenario, the nature of matter, as demonstrated by Einstein, will always make corporeality a much superior medium in which to exercise omnipotence than any medium that is incorporeal. This is especially so in light of the fact that the ratio of corporeality to incorporeality could be as much as 900 quintillion to one. The point is that it is entirely logical and consistent to teach that the corporeal God described in the Bible is omnipotent. I have already demonstrated in Myth #14 that the incorporeal God is logically impossible.
Triune believers, with their cousins of eastern religions, scoff at the notion that a corporeal God is logically possible. Logic now dictates that if you don’t believe in a God that fills the immensity of space but is otherwise is in need of power, you need to believe in the corporeal God of the Bible.
So now, without fanfare or celebration, logic dictates that we briefly mourn the death of a bad idea that was not based upon truth.
Postscript on Comments before turning them off.
Comments here persist off topic and have as of this addendum mutated into a scientific discussion of density as meriting Godliness. For more discussion concerning the scientific and philosophical of a god created by man, please follow the link of Thomisticguy for a personal tour of the Tower under construction to reach God.
|
Anyways, your theory would be right if God were energy, but He is spirit. There is a very simple difference. Energy and Matter are both physical and equally exchangable, spirit is discintly different.
That being established, everything else falls apart. Thanks for playing.
Oh, and I should point out, I really thought you were going to go with "matter cannot occupy the same space as other matter" which also runs into the same difficulty, since spirit is not matter.
Check out the article on Zero Point Energy at Wik. It is a good primer on infinite energy. Anyways, here is where your theory falls apart.
You supose that an being confined to a physical body could be omnipotent because of the potential power contained within the body verses that of energy by itself. However, the mass of the body would be finite. Even if we allow all of the mass in the universe, we are looking at a finite amount of mass. Compare this to the comparatively insignificant power that exist in vacuum.
Zero Point Energy is the absolute minimum energy that must exist. When considering the infinite vacuum of the universe (there is always room for nothing) this miniscule power source becomes infinite.
In other words, the energy available from mass is finite, while the energy available from nothing is infinite. Weird but true.
I see that explanation nowhere else.
Even LDS members believe there is a spiritual realm alongside the physical, but there is no energy as science defines hovering 5 foot above the ground (which is what Beth once stated was the point that the spirit realm exists in).
Now, I don't personally believe there is a spirit realm exactly equal to earth just 5 foot higher than us, but my point is, spirit does not exist as matter or energy, but rather as spirit.
Of course, even if you wish to deffine spirit as energy ... God is defined as being omnipresent, which is to say everywhere at once. This meen that the minute energy measured as zero point energy provides infinite energy if tapped through infinite vacuum. Compare this to a god that is limited to a single point in space ... to a body. Even if this god could tap the total energy in its body, there would be a finite supply of energy. Even if this god could tap into 100% of the energy in the earth, or even the solar system, or the universe as mass, we are talking about a finite source of energy, not infinite.
Again, I am not talking about some obscure thing, I am talking about hard and fast scientific fact. Zero Point Energy can be measured, and it cannot be depleted. Within a finite space of vacuum, the energy potential is ... well finite, and quite frankly not worth tapping, but when confronted with infinite vacuum (since there is no limit to nothing) then we are speaking of an infinite source of energy. Of course, only the omnipresent God would be able to tap an infinite vacuum of energy.
Still, I rest my case on my first point. God is spirit not energy. God is the source of energy, and therefor matter, but spirit none-the-less.
Now, this makes for an interesting formula that ultimately means that the Trinity God contains a greater portion of energy, mathmatically, than a corporeal god bound by the universe. I think an accurate rendition of the formula would be G=∞(mc2). I hope this came out right the first symbol after the "=" should be an infinity symbol.
Anyways, I define this formula as saying, the source of infinite matter (which we know to be another form of energy and so infinite energy is implied as well) is God. This really is the starting point to understanding the Christian God. In the beginning, God made it all.
So your omnipresent God NEEDS to be spread througout not only the finite universe but also spread through the infinity of whatever you imagine is beyond the finite universe. He needs to do that to be omnipresent. My goodness, you got yourself one big God.
Of course I covered this. Perhpas you missed it. "an incorporeal entity who is attenuated throughout the universe* would need to be weaker everywhere than a corporeal being who would simply travel to any spot in the universe He chose."
Science has often resurected the "big bang" theory in many forms. Generally speaking, all of these forms assume that at some point, all of the matter and energy in the entire universe was compressed down into some infinitely dense point. Now, lets say that all of this matter and energy was the size of a marble (just to pick a random size). Now lets say that the LDS god could access all of the energy for his personal power without having to go anywhere. We are still talking about a finite amount of energy because there is only so much there. There can be no more added or taken away according to modern physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only altered from one form to another. LDS theology supports this by suggesting that everything was created by preexistant unformed matter.
Now, Christian theology holds that God did in fact create all. That is to say, there was nothing, void, vacuum, and then there was something. The source for all of that is God. Hence my equation defining God as the source of infinite matter and energy. If there is ever a need to create more from nothing, it can happen because God can make it to happen. This, by definition, is a greater power, hence the term omnipotent.
Your comments in regard to "zero point energy" are irrelevent and a straw horse. Zero point energy has nothing to do with the power of a "Spirit" who must be omnipotent omnipresently. The fact that there is a residual bit of power in an empty vacuum is without meaning here.
Who cares when Einstein demonstrates the existance of matter has immense energy potential making your empty vacuum really,really, really, really, really, really, reall, empty comparitively. What are you saying really? If you suppose this theory of a miniscule amount of energy provides some assistance to your power deprived God is important, I suggest you hook a wire to it and write yourself a patent.
It simply comes down to the reality that you cannot accept the God of the Bible applying your logic equitably. And you do it from "a priori" philosophical grounds ie. disregarding Biblical evidence and authority. Your authority is sourced with the ancient Greeks and their disdain for matter. The pagan Greeks.
If God is "material", then he is a part of the "material" universe, which is both energy and matter.
If God is a part of the material universe, then he is less than the entirety of the material universe.
But since God is by definition "that than which a greater cannot be thought", and under your definition we can conceive of something greater than God, i.e., the universe, then by your approach God is not God.
Further, the cause of something must be greater than the effect. One reason for this is the law of thermodynamics - which apply insofar as you are citing Einstein - that hold that every action in the material universe increases entropy. But if God is corporeal, then He is material, then He is part of the material universe and not greater than the material universe, which means that he is not the cause of the material universe.
Presumably, then your logic leads to the idea that God is not the Creator, but this would lead to (a) a contradiction with scripture and (b) the logical problem of where the universe came from and how we are "here" "now" if the universe is eternal.
Show me where wik says that Spirit is a form of energy (power and energy are different). I know that some belief systems hold that spirits are made of energy in a different form, but that is not God. Like I said, God is the source of all matter, this means that the huge amount of energy you suppose your god has becuase he is physical was created by God.
I will wait for you to address this, then I will try to help you understand how an infinite source of energy is more powerful than a finite source of energy.
Tell me in English please what zero point has to do with God? In about 30 words or less.
Now, I am sure you can see that the forms of spirit you are defining are not listed as "christian theology." The one that is noted as Christian theology does not state that "Spirit" and "Energy" are the same.
Now, please pay attention. I'll say this slowly.
Christian theology holds that God existed infinitely before the creation of the universe.
God then created the universe, which includes all energy and matter (which we know to be another form of energy).
This means that God is the source for all energy and energy in the form of matter.
As the source of energy, He is beyond energy.
Conversely.
The LDS god exists along side the universe.
The LDS god created nothing from nothing
The LDS god can only alter existing matter and energy.
These are the facts.
If God were energy, then we would be talking about the second deffinition of spirit that I provided from wik above. Now, if this were true, then God, or atleast a portion of God would be in all matter and energy. This would make the universe God, and so we should worship nature. It would also make you right. Yay you!
Of course, there are religions that believe this, but Christian theology does not hold this to be true. Christian theology believes that God is the source and sustainer of the universe.
The universe is seperate from God, and subordinate to God. In other words, God is greater than all of the matter and energy of the universe put together because he is infinite while the universe is finite.
ZPE has nothing to do with God, but in your attempt to redefine God to suit your own ends, it proves your wrong because it has to do with energy.
Not counting your name and this sentence, I did it in exactly 30 words.
I mispose earlier, I should not have said ZPE has nothing to do with God, but rather than it's source is in God just like everything else in the universe known and unknown. I was just trying so hard to limit myself to 30 words or less that I had to drastically alter what I originally said.
Intially you objected to the use of energy in describing Diety: while I stated such an association was self evident. You later acknowledge Energy as Spirit.
You later articulate at length concerning "zero point" in defense of your God, only to acknowledge the principle has nothing directly to do with God.....but everything to do with energy.
You have managed, once again, to Hijack what could have been a useful dialogue.....with new faces.
Peter and I have both stated what Orthodox beliefs are. It has nothing to do with what you would "grant us." God is spirit, not energy. God is the source of energy and matter, which is just a denser form of energy. This is supported in the Bible where it says that "God created the heavens and the earth" and where it says that "God is spirit."
Other religions believe that there is a "divine spirit" which is composed of a different form of energy, and that all spirits are a different form of energy. This is not Christianity. This is not what I believe.
The first paragraph is what Christians hold to. You often correct us about what LDS beliefs are, and that is fine. LDS belief is that spirit is energy, fine you go right ahead and believe that. Christians believe that God is seperate from the created universe, but as an omnipresent omnipotent being, the universe is not seperate from him. God sustains the universe, and can interact with it at will.
Because of this, Zero Point Energy has nothing to do with the reality of God. If you have to insist on spirit being equivalent to energy to support your assumptions, then I can use Zero Point energy to disprove what you have said in two places. You supose that matter is is a more dense form of energy, and so is more powerful than other forms of energy. I am saying that Zero Point Energy is more powerful.
Einstien first suposed Zero Point Energy in his general theory of relativity calling it "dark energy." Quatumn physics reasurected the idea after dealing with certain realities imposed by the heisenburg uncertainty principle. Casimir predicted in the late 1940's that that principle ultimately proved Zero Point Energy. He proposed a test, which has been retested to teh point that it is now science fact. This makes ZPE science fact as much as General Relativity. Part of his assumptions for his test was on the power of ZPE. He was not able to accuratly measure the power of ZPE through his test becuase the tools did not exist at the time. In the mid 90's sensitive enough tools were able to verify Casimir's initial assumptions to within 5%.
This results in some very interesting facts. Specifically, it calls for an energy density far greater than the densest matter at the core of the sun. "its energy density would be the mass equivalent of about 1093 grams per cubic centimeter" Further more, "no matter how much the universe expands it does not become diluted, but instead more zero-point energy is assumed to be created out of nothing."
In short, ZPE is a more dense energy than matter, and it is an infinite source where Matter and all other energy is truely finite.
This is why you are wrong on both of your base assumptions. First, you assume that spirit is equivalent to another form of energy. This is not what Christian theology holds to be truth. Second, you assume matter to be the most dense form of energy, and this is not true. There is an infinite energy that is much more dense, ZPE.
For more reading, try this article at the Calphysics Institute.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Since the Orthodox view of God as exclusive of energy, you have pointed to an article that has nothing to do with Spirit whatsoever. It has nothing to do with your God whatsoever.
Where energy can be matter, and where the LDS know God to be Static energy (Skin and Bones) and this article tells us that when it comes to dark matter and dark energy - we are largely clueless - perhaps you have fallen upon physical evidence of God - our God.
But I'm sure the wisdom of man (in the form of science) would not see God no "matter" what HE did to help them.
As I have said previously, Christian theology does nto view spirit as a different form of energy in this universe. Spirit is different from the materials of this universe all together. Christians believe God has no physical body. Energy is physical. It is measurale using physical means, and it is capturable using physical means. God cannot be stored in a battery no matter how big the battery is.
You are the one claiming that spirit is a different form of energy. I am just showing you that even playing with your definition, that there are more dense forms of energy than matter. You supose that a god consisting of matter is more powerful. I am saying that infinite energy of a source more dense than matter has been proven by science. This leaves your supposition completely false.
You are wrong on both counts. God is not some giant etherial energy source, and a finite source of dense energy is not a greater power than an infinite source of more dense energy.
Who do you think the babies are staring at and playing with in the air when you hold them facing away from you. Why do you think a cat or dog sits in the house staring at one specific spot in a corner.
It is someone from the spirit world dropping by to who wants to check on you and your family.
Puricristos, have you ever created anything in your life? I know the answer to that to be yes as you have children and you and your wife created that life. Do you believe that there is any part of you in that creation? I should hope so.
Now what about other things. I decorated cakes and baked for part of my living, I also have cooked and made many craft items and have created many things.
In all of my creations there is a portion of me and if looked for it can be found for those who know me.
As with all the things created by the Lord, there is a portion of him in all things. Everything does have a spirit and is a form of energy into itself.
If you remember when Christ comes in triumphly into the cith with palm frawns paving the way and the people greeting him and the crowd control not being controlled. He is told to quiet the people and his response was that even if the people were quiet the rocks and stones themselves would start to sing.
I know that this is such a foreign concept to people who don't believe animals have souls, to discover that even the sands of the earth are counted unto God and he knows them all. We should take lessons from the American Indians. They understand that the world will receive its paradisical glory and that it is as sacred as it is a creation of the Lord, it has a heirachy of its creation spoken of in Genesis while Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. However it is so often overlooked.
There is nothing that the Lord created that is without form, nor spirit.
I am not sure on plastic, as that is a man made chemical created from knowledge which comes from the Holy Ghost maybe that is a whole subject unto itself.
Take care of yourself. Beth.
I am tempted to pose a question from your comment that is off topic, but I will refrain and hope that you bring this up on your blog or some other where I am free to ask questions based on what ou bring up.
You wrote: ”We have reached concurrence that the logically impossible is not truly a "thing". This represents a serious philosophical problem for triune believers who believe God to be three distinctive essences in one individual. This is clearly a paradox. Does this mean that the triune God is not truly a thing? If the Orthodox wish to use their vaunted logic consistently, if a logical impossibility is not a thing, if it is something that cannot exist at all, then it follows the triune God does not exist.”
● It seems you now agree with me that a logical impossibility is “not truly a ‘thing.’” This is good and welcome to sanity.
● There us only one problematic issue with your statement when you write, “This represents a serious philosophical problem for triune believers who believe God to be three distinctive essences in one individual. Your statement is actually true; however, orthodox believers do not believe God has three distinctive essences. The group that does believe this is…drum roll please… the LDS.
●You are mixing theological categories again. The Trinity is one divine essence in three persons. The Trinity is one intellect, one will and one consciousness. On the other hand, the LDS god has three intellects, three wills and three consciousnesses. Therefore, the LDS god is a logical impossibility—it cannot have three intellects, wills and consciousnesses without having three essences.
●I’m afraid you have painted yourself into your own corner.
Regarding matter and energy the orthodox God is not composed of either matter or energy, which as Einstein proved are convertible. Both matter and energy are subject to time and space, otherwise they would not be measurable. A corporeal God would be subject to time and space. According to your logic, the highest form of a god would be one of extreme density like Neutronium, the extremely dense phases of matter resembling the neutron-degenerate matter thought to exist in the cores of neutron stars. This would give a god a much higher “ratio of corporeality to incorporeality.” In fact, your logic immediately begs the question, if a higher ratio of corporeality is the mark of divinity, then what magnitude of corporeality would suffice for the highest type of god. For instance, what if another being came along that was denser than the LDS god; wouldn’t that make it more divine than the LDS god? Certainly it would.
●Seriously, your point is that the higher the level of corporeality, the more divine the being would be. You have stated this as proof that the orthodox belief that God is not a corporeal being is wrong. Okay, then God must be made of Neutronium or some matter that is even denser. It would seem logical; therefore, that He is the opposite of the orthodox God. He must be immoveable, spatially located in one place, and so dense that He would pull all other matter in His vicinity toward Himself disintegrating the attracted matter. He would certainly not be able to “dwell” in the hearts of believers in any truly imminent way. In fact He would not have any imminent ability whatsoever in that He would pull all things into Himself. Nice god.
What else need the Savior do to provide you the evidence you need to believe? He need provide nothing more. And neither do I. Simple Biblical Truths.
And your answer, you must speculate for Christ to have such a body it must have the density of of some kind of protostar for it to be true.
Let the reader beware that he or she not worship a god fashioned by the philosophies and science of man. This is idolatry. Worship the God introduced by Jesus Christ in the last moments He walked this Earth.
●Of course, the Bible declares what you write here to be true. This is not the point of contention. Your post is about the Triune God--remember? Try to stay focused for a minute or two.
● All orthodox Christians believe in the incarnation. The incarnation is the biblical doctrine of the eternally existent Son of God taking on human flesh as the atoning sacrifice for our sins upon the cross of Calvary (not the false notion of an atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane). The subject of your post is the eternal nature of the Trinity and not the real humanity of Jesus Christ. Stay focused.
You wrote: “Thom, you being deeply financially and personally invested in the occupation and personal glory you recieve as a Baptist Megachurch Senior Pastor, you Thom must turn your back on this simple truth.”
●Mud slinging is not a very convincing argument for your position.
●Let me remind you of your position. You are contending that the Trinity is a logical impossibility because God, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity, should be composed of corporeal matter because matter would contain more power than energy would. I have responded by pointing out that God is not composed of either energy or matter (which, according to Einstein are convertible) because they both are measurable and, therefore, defined by time and space. Additionally, I have shown you that, according to your own position, the greater the density of matter, the higher the “ratio of corporeality to incorporeality.” Consequently, according to your position, God must be composed of extremely dense matter like Neutronium or something even denser which would make him completely immovable, unable to be imminent and he would cause all things near him to be vaporized by being drawn into himself.
●In short, your position is the one that is logically impossible.
You wrote: “What else need the Savior do to provide you the evidence you need to believe? He need provide nothing more. And neither do I. Simple Biblical Truths.”
●I need no further evidence to believe in Christ’s incarnation, namely, the belief in His full humanity and full divinity.
You wrote: “And your answer, you must speculate for Christ to have such a body it must have the density of of some kind of protostar for it to be true.”
●This is not my position, it is your position. I do not believe that the Trinity is composed of matter. God the Son has taken upon himself human flesh. Human flesh is not dense matter like Neutronium. It is your position that God is composed of matter, being corporeal, and it is your position that divinity is marked by a high “ratio of corporeality to incorporeality.” If your position is true than God must be composed of extremely (infinitely?) dense matter.
●Now you are not even trying to defend your own position; instead, you are trying to foist it on to me. The least you can do is defend your own position.
You wrote “Let the reader beware that he or she not worship a god fashioned by the philosophies and science of man. This is idolatry. Worship the God introduced by Jesus Christ in the last moments He walked this Earth.”
●Perhaps the readers would be better served by simply reading your position and evaluating for themselves whether or not the Trinity is a logical impossibility or if your idea of a God composed of extremely dense matter is possible or not. I see the choice as one between a god that is like an extremely dense piece of metal or the invisible, immortal, immutable, infinite and only wise God. The readers can make their own choice.