Is god Subject to Entropy?

Zwaarddijk · **#21** by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 21, 2012 4:19 pm

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Really? On what basis do you assert this categorical claim?

God is a wholly mental being (spiritual substance), which means by definition that he doesn't have any physical properties whatsoever.

Whence does this idea originate?

twistor59 · **#22** by **twistor59** » Jan 21, 2012 4:24 pm

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.

Calilasseia · **#23** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 31, 2012 3:43 pm

!

GENERAL MODNOTE
With respect to this post ...

Ingenuity Gap, the above post consists of personal attack, in violation of section 1.2(c) of the forum User's Agreement. You are advised to refrain from future infractions of this sort.

Please do not discuss moderation issues within this thread. If you wish to discuss the matter further, use the proper channels, viz:

[1] A PM to a member of the moderation team;
[2] An appropriate thread in the Feedback sections of the forum.

!

GENERAL MODNOTE
With respect to this post ...

Hackenslash, the above post contains a personal attack, in violation of section 1.2(c) of the Forum User's Agreement. The staff consensus with respect to this, is that your recent forays into the world of invective are dangerously close to being warning worthy, and you are hereby strongly advised to rein in some of the more efflorescent prose.

Please do not discuss moderation issues within this thread. If you wish to discuss the matter further, use the proper channels, viz:

[1] A PM to a member of the moderation team;
[2] An appropriate thread in the Feedback sections of the forum.

Sovereign · **#24** by **Sovereign** » Feb 01, 2012 12:55 am

I.C.37 wrote:*puts on the devil's advocate hat*

Matrix, the movie. I modify the software governing the Red Sea in order to make it part at time T, just for kicks. Was there an actual energy transfer from me to the water, as far as the second law is concerned? To part such a massive body of water would require extreme amounts of energy. That energy doesn't come from me.

Even still that process is subject to entropy. Technically it would be the same transfer as what occurs when you used your computer to type your reply.

@Hack, so since God would be subject to entropy, does that mean he is finite or is claiming (in)finite energy reserves outside the scope of this topic?

Steve · **#25** by **Steve** » Feb 01, 2012 1:06 am

When entropy is all maxed out god takes a nap till it starts up again. God and entropy are one.

Nicko · **#26** by **Nicko** » Feb 09, 2012 3:02 pm

@ Hack

Teuton's point that God is not subject to entropy is quite valid, given the "philosopher's god" that he is obviously talking about. Such a God has no physical characteristics or limitations. Entropy is about energy. Energy is physical. Ergo, entropy does not apply to God.

However, if you were to ask Teuton if he thought such a "non-physical" being was anything other than completely ridiculous, you might find you have some common ground.

hackenslash · **#27** by **hackenslash** » Feb 09, 2012 3:27 pm

I agree, Nick. Indeed, I know for a fact that we share a fair bit of common ground. I just find it frustrating that such a good mind, and he does indeed have a good mind, is employed in the manner in which he employs it rather than doing something useful with it. I actually have a fair bit of respect for Teuton, but I can't muster respect for the point of view that the umbilicus is a source of information about anything other than the colour of the lint therein.

Nicko · **#28** by **Nicko** » Feb 10, 2012 1:49 am

I don't think that Teuton makes a practice of bellybuttonology.

The apparent "out" that Teuton's point offers the theist (I am certain that no theist would contend that God is either subject to entropy or a PMM) in fact forces the theist to agree that God must be "non-physical".

Once you've got that, you point out that "non-physical" isn't a meaningful concept. What is "non-physical"? Why, it's "supernatural". What is "supernatural"? "Spiritual" of course. What is "spiritual"? "Non-physical", you silly.

In using Teuton's escape from the question of entropy, the theist is forced to define God in terms of a "semantic island" of interrelated gibberish.

Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Re: Is god Subject to Entropy?

Who is online