What it says on the tin, really.

We all know (or at least those of us who are conversant with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Noether's Theorem, etc) that all processes involve the rendering of energy unavailable to perform work, but does this apply to god? Is his power depleted over time, as he intervenes in the operation of the cosmos? Is god an open or closed (he can't be an isolated system if he can perform miracles, as this constitutes the transfer of energy/work across the boundaries)? Are his boundaries adiabatic or rigid?

Discuss.

Good question, I love it, but what is left to discuss?

Physical concepts don't apply to God.

God loves the scent of burnt offerings.


There is its input to offset entropy.

Teuton wrote:Physical concepts don't apply to God.

Bollocks. If god is 'energy', as some state, then physical concepts certainly apply. If god has an effect on the universe, then physical concepts definitely apply.

These are things that, unfortunately, the Stanford dictionary of fatuous guff can't equip you to deal with. That's what comes of thinking that a) there is only one conception of god, b) that your belly button is a source of information about reality and c) that philosophy can teach you what to think.

Haven't you had enough yet? The utter fucking stupidity you exhibit in regurgitating the ill-considered drivel of others does not lend you credibility. Quite the opposite.

Edit: Additional

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Using physics as an argument for or against the supernatural is pointless.

The Latin-derived word "supernatural" is the etymological equivalent of the Greek-derived word "hyperphysical".

hackenslash wrote:If god is 'energy', as some state, then physical concepts certainly apply. If god has an effect on the universe, then physical concepts definitely apply.

…to the physical effects but not to their nonphysical divine cause.
(If God had energy, then it would have to be some mysterious nonphysical mental energy.)

Really? On what basis do you assert this categorical claim?

Still letting others do your thinking for you, I see.

Edit: Oh, love the employment of the word 'mysterious' there, as if this actually has any more weight that the Stanford dictionary of cretinous nonsense.

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.

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.

Again, this assumes that there is only one conception of god. Not sure what bit of this is causing you trouble. It may be that you get your knowledge from fuckwits who define rectally extracted assertions as fact.

I really don't understand how, after several years of your fuckwittery (or, more accurately, the regurgitated fuckwittery of others) being categorically exposed as such, that you would think that your particular brand of navel-gazing holds any interest to anybody who can actually think, appealing to those, like the authors of that dictionary you keep citing, who think that their turds constitute wisdom. They don't.

Really, in my experience, your entire posting history of many thousands of posts consists of possibly 5 posts that have any actual content, and only one of those exposes your own thoughts. Think for yourself, man! Better still, think.

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.

Am I the only one who feels nothing spiritual every time Teuton opens his mouth?

A dumb robot's ramblings have more spirit than any of Teuton's pseudo-philosophical "insights". Hell, a random phrase generator is more interesting.

Ingenuity Gap wrote:Am I the only one who feels nothing spiritual every time Teuton opens his mouth?

Nope. Not only do I not feel anything spiritual, I don't feel anything, other than exasperation at the utter waste of what is clearly a useful intellect on such an utter failure to think.

A dumb robot's ramblings have more spirit than any of Teuton's pseudo-philosophical "insights". Hell, a random phrase generator is more interesting.

Indeed. That's what happens when you accept the Stanford dictionary of pseudo-intellectual claptrap as a source of wisdom. It's a shame, and why I get so frustrated. I rarely allow myself to get even remotely involved in such emotional expenditure, but Teuton is clearly intelligent, and would be quite a force if he actually learned to think instead of vomiting forth the intellectual vacuity of navel-gazing morons. There is no greater waste than this, in my humble opinion. At least cretinists have an excuse.

hackenslash wrote:

Ingenuity Gap wrote:Am I the only one who feels nothing spiritual every time Teuton opens his mouth?

Nope. Not only do I not feel anything spiritual, I don't feel anything, other than exasperation at the utter waste of what is clearly a useful intellect on such an utter failure to think.

I'd better talk to a half-baked Chinese Room than to Teuton.

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.

But on other threads you argue that this is an impossibility.

If you are going to play devil's advocate then you should say so. Or are you just trying to wind people up with your back and forth philosophical musings?

No, he presents the arguments of others to that effect. Tomorrow, he will post the arguments of yet others that will contradict those assertions, and so on ad infinitum. That's how his particular brand of navel-gazing works. It doesn't matter if it's coherent or not, only that somebody, somewhere, said it. If you or I could get published in a navel-gazing journal (not that I would want to, of course) that god was a turd, you can bet that Teuton be erecting that argument within minutes.

Sad, really.

*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.

God is subject to entropy, he feeds on sin which he unfortunately cannot produce, so he created humans and made them sinful. Fortunately, the waste produce of sin is manna, which is very tasty on toast. It's a symbiotic thing.

Spearthrower wrote:God is subject to entropy, he feeds on sin which he unfortunately cannot produce, so he created humans and made them sinful. Fortunately, the waste produce of sin is manna, which is very tasty on toast. It's a symbiotic thing.

It's all so clear now. Hell is a power plant which produces energy from burning the sinners.