My Reverse Entropy Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

 

[Athrond]

Hmm they'd beein in the wilderness for 4 decades, and have been taking care of their clothing? Or: they were naked.

I'd read it as " I've led you well."

 

[Tomk80]

My scientific explanation: It didn't happen.

 

[NailsII]

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

It's a shame that GA is shut, this would make for a lively discussion.

How about God rescued his favourite people and forgot to give them a map. So he made sure that their clothes didn't get dirty or wear out because he's good at magic and stuff.
The word 'led' is used misleadingly because He let them wander around meaninglessly, possibly for His own amusement.

 

[tansy]

It's a shame that GA is shut, this would make for a lively discussion.

How about God rescued his favourite people and forgot to give them a map. So he made sure that their clothes didn't get dirty or wear out because he's good at magic and stuff.

The word 'led' is used misleadingly because He let them wander around meaninglessly, possibly for His own amusement.

I know this is a side-issue to the post, but I don't beleive He let them wander round meaninglessly..there were various factors, and I think they were learning stuff on the way. But can't go into details on this thread.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

Why do I owe the passage "respect"?

You want a "scientific" explanation but you start off by attempting to destroy science with your demand of some arbitrary "limit". In this case I have to do science within the arbitrary limits YOU set.

Are you god? Or is the passage so weak and indefensible on its own that someone has to deem it "off limits" to examination?

Do you not see that it is the exact opposite of science to demand science be done with some arbitrary limits as to how it is explored?

REAL science would say:

1. Prove the "non-aging" happened.

2. Without proof (to at least a reasonable level) the rational hypothesis is that it is not a factual story but rather, like so many myths throughout the history of humanity, just another story written by someone about something that didn't happen.

Which is easier to do:

Subvert the natural forces of aging and decay in a hostile environment

or

Make up a story about clothing that didn't suffer aging and decay

AND IN CASE YOU ARE TEMPTED TO WHINE:
This has nothing to do with the verse being true or false. EVEN IF IT WERE LITERALLY TRUE AND ABSOLUTELY AS WRITTEN my point still stands!

(This is why you, AV, really need to learn how science is done before demanding things from it.)

 

[ragarth]

God gave them new clothes and new shoes intermittently throughout the journey, or they had a decent cobbler and tailor in their troupe thanks to God's excellent preplanning skills?

 

[tansy]

Why do I owe the passage "respect"?

You want a "scientific" explanation but you start off by attempting to destroy science with your demand of some arbitrary "limit". In this case I have to do science within the arbitrary limits YOU set.

Are you god? Or is the passage so weak and indefensible on its own that someone has to deem it "off limits" to examination?

Do you not see that it is the exact opposite of science to demand science be done with some arbitrary limits as to how it is explored?

REAL science would say:

1. Prove the "non-aging" happened.

2. Without proof (to at least a reasonable level) the rational hypothesis is that it is not a factual story but rather, like so many myths throughout the history of humanity, just another story written by someone about something that didn't happen.

Which is easier to do:

Subvert the natural forces of aging and decay in a hostile environment

or

Make up a story about clothing that didn't suffer aging and decay

AND IN CASE YOU ARE TEMPTED TO WHINE:
This has nothing to do with the verse being true or false. EVEN IF IT WERE LITERALLY TRUE AND ABSOLUTELY AS WRITTEN my point still stands!

(This is why you, AV, really need to learn how science is done before demanding things from it.)

Yes. I agree. Whilst I don't see why God couldn't have done it, seeing He created everything in the first place and also set in place natural laws (which are what science investigates}, he would have to (presumably) alter those laws, to perform what is called a miracle, in that instance. And, if it's truly a miracle, then really it's outside of scientific investigation (unless of course, there are some physical laws which haven't yet been discovered, which only operate under certain conditions).
Basically, science in my opinion, is ivstigating and studying the material world that God has created. For an atheist, obviously, it's studying what's there, minus God. And I'm not sure that science can investigate God Himself, or some of the "weird" things He does.

Do you think though, that were something like that to happen that you witnessed personally, that eventually, a new natural law would be discovered? And that it could never be attributed to God?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do you think though, that were something like that to happen that you witnessed personally, that eventually, a new natural law would be discovered? And that it could never be attributed to God?

Well, as a scientist if a "new law" were discovered it would, effectively eliminate the need for a new "miracle". If I understand Kant's position on miracles the reasoning goes thusly:

1. Everything in our experience (the world to us) is determined by practical reason.
2. Practical reason operates according to universal laws.
3. Miracles occur either (1) daily, (2) seldom, or (3) never.
4. But what occurs daily is not a miracle since it occurs regularly according to natural laws.
5. And what occurs seldom is not determined by any law.
6. But all scientific knowledge must be determined by practical reason which operates on universal laws.
7. Therefore, it is rationally necessary for us to conclude that miracles never occur.

(SOURCE)

In a sense, as I understand this, it basically is a definition of a miracle as something which cannot happen because when it happens and is observable it becomes part of the things that happen and hence not a miracle, but perhaps following a previously unknown "law".

It is possible I am misunderstanding Kant (I have been known to do that before), but as an atheist and a scientist (there is no necessary link there at all), it stands reasonable to me that there are unknown physical laws and physical processes which we have either not encountered yet or have yet to understand.

If I were to witness one of those events I should not, as a scientist, assume it was a "miracle" and hence a complete rending of the totality of reality (which is really the only way to define a "miracle"). I would be on a more robust stance to say it is an event following a previously unknown or poorly understood physical law.

This is quite different from being proof for God. The concept of God usually becomes important in that God carries with him some "imperative" of action; a "morality" or a requirement for "worship". Hence all the rules in the Bible and exhortations to worship.

Unfortunately I, as an atheist (completely independent from being a scientist) don't see sufficient reason to assume that the Abrahamic God, Yahweh, is any more reasonable to assume in effect than any of a countless number of other gods that have come before or since.

I do see commonalities in the "moralities" of the gods; and those common moralities are exactly what help a social network to remain stable and are fully humanistic in form. And, it is quite reasonable to assume that those "moral commonalities" are exactly what a group of humans attempting to maintain a stable society would come up with, even without the intervention of a supreme intelligence. (Humans are social animals and derive a survival benefit from a stable safe societal group).

The laws about worshipping some specific god in some specific way that particular god likes (be it blood sacrifices for some gods and obiescence for others, or a set number of "required" prayers for yet others) seem to be the wholly human and, dare I say "pointless".

As an atheist I'm more than happy to allow anyone to believe whatever it is they wish to believe so long as it doesn't necessitate the imposition of their beliefs onto others who don't believe the same way for no reason other than to force "belief" in something that doesn't impact physical reality.

I don't think anyone's beliefs should be used to hurt or subjugate another person. Even my own personal lack of belief. I would never wish to take someone's Christianity from them unless they used their Christianity to force others to believe as they do.

I would hope that anything I say is checked out and hence not believed until there is sufficient reason to assume my statement is in any way correct.

In many ways I am quite fond of some of the Bible, especially Luke 6:31.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

It's a myth -- and I don't give a rodent's posterior about "disrespecting" the passage you idolize.

Why should I?

 

[tansy]

Well, as a scientist if a "new law" were discovered it would, effectively eliminate the need for a new "miracle". If I understand Kant's position on miracles the reasoning goes thusly:



In a sense, as I understand this, it basically is a definition of a miracle as something which cannot happen because when it happens and is observable it becomes part of the things that happen and hence not a miracle, but perhaps following a previously unknown "law".

It is possible I am misunderstanding Kant (I have been known to do that before), but as an atheist and a scientist (there is no necessary link there at all), it stands reasonable to me that there are unknown physical laws and physical processes which we have either not encountered yet or have yet to understand.

If I were to witness one of those events I should not, as a scientist, assume it was a "miracle" and hence a complete rending of the totality of reality (which is really the only way to define a "miracle"). I would be on a more robust stance to say it is an event following a previously unknown or poorly understood physical law.

This is quite different from being proof for God. The concept of God usually becomes important in that God carries with him some "imperative" of action; a "morality" or a requirement for "worship". Hence all the rules in the Bible and exhortations to worship.

Unfortunately I, as an atheist (completely independent from being a scientist) don't see sufficient reason to assume that the Abrahamic God, Yahweh, is any more reasonable to assume in effect than any of a countless number of other gods that have come before or since.

I do see commonalities in the "moralities" of the gods; and those common moralities are exactly what help a social network to remain stable and are fully humanistic in form. And, it is quite reasonable to assume that those "moral commonalities" are exactly what a group of humans attempting to maintain a stable society would come up with, even without the intervention of a supreme intelligence. (Humans are social animals and derive a survival benefit from a stable safe societal group).

The laws about worshipping some specific god in some specific way that particular god likes (be it blood sacrifices for some gods and obiescence for others, or a set number of "required" prayers for yet others) seem to be the wholly human and, dare I say "pointless".

As an atheist I'm more than happy to allow anyone to believe whatever it is they wish to believe so long as it doesn't necessitate the imposition of their beliefs onto others who don't believe the same way for no reason other than to force "belief" in something that doesn't impact physical reality.

I don't think anyone's beliefs should be used to hurt or subjugate another person. Even my own personal lack of belief. I would never wish to take someone's Christianity from them unless they used their Christianity to force others to believe as they do.

I would hope that anything I say is checked out and hence not believed until there is sufficient reason to assume my statement is in any way correct.

In many ways I am quite fond of some of the Bible, especially Luke 6:31.

Thanks for your reasoned response. I tried to pm you as didn't want to derail thread, but it didn't seem to be working properly, so will leave my other thoughts for now.

 

[Tomk80]

It's a myth -- and I don't give a rodent's posterior about "disrespecting" the passage you idolize.

Why should I?

"disrespecting" the passage is an very strange use of the word in any case. It it is a myth and you don't treat it as such, it would seem to me that you disrespect the passage since you don't use it as it was intended.

By treating the text as some kind of inerrant, factual portrayal of history instead of a myth, it is AV that is disrespecting the passage.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes. I agree. Whilst I don't see why God couldn't have done it, seeing He created everything in the first place and also set in place natural laws (which are what science investigates}, he would have to (presumably) alter those laws, to perform what is called a miracle, in that instance. And, if it's truly a miracle, then really it's outside of scientific investigation (unless of course, there are some physical laws which haven't yet been discovered, which only operate under certain conditions).

of course, if we were to accept the existence of a God who can alter natural laws whenver He chooses, and chooses to do so for completely arbitrary reasons, that opens up a theological can of worms that most religious fundamentalists choose not to acknowledge.

AV is a prime example of that -- notice how the caveat in his "challenge" is not to "disrespect" the Scripture passage. (By "disrespect," of course, we mean, "say or imply anything that would indicate that it didn't happen exactly as AV interprets it)

You will notice that the most zealous fundamentalism is, above all else, self-serving. Those who most passionately (some might argue desperately) argue in favor of a God who changes Natural laws in accordance with His will, most often does it in accordance with their wills.

Again, AV is a prime example of that.

Basically, science in my opinion, is ivstigating and studying the material world that God has created. For an atheist, obviously, it's studying what's there, minus God. And I'm not sure that science can investigate God Himself, or some of the "weird" things He does.

And for the theist, it's studing what's there, minus God's intervention -- which amounts to the same thing.

A God who does nothing is pretty much the same as no God at all.

Do you think though, that were something like that to happen that you witnessed personally, that eventually, a new natural law would be discovered? And that it could never be attributed to God?

It's happened before, in reverse -- "weird" events were observed and attributed to God, and then only later, when the events were studied more objectively, natural laws, which operate independently of divine interference, were discovered.

 

[tansy]

of course,

if we were to accept the existence of a God who can alter natural laws whenver He chooses, and chooses to do so for completely arbitrary reasons, that opens up a theological can of worms that most religious fundamentalists choose not to nowledackge.

Well, I don't think God doing miracles is arbitrary on His part...b ut yes, all sorts of questions are raised. Some" miracles " may possibly be natural occurences that God uses. For example, the parting of the Red Sea. Some say that that was prob a natural occurence, and God guided the Israelites to that place at exactly the right time for the event.

.

.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, I don't think God doing miracles is arbitrary on His part...

His choice concerning when to perform a miracle as opposed to when not to does seem somewhat arbitrary -- especially when you consider that the Bible itself is chock full of big flashy miracles, whereas our own modern world is relatively miracle-free.

but yes, all sorts of questions are raised. Some" miracles " may possibly be natural occurences that God uses. For example, the parting of the Red Sea. Some say that that was prob a natural occurence, and God guided the Israelites to that place at exactly the right time for the event.

I'm tempted to ask exactly what event it was, but that would risk derailing the thead. Cecil B. DeMille special effects aside, The Red Sea wasn't what most people think it was.

 

[[serious]]

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

Well, obviously they weren't wearing wax clothing or shoes. Let's face it, in desert heat it would have been a bad call.

Also, if they were wandering at near light speed 40 years could have passed with a much shorter elapsed time for them and their clothing. As such, we can conclude that Egypt was originally located in the Zeta Reticuli system.

 

[tansy]

I'm tempted to ask exactly what event it was, but that would risk derailing the thead. Cecil B. DeMille special effects aside, The Red Sea wasn't what most people think it was.

Well, no, there are a ccouple of locations that people think it might have been. But apparently, unfortunately can't remember details, but there is somewhere where every now and then the water recedes, so there is dry land. Would look it up and post link, but it's getting a bit late now

 

[AV1611VET]

Whenever you boys and girls are done yakking at each other, feel free to answer the OP as I wrote it. I would have thought, since I invited you guys to answer from a scientific perspective, that you would have busted your keyboards to answer it --- but apparently asking you to respect the passage was asking too much.

In any event, feel free when you get some time on your fingers to type an answer.

Are Christians here the only ones who are capable of melding science with Scripture?

ETA: By the way, I asked the question wrong. I should have used the term suspended entropy, not reverse entropy; but I assume you "scientists" were too busy pouting about having to respect the Scripture to notice that the science was wrong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, no, there are a ccouple of locations that people think it might have been. But apparently, unfortunately can't remember details, but there is somewhere where every now and then the water recedes, so there is dry land. Would look it up and post link, but it's getting a bit late now

My personal favorite possibility is the "Sea of Reeds," which is more of a swamp than an actual sea. Nevertheless, it would make for a dramatic, if not necessarily miraculous, rescue -- the Hebrews could's slogged it from shallow to shallow on foot, whereas the Egyptian army, in full armor and riding heavy chariots, would've sunk like stones.

 

[ragarth]

Whenever you boys and girls are done yakking at each other, feel free to answer the OP as I wrote it. I would have thought, since I invited you guys to answer from a scientific perspective, that you would have busted your keyboards to answer it --- but apparently asking you to respect the passage was asking too much.

In any event, feel free when you get some time on your fingers to type an answer.

Are Christians here the only ones who are capable of melding science with Scripture?

ETA: By the way, I asked the question wrong. I should have used the term suspended entropy, not reverse entropy; but I assume you "scientists" were too busy pouting about having to respect the Scripture to notice that the science was wrong.

There are two problems here, AV. First off, your asking for a scientific explanation for what is generally considered a miracle. Anytime any entity of infinite power dips their hand into the world, the laws of nature go right out the window, so scientific discourse on such a subject is about as useful as discussing the merits of tea in china and the world's most destructive weapon. I did, however, pose two possibilities earlier in the thread as to how these people could have had good clothes and shoes after 40 years of wilderness.

First off, the line says they had decent wearables at the end of the 40 years, it says nothing about them being the originals. This opens the possibilities up for regular replacements. God could have provided, and simply left clothes and shoes laying about that they could obtain and use. For instance, a shoe and clothes merchant could have gotten lost in the forest and met his untimely demise in a horrific caramel catastrophe. The unfortunate fellows could have come upon his supply of wares and used them to keep themselves clothes and shoed.

Alternatively, and more simply, when they left on their journey, they could have had a decent cobbler (shoe maker) and tailor (clothes maker) with them. It's much easier to provide raw materials in the form of animal leather and flax reeds for the manufacturing of clothing and shoes, such items can quite readily be found naturally in the wild, and God would have only had to ensure it's bountifulness for our intrepid travelers.

Both these options require no significant breaking of natural law, and therefore don't need unduly complex explanations as to how they could possibly happen.