The Problem of a Different Past

[trivista]

Hi, RedAndy



Prior to the Fall, there was no death of man or animals. In addition, the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist.

But today, we march to a different set of drums --- and yes --- they work just fine --- (if you consider approaching maximum entropy "just fine").

In Eternity Future, we'll go back to the way it was before the Fall --- (with a couple of exceptions).

Then how did heat transfer happen?

 

[grimbly]

Wow, You learn something new every day.
So there was no second law of thermodynamics before the fall which unfortunately means there was no life before the fall.

So my question to you AV...What the heck fell?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how did heat transfer happen?

I don't know, Trivista.

This gets back to that term I coined yesterday (Genesis Barrier), and the example I gave with how the ants would not be able to prove how the Monopoly pieces were arranged perfectly before the "shake up".

Suffice it to say, we don't know how science ran the universe on the other side of the Fall.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Prior to the Fall, there was no death of man or animals.

So what would happen if I shot you in the head?

In addition, the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist.

Then how, pray tell, did life exist?

But today, we march to a different set of drums --- and yes --- they work just fine --- (if you consider approaching maximum entropy "just fine").

There is nothing to suggest that the physical laws have, or indeed can, change.

In Eternity Future, we'll go back to the way it was before the Fall --- (with a couple of exceptions).

What makes you think that in this 'eternity future' the physical laws will change? If you are going to quote the Bible, I'll preempt that and ask why the quote is at all valid (i.e., as opposed to me quoting something I just wrote down).

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, You learn something new every day.
So there was no second law of thermodynamics before the fall which unfortunately means there was no life before the fall.

So my question to you AV...What the heck fell?

All of God's creation.

20 For the [universe] was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope...

For we know that the whole [universe] groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what would happen if I shot you in the head?

• You wouldn't have --- there was no sin as yet.

Then how, pray tell, did life exist?

• I don't know.

There is nothing to suggest that the physical laws have, or indeed can, change.

• Precisely --- science today cannot tell you how science on the other side of the Genesis Barrier worked.

What makes you think that in this 'eternity future' the physical laws will change?

1. There will be no more death or sorrow.
2. Animals won't have their killer instincts anymore.
3. We'll have no need of the sun.

If you are going to quote the Bible, I'll preempt that and ask why the quote is at all valid (i.e., as opposed to me quoting something I just wrote down).

• This would take us off-topic.

 

[WilliamduBois]

1. There will be no more death or sorrow.
2. Animals won't have their killer instincts anymore.
3. We'll have no need of the sun.

What will we eat? A heaven without steak would be more like hell for me.

 

[AirPo]

There is nothing to suggest that the physical laws have, or indeed can, change.

Execpt dad.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You wouldn't have --- there was no sin as yet.

So there was no Free Will before the Fall? How, then, did the Fall occur?

I don't know.

Then why assume the Second Law did not exist?

Precisely --- science today cannot tell you how science on the other side of the Genesis Barrier worked.

Cyclic logic. This unknown only exists because of the 'barrier', and this 'barrier' only exists because there is this unknown.
I take it you assume the 'Genesis Barrier' is the point of the Flood. Do you agree that, if we can disprove the Biblical post-Flood conditions, then we can discount the 'Genesis Barrier' and the notion of the Flood altogether?

1. There will be no more death or sorrow.
2. Animals won't have their killer instincts anymore.
3. We'll have no need of the sun.

These would not be changes to the physical laws, these would be changes to animal neurology and biochemistry. Indeed, there are countless examples of organisms today that do not require the Sun, that do not have killer instincts, and that do not feel death nor sorrow.
I also ask why you give these three examples. Do you see them as 'better'? While I do not wish death nor sorrow upon anyone, let alone myself or my loved ones, the emotions involved are quite crucial to the human psyche.

This would take us off-topic.

Indeed it would. However, since this is but one point among many, we would not derail the thread. We could, if you prefer, continue this via PM, or in another thread entirely. I'm rather interested in knowing why you reject anything that is in contradiction to the (N)KJV of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

What will we eat?

Fruit

• [bible]Revelation 22:2[/bible]

A heaven without steak would be more like hell for me.

• You'll have a new, glorified body.

 

[crimsondeath]

after a while people would get sick of fruit.

 

[dad]

What will we eat? A heaven without steak would be more like hell for me.

They can syntesisize food better than star trek there. Even here, some chefs can whip up a dish that is vegetarian that is almost like meat.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there was no Free Will before the Fall? How, then, did the Fall occur?

I'm not following you here --- freewill allowed the Fall.

Your question:

• So what would happen if I shot you in the head?

--- is a good example of the Genesis Barrier. IOW, we can only speculate, since it didn't happen.

IMO, the thought of shooting me in the head would not have ever occurred to you.

Then why assume the Second Law did not exist?

• For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly...

In other words, entropy entered the universe after-the-fact, and in opposition to God's creation. Let me paraphrase:

• For God's creation was made subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but not by design...

Cyclic logic. This unknown only exists because of the 'barrier', and this 'barrier' only exists because there is this unknown.

No --- this unknown only exists because of the 'barrier', and this 'barrier' only exists because of the Fall.

I take it you assume the 'Genesis Barrier' is the point of the Flood.

Not the Flood --- the Fall --- Genesis 3.

Any 'what if' questions prior to Genesis 3 cannot be answered with any sense of accuracy.

Do you agree that, if we can disprove the Biblical post-Flood conditions, then we can discount the 'Genesis Barrier' and the notion of the Flood altogether?

No

I'm rather interested in knowing why you reject anything that is in contradiction to the (N)KJV of the Bible.

You can include the NKJV in that too, and if you want to start a new thread, I'll me more than happy to answer any of your questions to the best of my ability.

 

[dad]

If the universe operated under different laws at one time, it would in fact, be an entirely different universe. Such a universe would present an alternate reality. We are products of, and function in, the reality we know as the present universe.

You don't know that, in fact, if man was created, that would not be true. The universe being in an eternal, stable state, then having the spiritual seperated from the physical would not be an alternate reality. It was still man, and we are their children. We simply live in a ver different world. Lifespans, plant growth rates, light, and etc.
But there was still light then, and trees, and sex, and creatures, and a sun, and stars, and cities, and buildings, and etc etc.

It's not only fruitless to speculate on how an alternate reality might operate, but any attempt at connecting such a past with the present cannot be done.

It is easy. The spiritual was simply temporarily seperated.

If Adam and Eve lived in such an alternate reality, we could not call them people. They would be beings, but people are a result of, and exist in the reality we know today.

We are not defined by the prison in which we may live, or the decor of the building, etc. To some extent, we live in a somewhat different world than a few generations ago, when there was no cars, tv, cell phones, computers, nukes, planes, etc etc.

This idea is fodder for fairy tales, science fiction and fantasy writers, nothing else. It's not only incomprehensible, but discussing a universe that doesn't exist, from our reality-trapped minds, is illogical. Our logic applies to this universe.

The past does not exist, or the future, does it??? Yet thet did, and will. It is your present trapped mind that sets the limits, largely.

 

[AV1611VET]

after a while people would get sick of fruit.

Not with a glorified body, you won't.

It's not going to be like it is now --- with people getting sick of this and that, and tired of this and that.

Only bliss --- period.

 

[dad]

So, you define "decay" as change?

Well, the decay is more the negative way things change, not change itself. My body is changing, soon, unless Jesus comes first, it will be dead. The sun is 'burning out', and will not as is last forever. The stars also, some already have exploded in this state. The earth itself, like gold, indeed could not last forever as is.

No... decay is staying the same?

No decay is having the changes that happen work toward an eternal result, rather than the passing away, generally.

So...the sun is corrupt?

It is on the way out, so, although it takes longer than an apple rotting, yes, it is not in the incorrupible state now. It will be.

That would be change from one state to another... that'll never happen in heaven?

No, in the new universe coming, we will live forever, and the earth stars and sun will also be forever, and there will be no radioactive decay.

 

[nvxplorer]

Try this argument, AV:

There is a difference between the number 24 and the number 24. The difference is unknown to us, because of the "24" barrier, but there is a difference nonetheless.

 

[The Lady Kate]

They can syntesisize food better than star trek there. Even here, some chefs can whip up a dish that is vegetarian that is almost like meat.

So according to you, the best heaven can offer (food-wise) is fake meat?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, the decay is more the negative way things change, not change itself.

"Negative" and "positive" are relative terms, applied by us according to how things benefit us.

My body is changing, soon, unless Jesus comes first, it will be dead.

Which would be understandably negative for you...

The sun is 'burning out', and will not as is last forever. The stars also, some already have exploded in this state. The earth itself, like gold, indeed could not last forever as is.

As is.... but everything will continue as something else... why is that so frightening to you?

No decay is having the changes that happen work toward an eternal result, rather than the passing away, generally.

So... quick question... would melting ice be an example of "decay"?

It is on the way out, so, although it takes longer than an apple rotting, yes, it is not in the incorrupible state now. It will be.

But the sun is not an apple... it is not rotting, but converting matter from one state to another.

Would you consider water evaporating to be "decay"?

No, in the new universe coming, we will live forever, and the earth stars and sun will also be forever, and there will be no radioactive decay.

Of course we will, but what kind of foolishness is it to suggest that heaven will be nothing more than an improved version of Earth? Why limit ourselves?

 

[dad]

So according to you, the best heaven can offer (food-wise) is fake meat?

Yes. There will be no more killing animals there for food. The lions will even eat straw like an ox, so the lambs will be safe. Etc.
But I have no doubt that the food of heaven is the best you could ever dream of. Probably BETTER than the present 'real' thing.