Re: [asa] Musing on entropy, chaos, and omniscience

From: Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 07:24:21 EDT

Indeed! and that any creation (or beginning point) ex-nihilo would be a
violation of just about every law of conservation would seem to be the
elephant in the room here. These philosophies take aim at a god that
very few, if any, Christians ever claim.

I also thought a recent public radio interview bordered on the
ridiculous. The findings of some researchers were discussed that were
purporting to show some correlation between prayer and the health of the
pray-er. No biggie here --and it wasn't for them either; they were
happy to concede the mechanism of mind-body links or the power of
positive thinking. But then it got more dicey around the question of
the effects of the prayer *on others*. Some had apparently researched
and concluded that if the pray-er was personally close to the
prayer-recipient, that there still was a positive correlation through
some entirely unknown mechanism (they actually speculated about
string-theory or quantum connections & such). But on prayer for the
health recovery of a complete stranger ---here the conclusions were
"clear": NO correlation (or in some cases people even got worse
--which would seem to contradict the preceding conclusion and everything
else they said, suggesting faulty research.) And their reasoning was
straightforward on this: there could be no possible mechanism for such
prayer to work. Which again, if they were taking aim at Christian
spirituality (what else motivates such "studies" here in the west), then
they missed the elephant in the room --and that is that Christians don't
generally direct their prayers to or at the person in need. Prayers go
to God (or maybe some saint). And God presumably may or may not grant
the request. In which case no Christian would expect a causal mechanism
to be found --and even the lack of correlation of results when praying
for strangers would probably only be marginally troubling for some
Christians. Others here have already pointed out the trouble with
"putting God to the test".

I really liked the exchange in "Bruce Almighty" in which God personally
asks the protagonist what he wants: to which the Jim Carey character,
after some serious and sanctimonious thought replies: peace on earth.
And God replied: that's a great prayer ......... if you're Ms.
America. Now tell me what you REALLY want. Then the protagonist gives
a more heart-felt plea regarding his own girl-friend situation, and God
replies to the effect ----- now THAT'S a prayer.

--Merv
p.s. another profound line in that movie ran something like this:
Jim Carey (who is allowed to play God for a day in a big city) asks the
real God: "How can I make my girlfriend love me if I'm not allowed to
violate her freewill in any way?"

To which God replies: "If you figure that one out, then please tell me
--I would really like to know."

dfsiemensjr wrote:
> The problem noted parallels one from Jaegwon Kim, a philosopher, who
> argued that there cannot be a God because he would have to interact with
> the world and it would show up in mass-energy calculations. The guy did
> not realize that a Creator, not being physical, would not be bound by
> physical restrictions.
>
> This leads me to a couple questions: Would Kim's argument not run afoul
> of the mass-energy needs of the Big Bang? How would the perpetual need
> for more energy for new universes impact the multiverse notion?
> Dave (ASA)
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 25 07:24:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 25 2009 - 07:24:55 EDT