On omnipotence

[Willum]

So the Abrahamic God is inexplicable, works in mysterious ways, can raise the dead, etc..

This describes a subtle and intelligent being.

Yet when further investigated, or questioned about this creatures capabilities and power, the logistics of heaven, raising the dead, and so on, believers fall back on "Omnipotence."

Which is not at all subtle or intelligent, and eliminates any mystery to God's actions. Omnipotence, in fact, mandates that what God perceives is reality. An omnipotent beings thoughts would overwhelm frail reality, replacing reality with what it believes, and this is not subtle at all.

That is a contrast - here is the topic.

So, I do not believe that even a creature of unlimited power can raise the dead, it is just too difficult thermodynamically.

That is my position.

So, help me out, how powerful can something be and in what way to raise something three days dead?

Could Atlas, who could lift the sky, raise someone three days dead?
Could Heracles?
Could a creature capable of extinguishing a star raise the three day dead? How about capable of blackening 1,000 stars, would they be capable of doing it?

What's the dividing line? Explain to me how, the Bible is a reliable reference for this discussion, but quoting it saying "God can do anything," is, for obvious reasons, useless, it does not have sufficient detail.

An assumption is that an omnipotent being can raise the dead. I don't believe this is the case for thermodynamic reasons, prove otherwise.

[theophile]

So, I do not believe that even a creature of unlimited power can raise the dead, it is just too difficult thermodynamically.

The bible describes a more dynamic world than this. If we tried to tease out a "physics" from the bible, what we would see is that the conditions of possibility can change. What is possible today may not be what is possible tomorrow. There could be expansion (or contraction) of possibility. New things may become possible (hence the miraculous: water can turn to wine, the blind can see, the dead can return to life). Or, things that are possible now may no longer be possible...

So right or wrong, I think a truly biblical response to you would be that you are too limited in your view. You are too beholden to the laws and rules of today, which may not be the laws or rules of tomorrow (societal, physical, what have you).

There is this fundamental relationship between sin (or evil) and possibility in the bible that is critical. The effect of sin (/ evil) is to close down what is possible. Fewer things become possible. Life becomes more restrictive and hard... We live within a closed system where nothing new can happen...

Alternatively, the effect of living the way that we are called (/ good) is the opposite. More things become possible. Life has more degrees of freedom. Life becomes easier, and can flourish. We live within an open system where the new can enter in...

...where the laws of thermodynamics will no longer hold us back.

That is the suggestion anyways. The hope and promise of the bible.

(Not tied to an omnipotent God but to our actions in the world, and the logical consequences of them...)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by theophile]

There is no carbon in water, to form it into wine.
Even so, I can see plainly how it would be possible to turn water into wine. I can't conceive of why any creature would go through the trouble of nuclear reactions, preventing the fall-out, etc., to make an obscure point, when there are literally infinite number of things that could be done that would work better.

I can not see resurrection, and I can't see any proof in your statements, just hope and thoughts.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

I can not see resurrection, and I can't see any proof in your statements, just hope and thoughts.

I said myself "hope and promise." But I can put more rigor behind what I said.

Easiest is to establish the moral framework, then apply it to the physical.

Morally speaking: let's assume you are a parent. You put rules on your child, to keep it safe.

If your child is good, and demonstrates readiness, what do you do? You change / remove the rules. More things become possible for your child. He / she has more freedom and lives within a broader world now.

Conversely, if your child is bad, what do you do? You change / add more rules. Fewer things become possible for your child. He / she now lives within a more closed, restrictive system...

Fair enough?

Physically speaking: does the same hold? I could apply the framework purely, and make God the parent. Through good actions, an "omnipotent" God will remove rules such as thermodynamics from us, so that more things become possible. What holds us back now will not necessarily hold us back in the future. Things like resurrection may become possible.

Ultimately, God is not beholden to the laws of thermodynamics, and will remove such restrictions from us when we have proven ready. You can't assume any law or rule as fixed and constant, as you clearly do.

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

I get I'm not answering your question. But it's kind of unfair asking for details about things that aren't currently possible... If I knew how to resurrect the dead, I would not be posting on this site!

The simple answer, like it or not, is that for God all things are possible. That includes revoking or somehow bypassing the laws of thermodynamics. The dividing line of power is at least that threshold.

If that is necessary for resurrection, then that line must be crossed.

But you haven't really made a strong case for that either. So how about we turn this around:

Why does thermodynamics preclude resurrection? That is not at all obvious.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by theophile]

If you don't know why thermodynamics exclude resurrection, yet you claim resurrection, it seems like you have a lot of catching up to do before you believe it one way or th other.

In laymans' terms there are 37,000,000,000,000 cells in the body, and no space in them for the power or possible mechanisms to repair them, certainly without destroying other mechanisms.

I can hear what you are going say, "God can do anything." However, you'd have to demonstrate not only that he's done something in the past, but that those things are analogous to the claims you are making.

The premise of the OP is that I don't think there is any reason to believe an omnipotent being is capable of resurrection.

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

If you don't know why thermodynamics exclude resurrection, yet you claim resurrection, it seems like you have a lot of catching up to do before you believe it one way or the other.

I've formally studied thermodynamics. I've formally studied the bible. Not seeing it. Sorry.

In laymans' terms there are 37,000,000,000,000 cells in the body, and no space in them for the power or possible mechanisms to repair them, certainly without destroying other mechanisms.

Please, do not use layman's terms. Use the laws themselves. First principles: why are they incompatible?

What you say here means nothing. I am not my cells. Resurrecting my cells is different from resurrecting me. You can resurrect each cell individually and still not resurrect me. You can (from my understanding at least) resurrect me without resurrecting my cells per se...

Let's be clear if this is the issue:

Resurrection is not bringing back identical to what was before. It is a return to life, yes, and therefore to the same, but also to something different. It implies the return of something more beautiful than what was before...

I see nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that precludes that possibility.

[JLB32168]

[Omnipotence] is not at all subtle or intelligent, and eliminates any mystery to God's actions.

How does a person objectively measure what qualifies as “mysterious� as if to say, “That’s just not mysterious� for someone else?

It seems like a silly argument to me.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by theophile]

Fantastic! So it is not on me, tell me what principles allow resurrection. Death strikes me, simplistically as an ir-reversible reaction.

In short, I am the one confused, you can not put it on me to prove what I don't understand. Please review the OP. It is on contributors to demonstrate, not me.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by JLB32168]

I agree, "But the Lord works in mysterious ways," is a Judeo-Christian expression, not mine. I am simply invoking it to make a point.

Indeed. "mysterious" is silly, but I am in no position to explain. That would be for the religious.