Can god change the laws of physics?

[QED]

Scottie couldn't to save the Starship Enterprise, but could god change the laws of physics to save the writings of the Old Testament? For example for god to have created rainbows after the flood, he would have to have made sweeping changes to Quantum Electrodynamics at that time. It would not have been a case of tweaking some property of photons in isolation - as messenger particles between electrons, any change in property would totally transform chemistry, hence biology and so on. Infact any changes like this to the finely-tuned parameters of the cosmos would render the universe as a whole unviable.

So how can the answer be yes - god can do anything he chooses, when the change would have unavoidable and impossible consequences?

[harvey1]

Scottie couldn't to save the Starship Enterprise, but could god change the laws of physics to save the writings of the Old Testament?

Not to save the OT writings, but God could possibly change the laws of physics if they are not necessitated. I think they are necessitated, at least much of the laws. Hard to say.

For example for god to have created rainbows after the flood, he would have to have made sweeping changes to Quantum Electrodynamics at that time. It would not have been a case of tweaking some property of photons in isolation - as messenger particles between electrons, any change in property would totally transform chemistry, hence biology and so on. Infact any changes like this to the finely-tuned parameters of the cosmos would render the universe as a whole unviable.

Very true. However, Gen.9:13 doesn't have to be translated under the guise that God had just created rainbows. It only states:

My bow I have given in the cloud, and it hath been for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth

So, it could also be interpreted as a one-time event where that particular rainbow was meant to state that God established a covenant with humanity (the Noahic covenant). It's tough to know if the writer(s) of Gen.9 (Priestly tradition?) thought of this event as the creation of the rainbow. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is pure speculation based on very little evidence.

So how can the answer be yes - god can do anything he chooses, when the change would have unavoidable and impossible consequences?

I don't think "God can do anything he chooses" and "change would have unavoidable and impossible consequences" are in conflict. God's will conforms to the world that God's existence requires there to exist.

[QED]

Very true. However, Gen.9:13 doesn't have to be translated under the guise that God had just created rainbows. It only states:

My bow I have given in the cloud, and it hath been for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth

So, it could also be interpreted as a one-time event where that particular rainbow was meant to state that God established a covenant with humanity (the Noahic covenant).

I have to say that argument seems exceptionally weak. If rainbows have always been a regular feature of meteorology, both before and after the flood then one particular rainbow would hardly be worthy of report in this way.

Which seems more likely to you harvey1... that the authors of the OT meant for us to view the rainbow (which had always been around) simply as a reminder of the covenant, a rather weak feat for the almighty... or that they simply didn't realise what a problem they were making for themselves when they conjured-up yet another fantasy of divine activity.

After all, if the Church had been content with the weak interpretation, they would not have had to 'take it out' on Roger Bacon, like they did, for blowing the gaff in the thirteenth century.

So how can the answer be yes - god can do anything he chooses, when the change would have unavoidable and impossible consequences?

I don't think "God can do anything he chooses" and "change would have unavoidable and impossible consequences" are in conflict. God's will conforms to the world that God's existence requires there to exist.

But is it reasonable for anyone to have to accept that god reinvents the universe in order to stage one particular episode reported in the bible? I really can't accept this given the wholly plausible alternative that the author (who was after all a mere mortal) was drawing on his imagination when this fantasy was first drafted.

Seeing as you have been kind enough to take an interest in this topic, I'd appreciate your thoughts on an extension of this theme...

As I have said here before, all the truly successful religious ideas that are still in circulation today are those which defy refutation by reason or logic. This I see as a form of evolution through selection - those notions that are unable to stand up to contradiction through scrutiny or simplification are destined to be lost in the mists of time. What remains is a highly secure kernel of ideas well fortified against logical attack. But does this mean that these ideas are necessarily true?

This is why the case for the existence of the IPU is so crucial. It represents an example of a logically consistent framework within which an arbitrary fantasy can exist. But the mere fact that it cannot be refuted does not make it ergo, the truth.

[harvey1]

My bow I have given in the cloud, and it hath been for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth

I have to say that argument seems exceptionally weak. If rainbows have always been a regular feature of meteorology, both before and after the flood then one particular rainbow would hardly be worthy of report in this way. Which seems more likely to you harvey1... that the authors of the OT meant for us to view the rainbow (which had always been around) simply as a reminder of the covenant, a rather weak feat for the almighty... or that they simply didn't realise what a problem they were making for themselves when they conjured-up yet another fantasy of divine activity.

It's hard to say. I even hate to venture a guess since all we are doing is guessing. On the one hand, your argument looks good and I'd be inclined to believe that the Priestly (?) writer thought of the rainbow as created at the flood. On the other hand, the Priestly writer later introduces other similar uses of one-time symbols that were not God creating something that wasn't there before. For example:

And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."

I don't think the sign in this case, worshipping God on the mountain, was a supernatural act of the kind which you suggest in Gen.9, however the P writers weren't concerned about that, they were concerned about covenants and such.

The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

Another scripture from the P writers, and again, a sign of an ordinary sorts is introduced. The writer purely meant that the sign was to signify something different in that case.

[The Sabbath] will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

Here's another good one. P here is referring to the Sabbath as something that was to be a sign between God and the Israelites, however P had put the creation of the Sabbath in the first creation account (written by P).

Therefore, QED, it is possible that P considered that God created the rainbow in Gen.9, but I think it is inconclusive. They might have laughed if someone even suggested such a thing. For P, they might have really thought that all creation was finished in the first account of creation. I just don't know.

After all, if the Church had been content with the weak interpretation, they would not have had to 'take it out' on Roger Bacon, like they did, for blowing the gaff in the thirteenth century.

The Church is a different story. There's a history of dispute on scriptures within Christendom.

But is it reasonable for anyone to have to accept that god reinvents the universe in order to stage one particular episode reported in the bible? I really can't accept this given the wholly plausible alternative that the author (who was after all a mere mortal) was drawing on his imagination when this fantasy was first drafted.

Generally unreasonable. That's not to say that there our understanding of physics and the natural world is complete (e.g., miracles, synchronicity, etc.), but I would never see God as the type of God that stops the sun due to Joshua's command so that he can level a village. That's absurd.

As I have said here before, all the truly successful religious ideas that are still in circulation today are those which defy refutation by reason or logic. This I see as a form of evolution through selection - those notions that are unable to stand up to contradiction through scrutiny or simplification are destined to be lost in the mists of time. What remains is a highly secure kernel of ideas well fortified against logical attack. But does this mean that these ideas are necessarily true?

Well, they're not lost because they are there in the writings. Fundamentalists believe just about all of it.

This is why the case for the existence of the IPU is so crucial. It represents an example of a logically consistent framework within which an arbitrary fantasy can exist. But the mere fact that it cannot be refuted does not make it ergo, the truth.

That's nothing to take seriously QED. The assumption of biblical interpretation is that there really is a God, and that presence is active in the universe. Just making fun of it does not engage the seriousness of those who believe that.

[Dilettante]

What if God somehow is the laws of physics? Maybe Spinoza had it right and God and Nature are identical. Could God change God then?

[QED]

This is why the case for the existence of the IPU is so crucial. It represents an example of a logically consistent framework within which an arbitrary fantasy can exist. But the mere fact that it cannot be refuted does not make it ergo, the truth.

That's nothing to take seriously QED. The assumption of biblical interpretation is that there really is a God, and that presence is active in the universe. Just making fun of it does not engage the seriousness of those who believe that.

OK, granted that there will be some people that are unable to see past the humor -- but the proposition is nonetheless a serious one. Anyway, for me it provides the perfect antidote to the solemnity of the testimony of the bible. This has always been part of the religious 'pitch' but no matter how solemnly things are stated, then surely you'd agree that they don't deserve any more special consideration than any other proposition?

Take a typical definition for the word Testimony

A solemn statement made under oath

What special attributes should statements of this kind be granted? Are they somehow automatically imbued with truth? Alot of people obviously think so, but I doubt if you really do. So putting to one side the frivolity of the IPU the assumption of biblical interpretation that there really is a god, is one which has no better claim (other than the solemnity of the declaration), to being more true than any other fantastic claim which when stated in detail provides no access to validation or refute.
I refer back to my suggestion that ideas such as those concerning the existence of god are also perfect at surviving all attempts to refute them, thus accounting for their continued use in human culture. This suggestion goes on to predict key aspects of religion -- such as the diversity of beliefs, all of which reflect slightly different, arbitrary, variations on a theme and the use of a "carrot and stick" approach to encourage faith. After all, in the absence of proof, faith is essential for the upholding of the ideas and what better way to get human beings behind you than to provide the prospect (beyond any contradiction) of a forked-pathway between a very nice place and a very nasty place for those on their final, one-way, journey from consciousness.

Given the very high standards of argument that you often seem to demand, I would hope that you might be able to appreciate the points I raise here, particularly seeing as how the religious ideas being discussed are set out "just so" to ensure that they can't be properly addressed by reasonable inquiry. I feel that you should, at the very least, acknowledge the sounding of a few warning bells.

[otseng]

It's hard to say. I even hate to venture a guess since all we are doing is guessing.

Actually, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this. Rainbows (at least ones in the sky above our heads) did not exist prior to the flood. Why do I know this? Because it did not rain prior to the flood.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

If it did not rain, how then did all the vegetation get watered?

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So, no, physics did not change, however the global environment did.

[QED]

Actually, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this. Rainbows (at least ones in the sky above our heads) did not exist prior to the flood. Why do I know this? Because it did not rain prior to the flood.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

If it did not rain, how then did all the vegetation get watered?

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So, no, physics did not change, however the global environment did.

But that says no man was there to till the ground? Men (and other animals) were all over the place by the time of the flood -- is it being suggested that these creatures lived without rain, clouds and rainbows?

[otseng]

But that says no man was there to till the ground? Men (and other animals) were all over the place by the time of the flood -- is it being suggested that these creatures lived without rain, clouds and rainbows?

The very next verse says:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The context of these verses is creation week, not during the time of the flood.

As to the exact nature of the environment prior to the flood, I do not know. But, it's pretty clear to me from reading the Bible that it only started to rain on the earth during the flood and not before.

[QED]

As to the exact nature of the environment prior to the flood, I do not know. But, it's pretty clear to me from reading the Bible that it only started to rain on the earth during the flood and not before.

And this you believe to be true? Is the suggestion then that the laws if physics were such that the sun didn't evaporate the waters of the oceans -- there was a sun and that there were oceans right? The bible certainly shows some degree of knowledge about the water cycle in other parts:

All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.

Presumably these passages refer to a time after the flood?