Note to self: don't press "Save" when you mean to press "Pending."

*bashes head on desk*

Fuck. Oh well, better job next time.

Thanks that was a cute story made me giggle!

I'm with Elaine. I laughed all the way through.

Michael and Elaine,

Thanks guys! I'm glad you liked it, even though I had editing errors (I make 2 copies of a story; one's the original, one's the "edited" version - I copied and pasted the original, so sorry for the errors.)

Cool beans!

:o)


Paotie

That was a lovely outpour of that event. Is there something inside you that is wanting to have faith in Jesus. In order to be an atheist you have to first BELIEVE God and then disBELIEVE Him. But here's what I say...what caused the turning point in your life when you became an atheist? You say religion is the cause of all problems...You hit the nail right on its head. Stop following a religion, instead pursue a relation. Just as I cannot describe the taste of strawberry icecream without having you taste it, I cannot describe how real Jesus is. Can I ask you to believe this one thing. My He show you the direction.

and i Quote - "In order to be an atheist you have to first BELIEVE God and then disBELIEVE Him"

incorrect by definition...

what you describe is not an atheist, but an apostate

some atheists are apostates, but not all, and not all apostates are atheists

definitions are crucial in this type of discussion

Excelsior?

Strawberry ice cream tastes like strawberries and sweetened cream, very cold and blended smooth.

Hey, Leslie is righto! That is how strawberry icecream tastes...thanks Leslie. :)

And Excelsior, thanks for correcting me. You are correct. You win.

We can keep arguing on this topic endlessly. I only meant to share, that I have discovered a good news that salvation comes through Jesus alone because all our "goodness" does not allow us to stand in the court of God after we die. It is only Jesus's death on the cross and our belief in Him that makes a difference.

Again, the Bible tells me that no one can change the heart of man except God Himself. That is not my aim therefore.

Also, in case you are thinking...I am a 30-year old guy whom God has blessed abundantly and I thank Him for it. This abundance (not material, but mental satisfaction) can be yours too.

Thank you for your time reading this.

R:
Well, you can use it if you're asked!

Maybe there's a way to describe the way you see JC, too? I don't believe in any gods, but I do believe in the use of writing as mental/psychic exercise.

and i Quote - ""Again, the Bible tells me "

now we have a bone of contention...

which version, chapter?...verse?

i Ask, because this Bible was written by Men...over 20 of the "books" within are letter attributed to Saul of Tarsus (Paul)and have little to do with anything the person of Yehsua ben Miriam (whom many refer to as Jesus Christ, a combination of an anglicanization of a latinization, Iesu, and a geek title "the Annointed")

so, where is it that you receive this profound belief about what you are told in this book?

and how is it that you believe this book to be anything other than a work of Men?

oh yes, the name is "gonzo marx"..Excelsior is a sign off statement, it means "always upward", or "tiny wood shavings used in taxidermy"..depending on which definition you like

Excelsior?

I sure will use that description, trust me. ;)

I saw you used the word "gods". I dont believe in any of these "gods" myself. Just as there is there one physical Richard and one physically present Leslie, there is one God.

Belief in Jesus gives you salvation. I guess no prizes for guessing...but you must believe in the theory of Evolution right Leslie? Please note that you can identify a tree by its fruit.

What will happen when we die? Where do we go? If somebody would have told the little foetus in the womb that there is no life after the 9 months...and the foetus believed...it would surely die...it would not develop itself and not prepare for life "after birth". What about life after death? What will happen then?

I have known the Bible to be true from my own experience (reminds me of strawberry ice cream again :)) And my only desire is to tell you there is a God who is watching over you and that you can call upon Him to be saved. That is about as far as I can go in an article comment!

Over to you brother. (If I am turning out to be a pain, please ignore me. I will understand.) :)

Richard, no "pain" speak your mind freely...just expect the same in return, eh?

as to all the assertions you have made, you say you believe them..and i can easily accept that such are your beliefs

but you also claim to have Answers to things like what happens after you die...show your proof, please

Excelsior?

Sorry Gonzo...that was Luke 12:12.

Regarding the authenticity of the Bible, I think it much more trustworthy than the newspaper that we read each morning. You only need an article on yourself to appear in it, to discover the lies that it contains. Anyways no offence buddy...we're just talking. ;)

Will be back in 30 minutes. Have to run an errand.

no worries, no time limit - also no offense taken at all..as i said, speak your Mind freely

as for Luke 12:12 - "For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say."

this appears to be speaking about a moment of Gnosis..personal revelation and Enlightenment...

very interesting in the context of what we are discussion, are you stating that your own Gnosis has revealed these statements to you?

Excelsior?

Yeah, I don't buy any of that, Richard. Not logical in nature, harmful in practice.

Leslie, I know that you aren't buying anything that I am saying...which is why we are still on!

Hope that your thinking changes some day...because what if you are all wrong?

one cannot know the veracity of any of it, until after one is dead, Richard

hence the gist of my questions, especially in #15 above, as well as my Questioning things like the book you so believe in...

Excelsior?

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. -- 1 John 4:8

So isn't simply loving another being a ticket to salvation?

Hi Concerned Citizen,

I hate to trivialize things down to this analogy but, it is not the steering wheel l that gets you to the destination - its the car that does.

Now Love is the characteristic of God and is epitomized in John 3:16.

Also, it is always more meaningful, dear brother, to read the Bible in context. John in (1,2,3 John) writes to Christians. So he assumes that you have already accepted Jesus.

But again, I respect your views. Thanks for your time in reading this.

A lovely piece of writing, which took me out of myself for a few moments... thank you.
Let me know if you find a source of flashing Jesus!!

Hi Gonzo,
You have a point...For without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

If you dont have faith it is impossible for any of us to understand the mysteries of God's kingdom brother. My life has been a testimony of God's love for me and I am absolutely loving it. Unfortunately, at the cost of sound irreverent, I cannot shoehorn my thoughts on yours. In the same breath, I must add, that I appreciate and understand your viewpoint too - trust me, most people who finally come to Jesus start that way.

W.r.t your question in #15, I would just call it equipping rather than anything else. See, I am a nobody to you and vice versa, but we are still able to communicate to each other. It is the love of God that He gives all His children a chance to accept Him. This is a very unique relationship that I have come to enjoy with God the Father through Jesus His Son; on judgement day I dont want to be asked by my Big Daddy that I did not try.

But again, again, again...Gonzo, I respect your views really and completely. I can do precious little but pray that God change your mind...because the Bible says that the hearts of kings is in His hands.

Take care and God bless. Keep smiling.

again, Richard..you appear to have some really interesting interpretations concerning scripture

but also appear to be unwilling to get into precise discussions concerning the same

ah well, good luck to you

Excelsior?

Oops...I think I have been ambiguous enough in my posts. Could you please single out a topic we can discuss precisely. I want to know what you think.(Please bear with me Gonzo.)

Let me get this straight, Richard. Unless you're a born-again Christian, you're on a slidetrough straight to fire and brimstone, correct? If I follow that logic to its conclusion, that means that billions and billions of people--here and deceased--are pretty much fucked. That would mean that heaven would have no room for--oh, I dunno-- let's start with Moses, just for the sake of argument.

not a problem...

i had asked for a specific as to where, exactly, within your scriptures, some of the specific beliefs you profess come from

not chapter and verse, but which book itself (ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke, James...etc)

and as for beliefs, i mean the very specific things you have talked about.."salvation", the "afterlife" and so on

a good one would be what some call the "Rapture", is this part of your belief system? this one i'm especially concerned with...since it is not mentioned in even Revelations...

part of my curiosity revolves around the historical data concerning the editing, source material and compiling of what you call the Bible

oh yes..as for me...pray for something you have a chance of helping, by your standards, it's pretty safe to say i would be considered apostate and heretic, at the very least...

Excelsior?

OK Ray, lets try and get this heads-on. Look forward too...you dont drive looking ONLY in the rearview.

You are claiming the opposite of what's written in the Bible...See John 3:17 which clearly says "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. (John 3:17)"

If there's a roadsign for max speed of 20 MPH and for some reason you dont see and go past the speed limit are you exonerated? Probably not. But the Bible tells us that God's Law (10 commandments) were given for man to follow and which of us (including me) claims not to have broken any of it. Jesus came in the world to save us from punishment. He did not come to condemn.

I thought I should allow you to respond before I go any further.

Richard

My main point is that God is a little more universal than many give credit for. I don't think Jesus would want salvation limited to the people who say "Jesus is Lord" or even people who, cognitively, believe it. Jesus, as we know him now, is simply a literary figure. . . a conceptualization of what he actually might have been (the kindness, goodness, etc). You cannot accept salvation from your conceptualization of God.

Which brings me to my original quotation: God is love. Love, the actual experience, the will for the benefit of another being, is by far the closest experience we'll ever have of God -- and it is universal among men.

I guess my problem with the Christian idea of "salvation" is the idea that we are separate from God -- I don't believe we are at all. I tend to believe that our time here is just growing into our relationship with God and "redemption" was just Jesus showing us how.

I'll be the first to admit my ideas are still developing. . . haha and somewhat convoluted. Still, I feel they have some merit to them.

Anyway, I want to say I admire your patience and willingness to debate in a respectful way. :)

Gonzo, for some reason the last para of your response in #26 welled up my eyes. (I'm sorry if I sound kindof silly and mushy saying so.)

I can only tell you one thing Gonzo...God loves you. He sent His Son to die for you. Also know that since you were created in God's image, the devil hates you...the devil does not hate you per se, but he hates you because YOU (and I and all humans) are created in God's image.

If I may have the audacity of telling you something, I can only suggest you not to be curious when reading God's word. Read it with faith. There's nothing wrong in trying. Dont worry about changing yourself...when you light a candle in a dark room, the room is flooded with light, you dont have to do anything to dispel the darkness. I know and believe that the word is working in you - if my belief is true please do not stifle this voice and you will start seeing things in a fresh perspective.

Also regarding your questions, I really suggest you to pick up a Bible study, not with the intention of becoming a Christian...just with the intention of knowing more. Again, religion is man-made and always brings forth strife...relation is God-made and gives you abundant life. There is a lot of deception in this world and remember to test a tree by its fruit.

If your current belief gives you sweet fruit, by all means enjoy it. But if doesnt, please rethink dear buddy.

I'm also interested in hearing your view of things Gonzo. . . in my wanderings through some of the old articles/posts on BC I've found you to be an interesting (and very knowledgeable) guy.

Richard..you quote "John"..one of the synoptic books, but even there you have differences in the account... the last words spoken, for instance...

where you are going is a metaphor, none of which i Asked about

let me simplify...according to your belief, what day is the sabbath, and why?

we will keep it simple, and stick to that single Question for a moment to allow baseline points to be made by both of us for a start, fair enough?

Excelsior?

Actually, looking in the rearview mirror is a good thing to do, but not the only thing. What's with your driving analogies, anyway?
But here's quoting you directly:

Belief in Jesus gives you salvation.

The implications of that statement pretty much reiterate what I said. It puts everything in a "them versus us" context. My version of God has nothing to do with strawberry ice cream, but I do believe that a fair and equitable deity is more complex than to put eternity into such a tiny little box.

oh yes, side note since your last came up after i posted my last...

i don't require any kind of "bible study"..i'm willing to wager i know more about all kinds of scriptures than most priests or ministers

let's stay for now on the single Question...which day is the sabbath, and why

Excelsior?

gonzo, it seems to me like your setting up richard for a beating. it's not really fair...

Hi Concerned Citizen,

Your ideas are by no means developing or fledgling buddy, its like a tall tree absolutely rooted well...just that my soil is different!

Thank you for your kind words...without appearing a psychophant, I think your words are more mature and more convincing than mine...but as I said before, its the soil that's different. :)

You know buddy, if Jesus wanted His ego satiated in requiring that we believe in Him, He would have come in a knight's armor, with sword in hand on a black stallion! But He came down on earth just like you and me, lived a perfect life without sin and bore our sins on the cross. It is not true that Jesus was arrogative but rather redemptive.

Apropos the Christian idea of salvation, it by no means says that people are away from God. In fact the Bible says that man was made in the image of God. Infact the Bible says that the soul is God's breath. But I do understand where possibly the notion you are talking about comes from.

I would like to hear from you. :)

Regarding the post itself - i thouroughly enjoyed it. beautiful prose, right there.

regarding the comments - to have folks bantering back and forth, completely disagreeing with other, and yet doin so with such patience and genuine desire for understandin of the other (maybe some of the desire stems from understanding so as to affirm a pre-arranged "aha, but!" wihch we're all very guilty of, i dare say. many's a time i've steered a conversation that way myself, hoping for a certain name / book / theory to be mentioned just so as i can slap it to blazes soon the hell as)

yes - fills a fella with a great joy, to be seeing this kind of dignified debate. honestly. lovely, it is.

(ZingZing - Gonzo is very polite and I appreciate him for that. :) Thanks in advance Gonzo for not beating me! :) :)

OK, Gonzo, I believe that the Sabbath day was institutionalized by God as a covenant to remember how God brough His people out of Israel. While Sabbath is an important day to keep (and I believe any day of the week would be fine, infact I would love to be praying to God all the time), the true substance is of Jesus. This is mentioned in Colossians 2:16. Infact Romans 14:5,6 says "5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

Over to you.

you avoid the Question with a direct Answer...

both of your Quotes are allegedly from Paul's letters (Saul of Tarsus) and NOT anything that can even be remotely attributed to Jesus

are you stating that you believe that Paul(Saul) somehow had direct insight into the Mind of "God"?

but, you don't want to directly deal with that one...fine..i was attempting to determine which dogma you adhere to in order to utilize a single example

let's try again

if the 4 "synoptic" texts are indeed "inspired" can you tell me your thoughts concerning , we will go with just two discrepancies...

the last words on the cross, and the text of the sign nailed above the cross

Excelsior?

Of all Gonzo, I must apologize, as I seem to be coming across to you as being prevaricating. That is not my intention buddy, trust me. I am trying my best to give you direct answers.

Last words were "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (of course I've copy-pasted the words from an online Bible). Also Jesus cried out before giving up His spirit.

Just curious, hows this related to what we are talking about. Anyway, you are in the drivers seat.

it has to do with two fo the supposed synoptic texts having two different versions of not only those last words, but also of the text nailed onto the cross

it has to do with trying to demonstrate that the works and words of Men are fallible, and nothing to do with anything other than what Man has written

there's more, but the point is moot

Excelsior?

My question to both is why are you bothering to debate from the text of religious scripture that's been demonstrated to be borrowed from multiple sources that predate Christianity and even Judaism? The Christian Bible has very little originality to it, even in its religious principles.

Michael, i have not yet gotten into the historical and anthropological origins of many of these texts...

note i have yet to bring up the historical fact of the "Bible" being compiled by Biship Iraneas of Lyon around 180AD

instead i was attempting to determine which version of scriptures was being referenced , and why...then trying to explain and demonstrate some of the inconsistencies within said works of Men

Excelsior?

I see your point. I presume you realize there's likely to be some resistance in getting to that point, especially now that we've let the cat out of the bag.

Growing up in an Evangelical church, I was always amused by the teachings that we should distrust ephemeral emotions like love, anger, etc but simultaneously always trust in the feeling of faith, that God is out there and He/She/It loves us.

Apparently, we should only trust those feelings that are sanctioned by the church.

Richard

While I was at karate class I thought of a better way to say what I meant in my prior post. To say or even cognitively believe Jesus is God doesn't increase your awareness of its reality (if it is). I believe that real knowledge, like Enlightenment in Buddhism, is a gradual realization of the Truth. It's not something that can be systemized, but must be known with the intuition. It is an Awakening to the meaning of "I AM".

just that my soil is different!

To continue that analogy, the overall garden's still the same. Even though we have different ways of viewing the same thing, I believe we still have the same intention (to live well and be a good person). :)

#41
The Christian Bible has very little originality to it, even in its religious principles.

I'm no Bible scholar, but maybe it synthesized the information differently? Anyway, no harm in rehashing old wisdom. Lack of originality doesn't make the underlying ethical principles any less true.

good points, Citizen...

and much of it seems to mirror many of my own thoughts... room enough in Infinity/Eternity for everybody to be right somewhere/when

been a while since i put this up on BC, but it bears repeating

gnosis > dogma

on a side note..what style of karate?

Excelsior?

I believe in God. I also believe He was laughing all the way through that exchange between P & the waitress. I suspect His sense of humour is omnipotently sublime. He also chuckles a bunch throughh these exchanges on bc, and not in a mean spirited way. It's a big, beautiful world, and we're meant to enjoy it - even the exchanges that on the surface don't seem so pleasant.

gnosis > dogma

LOL I like how you tied math into that statement. I think that's actually a great way of saying it.

I take Kenpo, the Ed Parker branch. Different from other styles because it's a lot of in-close, rapid-fire movements. Involved in the martial arts at all?

There are plenty of ways to challenge someone's beliefs without trashing them and being a lame dick.

You get anti-kudos for being unfunny.

BTW, all serious & semi serious Bible scholars ought to read the book Jesus for the Non-Religious by Bishop John Shelby Spong. In some ways, it's a book that seems to say true gnosis = the mundane. Best of all, you can still believe in Jesus without having to believe all the other weird stuff that goes along with mainstream (and alternative) Christianity.

Max, who're you talking to?

i think he means the Article itself

which i found pretty funny without being abusive...

i would have been quite a bit more aggressive about it a minute or two into the conversation

but then, i have no problem with people's Faith..i DO have a problem with evangelizing it towards me..i consider it rude, and rudeness towards me gets a response pretty quickly

whereas folks like Richard here, who are polite, get polite discussion in return

could just be me

Excelsior?

Ed Parker stuff...most excellent choice, imo!

yeah..i was involved from '69 - '96

ba gua/hsing-i, wing chun, a bunch of other bits and pieces here and there in a type of Jeet Kune Do "any tool you find" philosophy...a bouncer for about 8 years after my time in the military...some teaching over the years

hence why i asked

:::bows, hand over fist:::

Excelsior?

I'm no Bible scholar, but maybe it synthesized the information differently? Anyway, no harm in rehashing old wisdom. Lack of originality doesn't make the underlying ethical principles any less true.

"A text that uses itself as the authority for the existence of God is questionable at best." - Michael.

True enough, which is why it's a good idea to verify that in the real world.

Interestingly enough, we've come to the point as a society that we prove our citizenship, credit and very existence by our documents - questionable at best, also.

Interestlingly enough also - Micha-el - in Hebrew, isn't "el" a designation meaning "of God" (Hebrew scholars correct me if I'm way off base, please).

#11 Richard,

"If somebody would have told the little foetus in the womb that there is no life after the 9 months...and the foetus believed...it would surely die...it would not develop itself and not prepare for life "after birth"."

The analogy that you are striving for is fatally flawed. On what basis do you give to the foetus, at any stage of its development, the ability to understand, even the concept of life, nevermind, its ability to stop its own development and die?

Les

Paotie,

I thoroughly enjoyed your story. Sounds like something I might have done in America when confronted with these people who just HAD to try to shovel Christianity down my throat.

I did face a situation somewhat analogous to this once in Bet Shemesh seven years ago. We were on a pilot trip here, really an effort to convince my wife (who had no desire at all to leave Minnesota) to move here, and we were strolling in Bet Shemesh's main drag early Friday afternoon.

A young lady in a longish skirt walked over to me purposefully and handed me two small candles in a package, along with instructions on what to do with them. They were Sabbath candles, to be lit a half hour before sundown on Feriday night (sorry Gonzo) to inaugurate the Sabbath.

The instructions were in Russian.

I looked at my wife and told her in loud clear English, "you see, dear, in Israel we really do look like Russians. In fact, if you take a Russian, give him a tan, take his bottle of vodka away and give him coffee instead, and have him talk Hebrew, what you have is an Israeli. Now, if that girl had given us instructions in Hebrew...."

At that very moment, as I was saying "Hebrew", another young lady, dressed like the first one, equally purposeful in her stride, came over and grabbed the Russian sheet out of my hand and handed me one in Hebrew...

Note to JC Mosquito: Michael - From the Hebrew, meaning "Who is like God?" In the Bible (BaMidbar/Numbers 13:13), a member of the tribe of Asher.

Note to Richard: Gonzo Marx shaves with Ockham's Razor. He is sharpening it on its strop now - I can see the glint of it in the dappled Maine sun...

i DO have a problem with evangelizing it towards me..i consider it rude

Same thing with me -- especially as I've found most of the evangelizers to be completely irrational about it.

That video was great -- the monk spent the whole time toying with the TKD guy. I love the smirk on his face haha. Anyway, I don't have any experience with wing chun, but I definitely like the "whatever works" philosophy of JKD.

text that uses itself as the authority for the existence of God is questionable at best.

Agreed, 100%.

now Ruvy...nothing in your anecdote for me to *cut*

i'm all for whatever works to bring solace to an Individual

my difficulty arises when it spills over onto others in an intolerant fashion, even more so when conflict arises over something "because God said so"..especially when it was Man who "said so", claiming to know the Mind of God

THAT is why i tend to break out the razor that Ruvy gives me credit for wielding, to show that when folks quote from scriptural sources as if it was the direct "word of God", they are really quoting men who make claims.

example: 21 books of the New Testament (out of 27) are attributed to Paul (Saul of Tarsus), a man who persecuted Christians for Rome until the day he fell down on the road to Damascus, had a "vision" and then proceeded to write and evangelize as a Christian...

now, scholars contend one of those books might indeed have been written directly by him...the rest were taken as dictation by scribes...some of the later "letters" are contended to have been written by such scribes and then attributed to Paul to lend weight to them

yet ALL of these are treated by some as the infallible "Word"

my razor asks, who said so? if this schmuck can have "inspired visions", then who else has? John Smith of the Mormons? Mohammed? the Dalai Lama?

i contend there is nothing written on this earth that was not written by a human being, and thus all is as frail and fallible as we are...sham, pretense, delusion and outright Lies are all that any other kind of claim can be

whatever there is, lives in each and every one of us, no more and no less...it's the Choices we make with every breath that defines us...not what another human claims in some book

is there Wisdom in some writings? of course

the Wisdom of Humanity

nuff said?

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

This piece by Paotie was satire. So here, I keep the patter light. Generally I explain "my ideas in the articles I write or in comments.

Gonzo - I've always seen the Bible as divinely inspired, or "written" as one might say, but even as a human bweing can only write well depending on the tools he or shes uses, the Holy Spirit has to use what ever he can get his hands on. Unfortunately, sometimes he probably had to use the human equivlent of a broken crayon, or a pointed stick. The message isn't always easy to read, so anyone who says they have the definitive interpretation is likely just self deluded (including myself).

Ruvy..i know, i was just teasing back (and will read your links forthwith)

JC - and there's the rub...this inspiration by the "Holy Spirit" claim made by some

as i Asked previously...how does one know that such is inspired by what? we have only the claims of those doing the writing...and who judges which is truly divine inspiration, and which is delusion?

why were some scriptures chosen as "authentic" for the Bible, and others not so? what disqualifies the Book of Mormon under said criteria, or the Qu'ran?

merely the Opinion of Men

Excelsior?

To believe divine inspirations starts and ends with the Bible is the problem - there are lots of other places to find it.

to believe in "divine" anything is the problem, to believe that some kind of outside Influence "inspires", rather than something within is my difficulty

i'm funny like that, and require empirical data, having an innate distrust of the snake oil salesman

Excelsior?

JC:

Why would an omnipotent, all powerful god have to "use what ever he can get his hands on. Unfortunately, sometimes he probably had to use the human equivlent of a broken crayon, or a pointed stick?"

Why wouldn't he use the era's Shakespeare? Sounds pretty far-fetched that god himself couldn't find a decent ghostwriter. He could have asked Homer, or perhaps Plato, to recommend someone.

"ghostwriter" - lmgdao!!!

a holy ghost writer is what some profess...

my esoteric take on the idea

Excelsior?

Good point, Leslie. But look at who gets picked for the hard work in the Bible:

1) read Moses' encounter with God on the mountain where Moses tries desperatwely to weasel his way out of having to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt;

2) Jonah, who is told to go to Nineveh - and promptly grabs the next boat in the other direction;

3) David, who sends a soldier into harm's way so he can get his (hopefully soon to be) widow;

4) Saul of Tarsus - a persecutor of Christians who ends up on of the leaders of the early church;

5) Peter, impulsive & not too brilliant fisherman - who, like Wile E. Coyote, tries walking on water & falls in like he's in some Roadrunner cartoon; denies Jesus in his hour of need, who had earlier pulled out the ol' sword/knife to defend Jesus and promptly attacks... the high priest's servant - and yet becomes another leader of the early church.

Nah - God has no interest in getting "only the best" working for Him; anyone who's ready to work is welcome - heck, even if you're not ready to work, you're still welcome.

It's a big, beautiful world out there - if you want to believe that can be so without believing in God, that's your business - I'm certainly saying that in my experience, my world is a richer place for my belief. I find it explains things that science can't, and leaves room for me to accept mystery in its deepest sense as part of the natural function of the universe. And I hope you don't think I'm some Bible thumpin' redneck - maybe a redneck in some aspects, but the fundamentalist point of view is something to which I would be in totally opposition, except I think some people can't read anything in a literate way, so I accept the fact that it'll have to do for them - as long as they don't thump me in the process.

And I'm not always sure of it - I have my moments of doubt, but something always comes along to tell me it's ok to do that too. Look at it this way - if I'm right, one day in eternity we'll all look back and have a good laugh at ourselves blogging our opinions to each other. And if it turns out you're right, we'll then I guess I was wrong and that's about it, isn't it?



Ahh, gonzo - I think I asked you this once before - you like empirical data - have you any room for a sense of mystery - the unknowable, the unpredictable? You know, it's fun to watch the snakeoil salesman get shivved with Occam's Razor... but sometimes the truth is much more complicated than could almost be imagined, and we only get glimpses of it. I mean, who's to say or not say this series of comments itself isn't divinely inspired?

Pax vobiscum to y'all,

Skeeter.

JC Mosquito ..

Your #5 point - LOL -

Thanks.

:o)

Paotie

JC - plenty of room for everything within Allternity...that's my View

the Mystery - everywhere and in everything, the fact that my Will can move my fingers to type fills me with Awe every time i think about it, even when i have plenty of empirical data to tell me the mechanics of how it occurs

as for "unknowable"..only thing i think is completely unknowable at this point is what happens to the energy that makes up our Will/Mind after we die...

Einstein says matter(energy) cannot be created or destroyed...only change states

there's enough Mystery there for me

do i think there is something more? yep...purely subjective moments of personal gnosis coming from my past practice in the martial arts, where instants have occurred where the sum was greater than the whole of it's parts

in gung fu this is known as "moving with the Tao", or even "actions in harmony with the will of heaven"

as i say, purely subjective, and i can't explain it...but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation

hence why i have always stated i am apostate and heretic, but an agnostic by philosophy

because in all honesty..i just don't Know

Excelsior?

Gentlemen, ladies.. thank you for your time today. We'll likely hash this all out again in the quarterly God vs. No God meeting here on bc. See you then - unless of course, the 'Pocalypse happens before that....

#68 Gonzo,

I like you comments about Gnosis and martial arts. One of the most important books to effect my thinking has been the "Mathematical Theory of Communication" by Shannon and Weaver. Another thing fitting in here were Trotsky's comments about suppressed animal instincs coming to the fore when under intense pressure in a sustained critical situation.

Les

Holy Nodes of Ranvier, gonzo! The "energy that makes up our Will/Mind"? What is that? We have a brain, which is made from ordinary matter, organized into a marvelous machine that runs on biochemical energy, sucking up about 25 watts under normal operation. The energy is supplied by ingestion and digestion of food.

"Mind" is just a grandiose term associated with higher brain function. "Will" is our need and ability to conceive of an action, then take it, the exercise of volition, no doubt an evolutionary adaptation. Mind, will, consciousness, emotion, self-awareness, etc. are all biological functions of our flesh-and-blood brains.

When we die, the brain's supply of energy is cut off, and the brain stops converting energy (which could be taken as a definition of death). The brain tissue, like the rest of our body, will break down chemically and be eaten by little beasties. Ah, the grand circle of Life. You are suggesting that there is a residual form of "brain energy" that continues on after death. The existence of such is beyond our current scientific understanding, akin to belief in a soul. Do you believe in some kind of afterlife? If so, based on what evidence or belief system? (I'm not saying that I don't, by the way -- just wanted to get your take on things).

Eh, thanks ....

Oh, ooops, gonzo. I guess I should have finished reading your #68 before beginning my yak. OK, so it has to do with some altered state of consciousness that you experienced? Please to elucidate.

heh...duane, you have more info than the rest on this due to a previous e-mail

as i said, when it comes to the Moment of death, and the possibility of anything afterwards...i don't Know, the above rant is sheer speculation

a long time ago, i read a Russian study on the subject, they put some terminal folks on a bed on top of a scale, and monitored the weight, up to the moment of death and a few minutes afterward

after many tests and all kinds of calculations, they came up a few ounces short that couldn't be explained

not reading too much into it, and damned if i can find it...wracking my brains and scouring my personal library trying to find it to get you where it came from and exact numbers...but i just can't seem to lay hands on it (not surprising after how many times i've moved over the years...could still be in the attic of my old arcade, which is torn down now)

as for the medical science versus the metaphysical issue of Mind/Will...i understand the normal explanations, and find some of it unsatisfying...not too mention that there is so much even the experts don't know about our brains

all this adds up to why i claim agnosticism...not enough convincing data either way

but i am fairly certain in my statements about scriptural things...i know the history and anthropological data pretty well as well as the archaeological data

a sonic Joke, for duane and anyone interested

Excelsior?

OK, gonzo. I think I read something somewhere some time about weighing the soul. I think it was subsequently debunked based on unreliable measurement techniques. I'm fairly certain that if evidence for such was available, it would cause more than a minor stir in the scientific community --- we would have heard about it. It would be huge, don't you agree?

It's true that most of the brain is not yet understood. But the rate of progress in understanding things neuro is staggering. I choose to be patient.

And now, for something completely different ....

From the Monty Python skit Penguin on the Television

1: Per'aps it's from next door.
2: (yelling) NEXT DOOR?!? Penguins don't come from NEXT DOOR! They come from the Antarctic!
.
.
.
1: Per'aps it's from the zoo.
2: Which zoo?
1: (angrily) 'ow should I know which zoo it's from?!? I'm not Doctor bloody Bernofsky!!
2: 'Oo's Doctor bloody Bernofsky?
1: He knows everything.
2: Oooh, I wouldn't like that, that'd take all the mystery out of life.

Doesn't that just about sum it up? There is in many (if not most) people a desire to be surrounded by mystery. Anyone in touch with themselves enough to know why this is? Is the world too banal and horrible to accept as is? My claim is that the Universe AS IS contains so much grandeur and so many "miracles" that commonly held belief systems in the supernatural are prosaically mundane by comparison.

well duane, i can easily agree that what we have and can observe already is indeed plenty of Mystery on it's own...i say so earlier in the thread, even

i think that since dying is universal among every possibility in the human experience...the ultimate Unknown....that it remains the great Mystery

and you know where a penguin comes from cuz it's tattoo'd on the back of their neck

Excelsior?

#71 Duane's take on part of Gonzo's #68

This is complicated so will do it in multiple parts.

Part 1:

"You are suggesting that there is a residual form of 'brain energy' that continues on after death. The existence of such is beyond our current scientific understanding, akin to belief in a soul. Do you believe in some kind of afterlife? If so, based on what evidence or belief system?"

I do believe there is a 'brain energy' that continues after death. I've been thinking about this for at least 50 years. I've done a lot of thinking, a lot of study and some experimentation. One does have to demystify the brain. For about three years I used large amounts of LSD on a weekly basis. Tried to get some idea of how my brain functioned with relation to my environment while under the influence. The more I observed, the more I saw material causes related to what some might call mystical experience. One of the more interesting ones was the so-called out-of-body experience. A more interesting one was getting into someone else's head, the in-another-body experience. I analyzed these and came up with plausible material explanations. After some years I became what I consider a consistent and thorough materialist.

The biggest question I pondered was that of ego. The question of the Star Trek transporter. One can imagine that such a machine is theoretically conceivable. It does raise some thorny questions though. One, is it really you, or is it just a duplicate? Does it matter? If you conclude it is really you coming out of the other end, then what does it all mean if it duplicates you more than once? Are there multiple yous? What would that mean? We would have to assume that you were reproduced in multiple space-time coordinates. That would mean that the yous would have different environments and the multiple yous would diverge into separate identities. Would any of the identities be YOU.

By the way, the above scenario has practical application in discussing contemporary theology. The case of a fertilized woman's egg having a unique soul comes to mind. If that fertilized egg splits into two in the development of identical twins, how do we sort that out? If the original soul was unique and nature divided it, and the genetic makeups of both are identical, which one keeps the original soul and which one gets the next serial number? Can there really be any difference in these souls? Can't the souls DEVELOP their uniqueness? What if you chemically influenced whether there would be multiple births or not? Would the creation of a soul just be a matter of chemistry?

interesting thoughts there, Les

as for your experimentations...allow me a Thought to share... resonant frequencies and/or harmonic concordance

as to the twins dilemma, could it be the trauma of birth itself, when the parasite sheds it's gills to use it's lungs, the removal of the umbilical to the host?

there's medical answers to much of this, but many of those are unsatisfying

hence the Metaphysical

it's trying to reconcile the two approaches that appears to hold the key, and we ain't there yet

but what i do Know is that many of what we currently think of as Answers will probably turn out not to be, the more we seem to find out, the more we find we were wrong in what we thought was fact previously

quantum mechanics , for example

deep Waters indeed, and we all need to learn to swim.

heh

Excelsior?

Well, learn to swim better than Schroedinger's cat, anyways.

gonzo #73, duane #74:

It was not a Russian, but an early 20th century Massachusetts physician named Duncan MacDougall who tried to measure the weight of the soul.

If you go to [Sierra November Oscar Papa Echo Sierra dot com] and type 'soul' into the search box, you can read all about it.

As I recall, there's also a brief but lively account of the experiment in Bill Bryson's book A Short History of Everything.

(Sorry I couldn't link to the site, and indeed ended up having to spell its name out using the phonetic radio alphabet. For some reason the BC spam filter doesn't like that word.)

no worries Doc, i'd forgotten the Mass one..but the study i had read was indeed Russian, i'm positive of that...late 50's early 60's..VERY methodical

it was discounted by some due to where it came from at the time..i cannot verify the veracity, not find the reference in my own library at this time

but thanks for the links!!

Excelsior?

Thanks Dr. D. Great stuff.

And omigosh, check this out ...

"Perhaps the most surprising scientific evidence for the soul comes from quantum mechanics--specifically, from investigations of the subatomic phenomena that produce consciousness. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist who has spent many years studying brain functions, has collaborated with renowned Oxford University polymath Roger Penrose on a model that explains consciousness as the result of quantum processes occurring in tiny structures called microtubules in brain cells. 'I think consciousness under normal circumstances occurs at the level of space-time geometry in the brain, in the microtubules,' Hameroff says. 'But the fluctuations extend down to the Planck scale [far smaller than an atom] because the microtubules are driven bioenergetically to be in a coherent state. When the blood supply and the oxygen stops, things go bad and the coherence stops, but quantum information at the Planck scale isn't lost. It may dissipate into the universe but remain somehow entangled in some kind of functional unit, maybe indefinitely. If the patient is revived, the information gets picked back up again.' "

-- From discovermagazine.com June 2007

Penrose is definitely not a quack, by the way. Hmmm....

Well, it's just a theory.

heh...but a good one

reminds me of a Quote - "the more I learn about quantum mechanics, the more it reminds me of Taoist black magic"

Excelsior?

# 71 Duane: What you described is the best description of a sociopath. A living breathing human form with certain human abilities: thought, memory, etc. But something vital is missing: the feelings that a complete human can have - love, empathy, sympathy, etc.

"Penrose is definitely not a quack, by the way..."

Sounds like complete bullshit to me.

Gonzo,

"the more I learn about quantum mechanics, the more it reminds me of Taoist black magic"

I had a boss once that had a masters degree from MIT. Actually I have had several bosses that masters and PhDs from MIT. But this one went back to a reunion or something like that. He met his old thermal dynamics prof and confessed that even though he got all A's in the course, he didn't understand a thing. The prof shot back, 'it's alright, it all turned out to be wrong anyway'.

Les

#83 -- July 12, 2007 @ 05:06AM -- SonnyD

"...the feelings that a complete human can have - love, empathy, sympathy, etc."

Yes, the human race would have disappeared, like all failed experiments, in an anarchy of Hobbsian murder and exploitation had not the evolutionary selection process selected for these high societal value attributes. Much as evolutionary selection developed high societal values among ants and bees.

To SonnyD (#83). Your physical brain is fully capable of "emotion", as I mentioned in my #71, which would include those attributes you list -- love, empathy, sympathy. Also, see bliffle's response (#86). But I am aware of and appreciate your own unique take on things.

To Les (#84). Right. It does sound like BS. But far be it from me to judge Penrose's work. His track record is just too overwhelming.

it appears the crux of the Question is whether or not the Whole is greater than the sum of it's Parts

does the physical process of meat and chemical reactions produce something Metaphysical?

i'm encouraged that it does by things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

the verifiable fact that mere Observation by a sentient being can influence the outcome leads me to think that there might indeed be something greater than the sum of the parts as we Understand it at this time in our scientific development

"one Man's magic is another Man's engineering" R.A.H.

hence my mention elsewhere about my own experience vis a vis martial arts gnosis

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

"i'm encouraged that it does by things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"

Are you 100% sure?

i'll ask Schrodinger's cat, if i can find it

Excelsior?

I'm uncertain as to whether the uncertainty principle is understood with any degree of certainty. Suffice to say that the uncertainty principle places no limits on the precision to which a single quantity (or fact) can be known. Thinking such is a misread of what the principle says. Gonzo may be 100% certain, without violating the principle. I'm certainly certain of this.

heh...duane that was certainly Funny...to me at least...yet i'm almost never certain about anything, hence my normal qualifier of "i think", which may be uncertain in itself , but certainly an attempt at certain honesty...

but i digress

Excelsior?

duane,

"It does sound like BS. But far be it from me to judge Penrose's work. His track record is just too overwhelming."

See my #85; it applies here too.

well Les, that's the beauty of theoretical exploration...it's all a guess, built upon evidence and adjusted as more and more facts or proofs become available

much different than bald assertions of "fact" with little or no confirmed evidence or empirical data

such as saying "God told me..."

i'll take Penrose over Saul of Tarsus any day

your mileage may vary...

Excelsior?

We've all had ample opportunity to ascertain your honesty, gonzo.

Right. So ...

A waitress in a Colorado Springs restaurant. Deafness. Jesus. Gays. Atheism. Ice cream. The veracity of the Good Book. Salvation. Debating with dignity. Karate. Shoveling. Hebrew. Razors. Ghost writers. Mystery and the unknowable. The weight of the soul. Quantum mechanics.

It seems that the Biq Questions often come back to physics, in spite of the oft-mentioned bromide, to the effect, "The Bible has taught me about things that science can't." Oh ye of little patience.

Gonzo,

"i'll take Penrose over Saul of Tarsus any day"

I might be inclined to also, but I'm not sure. It's a question of historical fairy tales vs what purports to be science. Many can put Paul into a proper perspective. There are much fewer, I think, that can genuinly make progress scientifically in the issues we are discussing here.

Les

Les (#93). Oh, you're a science skeptic. I'm sure that you are reading too much into the comments of the wisecracking professor. Thermodynamics (not "thermal dynamics") is not wrong. Ask the guys who designed your air conditioner or your refrigerator. Don't believe in the tendency of entropy in a closed system to increase? I think you should seek out a second opinion.

it's a matter of technique in approach, Les

i should have been more clear

one did the "God told me" bit, the other is working within the boundaries of science to work out theoretical answers based on empirical data

you knew that, clarification is for the Record

Excelsior?

duane,

I am a skeptic, and yes, it is thermodynamics.

"Ask the guys who designed your air conditioner or your refrigerator."

And what would I expect them to understand? I claim both are 100% efficient. I doubt either designer would agree.

Les

Les: "I am a skeptic...."

Why? I'm intrigued.

"And what would I expect them to understand?"

Thermodynamics. Part of their engineering programs.

"I claim both are 100% efficient."

Well, they're not.

"I doubt either designer would agree."

And they would be right, of course.

"Don't believe in the tendency of entropy in a closed system to increase?"

Not necessarily. Maybe as an overall tendency at this period of time, but not as an absolute that has to exist at all places, at all times and under all circumstances.

Second opinion? I discussed this with K. Eric Drexler. He agreed with my skepticism about the absolute authority of the second law.

Les

ok, you have any kind of link where he shows his proof to debate the second Law?

am truly interested since it is considered a universal constant, and yet i've never even heard of any kind of contention otherwise...

genuinely interested

Excelsior?

#100 duane,

"And they would be right, of course."

Or mayby to their thermodynamics course used similar course material as the 'wisecracking professor' used.

Les

Wow, Les. Very impressive. OK, so you and Drexler are skeptical that the Second Law is universally valid under all circumstances. Not all circumstances are accommodated by the assumptions inherent in the Second Law, viz., it applies only to a "closed system." For example, the transformation of water to ice in your freezer looks like a local violation of the Second Law if one chooses to ignore the other system components, i.e., the space outside the freezer.

But don't let's get tedious. I am willing to defer to you and Drexler. But I'm wondering how this conjecture has bred skepticism in you as regards science. Are you, in fact, skeptical of all science, or just that at the bleeding edge? If the latter, then, sure, even scientists are with you on that. If the former, then tell me more.

Gonzo,

"ok, you have any kind of link where he shows his proof to debate the second Law?" I have been looking for other work in this area for years. I have not seen any referrence to such.

I discused the with K. Eric Drexler after a lecture he had given at MIT shortly after 'Engines of Creation' was published. I bought my copy from him.

I thought that his ideas about powering nano-machines were naive. I raised a couple of questions and mentioned that I thought he should look to actual biological organisms for ideas on on where and how to get power. Somehow the issue of the second law came up. If I remember correctly, he said that some biological organisms violated the second law. I did not get a chance to persue that since there were others that wanted access to him.

I explain the basis of my skepticism when I get around to explaining to duane why all, or at least the usual ones, are 100% efficient. It really boils down to a moral question.

Les

understood Les, and thanks..i asked because i looked the fellow up after your mention, and didn't see anything on the topic among his list of publications or lectures

i look forward to your response to duane

Excelsior?

Les: "Or mayby to their thermodynamics course used similar course material as the 'wisecracking professor' used."

Haha. Very good, Les. Touche.

Well, gotta go. Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Looking forward to reading more from you guys later. I'm learning a lot.

Ok, here goes.

This may have to be a part 1. It is fairly complicated, especially since it involves morality, or at least a societal value judgment.

It all started back in 1976 when we had a particularly hot June in Boston. My girlfriend and I decided to get an air conditioner for our apartment. It was a couple or so years after the beginning of the energy (oil) crisis. The air conditioner manufacturers were required to list the EER of their products. There was no Google back then. I had no quantitative idea what EER was.

Ok, I asked all the smiling salesmen, we had no eBay or amazon.com back in those days either, what EER meant. They ALL said that higher was better. I finally found one that said that EER meant 'Energy Efficiency Ratio'. I then asked, 'ratio of what to what?'. Nobody knew. I bought a Sears 5,000 BTU, 7.5 EER, unit. I finally found out that it was BTU's pumped per KWHr.

It did cool down the bedroom quite well. It was a small apartment with a small bedroom. I did know a little about how this thing worked. I heard about higher efficiency units. Was there a theoretical limit on how high an EER could go? Nobody seemed to know. People talked about motor and compressor friction but no fundamental limits. I thought about that for a while and gave up. After all I was not an air conditioner designer.

I understood that this air conditioner was also heating up the neighborhood. That wasn't good. That in itself was reason to get a higher EER unit. I also discovered that the electric bill went up. I used the EER formula and figured out how many BTU's my electricity was contributing to the neighborhood. I started to resent paying the electric company to heat up my neighborhood in the summer time. I wasn't the only one doing this either. What a deal for the electric company.

I must figure out what's going on. This is evil.

I finally decided that rather than being pissed at the electric company or maybe trying to exorcize the evil, I might try to take a more scientific approach.

Stay tuned for part 2.

Les

Guys -

Thanks for a great debate and conversation. I'm reading these postings with popcorn in hand.

*munch munch*

Part 2! Onwards, Les.

:o)


Paotie

Paotie - glad if we could being as much enjoyment to the comments as you brought with the Article...

Les - "waiting Is.."

duane - got the time?

Excelsior?

Part 2,

Well, I did a thought experiment with the aid of the first law of thermodynamics.

It did not take me too long to figure that ALL of the electricity that came through the power cord connected to the air conditioner was heating up the outdoors. This is at least obviously true when all has reach thermal equilibrium, when the room is cooled to its minimum temperature while the conditioner is running full time. There is no extra energy required to keep the room cool. The energy going to the outdoors is precisely the same as the energy coming through the power cord.

Maybe this is easier to see in the winter time. We'll use a refrigerator this time. If you had one room with an infinite air sink around it at a constant low temperature outside with a thermostatically controlled resistance electric heating and a frig in the room. Also a light bulb if you wish.

I contend that the electricity used will not make any difference as to whether the refrig is on or off.

Stay tuned for part 3.

Les

I forgot to mention, this is only true if the frig, by itself, does not produce enough heat to sufficiently heat the room on its own.

Part 3.

Even when the frig is cooling and actually lightens the heating load on the AC power source, the extra heat from the frig represents the heat from, no, actually is, the heat from the inside. Overall no extra power is required to keep the frig at low temperature inside.

To the extent that the refrig is heating the room, less power is needed from the electric room heaters.

In the bigger scheme of things this means that the cooling action requires no power, 100% efficiency.

Stay tuned for part 4.

Les

ya palmed quite a few cards so far in your little thought experiment

actual measurements of the pertinent details proves that there are indeed losses all over the place, all of which can be measured and explained

but i'll gladly leave the math involved to duane and other experts in the field who know much more than lil ole me

but do go on...makes for a Fun read

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

"actual measurements of the pertinent details proves that there are indeed losses all over the place, all of which can be measured and explained"

Losses don't matter. Look at the bigger picture. All the losses can be considered as part of the consumption of the electric power. They all turn into heat. You totally get the heat you pay for with the elctricity, losses or not. The frig is the easiest example. Do you dispute my statement that the electricity used will be the same whether or not the frig is on?

Les

Our desired product in the case of the room in winter is HEAT. All the losses turn into HEAT.

a bit confused here, do you mean the overall electricity used by the apartment in the time frame under question?

if such is the case, and the only variable is whether the fridge is on or not..then i would have to say that the consumption of electricity is indeed higher with the fridge on or not

even if it is just the trickle for the electronics involved in the operation of the thermostat inside the fridge and the controlling voltages for the compressor

but, as i said..i'm not touching this one any further, i'll gladly leave it to duane

do carry on...

Excelsior?

Sooo...a cute young gal tried to strike up a conversation with you, and you responded by mocking her and her religion. Nice. You must be proud.

"if such is the case, and the only variable is whether the fridge is on or not..then i would have to say that the consumption of electricity is indeed higher with the fridge on..."

I say it does not matter. The tiny electronics etc are still just losses, just like the rest of them; they still turn totally into heat.

If nobody else sees this after a while, I'll try to walk through it in more detail.

"Sooo...a cute young gal tried to strike up a conversation with you"

Not everybody would take 'Do you believe in Jesus?' as a friendly jesture.

I don't mind and I do not insult them. It happened to me on Monday of this week. We ended up exchanging phone numbers.

Consider this argument for the spirituality of atheists.

I consider myself a spiritual atheist and the atheist prayer did not resonate with me at all.

Back to the fridge.

I warned that this proplem was going to involve morality and value judgements. This is where Gonzo, and I presume others, go wrong.

My #116:

"Our desired product in the case of the room in winter is HEAT. All the losses turn into HEAT."

Gonzo #114:

"actual measurements of the pertinent details proves that there are indeed losses all over the place, all of which can be measured and explained"

Losses? I have stated that ALL the losses turn into HEAT, our desired product.

Why claim that we have a problem with value judgement and morality? It is that Gonzo does not see the losses, he clearly sees, as part of the DESIRED product we are looking for. He sees them as BAD things. How can BAD things be DESIRED? It's not a question of morality here, it is a question of thermodynamics, and what we are trying to accomplish.

Putting aside the fridg for a moment let's look at the normal electric heat with the thermostat. Let's attach a very small neon light accross the heater supply voltage so we can see whether the heater is in its powered cycle or not. That neon light will consume miniscule power.

A child, oblivious to the function of the heater, might be considered to find the little light going on an off as entertaining and the only object of concern. An analysis of the efficiency of the function of this entertainment light would find that efficiency quite low. After all, 99.999% of the electricity is just wasted as a heat loss. What a poor design.

More later,

Les

There seems to be a fatal design flaw in the entertainment light. It never works in the summer. Also, even in winter, the time the light stays on seems to be effected by whether the frig is on or not.

"If somebody would have told the little foetus in the womb that there is no life after the 9 months...and the foetus believed...it would surely die...it would not develop itself and not prepare for life "after birth"."

!!!!!!

Just found a new way of losing weight! From now on I will tell myself that the enjoyment i get out of chocolate doesnt last long so therefore it's pointless eating it.

What a load of %*@@!!

Oh....hang on....someones speaking to me....'yes', 'yes', 'ok'.

'God' has just told me that all you non-beleivers are on the right track and he is fed up of being the subject of all this arguement. If he had known he would have caused all this trouble he would never have started this 'life and all else' project in the first place.

Dear Lord, thank you for what must surely be Divine inspiration. I would never have thought of it if it were'nt for you!!

WAKE UP Y'ALL (His words not mine)

Not quite following you, Les. How is the 2nd Law violated, and what does morality have to do with your electric bill, and what do either of those have to do with atheism or religion?

:::munches popcorn, just waiting for the skirmish twixt duane and Les:::

prelude entertainment, with sly commentary included

Excelsior?

Skirmish? Nah. Just trying to learn from Les. The 2nd Law is not really a "law" at all. It's an assertion of how Nature appears to behave. It's the answer to the question, "If an explosion can convert a car into a pile of junk, can another explosion reassemble it?" There's nothing in the 1st Law prohibiting that. The 2nd Law is given as if to say. "It is highly unlikely. That seems to be the way Nature works" ... ummm ... loosely speaking. It's all based on probability. It's not inviolable but, as far as I know, a violation has never been observed.

Eh, thanks for the Ministry, gonzo. That woke me the hell up.

anytime duane..ya know i like ta share...

side note: saw TooL, on friday ...awesome show, as always...wish ya had been there with us

and for andy in wales (we know it's in the UK..heh), ya might like ta have a chat with JuJu, may his tusks always glow with the Light of Reason...bring peanuts...

Excelsior?

Great swinging parabolas, gonzo! You mean they let old farts like you into a Tool show? Well, damn. That sounds great. As for myself, I saw Jane Monheit last night with her jazz quintet. A bit tamer, but still ... great pipes. Next up, Alan Holdsworth, electric guitarist par excellence ... I'm not worthy ....

"Not quite following you, Les. How is the 2nd Law violated, and what does morality have to do with your electric bill, and what do either of those have to do with atheism or religion?"

We have not gotten to violating the second law yet. We haven't even got past the fridge being 100% efficient.

I say that saying the frig is wasting energy is a value judgment. If one had a frig that consumed an average of 300 Wats of electricity then it could function just as well as a 300 Watt electric heater. Both do just as good a job at heating.

One would not complain that the electric heater had losses, hense saying the same about frig is value judgement. Getting pissed at electric company because frig produces net heat same as electric heater is moral issue.

I'm warming to this issue.

Isn't God the eternal and infernal energy source for the ethereal and the intrinsical?

Etymology is my god with which I gain salvation and damnation, though of course both are solely in my mind. Temple

PS I particularly like C. Citizen's thoughts. Love Love. Love. Love is all you need. And the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

duane,

"...and what do either of those have to do with atheism or religion?"

It does, I only got to part 1 on my explqanation of what happens to the energy of the brain after we die. It's fairly more complicated than the air conditioner or frig.

Let's see if we can get past this one. After we can agree that the frig is 100% efficient, at least as far as being a heater is concerned, we can go on to the 2nd law.

OK, Les, let's narrow this down a little. Please re-explain what you mean by "efficiency" for a fridge. Then we'll go from there.

The EER is defined as the rate energy extraction from the cool reservoir divided by electrical power input at 95 degrees F. The EER is usually greater than one, so it will not do as a definition of efficiency in the thermodynamic sense. The heat energy dumped to the environment (your kitchen, in this case) is greater than the electrical power input, which satisfies the 1st Law.

"The heat energy dumped to the environment (your kitchen, in this case) is greater than the electrical power input, which satisfies the 1st Law.+

Why do you say that? Where does the extra energy come from? The only time when more heat gets dumped into the kitchen than is supplied to the frige is when the frig is in the process of cooling its interior. After the inside temperature stabilizes, then the amount of heat emination from the frig will be precisely the same as the heat equivelent of the elctricity being supplied to it.

The anount of heat that the refrig contributes to the kitchen when it is turned on, till the time that it's thermally stabilizes, is the input power times time, PLUS the amount of heat that was in it and now in the room. After it stabilizes it is the input power in, times time (KW Hr), equals (BTU equivelent of), heat out.

Note that a stable low internal is maintained by the input power producing exactly its eqivelent of heat out. In this case the frig is acting no different than a resistance heater as far as how much heat it puts into the room.

If you can acknowlede this I will talk about efficiency.

Les

Les: "Why do you say that? Where does the extra energy come from?

There is no extra energy.

(electric power x time) + (heat drawn from cool reservoir) = (heat out)

"The only time when more heat gets dumped into the kitchen than is supplied to the frige is when the frig is in the process of cooling its interior."

That's all I'm saying. But it is always in the process of cooling. It is not perfectly insulated from the outside. So the power is always being drawn. Besides this minor quibble, I think we're OK.

:::munches imaginary popcorn while standing, cuz the rest of BC is boring as fuck right now and sleep is about 50-60 hours away:::

thinking of the many who toil in silence

Excelsior?

"I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual."

"I'm not honest, but you're interesting."

--Daniel Tosh

Cryogenics meets metaphysics.

Am I at the right site? Didn't know there were actual discussions like this taking place. Thanks all for the entertaining read.

duane,

" But it is always in the process of cooling. It is not perfectly insulated from the outside. So the power is always being drawn."

Then do you say that the refrig is putting more heat into the room than the equiv electric energy coming in? That violates the first law.

Les

Duane: Something sounds awfully strange about your comparisons. A refrig does not use power when it is off. The thermostat doesn't need power, it's mechanical. There is no heat when it is off. Microwave, kitchen range and coffee maker, on the other hand have lighted clocks and always draw some power. And your concern about heating the neighborhood is a little off, too. You may temporarily heat some air, but air movement is going to disperse it and somewhere up the mountain is a guy with a heat pump drawing heat from the outside to heat his room.

What does this have to do with religion or lack thereof?

"What does this have to do with religion or lack thereof?"

The observation that there is a tendency for entropy to increase has been turned into a God of which we all have to bow. Any challenge damns one for Eternity.

duane,

let me clarify a bit further. When the temperature within the frig stabilizes, there is no further any net transference of heat to the evironment. If there were it would mean that the inside the frig were still dropping. So regardless of what lack of perfection of the insulation, at that point, the amount of heat being produced by the frig is precicely = the electrical energy input. That does satisfy the first law.

Les

"...there is no further any net transference of heat to the evironment."

Should say:

"...there is no further NET transference of heat from inside the frig to the evironment."

Les (#141): "Then do you say that the refrig is putting more heat into the room than the equiv electric energy coming in? That violates the first law."

That doesn't violate the 1st Law (see my #136). The cold compartment loses heat energy, call it Q. If you want the heat lost to the environment to be precisely Q, then you have what's called a perfect refrigerator.

No one has ever built a perfect refrigerator. That's because the 2nd Law requires any spontaneous heat transfer to be accompanied by an increase in entropy (S). Spontaneity gives way to electrical intervention. The 2nd Law requires

(1) Q_high > T_high x Q_low / T_low

to enforce Delta S > 0, where T_high is the environment temp, T_low is the fridge temp, the Q's are the magnitudes of the heat transfers.

The 1st Law is, for this problem,

(2) Q_high = Q_low + Pt

where P is the electrical power and t is the time. Plugging (1) into (2) gives you

(3) Pt > (T_high - T_low) x Q_low/ T_low

which is positive. Therefore, (2) shows that the heat dumped is greater than either the heat extracted or the power input. It is, at the very least, the sum of the two.

As an aside, if you rearrange (3), you get the coefficient of performance K, which is related to the EER

K = Q_low/ Pt = T_low / (T_high - T_low)

which is greater than 1 for a decent fridge. The 2nd Law prohibits K from being infinite (Q_high = Q_low).

SonnyD (#142) and Les (#144),

I'm not an expert at refrigeration technology. And I'm not sure that the operation details really matter here. I'm still not sure where Les is going with this. Maybe we will end up discussing Joule expansion, heat exchangers, and the boiling points of refrigerants, but for now, I'll just mention that there is this concept of "stand-by power."

Evidently, the stand-by power of a modern fridge is typically about 17 watts.

------------------------------------------------------

Source: BRANZ Study Report No, SR 141 (2005)

For example, a refrigerator compressor is on for most of the time and, when the compressor switches off, the refrigerator has a standby power of about 17 W.

The top five appliance types in terms of their standby energy per house are (in order from largest to smallest):

Video
Television
Stereo
Refrigerator Freezer
Computer (includes CPU and monitor)

These five highest appliance types account for more than half the total household standby energy consumption.

For refrigeration appliances this is a combination of control circuit power, anti-sweat heaters and, in the case of traditional New Zealand models of refrigerator, butter conditioner.

-----------------------------------------------------

SonnyD: "And your concern about heating the neighborhood is a little off, too."

I'm not concerned about that at all. That was Les.

SonnyD: "What does this have to do with religion or lack thereof?"

I dunno yet. Something about entropy and damnation.

Les: That'a what I was trying to say without knowing the language.

Duane: You can go on all day with this, but if there is a flaw in your basic premise, you still aren't proving anything. When are you going to get back to the subject?

Hi SonnyD,

... but if there is a flaw in your basic premise...

I'm willing to corrrect any flaws. Could you please point them out?

...you still aren't proving anything ....

It's not my intention, at least at the moment, to prove anything.

When are you going to get back to the subject?

Which subject is that, SonnyD?

Duane: Sorry about the confusion as to who said what.

Four of the five examples you gave, I was aware of the standby power but didn't know that all refrigerators were now built that way. Admitted, frost free models run a defrost cycle when you don't hear it running. And the techie nerds are trying to add all sorts of strange abilities into refrigerators that don't make any sense at all. But does the basic, economy model that we cheapskates buy consume power constantly?

#146 is why i was leaving this to duane

as someone with close to 30 years in the field of electronics...there IS standby power as duane points out, if it's an appliance, and it is turned on, and there is a transistor or especially an IC chip ANYWHERE within the device, the device was made in the last 20 years...then i can say unequivocably that there is a "soft start" section of the power supply that draws some current as long as the device is plugged in

tough to type standing up, will check in to see how this progresses...

entropy = damnation? very interesting Theory

Excelsior?