Almost everyone knows Einstein's equaation E = mc^2--(kinetic) energy equals (relativistic) mass times the speed of light squared. Dynamic energy seems to be a property of Jehovah, but we should not conflate Einstein's famous equation with God's dynamic energy that transcends and is prior to the material universe (Isaiah 40:25-26). Universe normally means all that exists. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universe
"The universe is the whole of space and all the stars, planets, and other forms of matter and energy in it" (Collins English Dictionary).
However, does that include the Creator of the universe? What about the angels? For now, I am restricting my use of the term "universe" to all material/physical entities--what empirical science is capable of investigating. As far as we know, based on empirical science, matter is a dynamic configuration of energy. Yet relativity theory does not address what energy might imply in the case of God. Again, by universe, I am talking about the material world. Regardless of what we 21st century denizens might think, I see no reason to believe that Moses, Isaiah or Jeremiah denied the inception of the material or the spiritual universe, in the sense that matter and angels were created.
Revelation 4:11 seems to clearly acclaim God as the creator of all things, and heavenly creatures recognize God's sovereignty based on that truth. To also clarify why I'm invoking Revelation 4:11, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God is the Creator of the material universe and we profess that the act of creating all things establishes the ground for Jehovah's divine sovereignty. So my point is that if we throw out Jehovah being the Creator of the universe, what then obligates us to render him all glory, honor and power as the 24 elders exclaim? His status as Sovereign hinges on his role as Creator.
Can we define "energy in it"?
ReplyDeleteDuncan, see https://physics.info/energy/
ReplyDeleteThe Collins dictionary definition is saying that the universe means, among other things, the energy that is part of/comprises the universe/cosmos. But the link I just posted gives a more precise definition of energy from the standpoint of physics.
These are the two points I had in mind:-
ReplyDeleteabstract and cannot always be perceived,
given meaning through calculation.
The energy comprising/constituting the universe is probably not abstract. How can it be? What would prevent us (in principle) from perceiving something that's physical?
ReplyDeleteEven if calculation gives energy meaning, that doesn't mean it fails to exist and be detectable apart from such calculating activity.
I think it probably means that we cannot describe or define it. All matter resonates at a sympathetic frequency but there is probably far more to energy In the universe than just matter as we understand it.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, I don't think Collins Dictionary is saying that we cannot describe or define energy in the universe. I can almost bet (although I don't bet) that the dictionary is only concerned with the energy that physics studies and measures and defines/describes. They likely are not talking about divine "energy."
ReplyDeleteOf course, I agree with you that there's likely much we don't understand about energy and there's more to energy than matter. But my point is that Einstein's equation deals with physical energy only, not any other type of energy. Physics studies the same thing (kinetic, potential, etc). To ask about energy besides the physical and material is to go outside the parameters of contemporary science.
In the final analysis, I don't believe the energy exerted through the holy spirit as described at Isaiah 40:25-31 is necessarily the same as Einstein's formulaic energy.
Fair comment.
ReplyDeleteI am referring to the clues of what lies beneath or out of sync:-
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/hienergy/index.php/Why_neutrinos_%22go_through_anything_and_everything%22#Neutrinos_and_the_.22weak_nuclear_force.22
We still have much to learn about the universe, according to science and the Bible. Once we start talking about the quantum world (quantum level), it seems that things go haywire. However, even the quantum level is studied by physicists (particle physicists). I would venture to say that most of them don't see a need to appeal to the supernatural.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not advocating that course or espousing it, only pointing out the way physicists commonly study quarks, etc.
See https://www.lsu.edu/physics/research/astronomy/high-energy.php
From that website:
Despite the fact that neutrinos are some of the most abundant particles in the Universe they are difficult to detect. We require very large and sophisticated detectors to observe and study them. Our detectors are located in underground laboratories to shield against cosmic rays and related particles which could create undesirable signals inside the detector.
Neutrinos are naturally produced in fundamental particle interactions in Earth’s atmosphere, the Sun and Supernovae. They are also generated in nuclear reactors and we use particle accelerators to create intense beams of neutrinos.
The highest energy cosmic rays are particles arriving on Earth with energies many orders of magnitude larger than what could be accomplished with man-made particle accelerators. The composition of these highest energy cosmic particles and their origins are an active area of our studies.
We are involved in a number of experimental projects to collect data on neutrinos and the highest energy cosmic rays in order to solve the mysteries associated with these particles.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1216
ReplyDeleteNew physics?
Supernatural = attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Seems that they are dealing with the supernatural all the time unless they assume what they call laws are actually laws.
So I suppose it depends where one makes the divide.
Here are some other definitions of "supernatural" from Merriam-Webster:
ReplyDelete"Definition of supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)"
Do most physicists/scientists think they ever deal with the supernatural? I would say that is not the case for those now practicing science/physics.
See https://www.livescience.com/23251-science-religion-god-physics.html
I don't agree with science that attempts to push out God/the supernatural. However, that is the tendency of today's physics/science.
Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 40:26:-
ReplyDeleteWho hath created these, these creatures that are here; and who is it, that bringeth out their host with number every day. This phrase refers to the daily apparent coming and going of the stars. It may also refer to the planets, each of which has its circuit defined by a number, which is known to the Almighty, but unknown hitherto to the wise men of the East and to all astronomers. It is, however, possible, that the prophet refers to the number of stars in the highest sphere, which no man, however wise, is able to tell.
By the greatness of might, which He possesses; and for that He is strong in power,not one faileth to be numbered, or to preserve its substance; for no star is ever annihilated. איש signifies here an individual; comp. והאיש גבריאל (Dan. 9:21).
Net bible on Rev 4:11:-
ReplyDeleteThe past tense of “they existed” (ἦσαν, ēsan) and the order of the expression “they existed and were created” seems backwards both logically and chronologically. The text as it stands is the more difficult reading and seems to have given rise to codex A omitting the final “they were created,” 2329 replacing “they existed” (ἦσαν) with “have come into being” (ἐγένοντο, egeneto), and 046 adding οὐκ (ouk, “not”) before ἦσαν (“they did not exist, [but were created]”). Several mss (1854 2050 M sa) also attempt to alleviate the problem by replacing ἦσαν with “they are” (εἰσιν, eisin).
Maybe you can see the info here for Rev 4:11: https://books.google.com/books?id=tPtRAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=%E1%BC%A6%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BD+revelation+4:11&source=bl&ots=t8vhOjk8Qs&sig=lHTBUReykbSLbKdniiu_S7MhuL8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAvvaDncDeAhUPx1kKHdBoCKoQ6AEwB3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E1%BC%A6%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BD%20revelation%204%3A11&f=false
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A2vFqmbTraQC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=aune+1997+revelation+4:11&source=bl&ots=t0JVpWcNNg&sig=tvQWwzby1NLIgqV_3U6yzo4F1NU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirodClh8LeAhVJJMAKHWv5DhQQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=aune%201997%20revelation%204%3A11&f=false
ReplyDeleteAny other contemporary examples of this ABA pattern?
Here's some work that has been done on the subject:
ReplyDelete"Chiastic structure and some motifs in the book of revelation" by K.A. Strand.
"Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 4-11" by Ekkehardt Mueller.
I have David Aune Revelation commentary (Revelation 1-5) in hardback, not in electronic form. But he probably has something to say about examples of the ABA pattern. His commentary is part of the Word Biblical Commentary series.
"Charles, Revelation I, 134. Osborne, (Revelation, 241-242), explores the difficulties and suggested resolutions to the concept that the existence of all things is stated before they were created. He argues that seeing an ABA pattern and not a chronological unfolding of creation is the simplest solution."
ReplyDeletehttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43173112.pdf pg.134
See my other post where I quoted Osborne and explained why Rev. 4:11 does likely have an ABA pattern--created, existed, and were created. The works I cited above deal with the ABA pattern and I've checked David Aune, but have not read his entire remarks for Rev. 4:11 yet. But he does have something to say about the issue.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, Beckwith makes a case for non-chronological ordering being profuse in Revelation. He provides numerous examples.
He uses Beckwith for his justification but his examples are not the same.
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aJlPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=hebrew+aba+structure&source=bl&ots=VWliY9ZaeR&sig=31Rj1rtIidRel1ZNq78UbdCNBfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi648Wfl8XeAhWlD8AKHeKyAdUQ6AEwAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20aba%20structure&f=false
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2dad0_M7GWkC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=hebrew+aba+structure&source=bl&ots=rPrpYKeMHw&sig=dJLPc9d9Fj2U4_4pcjsC0cBmIgE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi648Wfl8XeAhWlD8AKHeKyAdUQ6AEwAnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20aba%20structure&f=false
ReplyDeleteBy he, do you mean Osborne or Strand? You also have to consider why Strand is using Beckwith, namely, to make a point about chiasm and logical ordering. But I don't think Osborne is chiefly relying on Beckwith; furthermore, Osborne clearly shows the likelihood of the ABA pattern.
ReplyDelete