Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> Perhaps you can help me in the following. The creation was good. Imperfect
> people like us see it today as not good. What happened in between? Was
> there a place, Paradise, where unfallen man lived, while the rest of
> creation had already fallen? Did Satan fall first and marred the creation,
> the Bible indicates that? Can we ever conceive of creation before the fall
> of man or Satan? Could man control his body function and his own death by
> his spirit/mind before the Fall? I am not answering your question with more
> questions but these are the things that bounce around my head when I think
> about this issue? For instance, what would a reversible world look like
> where irreversibility was not present? If created man did not die, could the
> world have been reversible? Pure speculations on my part. Moorad
>
> P.s. There is something inconsistent with heat flowing from a cold body to
> a hotter body that may go beyond the second law. There would be no
> equilibrium as we know it, i.e., same temperature, with the colder body
> going down to absolute zero and the hotter body becoming even hotter.
>
Let me respond in 3 parts.
1) I don't see how one can construct any scenario consistent with what we
know with a fair degree of certainty about the world (age of universe on the
order of 10^10 y, that of solar system & earth ~5x10^9 y, life ~ 3x10^9, humans
~ 10^5-10^6 depending on precise definition) in which the 2d law & associated
effects of irreversibility could have come into effect only after the conscious
sin of humans or, indeed, of any evolved intelligent beings.
Moreover, it is hard to see how one could have any physical universe at
all more complex than one containing a few Newtonian billiard balls in which the
2d law would not have been true. Eddington has a nice passage on this which I'm
not troubling to look up now. You can easily think of alternatives to Maxwell's
equations, general relativity, Schroedinger's equation, &c but not to the 2d
law.
In addition, there's no _theological_ reason at all to argue that
irreversibility is a result of a fall.
Even in a literal Garden of Eden heat would have flowed from hot to cold.
2) In the 1st creation account God sees creation as "good", not
"perfect". Humanity is given a commission in Gen.1:26-28, & the need to carry
out that commission means that even from that point creation is not finished.
The 1st account concludes with the Sabbath, which means that it looks _forward_
to the final consumation and Kingdom of God.
The creation accounts say nothing about the intelligence, physical
appearance, &c of the1st humans. The idea that humans were created perfect,
beautiful, brilliant &c - i.e., finished products - and then had a precipitous
fall to depravity is a specifically western idea. A number of the Greek
fathers thought that the 1st humans were in an immature state. The metaphor of
"getting off the right road" is a more accurate description of their sin than
that of a "fall" in eastern theology, & is more consistent with what we can know
& surmise about human evolution. This kind of picture is quite in line with the
functional integrity or robust functional economy for which Howard argues, &
gives no reason to associate the 2d law with sin. Indeed, without the 2d law
all the chemistry needed for the development & evolution of life to get to the
1st humans wouldn't have been possible.
3) I've implicitly answered some of your questions but here paste in
some specific responses.
> Perhaps you can help me in the following. The creation was good. Imperfect
> people like us see it today as not good.
Creation was good & is good. It did not cease to be good because of
sin. To say that the world became "bad" because of sin is equivalent to making
Satan (or whoever) the creator of the world we inhabit. It is a Manichean view
of an evil God with the same creative power as the good God, a view that the
church has always rejected.
In particular, the 2d law is not an expression of evil. Bob Russell's
paper "Entropy and Evil"
(Zygon, Dec. 1984) is worth looking at here.
Sin meant creation getting off the path to the ultimate Sabbath which
God intends. The work of Christ was getting creation back on track. We're
obviously not to the end of the road yet.
> What happened in between? Was
> there a place, Paradise, where unfallen man lived, while the rest of
> creation had already fallen?
There is nothing in scripture to suggest this.
> Did Satan fall first and marred the creation,
> the Bible indicates that?
The Bible has hints of a fall of angelic beings, but hardly a developed
teaching on the subject.
> Can we ever conceive of creation before the fall
> of man or Satan?
Yes, but speculations about the Garden of Eden may not be the best way
of doing this.
> Could man control his body function and his own death by
> his spirit/mind before the Fall?
These ideas are in the western theological tradition about the super
powers of humanity before the fall. There is no reason to think that humanity
had any such powers. (Yes, there is Ezekiel 28:11-19, but this is not presented
as an historical account. It is a "broken myth" used to pronounce judgment on a
ruler of Tyre c.590 B.C.)
> I am not answering your question with more
> questions but these are the things that bounce around my head when I think
> about this issue? For instance, what would a reversible world look like
> where irreversibility was not present?
To put it simply, such a universe would be very boring.
> If created man did not die, could the
> world have been reversible? Pure speculations on my part. Moorad
>
> P.s. There is something inconsistent with heat flowing from a cold body to
> a hotter body that may go beyond the second law. There would be no
> equilibrium as we know it, i.e., same temperature, with the colder body
> going down to absolute zero and the hotter body becoming even hotter.
Yes, but I don't see why this goes beyond the 2d law.
Hope this is useful.
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 08:32:42 EDT