Knight's pick 8-22-2007

[Nathon Detroit]

Ahh.... and this is why I love TOL so much!

Clete, you made a brilliant post, thank you! :up:

Clete, I will try and do a better job, after I give it some more thought.


:think:




:think:




:think:


Okay, I'm done thinking.


The only other thing I can think of is why does ice make your drink cold?

Sorry, but I have no idea how what I have said does not answer your question. Perhaps you can find someone who can speak to me at my intellectual level.

Ice doesn't actually make your drink cold, your drink makes the ice warm. The heat in your drink excites the molecules of H2O in the ice until equilibrium is reached bringing the temperature of the whole system down to some point between the temperature of the ice and the beginning temperature of the drink thus effectively making your drink colder.

I understand that you weren't really looking for a specific answer to that question but the answer demonstrates the point I am trying to make. That point being that there is in fact an answer. The ice does something (i.e. absorbs heat) which results in your drink becoming colder than it was to begin with.

Now here's the important follow up question. Does the ice deserve praise for having made your drink colder? Should we be thankful to the ice itself for having performed its job so predictably? No, right? The frozen water didn't decide to make your drink colder, it just happened that way because of the laws of chemistry. There was no virtue in the ice's "action" because it was not a choice but simply an unavoidable results of its nature. To extend your analogy, your position turns God into a block of ice! God does what He does, not because He chose to do so but because it was an unavoidable result of His nature thus there is no virtue in such a God's actions or His nature any more than there is in the fact that ice is cold and sugar is sweet and that put together they make for a really great glass of tea.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:first:

context

 

[BillyBob]

Sure, there is a transfer of heat. But in all actuality, ice does indeed make your drink colder.

 

[Poly]

That's an awesome post!! :up:

 

[Servo]

Great job Clete! :first:

 

[BillyBob]

But....Clete was wrong.

 

[Poly]

But....Clete was wrong.

So explain how he was wrong.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sure, there is a transfer of heat. But in all actuality, ice does indeed make your drink colder.

There really is no such thing as "cold", instead there are degrees of heat. You can't add cold. You can only take away heat.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But....Clete was wrong.

No, actually he was dead on.

 

[BillyBob]

There really is no such thing as "cold", instead there are degrees of heat. You can't add cold. You can only take away heat.

Right, but a steady decrease in heat is called 'getting colder'.

Ice makes a drink 'less hot', or 'colder'.

 

[BillyBob]

No, actually he was dead on.

Well, I sure hope he never uses the term 'cold' again for the rest of his life. :think:

 

[Mystery]

But....Clete was wrong.

I don't know that much about science, so he could very well be right about the drink being the one that gets the praise for causing the ice to melt and bringing glory to the drink.

In fact, I actually like His analogy better.

I want to thank Clete, for making me see the error in my thinking, and that it is in fact God who causes ALL things to work together for good, because He is good.

Thanks Clete!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Right, but a steady decrease in heat is called 'getting colder'.

Ice makes a drink 'less hot', or 'colder'.

True, that is our vernacular. But our vernacular isn't always technically correct.

Clete made the same point you are making in his post when he said... "The ice does something (i.e. absorbs heat) which results in your drink becoming colder than it was to begin with."

 

[PKevman]

I don't know that much about science, so he could very well be right about the drink being the one that gets the praise for causing the ice to melt and bringing glory to the drink.

In fact, I actually like His analogy better.

I want to thank Clete, for making me see the error in my thinking, and that it is in fact God who causes ALL things to work together for good, because He is good.

Thanks Clete!

:up:

 

[BillyBob]

I don't know that much about science, so he could very well be right about the drink being the one that gets the praise for causing the ice to melt and bringing glory to the drink.

In fact, I actually like His analogy better.

I want to thank Clete, for making me see the error in my thinking, and that it is in fact God who causes ALL things to work together for good, because He is good.

Thanks Clete!

That may be, but ice still makes a drink colder.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't know that much about science, so he could very well be right about the drink being the one that gets the praise for causing the ice to melt and bringing glory to the drink.

Clete was using the ice to represent YOUR version of God, not his version of God.

Me thinks you missed the point. Too bad, because it was a good one.

 

[BillyBob]

True, that is our vernacular. But our vernacular isn't always technically correct.

Clete made the same point you are making in his post when he said... "The ice does something (i.e. absorbs heat) which results in your drink becoming colder than it was to begin with."

He also said:
Ice doesn't actually make your drink cold.

On the contrary, it most certainly does. Unless, of course, the drink is already colder than the ice you put into it.

But 'Kansas City Chiefs: Hard Knocks' is on, so I'll see you guys in an hour. :cheers:

 

[Mystery]

Me thinks you missed the point.

Oh no, I think the point that Clete made is exactly how I understand the nature of God, but thanks for your concern, and thank you for making Clete's post the POTD! If you hadn't, I probably would have.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"To extend your analogy, your position turns God into a block of ice! God does what He does, not because He chose to do so but because it was an unavoidable result of His nature thus there is no virtue in such a God's actions or His nature any more than there is in the fact that ice is cold and sugar is sweet and that put together they make for a really great glass of tea."

Analogies aside, someone needs to refresh their understanding of the term "virtue".

God does what He does because His so doing is an unavoidable certainty of His nature, that is, because God is the perfect standard of what is right (virtue).

Just as it is unavoidable that adding ice to water will make the water cooler, so is it unavoidable that God must (not may) act with virtue.

Does the ice deserve praise for having made your drink colder?
No. Ice is inanimate. Praise (to glorify) is reserved for the living God.

Does God deserve praise for {insert any act of God here}?
Yes. God is the only being worthy of glorification.

Should we be thankful to the ice itself for having performed its job so predictably?
No. Gratitude should be reserved for the living not the inanimate.

Should we be thankful to God Himself for having performed so predictably?
Yes. God has revealed many aspects of His nature and attributes to us in the Scriptures. We should not be surprised by God's ways. God's revelation of Himself to us that assures us (makes certain) that His ultimate glory will be manifested.

The frozen water didn't decide to make your drink colder, it just happened that way because of the laws of chemistry.
Inanimate objects cannot "decide"

God decreed the universe and everything in it to exist so that His holy will would be glorified. God decreed thusly because God is inherently virtuous.

There was no virtue in the ice's "action" because it was not a choice but simply an unavoidable results of its nature.
Inanimate objects cannot be considered good by God's standards, therefore inanimate objects possess no inherent virtue.

There was infinite virtue in God's "action" because virtue is an unavoidable aspect of God's nature.

 

[PKevman]

"To extend your analogy, your position turns God into a block of ice! God does what He does, not because He chose to do so but because it was an unavoidable result of His nature thus there is no virtue in such a God's actions or His nature any more than there is in the fact that ice is cold and sugar is sweet and that put together they make for a really great glass of tea."

Analogies aside, someone needs to refresh their understanding of the term "virtue".

God does what He does because His so doing is an unavoidable certainty of His nature, that is, because God is the perfect standard of what is right (virtue).

Just as it is unavoidable that adding ice to water will make the water cooler, so is it unavoidable that God must (not may) act with virtue.

Does the ice deserve praise for having made your drink colder?
No. Ice is inanimate. Praise (to glorify) is reserved for the living God.

Does God deserve praise for {insert any act of God here}?
Yes. God is the only being worthy of glorification.

Should we be thankful to the ice itself for having performed its job so predictably?
No. Gratitude should be reserved for the living not the inanimate.

Should we be thankful to God Himself for having performed so predictably?
Yes. God has revealed many aspects of His nature and attributes to us in the Scriptures. We should not be surprised by God's ways. God's revelation of Himself to us that assures us (makes certain) that His ultimate glory will be manifested.

The frozen water didn't decide to make your drink colder, it just happened that way because of the laws of chemistry.
Inanimate objects cannot "decide"

God decreed the universe and everything in it to exist so that His holy will would be glorified. God decreed thusly because God is inherently virtuous.

There was no virtue in the ice's "action" because it was not a choice but simply an unavoidable results of its nature.
Inanimate objects cannot be considered good by God's standards, therefore inanimate objects possess no inherent virtue.

There was infinite virtue in God's "action" because virtue is an unavoidable aspect of God's nature.

:doh: AMR, you really are immune to logic. Can you not see that Clete was using an example to illustrate a truth?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

:doh: AMR, you really are immune to logic. Can you not see that Clete was using an example to illustrate a truth?

No, I am adverse to poor analogies and assumptions.

If you have been following the original thread, the open theist assumption is that God is righteous because He chooses to act in the best interests of others.

On the contrary, God is righteous because He is perfectly virtuous. God need not "choose to act" in anyone's best interests to be righteous. God need not have created us. Yet God would still have been righteous.

The poor analogy would have us look at what is being done and then concluding the nature of something. This is bad reasoning. What God is like should be used to explain what God is doing in the Scriptures.