roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

In answer: the objection implies a naturalistic, if not materialistic,
view of mind, since it assumes that the dissolution of the
series of material or physical changes will involve also the dissolution
of mind. But mind has already been shown to be qualitatively
distinct from matter, since it is inexplicable either as a
series of material constituents in motion or as a mere function
of such constituents. Now the production of mind (that is, of
rational and moral being) has been shown to be the chief end of
the cosmic process: and since mind transcends material constituents,
the death of the solar system need not involve the dissolution
of mind at all and thus not the defeat of the divine
purpose either. The contemplated equality of energy distribution
will therefore be, not the extinction of God’s purpose, but
the transcension of its instrumental and temporary environment.
It is not our purpose here to argue for the survival of the selfconscious
mind after physical death: but the established nature
of mind makes such survival at least possible---and this is all
that is required to vitiate the objection that the “death” of the
physical universe will dissolve the cosmic purpose in a mist of
utter stability.
And this consideration suggests a further point. The dependence
of the universe on God has already been established:
the conditions for its existence rest in the absolute necessity of
God’s existence. Now if, as seems to be the case, God conditioned
the existence of the present space-time universe as an
environment for His purpose, no objection can be brought, in
principle, against the assertion that such a God might also condition
the existence of a new environment for the further development
of rational and moral being.
I therefore conclude that God’s purpose is not necessarily
doomed to defeat and that hence the objection is unsustained.