Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:32 pm You mean apart from the "plenty of them" mentioned above?
Yes. Do you have a falsification criterion that ONLY abandons gravity, without also switching off your internal clock?

A criterion that allows you to retain the notion of a priori/a posteriori (e.g time, being, empiricism), while abandoning the notion of gravity.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:48 pmDo you have a falsification criterion that ONLY abandons gravity, without also switching off your internal clock?
Well now Skepdick, your evidence that a lack of gravity causes clocks to stop is a link to a wiki page on the Quantum Zeno Effect. Where on that page does it support your claim?
Yer might also note that a lack of gravity actually causes clocks to speed up.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:48 pmA criterion that allows you to retain the notion of a priori/a posteriori (e.g time, being, empiricism), while abandoning the notion of gravity.
Yup. When my bathroom scales tell me I weigh nothing.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:12 pm Well now Skepdick, your evidence that a lack of gravity causes clocks to stop is a link to a wiki page on the Quantum Zeno Effect. Where on that page does it support your claim?
It supports the claim THAT clocks can stop.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:12 pm Yer might also note that a lack of gravity actually causes clocks to speed up.
And you might note that in the lack of gravity the notions of "speed up" and "slow down" make no sense whatsoever.

"Speed up" relative to what?
"Slow down" relative to what?

You are smuggling relativity into the QFT universe through the back door. Intellectual carelessness?
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:12 pm Yup. When my bathroom scales tell me I weigh nothing.
Obviously, I can ask the exact same question in reverse.
In the same way that Gravity is GR's God, Time is QFT's God.

Can we retain the notion of gravity, while falsifying time?

You will step on the scale....

Oh wait. You can't DO "stepping", "observation" or "measurement". They become meaningless notions without event ordering.

ergo, if you lean towards epistemology (measurement) you should be able to tolerate the falsification of gravity,
before you can tolerate the falsification of time.

I think of the measurement problem as the dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic objects. Are observers microscopic or macroscopic?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:26 pmIt supports the claim THAT clocks can stop.
So do broken clocks, but neither they nor the Quantum Zeno Effect has much to do with gravity. That's general relativity, you know; infinite gravity = infinite time dilation.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:26 pm"Speed up" relative to what?
Clocks which remain in gravitational fields.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:48 pm So do broken clocks, but neither they nor the Quantum Zeno Effect has much to do with gravity. That's general relativity, you know; infinite gravity = infinite time dilation.
Planck time is a function of the Gravitational constant.

Infinite time dilation means it will take light infinitely long to travel 1 unit of Planck distance.

Observation becomes impossible.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:48 pm Clocks which remain in gravitational fields.
Unless gravitational fields exist in time fields.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: My point of view

Post by Averroes »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:28 pm To ask for prayers, to those in Heaven, since they are still living, differs little from asking for prayers from those empirically alive. It reflects ancestor honor/worship in non abrahamic Faith's, it is instinctive by nature.

Second Mary, the Mother of God, is genetically united to Christ as mother. To ask prayers from the mother of God is to ask for prayers from a mediator to Christ as an extension of Christ.

Third, those who are saved through Christ are the body of Christ, to ask for prayers from the body of Christ is to ask for mediation of the body through the body; it is a variation of Christ through the salvation under the Birth/Crucifixion/Resurrection where man and God became united.
This is exactly what I was suggesting to you that we agree to free ourselves from. I proposed to you that we agree to abandon all this team of false deities, whether dead or alive and that we worship only God the Almighty, the Creator of everything, the Ever-living, the Self-Subsisting, the only true God. I have understood that you have declined the proposition. But, please, allow me to insist, by asking you one more time to reconsider your position and give me a final answer. If you still want to decline my proposition this time, I will not hold you with this any longer.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:56 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:48 pm So do broken clocks, but neither they nor the Quantum Zeno Effect has much to do with gravity. That's general relativity, you know; infinite gravity = infinite time dilation.
Planck time is a function of the Gravitational constant.
Ah, the Gravitational constant which isn't gravity.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:56 pmInfinite time dilation means it will take light infinitely long to travel 1 unit of Planck distance.
Well, infinite time dilation has two theoretical causes. The first is explained in special relativity which basically states that time stands still in an inertial frame that is travelling at the speed of light. Any photon behind an inertial frame isn't going to travel any distance in that frame, because the frame is moving at the same speed as it is, and if fact unless it is going in exactly the same direction, it will only go backwards. For any photon travelling towards the inertial frame, should it collide with any particle it will take infinitely long to travel any distance, because the particle is infinitely massive, much like the infinite masses of general relativity and the reason inertial frames can't travel at the speed of light in the first place.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:56 pmObservation becomes impossible.
It becomes impossible at any distance. You should read that wiki page. I'm sure it will point out that Planck time and distance are epistemological rather than ontological issues.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:56 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:48 pm Clocks which remain in gravitational fields.
Unless gravitational fields exist in time fields.
Uh-huh. And what exactly is a time field?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: My point of view

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Averroes wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:01 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:28 pm To ask for prayers, to those in Heaven, since they are still living, differs little from asking for prayers from those empirically alive. It reflects ancestor honor/worship in non abrahamic Faith's, it is instinctive by nature.

Second Mary, the Mother of God, is genetically united to Christ as mother. To ask prayers from the mother of God is to ask for prayers from a mediator to Christ as an extension of Christ.

Third, those who are saved through Christ are the body of Christ, to ask for prayers from the body of Christ is to ask for mediation of the body through the body; it is a variation of Christ through the salvation under the Birth/Crucifixion/Resurrection where man and God became united.
This is exactly what I was suggesting to you that we agree to free ourselves from. I proposed to you that we agree to abandon all this team of false deities, whether dead or alive and that we worship only God the Almighty, the Creator of everything, the Ever-living, the Self-Subsisting, the only true God. I have understood that you have declined the proposition. But, please, allow me to insist, by asking you one more time to reconsider your position and give me a final answer. If you still want to decline my proposition this time, I will not hold you with this any longer.
It is a question of identity laws, there is always an inherent middle amidst any continuum of images:

Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )
All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular: (P-->P)

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28554
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm Ah, the Gravitational constant which isn't gravity.
Is that a concession that time is not a function of gravity? e.g Time and Gravity are separate phenomena?

Great! We can move forward.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm It becomes impossible at any distance. You should read that wiki page.
I gave you the weak argument: It's impossible at Planck distance.
You are strengthening my argument: It's impossible at ANY distance.

Either way - you seem to be agreeing that infinite (or near-infinite) gravity makes observation impossible, which is contrary to the goals of epistemology!

You should decide if you are arguing FOR my case or AGAINST my case.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm I'm sure it will point out that Planck time and distance are epistemological rather than ontological issues.
Distinction without a difference. To an epistemologist ontology is epistemology.

You must know SOMETHING about an ontology in order to say anything about it.
Even if all you know about an ontology is its Mathematical representation, that's still saying something about it.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm Uh-huh. And what exactly is a time field?
Well, you know what a field is, right? You keep using the word. Gravitational field, magnetic field.

Fields are fields. As far as ontology/epistemology goes - it stops at Mathematics.

A gravitational field represents gravity.
A time field represents time.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm Ah, the Gravitational constant which isn't gravity.
Is that a concession that time is not a function of gravity? e.g Time and Gravity are separate phenomena?

Great! We can move forward.
We? I have never denied that time and gravity (what's with the capital?) are separate phenomena. It was you that said:
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:56 pmPlanck time is a function of the Gravitational constant.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pmI gave you the weak argument: It's impossible at Planck distance.
You are strengthening my argument: It's impossible at ANY distance.
It's not your argument Skepdick, me old china, that's why it's called Planck distance. After Max Planck, dontcha know.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pmEither way - you seem to be agreeing that infinite (or near-infinite) gravity makes observation impossible, which is contrary to the goals of epistemology!
Not really, the goal of epistemology is not to do the impossible.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pmYou should decide if you are arguing FOR my case or AGAINST my case.
Well, you keep changing it.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm I'm sure it will point out that Planck time and distance are epistemological rather than ontological issues.
Distinction without a difference. To an epistemologist ontology is epistemology.
Reality doesn't give two hoots for epistemologists.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pmYou must know SOMETHING about an ontology in order to say anything about it.
Even if all you know about an ontology is its Mathematical representation, that's still saying something about it.
Are you a Platonist? What does something's mathematical representation have to do with ontology?
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:13 pm Uh-huh. And what exactly is a time field?
Well, you know what a field is, right? You keep using the word. Gravitational field, magnetic field.

Fields are fields. As far as ontology/epistemology goes - it stops at Mathematics.
Maybe as far as mathematicians care, but QFT which you referred to above, is based on the premise that quantum fields have mechanical properties - they exist as physical entities, in other words. Based on that premise, the good people at CERN spent a shitload of money and man hours building and running the LHC precisely so that they could prove this by hitting the Higgs Field so hard they could make a Boson.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:20 pmA gravitational field represents gravity.
A time field represents time.
So, no wiki page for 'time field'? Perhaps you could point us to some paper that has used the concept.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm We? I have never denied that time and gravity (what's with the capital?) are separate phenomena.
Great! That's sufficient. Time and Gravity are separate phenomena.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm It's not your argument Skepdick, me old china, that's why it's called Planck distance. After Max Planck, dontcha know.
Your comment serves no purpose - call it cultural appropriation. I the Max Planck foundation would like me to pay royalties for sharing an opinion with Planck, they can reach out to me.

The implications of too much gravity is "no observation".
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm Not really, the goal of epistemology is not to do the impossible.
Observation is impossible without time.

But if gravity is a separate phenomenon to time, then it seems safe to ignore it for epistemic purposes, right?
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm Well, you keep changing it.
I am still defending the same position since I was TimeSeeker. Any movement you detect is your fluctuation.

A photon traveling at the speed of light is still traveling through a time-field at a constant speed.
This is a perspective I've borrowed from Linear logic (which was the first logic to localise time).

For ANY photon, its own timeline is totally monotone.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm Reality doesn't give two hoots for epistemologists.
It is epistemologists who gave it the name "reality".
It is epistemologists who are describing "reality" with Mathematics.
It is epistemologists who make predictions/perform experiments on reality.

To pretend that you are speaking on behalf of reality (ontology) is to take yourself a little too seriously.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm Are you a Platonist? What does something's mathematical representation have to do with ontology?
You are speaking ABOUT ontology. You are using language to describe it. You are making claims about it. You know things about ontology.
But you are ONLY an epistemologist?!?!? How does this work?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent!

That which you are calling "ontology" is still "only" your epistemology! Mind-projection fallacy.
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm Maybe as far as mathematicians care, but QFT which you referred to above, is based on the premise that quantum fields have mechanical properties - they exist as physical entities, in other words. Based on that premise, the good people at CERN spent a shitload of money and man hours building and running the LHC precisely so that they could prove this by hitting the Higgs Field so hard they could make a Boson.
Every single description of a field, or a vector field, or a tensor field or its mechanical properties is EXPRESSED in Mathematics.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to compute any consequences.
if you can't compute any consequences you can't make any predictions.
If you can't make any predictions you can't test anything empirically.

The consequences (predictions) come from computing the ontology which is EXPRESSED in Mathematics.

Einstein's description of the spacetime geometry/ontology is Mathematical.
But Einstein was only an epistemologist. How does this work?

The ontology/epistemology distinction does not exist in the mind of an epistemologist. It's all language!
uwot wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm So, no wiki page for 'time field'? Perhaps you could point us to some paper that has used the concept.
And that's what I am working on. Formalising what I know about time-fields from distributed/transactional systems in computer science.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: My point of view

Post by attofishpi »

Averroes wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:04 pm
attofishpi wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:12 pm So.
Jesus - considered a mere prophet to you (peace be so upon him - if I didn't say that he might be in some trouble) spent his life deceiving everyone (obviously not Muslims because they didn't exist until about 500 years later) that He was the Son of God? ...and went to his death stating this - but now you have joined Islam and consider Christ (a prophet) a liar?
Hi attofishpi. Thank you for your questions. I will make an attempt to answer them if God wills.
Hell Owe Averroes - I appreciate that.

The 'if God wills' bit is wasted on me though. You managed to type a reply, so did God will that - or is there a possibility that God's will was insufficient in what you typed to clarify an actual answer?

In other words - if your 'answer' has shortcomings is God to blame for His lack of will?

Averroes wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:04 pmJesus, the Messiah was a prophet and a mighty messenger of God, the Almighty. In Islam, messenger-hood is the highest rank that a human being can achieve. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) never deceived anyone nor did he ever lied.
I should at this point advise you that I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God - He was God incarnate as a man. In fact - this God entity interacts with me fairly consistently and as I just typed that point - I was tapped on my right knee - as in 'RIGHT'. (Jesus was God).

For me, the most rational reason that Jesus went about his business stating he was a mere 'son' of God rather than stating that He is in fact God was rather obvious, over 2000 years ago. It's one thing to preach that you are just a son of God - as you point out below - we are all considered God's children. It's quite another to go about stating you ARE God - especially where you have grown as a child among wo\men.

Averroes wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:04 pmMany people are called "sons and daughters" of God in the Hebrew and Christian Bible, not just Prophet Jesus(pbuh).
In the Hebrew Bible, this appellation is most often given to prophet Jacob/Israel (pbuh) and his descendants, ie the Jews collectively. In Exodus, Prophet Jacob (pbuh) is described as the first born "son of God".
  • The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'" (Exodus 4: -21-23)
In deutoronomy 32, it is said that God has taken Jacob as His inheritance, and in that same chapter Jacob's descendants(ie the Jews) are collectively called sons and daughters of God.
  • The Lord saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters.(Deuteronomy 32:19)
In psalms 82, the Jews are even called gods and sons of the Most High.
  • “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (82:6)
There are many other Biblical verses like the samples shown above. Prophet Solomon and Prophet Adam our father(upon them be peace) are also called "sons of God" in the Bible.

As we have seen above, according to the Hebrew Bible all Jews are said to be 'sons of God'. Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was from among the children of Israel and he was sent as a messenger only to the children of Israel according to Mathew.
  • A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." "Yes it is, Lord," she said. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." (Mathew 15:22-27)
According to this passage of the Christian Bible, it is said that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was sent only to the Children of Israel, ie the Jews.
And according to the Hebrew Bible, all Jews are said to be "sons of God". So, this appellation is nothing specific to Prophet Jesus(pbuh).

In their Jewish traditions, the Jews understand the appellation "son of God" metaphorically. They do not think themselves as real gods or "sons of God".
Jews are required to worship only God, the Almighty. They are forbidden to worship themselves. You can verify this information from a Rabbi. I heard Rabbi Tovia Singer on this issue of the appellation “sons of God” in the Bible and he says it is understood metaphorically/figuratively by the Jews.
Ok, so I have made my point above, the fact that, and confirmed to me (again) as I typed, that Jesus Christ was in fact God.

Now, you have a far more extensive knowledge of the CONTENTS of both the Bible - homophone to 'buy bull' - and the Quran (I won't break down the logic within that just yet) than I.

I on the other hand must insist that from what I have read of your account of reading these books, where you appear to dissolve your own existence to the content within, that I in fact have a far greater comprehension of God (indeed an ongoing interaction with this entity since 1997). Of course you will disagree, and hopefully you also have some actual gnosis rather than just faith in words written in books.

So.
Some questions:-

1. From where are you getting this idea that Jesus the Christ was never crucified?

2. How do you compare the life of that of Morhammad and that of Jesus by way of each of their lives being lived in accordance with what we believe are ethical and righteous, including what they taught?

3. Here's a switch (excuse the pun) Do you think technology is just Man's invention or do you believe God would have 'His' own technology implemented to know all of our entire lives?

4. Why do you think God wants you to 'worship' Him? Do you think He gets gratification from it?
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: My point of view

Post by Averroes »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:03 pm It is a question of identity laws, there is always an inherent middle amidst any continuum of images:
Alright John, you didn't give me a final precise answer, so I take it that you are still thinking about it. If that be the case then you can take your time and give it as much thought as you need.

You taking the time, however, to think carefully before taking such an important decision reminds me of the story of an Enlightenment genius by the name of Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton, as you already know, was a great mathematician and physicist. He discovered calculus (concurrently or so with Leibniz according to consensus), proposed a theory of gravity and did work in optics, all before reaching 26! This is how is most often presented.

But what is often not advertised about him is that he was also a devout Christian who rejected the Trinity after having spent much time (some three years according to some sources) studying the Bible and Christian history. Half of all his writings (estimated to be about 10 million words in all) are about Christian theology and history. I took the time to read some of these, and indeed he was up to his reputation of a genius.

History has it that he was offered a professor position at Cambridge, but before holding tenure he had to take orders and pledge allegiance to the Trinity. This sparked his interest in the studies of the Christian Bible and Christian history culminating in his rejection of the Trinity. The then King of England had to intervene to grant him special permission to exempt him from taking allegiance to the Trinity and still hold the position of professor at Cambridge. Wikipedia has an interesting entry which goes into more details on this. A relevant excerpt is as follows:
  • By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early Church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him."[115] He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."

    Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair.

    In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.
You can read more on this on Wikipedia here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

God the Almighty gave him a truly beautiful mind indeed,  no doubt about it.

I hope that you would take much less time than Newton to reach a similar conclusion as Newton on Trinity, and thus show that you are of at least equal genius as him! You might even contemplate of surpassing him by embracing Islam. Newton once said that he stood on the shoulders of giants as an account of his numerous achievements. If you reach a conclusion similar to him on Trinity, and if possible surpass him by embracing Islam, you could in turn then legitimately say that you stood on the shoulders of the one who stood on the shoulders of giants!

I leave it here, and I pray to Allah, the Almighty,  our Creator that He guides you (and all those who made it up to here) to the straight path.

Have a nice weekend.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: My point of view

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Averroes wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 3:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:03 pm It is a question of identity laws, there is always an inherent middle amidst any continuum of images:
Alright John, you didn't give me a final precise answer, so I take it that you are still thinking about it. If that be the case then you can take your time and give it as much thought as you need.

The source, God, creates an image of himself through creation.

This creation he in turn synthesizes with, through Christ.

This synthesis allows for God to be omnipresent through Creation through Christ.

All being acts as a middle point towards God, through an underlying recursion, where the image (creation) as having common attributes allows for this mediation.


You taking the time, however, to think carefully before taking such an important decision reminds me of the story of an Enlightenment genius by the name of Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton, as you already know, was a great mathematician and physicist. He discovered calculus (concurrently or so with Leibniz according to consensus), proposed a theory of gravity and did work in optics, all before reaching 26! This is how is most often presented.

But what is often not advertised about him is that he was also a devout Christian who rejected the Trinity after having spent much time (some three years according to some sources) studying the Bible and Christian history. Half of all his writings (estimated to be about 10 million words in all) are about Christian theology and history. I took the time to read some of these, and indeed he was up to his reputation of a genius.

History has it that he was offered a professor position at Cambridge, but before holding tenure he had to take orders and pledge allegiance to the Trinity. This sparked his interest in the studies of the Christian Bible and Christian history culminating in his rejection of the Trinity. The then King of England had to intervene to grant him special permission to exempt him from taking allegiance to the Trinity and still hold the position of professor at Cambridge. Wikipedia has an interesting entry which goes into more details on this. A relevant excerpt is as follows:
  • By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early Church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him."[115] He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."

    Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair.

    In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.
You can read more on this on Wikipedia here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

God the Almighty gave him a truly beautiful mind indeed,  no doubt about it.

I hope that you would take much less time than Newton to reach a similar conclusion as Newton on Trinity, and thus show that you are of at least equal genius as him! You might even contemplate of surpassing him by embracing Islam. Newton once said that he stood on the shoulders of giants as an account of his numerous achievements. If you reach a conclusion similar to him on Trinity, and if possible surpass him by embracing Islam, you could in turn then legitimately say that you stood on the shoulders of the one who stood on the shoulders of giants!

I leave it here, and I pray to Allah, the Almighty,  our Creator that He guides you (and all those who made it up to here) to the straight path.

Have a nice weekend.

But it does not state why he rejected the trinity, you have others, such as Pythagoras and the more modern Logician Peirce, who not only accepted the trinity, but in the case of Pythagoras accepted it as the first number. Reference to any authority, including the ones I presented, falls under a fallacy however as the authority takes the place of rational argumentation...where reason is lacking authority is introduced.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Post by attofishpi »

Averroes wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 3:43 pm In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.
[/list]
You can read more on this on Wikipedia here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

God the Almighty gave him a truly beautiful mind indeed,  no doubt about it.
Yep, shame he wasn't right about everything though.

Averroes wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 3:43 pm... and if possible surpass him by embracing Islam, you could in turn then legitimately say that you stood on the shoulders of the one who stood on the shoulders of giants!

I leave it here, and I pray to Allah, the Almighty,  our Creator that He guides you (and all those who made it up to here) to the straight path.
The straight path? Just how boring this world would indeed be if everyone was a Muslim.

I_slam the door shut Muzzle_em.

It's all embedded in the English language.

I think what made you embrace Islam was the requirement for being so devout, you were a devout Christian but that wasn't enough. There can be no reasoning to accept the teachings of MorHamMad over those of Christ, it's a fools journey ..and a one way trip - you can't return to Christianity because your Muslim 'brothers' will kill you...oh such a wise religion!

Now the Jews - they are still wishing for the Messiah...hence...Je_wish. (bit of French there too)

The Jews don't believe Christ was even a prophet. The Jews and the Christians don't believe Morhammad was a prophet.
Yet you believe Christ WAS just a prophet. ..so tell me - which one was actually out to PROFIT?
Post Reply