Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-02-2004, 11:08 AM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
|
Quote:
|
|
07-02-2004, 11:14 AM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
|
Quote:
|
|
07-02-2004, 12:29 PM | #13 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,558
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm Quote:
|
||||
07-02-2004, 01:06 PM | #14 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
|
Quote:
|
|
07-03-2004, 12:04 PM | #15 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 293
|
Response to JBernier
Quote:
Actually, this was really a light-hearted attempt on my part to both understand and demonstrate the validity of the trinity concept in very simple terms. But, as you have brought up an interesting and relevant issue to the table, it should be explored. But, first ,there is one point in your post which I must address. Quote:
Quote:
Now, on to your issue. Let us define G' as "the form of god" as perceived by humans, or more precisely, a relative perception of that which is god. Let us assume that there exists a transformation function f(G') such that this form could be translated into that which truly is god. This is reasonable using literally Plato's allegory of the cave, inthat shadows are certainly transformable into their essences, given that certain factors are known.(i.e. We could determine the distance to an object from its shadow by knowing its cross sectional size, or we could determine its size by knowing the distance. Further, by parallax and either of the above, we could determine the other to the accuracy of our measurements ) This leaves the idea that the individual manefestations of god, are in fact instances of god. An instance, by necessity, requires an instantiation. And an instantiation, by neccesity, must take place in a time domain.(Interestingly, traditional ideas of god put him outside of space-time domains, but that is another baguette, lets stick to the material given). Thus, these instatiation are time dependant. Given this, we must assume that each instance has a relative start time, and perhaps a relative end time. This implies that J,F and HS can be expressed as functions of time(t), more precisely, of a time interval (dt). By implication, if the parts of the form of god exist in a time domain, then the form of god must be necessity also have a time domain dependency. So, from a strictly trinitarian point of view, we could now say ; J(f(dt1) + F(f(dt2)) + HS(f(dt3)) = f(G',dt ) This is really a shorthand way of saying, the total essence of god (from the human perspective of observation of the form) is equal to the total of the instances of those manefestations in the time domain of the observers (humanity). What is intersting about this, is that it essentially says the same thing as the simple expression, with the addition of the time domain and the form transform. We can also see that if we were to solve this by integration, several solutions are generated, but for now lets consider only the boundary conditions. If dt1 = dt2 = dt3, we have the same expression as above. It is only true when f(G',t) = 0. If we assume that dt1 != dt2 != dt3, then we have a value that is non-zero only during dt1, dt2, or dt3, but is zero for all other values. The second solution might be saying that G is nonzero only when a manefestation of the form is perceived in the time domain. And, the philosophical interpretation of that is apparent, isn't it ? |
|||
07-03-2004, 04:08 PM | #16 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 361
|
We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
~ Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899) |
07-03-2004, 09:57 PM | #17 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
|
|
07-03-2004, 10:12 PM | #18 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: .............
Posts: 2,914
|
Quote:
But you know that won't be enough for him Chili/Amos. |
|
07-04-2004, 04:38 PM | #19 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 361
|
Society would not tolerate legislation declaring that the theory that the sun circles the earth be given equal time with the theory of a heliocentric solar system; it should not pay attention to the equally preposterous notions of "scientific creationism"
~ Robert Ornstein Pseudoscience known by its supporters as "scientific creationism" is strict Genesis literalism masquerading as science in a cynical attempt to bypass the First Amendment and win legislatively mandated inclusion of particular (and minority) religious views into public school curricula... Intense debates about how evolution occurs display science at its most exciting, but provide no solace (only phony ammunition by willful distortion) to strict fundamentalists. ~ Stephen Jay Gould GIGO we will get out of our mind what we plant there. |
07-04-2004, 04:51 PM | #20 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,558
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|