Spirituality
23 May 08
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI balk at this because it is incoherent. Either an entity -- irrespective of its eternal state or not --
Why do baulk at this? You presumably would not baulk at the idea that light is both a particle and a wave?
is or is not omniscient. It cannot be both.
Of course, your analogy with light is totally incongruent; being a wave or particle is not only
not mutually exclusive, but is the case with all things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
I don't question it because there is no contradiction (although it is mystifying). Now, if someone
said that light is both a wave and not a wave at the same time, that would arouse the same
sentiment that I feel when you say God is both omniscient and not omniscient at the same time,
the sentiment of incredulity.
Nemesio
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by NemesioBut surely a wave is not a particle and vice versa. Therefore when someone says that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time aren't they saying that light is a wave and not a wave?
I balk at this because it is incoherent. Either an entity -- irrespective of its eternal state or not --
is or is not omniscient. It cannot be both.
Of course, your analogy with light is totally incongruent; being a wave or particle is not only
not mutually exclusive, but is the case with all things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particl ...[text shortened]... both omniscient and not omniscient at the same time,
the sentiment of incredulity.
Nemesio
I wonder why you find it mystifying as well (but not contradictory) because I also find God as omniscient (father) and God as not omniscient (jesus) mystifying but not contradictory.
So how about if one aspect of God was omniscient and another wasn't?
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by duecerbut there are stories of so called angels stepping in during traumatic times in peoples lives, if you believe in god you probably believe in angels.. if they can step in for one person why not 6 million?
its not a matter of "allow". If God steps in everytime someone is about to do some horrible thing, it infringes upon our free will. God didn't kill the Jews, God didn't set up the context in which Jews were killed. We were given, at the time of creation, the tools with which to survive. We were given intellect, reason, emotion, natural resources etc... We wer ...[text shortened]... ngs, they do that far too easily on their own. I reiterate, it isn't a matter of "allow"
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou really don't understand physics.
But surely a wave is not a particle and vice versa. Therefore when someone says that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time aren't they saying that light is a wave and not a wave?
I wonder why you find it mystifying as well (but not contradictory) because I also find God as omniscient (father) and God as not omniscient (jesus) mystify ...[text shortened]... ot contradictory.
So how about if one aspect of God was omniscient and another wasn't?
Light is neither a particle nor a wave. However, under certain circumstances it behaves, and can be described, as both.
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterNot so at all. Matter is neither particle nor wave. Those are just models. They are also not contradictory but apply in different situations. In fact the wave aspect is simply a probability wave of the location of a particle. So when thought of as a wave, it is still a particle. When thought of as a particle, it is still a wave, we simply are so sure of its position that we can ignore the probability that it is not where we think it is ie the wavelength is so short as to be unimportant.
But surely a wave is not a particle and vice versa. Therefore when someone says that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time aren't they saying that light is a wave and not a wave?
The reason for the wave is that we do not have a perfect record of the past. When we detect a particle we can never be absolutely sure where it came from. There is always more than one possible past. We see reality as a sort of sum of all possible pasts.
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhitehead" There is always more than one possible past. We see reality as a sort of sum of all possible pasts."------whitey
Not so at all. Matter is neither particle nor wave. Those are just models. They are also not contradictory but apply in different situations. In fact the wave aspect is simply a probability wave of the location of a particle. So when thought of as a wave, it is still a particle. When thought of as a particle, it is still a wave, we simply are so sure of i ...[text shortened]... re is always more than one possible past. We see reality as a sort of sum of all possible pasts.
What does that mean?
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do understand I was just using Neme's logic in reverse. I understand fully that what we are saying is that light behaves like a wave and like a particle. Of course , I expect you to underestimate my knowledge of physics because I am an utter dimwit by definition because I am a believer in Christ. Anyone who believes in God has to be an idiot yes???
You really don't understand physics.
Light is neither a particle nor a wave. However, under certain circumstances it behaves, and can be described, as both.
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut you didn't use 'my logic.' You used an analogy that was incoherent. You say, without balking,
I do understand I was just using Neme's logic in reverse. I understand fully that what we are saying is that light behaves like a wave and like a particle. Of course , I expect you to underestimate my knowledge of physics because I am an utter dimwit by definition because I am a believer in Christ. Anyone who believes in God has to be an idiot yes???
that God is both omniscient and not omniscient (which is utter nonsense). Then you try mollify
objectors by saying it's just like light, which is both a particle and a wave (which is simply false).
Nemesio
07 Jun 08
Originally posted by NemesioLet's imagine a Christian who believed in the Trinity said " God can both die and also he cannot die" or " God is both eternal and spiritual but also fully human" or "God is both in human form and also omnipotent" .
But you didn't use 'my logic.' You used an analogy that was incoherent. You say, without balking,
that God is both omniscient and not omniscient (which is utter nonsense). Then you try mollify
objectors by saying it's just like light, which is both a particle and a wave (which is simply false).
Nemesio
Would you say they are being self contradictory within their belief system?
You might say it was mysterious or even untrue , but self contradictory?
You see your logic is based on your way of expressing reality. Maybe I should have said that at times God behaves and is unknowing and at others he isn't. God, like light , is not some static object but a moving entity who can create , feel , think , and weep tears. Becuase of my understanding of God I see no contradiction although I can undertsand why it seems incoherent to those who look at God as if he was a scientific formula.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, but apparently they must have a persecution complex.
I do understand I was just using Neme's logic in reverse. I understand fully that what we are saying is that light behaves like a wave and like a particle. Of course , I expect you to underestimate my knowledge of physics because I am an utter dimwit by definition because I am a believer in Christ. Anyone who believes in God has to be an idiot yes???
I myself, do not understand many things. I don't understand how superconductors work, for example. I'm quite happy to admit the things I don't understand, a talent you, apparently, lack.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow so ? I'm simply putting forward a position on this issue and being told that my ideas are utter rot without any major justification or argument. At least I have a position , and I will state it confidently , just like you would.
No, but apparently they must have a persecution complex.
I myself, do not understand many things. I don't understand how superconductors work, for example. I'm quite happy to admit the things I don't understand, a talent you, apparently, lack.
So I ask again , how does the fact that you know Hitler's future prove that his actions and choices must have been pre destined?
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy knowing Hitler's future, as a future person, logically necessitate Hitler's present actions at the time he committed them. If Hitler had done anything other than those actions, I would know a different history.
How so ? I'm simply putting forward a position on this issue and being told that my ideas are utter rot without any major justification or argument. At least I have a position , and I will state it confidently , just like you would.
So I ask again , how does the fact that you know Hitler's future prove that his actions and choices must have been pre destined?
This seems very unclear, but now, in 2008, I know what Hitler did in say, 1933. In 1932 he didn't know what he'd do in 1933, but I can say now, in 2008, with absolute certainty what he'd do. For my present to be true (which it is) he could not have done anything else. For example, if he had not committed the holocaust, my history, his 1932 future, would not be true.
The same is true with God. If God exists in the future, or even independently of time, if He knows the future, then hw knows what the past MUST be. Since, for God, everything is the past, He must know everything that will happen. In which case, we are following down a road already known, even if not to us.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThey are most definitely self contradictory and such a God cannot exist. You can of course try to get out of it by creatively interpreting the language, but that would be comiting fraud. You could for example say "when I said God in part 1 I meant entity A during period B and in part 2 I ment entity B during period C." But since you say "God is both" and not "God(A) is X and God(B) is Y", you could hardly get away with it. Also since your statement is effectively universal (eg "God cannot die"😉 it leaves no room for time factors or other situation diferences. If you say that God did die once, then your statement "God cannot die" is false.
Let's imagine a Christian who believed in the Trinity said " God can both die and also he cannot die" or " God is both eternal and spiritual but also fully human" or "God is both in human form and also omnipotent" .
Would you say they are being self contradictory within their belief system?
You might say it was mysterious or even untrue , but self contradictory?
The above is a major reason why some people believe that the Trinity is an incoherent concept because it is oftain claimed that God is both one and three (a contradiction and thus incoherent) rather than a claim that a single God can manifsest in three different ways or is made of three different parts or is three different beings in different places and times but in other places and times is only one.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhitehead"The above is a major reason why some people believe that the Trinity is an incoherent concept because it is oftain claimed that God is both one and three (a contradiction and thus incoherent) rather than a claim that a single God can manifsest in three different ways or is made of three different parts or is three different beings in different places and times but in other places and times is only one." ---whitey
They are most definitely self contradictory and such a God cannot exist. You can of course try to get out of it by creatively interpreting the language, but that would be comiting fraud. You could for example say "when I said God in part 1 I meant entity A during period B and in part 2 I ment entity B during period C." But since you say "God is both" and ...[text shortened]... ferent beings in different places and times but in other places and times is only one.
RESPONSE-----------
But when I say God is one and three I do not mean there are 3 Gods and neither does any Christian I know. you have actually provided the correct idea of the trinity in your statement here alongside your own missinterpretation. In a way you have actually answered your own question.
I don't see the problem of a single entity containing constituent parts which have different qualities. Our own bodies contain many parts which have different qualities and very different ones. I can say that the body is both very soft and very hard. I can say that it is complex and simple. I can say it is red and not red. I can even say that it can die and not die (bones). I can describe the living entity of the body as a combination of it's various parts. I could do the same with Africa and say that Africa is both arid and incredibly lush without any contradictions. As long as one knows that the statements refer to the constituent parts there is no contradiction. The trinity is the same , where's the problem?
It's Ok , don't worry , just conceding this simple point does not mean you are on the road to becoming a loony christian or anything .LOL