Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

The Trinity Test

INTJ
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 1:04:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 3:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
God the Father (like water) is the source of Jesus Christ and the Holy spirit.

Jesus christ is the WORD of God, His expression, His true meaning if you will.. (As ice is made from water but different SO Christ is made from God but different)

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ after His earthly incarnation
REUNITED with the Father.. (like steam, it too originates from water but is different)

Hmm. The Analogy seems to work fine.
========================================================
========================================================
When presented as factual, statements about the nature of H2O, and about the conditions of its modes of existence…
…can be explored to see whether the words ACTUALLY APPLY.

When presented as factual, statements about the nature of the Trinity, and about the relation of its members…
…cannot be explored to see whether the words ACTUALLY APPLY.
========================================================
========================================================
Let's, for a moment, gut the word "explore" of most of its meaning, to the extent that it merely entails = "finding where it is asserted as so." Since, sometimes, "explore" does entail "finding where something is asserted as so," let's say that is all that we intend for it to mean here. So, now…

…Statements about H2O can be "found to be asserted as so" in various places of various degrees of esteem. And also…

…Statements about the Trinity can be "found to be asserted as so" in various places of various degrees of esteem.

If this is all that was meant by "explore" then we can apply a check mark to both H2O and the Trinity.
========================================================
========================================================
But now, let's give "explore" its flesh again, so that if anyone cared to know whether statements were real depictions of the actual state of affairs, one would have to take steps to…
…(1) reliably distinguish each noun of the statement, actually, not interpretatively, in order to…
…(2) ascertain whether their alleged nature is as described.
========================================================
========================================================
The Usual Objection:
"Words are not adequate to explain the relationships of spiritual things."

The Usual Objection, often arises when a theist is asked to show that his depictions are of the actual state of affairs, and can subsequently be distinguished from the "world" of the relationship of ideas and from the "world" of the checks and balances of those ideas. Realizing that his descriptions cannot be distinguished from those "worlds," the theist usually…
…admits that these are matters-of-faith, which have different standards from matters-of-fact, or the theist proclaims that words are altogether "inadequate" to express "spiritual" things [but yet, somehow, "reliable" when they assert the affirmative of his position, and "fine" when his god decided that they were good enough to express "his will" in their religious book. But, aside from those instances, such as in instances where someone would like to see that statements are more than proclamations (meaning that pointing to other proclamations won't work) well now, words are "inadequate" to explain the relationships of spiritual things.]
========================================================
========================================================
Response to The Usual Objection—The Trinity Test:
I'm coining the phrase "The Trinity Test" wherein we consider the premise that "words are inadequate to express spiritual things." The Test is as follows:

Since we can be assured of two things…
…(1) That we allegedly live among "H2O" (Yes, that does sound strange, because as soon as one "alleges so" we can check his allegation).
…(2) That we allegedly live among a God whose forms can simultaneously be The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
…here is a test where we see how many children, whom we observe and whose lives we record from day one, grow to display a functional and considerate awareness of (1) and/or (2) and their modes of existence WHEN (conditions)…

(a) They have never been formally explained their nature.
(b) They have never even been given, their proper nouns ("H2O," "water," "hydrogen," "oxygen," "Jesus," "God," "The Holy Spirit," "The Trinity") nor any of their synonyms.
(c) They have never coincidentally been described their nature via a stranger, nor the television, nor the radio, nor anyone, nor any communication medium, being that those will be monitored and delayed to be analyzed prior to transmission.

Duration of the Test: 7 years, and 9 months.
Needed for the test: Women who are in their first month of pregnancy, and are willing to sign a waiver to commit themselves, and, if upon a successful pregnancy to birth, to commit their children, to a controlled environment of constant monitoring for 7 more years. (In total, 9 months of pregnancy, plus, the 7 years following a successful pregnancy to birth, if that occurs.)

During the 9 months of pregnancy,
The women will live, and be monitored, in a comfortable and controlled environment wherein every room is fitted with stationary microphones and cameras, and the usual comforts that a middle class family could afford. They themselves will also be fitted with microphones and two designated camera persons, which they much keep throughout the seven years and nine months. All religious and scientific television channels are blocked, and all such literature removed, while the remaining channels and other communication mediums are delayed to be analyzed prior to transmission.

During the 7 years after birth,
The adults will still be monitored for the mentioning of any of the forbidden words listed above, just as the mother was monitored previously. The children will be monitored and recorded as well for visual and audio reproduction. The children will be bathed and nourished. Yes, that will require contact with water, during which times silence is required by every adult. Failure at any time to follow these rules will result in the expulsion of the child and his mother from the test. Remember, we are trying to keep these kids at the same disadvantage linguistically to explain anything regarding (1) and (2) of the allegations. We don't even want them to "explain" anything about them, when they learn to talk. We want to see how many children, when not prompted, demonstrate in action, a functional and considerate awareness of (1) and/or (2) and the extent, if any, to which they display this regarding their modes of existence.
========================================================
========================================================
What do you think would be the findings of this test?
========================================================
========================================================
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2010 3:26:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 1:04:33 PM, INTJ wrote:
At 6/2/2010 3:56:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
God the Father (like water) is the source of Jesus Christ and the Holy spirit.

Jesus christ is the WORD of God, His expression, His true meaning if you will.. (As ice is made from water but different SO Christ is made from God but different)

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ after His earthly incarnation
REUNITED with the Father.. (like steam, it too originates from water but is different)

Hmm. The Analogy seems to work fine.
========================================================
========================================================
When presented as factual, statements about the nature of H2O, and about the conditions of its modes of existence…
…can be explored to see whether the words ACTUALLY APPLY.

When presented as factual, statements about the nature of the Trinity, and about the relation of its members…
…cannot be explored to see whether the words ACTUALLY APPLY.
========================================================
========================================================
Let's, for a moment, gut the word "explore" of most of its meaning, to the extent that it merely entails = "finding where it is asserted as so." Since, sometimes, "explore" does entail "finding where something is asserted as so," let's say that is all that we intend for it to mean here. So, now…

…Statements about H2O can be "found to be asserted as so" in various places of various degrees of esteem. And also…

…Statements about the Trinity can be "found to be asserted as so" in various places of various degrees of esteem.

If this is all that was meant by "explore" then we can apply a check mark to both H2O and the Trinity.
========================================================
========================================================
But now, let's give "explore" its flesh again, so that if anyone cared to know whether statements were real depictions of the actual state of affairs, one would have to take steps to…
…(1) reliably distinguish each noun of the statement, actually, not interpretatively, in order to…
…(2) ascertain whether their alleged nature is as described.
========================================================
========================================================
The Usual Objection:
"Words are not adequate to explain the relationships of spiritual things."

The Usual Objection, often arises when a theist is asked to show that his depictions are of the actual state of affairs, and can subsequently be distinguished from the "world" of the relationship of ideas and from the "world" of the checks and balances of those ideas. Realizing that his descriptions cannot be distinguished from those "worlds," the theist usually…
…admits that these are matters-of-faith, which have different standards from matters-of-fact, or the theist proclaims that words are altogether "inadequate" to express "spiritual" things [but yet, somehow, "reliable" when they assert the affirmative of his position, and "fine" when his god decided that they were good enough to express "his will" in their religious book. But, aside from those instances, such as in instances where someone would like to see that statements are more than proclamations (meaning that pointing to other proclamations won't work) well now, words are "inadequate" to explain the relationships of spiritual things.]
========================================================
========================================================
Response to The Usual Objection—The Trinity Test:
I'm coining the phrase "The Trinity Test" wherein we consider the premise that "words are inadequate to express spiritual things." The Test is as follows:

Since we can be assured of two things…
…(1) That we allegedly live among "H2O" (Yes, that does sound strange, because as soon as one "alleges so" we can check his allegation).
…(2) That we allegedly live among a God whose forms can simultaneously be The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
…here is a test where we see how many children, whom we observe and whose lives we record from day one, grow to display a functional and considerate awareness of (1) and/or (2) and their modes of existence WHEN (conditions)…

(a) They have never been formally explained their nature.
(b) They have never even been given, their proper nouns ("H2O," "water," "hydrogen," "oxygen," "Jesus," "God," "The Holy Spirit," "The Trinity") nor any of their synonyms.
(c) They have never coincidentally been described their nature via a stranger, nor the television, nor the radio, nor anyone, nor any communication medium, being that those will be monitored and delayed to be analyzed prior to transmission.

Duration of the Test: 7 years, and 9 months.
Needed for the test: Women who are in their first month of pregnancy, and are willing to sign a waiver to commit themselves, and, if upon a successful pregnancy to birth, to commit their children, to a controlled environment of constant monitoring for 7 more years. (In total, 9 months of pregnancy, plus, the 7 years following a successful pregnancy to birth, if that occurs.)

During the 9 months of pregnancy,
The women will live, and be monitored, in a comfortable and controlled environment wherein every room is fitted with stationary microphones and cameras, and the usual comforts that a middle class family could afford. They themselves will also be fitted with microphones and two designated camera persons, which they much keep throughout the seven years and nine months. All religious and scientific television channels are blocked, and all such literature removed, while the remaining channels and other communication mediums are delayed to be analyzed prior to transmission.

During the 7 years after birth,
The adults will still be monitored for the mentioning of any of the forbidden words listed above, just as the mother was monitored previously. The children will be monitored and recorded as well for visual and audio reproduction. The children will be bathed and nourished. Yes, that will require contact with water, during which times silence is required by every adult. Failure at any time to follow these rules will result in the expulsion of the child and his mother from the test. Remember, we are trying to keep these kids at the same disadvantage linguistically to explain anything regarding (1) and (2) of the allegations. We don't even want them to "explain" anything about them, when they learn to talk. We want to see how many children, when not prompted, demonstrate in action, a functional and considerate awareness of (1) and/or (2) and the extent, if any, to which they display this regarding their modes of existence.
========================================================
========================================================
What do you think would be the findings of this test?
========================================================
========================================================

It's an analogy and as an analogy of the Supernatural via the natural it must be imperfect:

The Supernatural is perfect, the natural imperfect.
The Cross.. the Cross.
INTJ
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 8:06:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/7/2010 3:26:35 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
It's an analogy and as an analogy of the Supernatural via the natural it must be imperfect:

The Supernatural is perfect, the natural imperfect.
========================================================
========================================================
I know fully well what analogies are.
Can we agree that analogies are made of statements?

With analogies we present cases for likenesses among subjects. If someone wanted to know the extent to which the likenesses held or did not hold, the person is still at the circumstance I described when I talked about statements in general. Which is, we can attempt to talk about a statement's "present-tense accuracy," by referencing other assertions—and you reference a highly esteemed source and I reference a highly esteemed source. Or, we could we could take steps to (1) reliably distinguish the subjects, actually, not interpretatively, in the present tense, in order to (2) ascertain the extent to which they are as described.

If you say that the Trinity is REAL/ACTUAL/NOT-MADE-UP and you the same about water, there should be some way to explore cases for likenesses among them and statements about them in general.
========================================================
========================================================
Now, back to The Trinity Test….
Does anyone here think that none of the children would be able to demonstrate a functional and considerate awareness of the Trinity, until perhaps after the test is over and someone tells them to navigate their lives considering it? Would it be better if the duration of the test were extended? Would that help? Is seven years enough time to encounter God often enough to learn about the Trinity?
========================================================
========================================================
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 9:51:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So what you are saying is that the father, the son, and the holy ghost are all made out of the same molecules because that is what ice, water, and steam have in common... they are all different configurations of the same molecules depending on outside conditions.

So this raises a few questions:

1.) What is it that the three different states of God are made of and what proof of this do you have? The Bible says nothing about what God is made of, so what basis do you have for making this analogy? Are you just searching for whatever analogies you can no matter how baseless and claming this must be the case simply because it is the only thing you can think of that comes close to fitting?

2.) Do you admit that this totally destroys the concept that God is eternal (or the cosmological argument), because this now requires each of the three states of God to be composed of the same thing (and obviously this thing must exist prior to the three states of God being composed of it).

3.) The states of matter are dependent on outside forces (mainly temperature and pressure) to determine the state. So what outside force caused the "elements of God" to arrange themselves into the three states in which you claim they exist? Also, how you know this?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 3:00:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 8:06:53 AM, INTJ wrote:
At 6/7/2010 3:26:35 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
It's an analogy and as an analogy of the Supernatural via the natural it must be imperfect:

The Supernatural is perfect, the natural imperfect.
========================================================
========================================================
I know fully well what analogies are.
Can we agree that analogies are made of statements?

With analogies we present cases for likenesses among subjects. If someone wanted to know the extent to which the likenesses held or did not hold, the person is still at the circumstance I described when I talked about statements in general. Which is, we can attempt to talk about a statement's "present-tense accuracy," by referencing other assertions—and you reference a highly esteemed source and I reference a highly esteemed source. Or, we could we could take steps to (1) reliably distinguish the subjects, actually, not interpretatively, in the present tense, in order to (2) ascertain the extent to which they are as described.

If you say that the Trinity is REAL/ACTUAL/NOT-MADE-UP and you the same about water, there should be some way to explore cases for likenesses among them and statements about them in general.
========================================================
========================================================
Now, back to The Trinity Test….
Does anyone here think that none of the children would be able to demonstrate a functional and considerate awareness of the Trinity, until perhaps after the test is over and someone tells them to navigate their lives considering it? Would it be better if the duration of the test were extended? Would that help? Is seven years enough time to encounter God often enough to learn about the Trinity?
========================================================
========================================================

We MUST keep in mind that an analogy of the trinity is completely unique as there is One god.
The Cross.. the Cross.