Apply PHILOSOPHY to the argument of the TRINITY

by Terry 76 Replies latest watchtower bible

DT

Distinguish between the phenomena...............and................the description of it.
Why?
The way in which something is described (especially with language that is not mathematical) can contain metaphor because language is largely a PRACTICAL invention that deals with non-quantum events.
This is a good point. However, I would point out that when it comes to quantum mechanics, all we have is the description. Even though the description may be mathematical, it isn't actually describing the phenomena. It's merely describing the probabilities of certain results when we choose to interact with whatever is going on. We can't say what is going on when we aren't looking. I don't take the trinity seriously, but it could be argued that its contradictions are a result of problems with a poor description rather than the phenomena itself.
1. To exist, a thing must have identity. LAW OF IDENTITY. (It must be something specific)
What is the identity of an elementary particle? I'm used to specific, real things having a location. However, the double slit experiment suggests that a single particle can go through both slits at the same time and interfere with itself to form an interference pattern. We can induce it to have a specific location by observing it. It's hard to say if we are observing something real and independent or if our consciousness is merely acting to invent an experience. I find it useful to assume that reality exits outside of experience, but there is no way to prove it. The evidence appears to at least allow for the possibility that the primacy of consciousness is true.
2. A thing which exists must act according to its nature. LAW OF CAUSALITY. (a ball rolls down an incline, but, an egg wobbles and a cube slides, etc.)
A thing which actually exists and has identity and acts according to its nature cannot, at the same time, violate its own existence, identity and nature. (Anti-concept)
What is the nature of of an elementary particle? If you say it has a property like location or lack of location, then it appears to contradict that property at other times. It seems that its nature is to violate its own nature. Does that make it real or imaginary? I realise that our language seems inadequate for this, but then we should also be suspicious of any philosophy that is built on the same language.
Observation CHANGES path or location by the violent collision of light waves or electrons.
If reality exists outside of experience, then that is true. However, if reality is an invention of consciousness, then it may be more accurate to say that a particle only has path or location when we choose to make an observation. Even then this may be viewed as just an internal experience rather than something independent and external.
I agree with your criticism of those who use primacy of consciousness as a view of knowledge. It is misleading and dangerous as it is usually employed. I would generally consider the primacy of existence to be a more useful philosophy. The problem is that I can't see any way of proving which is actually correct. The best that I can do is tentatively accept primacy of existence, at least in familiar situations, while realising that it has significant limitations if it is incorrect.
Thank you for your thoughts. I hope I'm not derailing the discussion.
BurnTheShips

Our rational minds only work when we fit what is TRUE (nature and identity) with what else is true!
Our rational minds have limits. They have limited powers. There are contradictions that are nonetheless true and cannot be reconciled in our minds.
The human mind in it's current state is unable to explain certain "problems".You cannot teach a mouse to speak English.
Problems that cannot be solved have been called "mysteries".
How can a particle be in two places simultaneously?
It is "contradictory" and "irrational".
Think about that--will you?
But it still IS.
Thank you.
BTS
Terry

This is a good point. However, I would point out that when it comes to quantum mechanics, all we have is the description. Even though the description may be mathematical, it isn't actually describing the phenomena. It's merely describing the probabilities of certain results when we choose to interact with whatever is going on. We can't say what is going on when we aren't looking. I don't take the trinity seriously, but it could be argued that its contradictions are a result of problems with a poor description rather than the phenomena itself.
Descriptions OF an actually existing thing is what science is dealing with. This actually existing thing is brought into evidence by violent acts. Usually, particle accellerators smash atoms to bits and the bits are detected.
These entities are vanishingly small and last for vanishingly tiny fragments of time.
You are quite correct about the "probabilities" aspect of the description.
In view of the above---why would any of us doubt that such a description would be difficult to wrap one's work-a-day mind around?
Science, it is to be remembered, is striving to fit what is not yet known into the body of knowledge which is already in place.
Sometimes what is discovered does not fit. The concept itself undergoes redefinition at that point.
Take the ATOM which Democritus thought about before Christ. He conceived of the smallest thing that all other things were made of.
Rutherford had a more detailed conception. The discovery of the reasons for Brownian motion tipped off clever observers that the "smallest particle of an element" might itself have a constituency.
The MODEL of the ATOM looked like a planet with swarming satellites zipping around it.
Now we know that even those parts have parts.
What is the identity of an elementary particle? I'm used to specific, real things having a location. However, the double slit experiment suggests that a single particle can go through both slits at the same time and interfere with itself to form an interference pattern. We can induce it to have a specific location by observing it. It's hard to say if we are observing something real and independent or if our consciousness is merely acting to invent an experience.
Remember, those experiments are usually "explained" to us laymen in metaphor and not in math. The author of such books can make it sound spooky if he half tries. There are authors whose livlihood depends on how spooky and ethereal they can make these things sound.
The "identity" of an elementary particle is not going to be evident until we discover if there is a "smallest" particle!
These particles are what are measured when the violent act takes place, you'll recall. Take a television set and hurl it from a six story office building and examine the "particles" for identity and you'll have an analogous idea of what science is trying to piece together.
However, if reality is an invention of consciousness, then it may be more accurate to say that a particle only has path or location when we choose to make an observation. Even then this may be viewed as just an internal experience rather than something independent and external.
You see, we've all been exposed to Primacy of Consciousness for so long in our culture and entertainment that we actually have a willingness to short-circuit our own mind and intellect by allowing the plausibility of their being NO REALITY outside of our consciousness!
How is it I am sitting here in Fort Worth, Texas and you are sitting there (wherever you are) and the REALITY of this post can be grasped by your eyes--IF IT ISN'T REALITY??
Think man!
Shawn10538

Unfortunately when you try to nail down "how someone knows god is a triplet" a trinitarian will just shrug and say, "You must have faith." Of copurse in saying that they are begging the question, but they d9on't realize it.
hamilcarr

Quantum physics, at least, taught us that anything is uncertain, even God's existence and scientific theories. This paved the way for another understanding of reality beside empiricism and rationalism: a truly constructivist epistemology.
Terry

I would generally consider the primacy of existence to be a more useful philosophy. The problem is that I can't see any way of proving which is actually correct.
Man possesses a nature which he must discover. After all, he operates because of it.
The world in which man lives has a nature. Man either survives or perishes as a result of knowledge of that world.
The world is real. Food, shelter and clothing are practical human needs because of the nature of man.
Let's take a look at the difference between Primacy of Existence and Primacy of Consciousness as applies to survival.
1. A man simply decides he will not eat any food but grass and he will feed his dog catfood. He THINKS he'll survive and his dog will be fine.
Question: the nature of human nutritional needs and the dog's nutritional needs trump what the man thinks. What is the outcome of wrong thinking? Does Primacy of Consciousness win?
2.An albino woman goes to the beach and refuses to put sunblock on her skin. She is going to use baby oil instead, thinking: "As long as I keep my skin moist I'll be fine and get a good tan."
Question: "Does what she thinks outweight the reality of her pigmentation and the nature of UV rays?"
These are silly questions, but, I hope they illustrate that it doesn't matter what you THINK IS TRUE if what you think doesn't match the actual reality of nature itself; the nature of man and the nature of the world in which he lives.
You are free to think what you want. If it doesn't correspond with the facts of reality you put yourself in all kinds of jeopardy.
Religious ideas, myths, superstitions bog man down with unnecessary concerns, wrong ideas, dangerous time-wasting rituals and unplug his rational mind from a one-to-one correspondency between his mind and the real world.
Get it?
Every day you live is a TEST OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY! Does it benefit you, your life, your well being and grant you an advantage?
Or, does your Philosophy contain enough fantasy, wishful thinking and detachment from reality that you damage your health, wealth and future prospects?
Think, man, THINK!
Terry

The human mind in it's current state is unable to explain certain "problems".You cannot teach a mouse to speak English.
Are you sure a RATional mind would want a mouse to speak English?
Problems that cannot be solved have been called "mysteries".
How can a particle be in two places simultaneously?
How you frame a question determines how you view the kind of answer you'll find.
Having qualities in nature which are not understood yet has nothing to do with whether our mind is rational or not. It has to do with finding an approach to solving what is not yet known.
Compare thirst for knowlege with the problem of finding water in the desert. As the sun beats down on you and you start to "see" water where it does not exist you might blame the mystery of the universe if you like for your "vision".
But, if you know enough not to get yourself in the desert without water in the first place, or at least a good map, a guide and the intelligence to travel only at night----you avoid the problem in the first place.
You see?
Sruvival in your everyday life is not threatened by whether science can adequately explain the "particle-in-two-places (seemingly) at-once conundrum!
The rational mind works just dandy for man.
Your statement is equivalent to saying:
"A man can't be rich as long as there is money out there he doesn't own yet!"
Silly.
Terry

Unfortunately when you try to nail down "how someone knows god is a triplet" a trinitarian will just shrug and say, "You must have faith." Of copurse in saying that they are begging the question, but they d9on't realize it.
This is the purpose of this very topic!
Identifying the sort of thinking, the sort of philosophy underlying the premises of a Trinitarion enables you to understand two things:
1.How a trinitarian is able to create a concept with self-contradiction in its subsumed defintions
and
2.How to overthrow this thinking by using Primacy of Existence to point out there can be no contradictions in reality, only the appearance of contradiction.
A Trinitarian has to BELIEVE because his mind (which craves proof) is disabled!
A Trinitarian has to argue from Authority rather than from ostensible evidence because his mind has been disabled by aberrant philosophy!
Logic is the art of non-contradictory measurement.
All the advances that have ever been made among mankind stem from the use of Logic.
All the confusions, arguments, beliefs and struggles among mankind have come from fighting over contradictions which are BELIEVED and unprovable.
Where proof and evidence cease to exist only the power of violence is left to "persuade"!
Think about that, if you will.
Terry

Quantum physics, at least, taught us that anything is uncertain, even God's existence and scientific theories. This paved the way for another understanding of reality beside empiricism and rationalism: a truly constructivist epistemology.
Thank you for saying this because it is a glaring example of WRONG philosophy (Primacy of Consciousness)
Wikipedia.com says:
Constructivism has roots in philosophy, education and social constructivism. Constructivism criticizes objectivism, which embraces a static reality that is independent of human cognition; constructivism holds that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought. The reality is independent of human thought but the meaning or knowledge is always human construction. [3]
This is very subtle. It is also very deadly. It is entirely wrong.
When you look up in the night sky and see the moon--according to constructivism--you aren't seeing the moon at all---not objectively. You are "seeing" what your mind is constructing from the lightwaves which reach your brain which are interpreted as something we decide to call "moon".
Now here is where it gets really silly! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!!
The light is actually bouncing off an actual object and actually travelling to your optic nerve which actually sends a signal to your brain!
If you have been told this glowing object in the night sky is made of green cheese and you believe it THAT IS TRUE CONSTRUCTIVISM!
However, if you are told the object is a solid sphere of dust and minerals pocked with craters and hanging just outside of Earth's orbit held in place by interactive fields of gravity between 252710 miles away and 221463 miles away---then, you are dealing with objective reality.
What you THINK is only valid if what you think matches REALITY----and objective is what reality is!
We don't CONSTRUCT reality. We REconstruct from evidence of our senses.
How?
We abstract all the sensory information and piece it together from clues which come in the form of SAMENESS and DIFFERENCE.
We form CONCEPTS which are like categories of similar things.
As we sift through more and more evidence we fill our Concepts with definitions.
The more we learn, the more definitions go in the Concept "folder".
We must focus our mind willingly and objectively on the evidence provided by our senses in order NOT TO CONSTRUCT a false reality.
Think of it this way.
You go into an Art class and a naked woman model is posed on a platform.
Your objective is to draw that model and make your drawing correspond to what the model's shape, appearance and demeanor are in real life.
YOUR SKILL determines how close your drawing matches the model's TRUE apearance.
The same is true in thinking about anything anywhere anytime!
YOU MUST DEVELOP SKILL in "drawing" an exact likeness of reality.
It all starts with the correct tools of thought: PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE.
A different toolkit will give a fanciful rendition. In fact---think about this---Esthetically: the more we "add or subtract details to distort reality into a personal interpretation.....the more our artwork becomes a separate thing from reality.
This is great for Art and just horrible for science and thinking.
Knowing the difference between the art of seeing and just plain seeing determines what goes down on paper.
Think about that.
BurnTheShips

"A man can't be rich as long as there is money out there he doesn't own yet!"
You misunderstand. There is knowledge out there we have not yet acquired, which for us is acquirable, and presumably will be acquired at a future date. I do not refer to this. I do not refer to fact-getting.
We can get facts and may not be able to connect the dots.
What I mean is that human cognition is limited.
Teach a room full of low IQ, mentally handicapped individuals the scientific method--and you will never get a Principia, or any Annus Mirabilis papers. Planck invented quanta in his mind.
These beings are below a certain mental threshold.
We are also below a certain threshold, albeit a higher one.
BTS

Apply PHILOSOPHY to the argument of the TRINITY

Share this