The debate "Trinity - concept NOT from the Bible it is a man-made concept thus also not a teaching of Jesus" was started by
July 31, 2016, 5:01 am.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
wdz posted 26 arguments, Nemiroff posted 19 arguments to the agreers part.
blakelovesjesus posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, JakobBoghora, wdz, thereal and 5 visitors agree.
John_Roel, blakelovesjesus, reagmc, Blue_ray, fadi, Neopatriarch, KiwiSheepTrainer and 8 visitors disagree.
they did write them and you can see the evidence in the poor greek language of the writer of the book of revelation john and also the writer of the book of john was john himself so what you are claiming to be evidence is not evidence it is just wikipedia which any ordinary person including me and can edit it so that is no solid proof
I provided evidence in another debate. the Bible WAS NOT written by the apostles. it may have been written by men who knew the apostles. the books of the Bible were named after them, they did not write them.
it was written by his disciples john and mathew and mark and luke who knew him but were not one of the twelve to say that the events of the bible are wrong is against common sense it was written by people who saw these events with their eyes and heard these words with their ears
everything in the Bible was written decades after the death of Christ by people who never met him. I doubt very much of what is in the Bible came from Jesus. and one offhand remark in the Bible doesn't tell you very much. it doesn't tell you anything about the concept of the Trinity. maybe the holy spirit was metaphorical? lord knows the rest of the Bible is full of metaphors.
Jesus said to baptize in the Father son and holy ghost
god is trinity it is the fundamental on which the christian faith is based you can't deny biblical verses that established this principals
17they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, ?All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.?
And we agree there, that set infinite could be a god; I am fully aware that using the term "God" creates certain connotations of a Christianity-inspired, human-like God, which I completely reject and I understand subconsciously people have that connotation of "God" from what they have been brought up with, thus it becomes difficult to understand what one person means by "God" to what another person thinks they mean.
My point is that God didn't develop spontaneously, it is necessary to understand that the creator was always there.
The analogy with the rocks on earth doesn't work as inorganic, inanimate objects like rock couldn't bring about Organic, animate living organisms. Yes, rocks and inorganic matter in earth existed before living organisms, but they did not originate them.
It is much more logical for me to believe that a conscious, all-powerful and knowledgeable being (non-human!) brought about all creation in specific, superior design, with specific laws and purpose, than to believe that an inanimate, non-conscious object (not a being, with consciousness) brought it all about.
One of the main differences is Will; some Will needs to be acted at the START to bring it all about, without a conscious will at the START, nothing would ever be created. Like a domino effect, "something" with a Will had to knock over the 1st domino.
I agree eventually you would need either a creation from nothing or a set infinite. I didn't throw that in cause clearly our universe is not that set infinite.
that set infinite could be a god, or it could be a nonliving megaverse that, like god, always existed or came from nothing. I just feel that if something were to develop spontaneously or be the initial cause, the likelihood of nonconscious inanimateness developing first is more logical than a sentient being, much like on earth rocks preceded life. I'm not saying that as a fact, but as the most probable in my opinion.
There is a big difference between necessary truth and faith; faith you can have disagreements about, but you cannot deny Necessary truths
I don't disagree with the possibility of universes within universes, or even parallel universes or multiverses, but there would ultimately have to be an uncaused cause which initiated/created the universes.
So as you say, which I agree, that time exists as part of the universe, and is part of the fabric of the universe known as space time, then if no universe or universes existed at some point, then no time would exist. Time was established when the universe came into being. At T = 0, space time began, and then within millionths of a milliseconds, the universe developed and expanded. If you say time alone existed before the universe existed, then we are completely going against all established science
"Then it would be reasonable to deduce that some entity/energy/being outside of universal existence caused the universe to begin. Is there anything more logical than that?"
you forgot thing as opposed to energy or being. I believe there has to be a "universe" that contains our universe and possibly many others. to support that one must understand that time is a part of our universe and tied directly to space as Einstein demonstrated dubbing it spacetime. thus many scientists (and I disagree with them based on logic as I will show) declared that asking what came before the big bang is invalid since you can't have before without time.
whether we are considering a God or godless activity, an action or event happening without time sounds ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination, thus whatever is outside of the universe it must have time, and consequently, space.
Quran does not explicitly discuss which order creation occurred: earth then heavens, or heavens then earth. Some verses which discuss creation include
Are the disbelievers not aware that the heavens and the earth used to be joined together and that We ripped them apart, that We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe?
"What in the Quran is contrary to currently confirmed knowledge? Please state with references"
I have not read the quran, but I'm assuming the only relevant part (creation) is similar to that of the old testament.
God first created the earth, and then the heavens. utterly ludicrous.
God created plants before animals. unless you don't consider fish animals, also wrong.
no. electronegativity is purely an atomic property. reactivity is a more general chemical property of various molecules.
"Are you also trying to apply this to the origination of the universe?"
no, just life.
Also, is electronegativity synonymous with reactivity?
"You leave a puddle of the highly combinable upper right hand corner atoms in sufficient heat (aka atomic motion) magic will happen".
Does the sufficient heat count as external input?
Are you also trying to apply this to the origination of the universe?
Also, from my previous post:
- What in the Quran is contrary to currently confirmed knowledge? Please state with references
of course it wont. to explain that one needs to examine a bit of chemistry. all of the complex molecules, particularly the ones that make up life, are from the first line of the periodic table, mostly the upper right corner really, and water aside, mostly just carbon. the rest of the table is rather inert, including most of the components of your phone.
the measure is called electronegativity and is mostly a fancy way of describing how close the positive nucleus is to the outer shell of the atom and how much pull it can exert on external electrons in order to combine.
you leave a puddle of the highly combinable upper right hand corner atoms in sufficient heat (aka atomic motion) magic will happen.
Separate question: I have completely disassembled an iPhone, and laid all the pieces out on a floor, separate from one another. With infinite time, and no external input, will the phone ever be fully reassembled?
I am not saying rational thinking is separate from science, but in some cases science cannot give the answers based on its inherent limits and assumptions that need to be made, which in of themselves require logical reasoning. Science can't even prove itself.
I don't think there is any sort of bias involved when you deduce that something that came into existence (universe) must have had a beginning, and for it to begin, it would have to have been initiated in some way, or it would not begin. Then it would be reasonable to deduce that some entity/energy/being outside of universal existence caused the universe to begin. Is there anything more logical than that?
What has been "found" or is "known" of the outside of the universe? We have not found or know anything based in science about this.
Also, energy and matter are constituents of the physical universe. Considering an external eternal entity separate from the universe which caused the universe to come into existence is based on necessity for the universe to exist.
What in the Quran is contrary to current knowledge? Please state with references
" I am not claiming that Rational thinking is the only way to understand the world around us; it is also another valid method just like the scientific method. Science allows us to understand the material world around us using the scientific method; but that is where it starts and ends (hence understood more about the earth e.g.). Science cannot explain subjects outside the scope of the physical world. If you believe otherwise, you are exemplifying blind faith. "
are you saying that rational thinking is separate from science? science refines limited rational thinking by removing bias and isolating variables.
my beliefs (faith) regarding what is outside the universe are not blind guesses. they are very much grounded in what is known and what has been found. however, much like god, it has not been proven. it is still based on faith, blind or not.
any perceived illogicalness over an unguided creation from nothing can equally be applied to the origins of god. claiming a highly intelligent and all powerful being has no origin seems as much, if not more, a leap of faith as assuming energy and basic elements of matter have no origin. beyond that which is proven, all things are faith of varying blindness.
the only thing I consider to be blind faith is a dogmatic LITERAL interpretation of a text that if read literally runs counter to much of what we have found to be true. the most ludicrous assumption is that a superior or supreme being would not oversimplify when talking to inferior primatives.
I don't know about others, but my belief is NOT based on blind faith; I am not ignorant of the evidences around me, including "this" book
Blind faith is believing this universe came from NOTHING, and that nothing created all the material sum of the universe.
Out of curiosity, have you read the Quran in Arabic? if not, have you read the English translation of the meaning of the Arabic? I just want to better gauge what perspective you're coming from. You state there is no evidence that this book is true, so you are either saying this out of ignorance, or having read the Quran and then somehow come to that conclusion.
Nemiroff - you have completely misunderstood me. I am not claiming that Rational thinking is the only way to understand the world around us; it is also another valid method just like the scientific method. Science allows us to understand the material world around us using the scientific method; but that is where it starts and ends (hence understood more about the earth e.g.). Science cannot explain subjects outside the scope of the physical world. If you believe otherwise, you are exemplifying blind faith.
Note: my faith in God DOES NOT automatically make me reject Science, rather greater understanding in science provides me greater belief in God
rational thinking dictated that the earth was *obviously* still and not moving through space.
rational thinking dictated that time was *obviously* not relative.
rational thinking is limited by our limited perspective and has been disproven many times by objective experimentation.
no, it is based on blind faith in a book. there is no evidence that book is true. there is no evidence that life had an intelligent designer.
But my claim on a creator/originator of all creation is not based on a guess, it's based on reasoning and rational thinking.
it is. science has not gone that far yet. it is a guess. science does not claim what it has not proven. if it did it would called religion.
Simply stating things can exist without a creator is based on faith.
it's not about understanding through science, it's about knowing through science. science may not be able to reveal all, but what it reveals we know. God and religion is a matter of faith, and the answers of one religion are equally valid as the answers of another.
I believe that things can exist without a conscious creator.
I agree with you that we both choose to act and choose NOT to act.
the problem immediately begins that all things can only be understood through the lense of science.
Also, the scenario you described is extremely hypothetical that it's not even worth contemplating; too many assumptions made.
so you believe their is no conscious will required for all the particles to come into existence, no conscious will to exhibit the laws of this universe (& not any other laws) and to lead to specific actions/effects (& nothing else)?
I believe the experiment I read about was actual an old experiment known as the libet experiments of the 80s. there were several modifications in follow up experiments, each with its critics and no consensus so far. it is a complicated subject afterall.
I will have to look over this page and contemplate some more on this tomorrow, but is definitely an interesting read and a work in progress.
I am arguing about the relationship between perfection and free will. claiming that they can't exist together.
I do not believe in free will based on a scientific explanation. if all particles since the beginning of the universe are simply following the laws of physics. if one is able to build a super computer programmed with all the laws of physics and the original locations of all the particles, capable of following all of their complex interactions and motions through all of time thus far, it should be able to predict all things including our actions.
it is a form of determinism but lacks any conscious control.
an interesting study i read regarding neurology which looked at decision making under an mri scanner found that our choices are predetermined, but our conscious will gives us the ability to override those automatic decisions. therefore it is not that we chose to act, but we can chose to not act. I forgot the details of the experiment, but that was a conclusion. I'm not sure if it was replicated or how it fits into my deterministic philosophy. my view on this is still technically a work in progress.
are you arguing our freedom, or gods freedom?
God doesnt need an excuse. God being all -good cannot by nature do bad, whatever appears bad to us is limited by our relative understanding of what is bad. Everything god wills is good, so there is no choice involved, so god doesn't require excuses. thus, gods free will remains intact.
Also, it needs to be noted that not only doesn't god intervene with his will, but gods will also 'allows' things to happen. Nothing occurs without his knowledge, everything happens with his permission, though that does not mean God is constantly intervening. Our free choice is acted upon the opportunities we are exposed to, whether they 'occur' is through the will of God. Our will is limited, yes, but gods will is not.
With regards to perfection - doesn't matter what time period you go to, the judgement of what is perfect to us is all relative to us. But that doesn't defy gods absolute perfection. But I don't understand your point about God "coming to us" at the earliest points in civilisation?
Also, you agree we have free will? Why do you think we have free will? Does it have a purpose? Why weren't we just created as beings who could not choose instead?
I am not disputing that, but whatever the perspective is, his choices, although not understandable by us, are limited to only one possible course. is that freedom?
we imperfect beings can claim ignorance of an optimal path, powerless to carry it out, or not perfectly good and choose a less than optimal approach. that is the essence of our free will. the choice to do bad. God does not have such excuses.
of course I question perfection. as I said, if we were to go back to the stone age with a handful of modern tools, we would appear to them to be perfect. God supposedly came to us at the earliest stages of our civilization. can we trust these savages to accurately judge perfection? but assuming perfection, I question will.
yes, the creator will take the optimal course, but not by our standards of what is optimal, but by Gods own standards which are part of his all-good nature. Our good is relative; the creators is absolute; God "is" all-good
it defies the nature of the all-powerful creator to create a rock he cannot lift. This does not mean the creator can't do everything, this means that the creator does not work impossibilities (anything that cannot exist). Also, in arguments regarding the above, their is an assumption that both premises (unstoppable force & immovable object) can co-exist; as if one exists, the other cannot by default.
the number of actions and situations is irrelevant. he will take the optimal course regardless of the number of situations or actions required.
perfection appears to be a double edged sword. it may be as incompatible with free will as creating something so heavy he can't lift is incompatible with omnipotence. our very freedom may be tied to our imperfection.
unless God can be malicious (perhaps not the perfect word) and choose to take certain actions for the fun of it.
but again, your assumption is that God only makes decisions one situation at a time. The unbounded creator who is not limited by time can will a multiplicity of actions for all times, whether god decides to is irrelevant, but from the point of his free will not existing, that is not the case
but would he not choose only the most good action in any situation (omnibenevolence)? combined with the knowledge of all possible actions and the power to carry them all out, a perfect being would really have very little choice in his actions.
you seem to assume that Gods will can only result in one action? Gods will has no limitation on the multiplicity of actions. From that point of view, Gods free will has not be negated, as his will to cause what us possible is still unlimited. Thus, choice is not a factor when it comes to god; the creator can will what he wants (within the realms of possibility), when he wants.
well if you believe in all 3 qualities (wdz did not confirm or deny omnibenevolence) then in any situation God will know all possible actions he can take. he also has the power to take all those possible actions, and due to omnibenevolence, he will only choose the action that is most good (be his definition)
in light of these premises, in any given situation God will only take 1 possible actions (the best one), therefore can it be said that God has free will?
if God has no choice in his actions, can he be considered to be sentient or conscious? would it not be more accurate to call him an impersonal force of nature (or force of creation) that was personalized by us for our convenience? would he be more similar to gravity or magnetism rather than something that would qualify as a "being."
Yes, I do believe that.
all-powerful means the greatest power, nothing more powerful, nothing equal in power, the source of all power. Power over all things which are possible.
in Islam, we believe that God is all-knowing, in that God knows everything there is to know, past present and future all at once, but God also knows what will NOT happen, but if it were to happen, God would also know how. God knows all possibilities and all eventualities. Though do not mistaken this to mean gods knowledge means that he controls what happens. He has given us as Humans free choice (I don't use the term free will) as God has allowed us to choose from the opportunities we are given, but God already knows what we choose (not bound by time), while we experience our choices as we go alone with time.
We believe in omnipresence in the sense that God is forever present, never beginning to exist, never ceasing to exist. His Divinity encompasses the entire universe, but he is not physically bound by it; his presence is distinct from the universe
-I never said the lack of knowledge proves a God nor did I give any proof to support God. I simply corrected your argument because it had many things that were factually incorrect.
-Nobody knows if some sort of physical law governs outside of the universe, we do not know if particles popping outside of our universe would be relevant in this case. It is also irrelevant if you have a hard time believing that there is nothing outside of the universe because we do not know that for certain as you said.
-Simply looking at the bible for all the answers would be wrong to because alot of things are left out only for us to discover.
-However, if we do take the bible and look in it for answers, we would hear that there was a time that space expanded and we would find this to be relevant in todays scientific world.
what is the difference between all powerful and just extremely super powerful to a bunch of knowledgeless primitives? would they be able to tell the difference?
also, do you believe God is all 3, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?
the big bang is a fact, not a belief, the cause of which may very well be a creator or a mundane cause. although it's representation as an explosion (Aka a bang) is debatable, the universe expanding from a small point is not.
you are assuming there is nothing outside the universe, which I have a hard time imagining. in which case it can naturally be created by an extrauniversal cause that is both nondivine and not from nothing. of course that is based on faith as we have no way of seeing outside the universe to confirm. this is simply my belief. it is a guess. no different in my opinion than god, however original as God has been the answer for millenia to numerous unknown questions which have eventually received mundane answers.
as I said, a lack of knowledge doesn't automatically validate a (also faith based) "God did it" answer. God is always a possibility, but no longer the only one.
also, all powerful can be based on perception. if we were to go back to the stone age with a helicopter, guns, a rocket launcher, and access to an encyclopedia, we will be viewed as all powerful all knowing beings. I do not like infinities, and much prefer relatives. rather than describing the complex workings of the big bang and evolution to a bunch of primitives, a simplification would be less of a headache to explain. assuming the whole story was not imagined by smart people to bring order and control to the masses.
-Nemiroff, you argument against God is based on the lack of knowledge on God. I clap and applause.
-We have observed particles popping out of nowhere in a universe built and held together by laws. We have not seen these actions take place outside of our universe where there may be nothing and where it would be relevant if it were to be true. Therefore, the universe being formed naturally is based on sheer faith.
-The same goes with life being created naturally. It is based on sheer faith.
Do you believe in the big bang? if so, would you class this as being close to the start of the existence of the universe?
Let's stick with the word creator as it usually has less stigma attached to it. There are two scenarios: either there was a creator pre-existing before the universe, or there was no creator, and so either the universe created itself, created from nothing, or was never created (always existed)? Which do you believe?
To answer who is God? - God (or the creator) is a being nothing like the creation, or nothing like what we can imagine. God must be the uncaused cause, outside the space and time of this universe (or even multiverse, which I do not reject it's possibility). To ask where did god come from? - God never came into anything, God always was. For before Time existed, the original cause (God) must've existed. So as it was not bound by time, it has always existed.
God/creator also exists alone outside our realm of reality, as any other being besides the one creator would create conflicts with every aspect of God, such as being all-powerful (cannot apply as "the power" would be shared).
I have no idea. we would have to see what is beyond the universe to understand its creation. I don't believe ignorance necessitates a "God did it" answer. at one point we though the galaxy was the universe, but with better technology we saw that there was much more beyond it which gave many answers.
the current state is complex but easily explained by the simplicity of its original state. where that came from is still unknown but what is known is that the universe was at one point very small, quantum sized, and we know that quantum particles do come in and out of existence. we have seen it happen in real time.
simply saying God created it only leads to where is god? where did he come from? does he exist alone in a complete vacuum? or is he a being in a greater universe outside of our own creating us like we grow bacteria in a petri dish or a virtual world in cyberspace. to primitive precivilization people even we may seem all powerful.
It appears you contradicted yourself there, saying the that universe is not complex, while also explaining yourself how it reaches its current complexity?
Even if you do not believe the universe is complex, does that negate the existence of a creator?
What is your perspective on the creation of the universe? Do you believe it came into existence? if so, what do you believe caused it's creation?
I disagree that the universe is complex. it certainly has grown in scope since it's creation but originally it was a small mixture of very limited particles.
it is the fusion of these particles within the early stars that bread the current complexity from a handful of elements.
You say there is no proof of God. what type of proof is required? Is scientific, empirical evidence the only acceptable proof? What about Logic, deduction, ontological, cause-effect argument, or even scriptural evidences; could they not be used as proofs as well?
regarding impossibilities - well of course, God cannot do impossibilities - such as existing and not existing at the same time as it is a contradiction of Gods existence, which is impossible. However, this does not mean god is weak; god has power over all things which are possible. That is usually a better way of describing gods absolute power
regarding the universe - it is reasonable to believe that something as complex as the universe must have had a designer who was not within the realms of the universe, or limited by the laws of the space and time
hmm there aint any proof of god.
secondly god cannot make impossible things possible.
and the aspects that make me believe is the huge solar system. how can it be created.
What aspects make you believe, and what aspects do not?
Yes. Do you, or do you not?
you believe in god?
well I appreciate your honesty
if you believe the odds of any faith being true are basically zero, what do you base this on? Is this down to believing that religions per-se are false, or that God is certainly false?
I ask as establishing whether God is true or false is a necessary requirements before analysing which faiths are true (or false)
agnostic. in my opinion the odds that any religion on earth is right is virtually zero. but that doesn't mean that there might not be a power greater than myself.
islam. yourself, or Atheist, or agnostic?
may I ask which religion you believe in?
large chunks of Christianity was invented later. like the Pope for example.