Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Wgw]

Now, here is how @hogshead1 should seek to understand spacetime: spacetime since the Big Bang exoanded from no dimensions, to four: three physical dimensions, and time. They are undifferentiated; there is no "absolute time" and rhis is a premise of General Relativity.

Since the universe expanded from a single zero-dimensional point, it follows that according to General Relativity, before this expansion, or to be more precise, at the absolute beginning of it, there was no temporal dimension; the Big Bang is what facilitated events. There was also no spatial dimension. There were no dimensions.

Any attempt to locate an object or event in zero dimensional space returns an undefined answer, as it is essentially division by zero.

 

[cgaviria]

Now, here is how @hogshead1 should seek to understand spacetime: spacetime since the Big Bang exoanded from no dimensions, to four: three physical dimensions, and time. They are undifferentiated; there is no "absolute time" and rhis is a premise of General Relativity.

Since the universe expanded from a single zero-dimensional point, it follows that according to General Relativity, before this expansion, or to be more precise, at the absolute beginning of it, there was no temporal dimension; the Big Bang is what facilitated events. There was also no spatial dimension. There were no dimensions.

Any attempt to locate an object or event in zero dimensional space returns an undefined answer, as it is essentially division by zero.

Do believe that God created everything in six literal days and rested on the seventh day?

 

[Wgw]

Do believe that God created everything in six literal days and rested on the seventh day?

I privately believe Genesis 1 is a surprisingly accurate allegory of the process of creation, in that it basically describes the Big Bang, the organization of matter and energy resulting in stars, the formation of the planet, the evolution of plants and animals (ending with mammals and humans), and so on; I also believe this is rather irrelevant to the thread.

Now if you propose, by the way, to accuse me of hypocrisy by demanding a literal interpretation of say, John 1:1, while privately believing that Genesis is allegoricalical or metaphorical, I would salute you for a very nice try indeed, but then proceed to refute it on these grounds:

Firstly, I consider that nothing in Genesis is fundamentally inaccurate; rather, Genesis 1 is best understood as a hymn or poetical descripion which happens to more precisely align with our understanding of creation than any other "creation myth" from any other religion.

Secondly, a case could be made that every aspect of John 1:1 iss both accurate accordiing to context in the manner of Genesis 1, and also reflective of a broader reality. So for ancient Israel, it was enougfh to know that "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." For us, it is enough to know that "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This does not preclude John 1:1 from being interpreted as both correct and as an allusion to a higher reality tha is as yet beyond the realms of human comprehension, and might well remain as such past the Eschaton. This indeed aligns in a very general way with Orthodox theology, along the lines of St. Basil describing God as "the fullness of all qualities and perfections in their highest and infinite form."

Lastly, one might well observe that the point of this thread was to show that non--Trinitarianism is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture. I could hypothetically have made this point as a non-Trinitarian seeking oerrhaos tomdiscredit the canonical New Testament in favour of a Gnostic alternative. As it happens, this was not my point. I am inclined to regard the New Testament as more specifically literal than much of the Old Testament, however, such a view is not inherent to Trinitarianism, and I suspect that other Trinitarian participants in this thread hold to a more literal interpretation of the entire Bible. And I will not criticize them for doing so, provided theyu do not seek to engage in an abuse of scientific discourse.

Now, what @Hogshead1 has done, which I find greatly objectionable, is to make posts elsewhere in the forum criticizing young Earth creationists on, and those who reject evolution, among other things, the basis of science, while in this thread, he objects to proven science that directly relates to the scientific rationale used elsewhere. My belief is that if one is going to invoke science in a theological debate, one must be willing too accept science insofar as it directly disproves falsifiable claims in your theology. He seems willing to use science to falsify the views of others, but unwilling to accept science where it is contrary to his position.

I myself do not enter into threads of Young Earth Creationists because I don't care what they believe subjectively. One can also, in my view, not unreasonably, hold to various non-falsifiable rationalizations of a YEC perspective; for example, one might take the view that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a God-sent delusion of the sort mentioned several places in Scripture. I am not prepared to argue with that; it seeks to me a reasonable perspective.

Now, you might accuse me of Orwellian doublethink on this point, but I consider that one could entirely properly accept young Earth creationism on strictly religious grounds, while at the same time engaging in scientific work, for example,virology or generic engineering, where evolution is directly relevant. I see no reason why a an evolutionary biologist could not also be a young Earth creationist, provided they did not conflate the theological and scientific realms in which they worked. So one can say "science says X, I believe on religious grounds Y, I will not let X inform my religion or Y inform my science."

I myself don't do that; I don't think I need to do that, but I can understand it, and have no qualms about doing it. My own view is that all truths are of God, who is Truth, and I have nothing to fear from science; so I see the Big Bang theory and evolution as confirming rather than contraditing Genesis, I consider the blackness of space to be an example of the "dazzling darkness" proper to the Divine Nature; I find it quite compelling, the degree to which astronauts and cosmonauts (including Yuri Gagarin, who was privately, secretly Russian Orthodox, and Buzz Aldrin) have found a certain sense of spiriitual meaning in the course of space exploration.

 

[cgaviria]

I privately believe Genesis 1 is a surprisingly accurate allegory of the process of creation, in that it basically describes the Big Bang, the organization of matter and energy resulting in stars, the formation of the planet, the evolution of plants and animals (ending with mammals and humans), and so on; I also believe this is rather irrelevant to the thread.

Now if you propose, by the way, to accuse me of hypocrisy by demanding a literal interpretation of say, John 1:1, while privately believing that Genesis is allegoricalical or metaphorical, I would salute you for a very nice try indeed, but then proceed to refute it on these grounds:

Firstly, I consider that nothing in Genesis is fundamentally inaccurate; rather, Genesis 1 is best understood as a hymn or poetical descripion which happens to more precisely align with our understanding of creation than any other "creation myth" from any other religion.

Secondly, a case could be made that every aspect of John 1:1 iss both accurate accordiing to context in the manner of Genesis 1, and also reflective of a broader reality. So for ancient Israel, it was enougfh to know that "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." For us, it is enough to know that "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This does not preclude John 1:1 from being interpreted as both correct and as an allusion to a higher reality tha is as yet beyond the realms of human comprehension, and might well remain as such past the Eschaton. This indeed aligns in a very general way with Orthodox theology, along the lines of St. Basil describing God as "the fullness of all qualities and perfections in their highest and infinite form."

Lastly, one might well observe that the point of this thread was to show that non--Trinitarianism is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture. I could hypothetically have made this point as a non-Trinitarian seeking oerrhaos tomdiscredit the canonical New Testament in favour of a Gnostic alternative. As it happens, this was not my point. I am inclined to regard the New Testament as more specifically literal than much of the Old Testament, however, such a view is not inherent to Trinitarianism, and I suspect that other Trinitarian participants in this thread hold to a more literal interpretation of the entire Bible. And I will not criticize them for doing so, provided theyu do not seek to engage in an abuse of scientific discourse.

Now, what @Hogshead1 has done, which I find greatly objectionable, is to make posts elsewhere in the forum criticizing young Earth creationists on, and those who reject evolution, among other things, the basis of science, while in this thread, he objects to proven science that directly relates to the scientific rationale used elsewhere. My belief is that if one is going to invoke science in a theological debate, one must be willing too accept science insofar as it directly disproves falsifiable claims in your theology. He seems willing to use science to falsify the views of others, but unwilling to accept science where it is contrary to his position.

I myself do not enter into threads of Young Earth Creationists because I don't care what they believe subjectively. One can also, in my view, not unreasonably, hold to various non-falsifiable rationalizations of a YEC perspective; for example, one might take the view that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a God-sent delusion of the sort mentioned several places in Scripture. I am not prepared to argue with that; it seeks to me a reasonable perspective.

Now, you might accuse me of Orwellian doublethink on this point, but I consider that one could entirely properly accept young Earth creationism on strictly religious grounds, while at the same time engaging in scientific work, for example,virology or generic engineering, where evolution is directly relevant. I see no reason why a an evolutionary biologist could not also be a young Earth creationist, provided they did not conflate the theological and scientific realms in which they worked. So one can say "science says X, I believe on religious grounds Y, I will not let X inform my religion or Y inform my science."

I myself don't do that; I don't think I need to do that, but I can understand it, and have no qualms about doing it. My own view is that all truths are of God, who is Truth, and I have nothing to fear from science; so I see the Big Bang theory and evolution as confirming rather than contraditing Genesis, I consider the blackness of space to be an example of the "dazzling darkness" proper to the Divine Nature; I find it quite compelling, the degree to which astronauts and cosmonauts (including Yuri Gagarin, who was privately, secretly Russian Orthodox, and Buzz Aldrin) have found a certain sense of spiriitual meaning in the course of space exploration.

You were the one that brought up the subject of Big Bang, not I. And my question can be easily answered with a yes or no. Based on your lengthy response I gather that you do not believe that God created everything in a literal six days. Correct?

 

[Wgw]

You were the one that brought up the subject of Big Bang, not I. And my question can be easily answered with a yes or no. Based on your lengthy response I gather that you do not believe that God created everything in a literal six days. Correct?

I have answered this off-topic question, and I invite you to actually read my answer, so that we might well move on to whatever attempted non-Trinitarian "gotcha!" you might be preparing to unsuccessfully employ against us.

A task which, without wishing to seem entirely too conceited, I daresay will be rendered quite impossible by the thorough manner in which I have addressed your query.

 

[cgaviria]

I have answered this off-topic question, and I invite you to actually read my answer, so that we might well move on to whatever attempted non-Trinitarian "gotcha!" you might be preparing to unsuccessfully employ against us.

A task which, without wishing to seem entirely too conceited, I daresay will be rendered quite impossible by the thorough manner in which I have addressed your query.

You are conceited, which is why you don't understand the things of God. You are wise in your own eye. The doctrine of the trinity is not the greatest of your woes. Your greatest woe is your lack of belief. You do not believe in the words of God. If you had, you would believe that God created everything in six literal days. And your other woe is lack of wisdom. You do not understand why things were made the way they were, as if God was not able to create everything in an instant, but rather chose to do so in six days in wisdom to foreshadow things. And because of your disbelief and lack of wisdom, is why you believe the things you do, not even just concerning the trinity, but all these other worldly philosophies that you seem to also believe in. Tisk tisk tisk. In all your worldly intelligence you know nothing.

 

[Wgw]

You are conceited, which is why you don't understand the things of God. You are wise in your own eye. The doctrine of the trinity is not the greatest of your woes. Your greatest woe is your lack of belief. You do not believe in the words of God.

Says the man who rejects John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, and other scriptures he finds inconvenient on what amounts to a doctrinal caprice.

The difference between us is that I actually believe in the entire canonical Bible. The way I interpret it may not agree with your theological or aesthetic sensibilities, but I do not oresume to be able to reject the reading of a verse or indeed a literal interpretation of a verse based on my perceived interpretation of the text as a whole.

Speaking of interpretation, I should also note that your interpretation of my post is rather spectacularly off, the result of Boolean logic taken to an extreme which I would be inclined describe as "binary thinking." One expects that with the unrestrained use of such a flawed analytical approach, one might have a hard time, with, for example, fractions and ratios, let alone complex, nuanced subjects with varying levels of textual meaning.

 

[Wgw]

"Figurative" and "inaccurate" are your words.

 

[cgaviria]

surprisingly accurate allegory

Genesis 1 is best understood as a hymn or poetical

These are your words. You're practically saying the literal six 6 account is inaccurate.

 

[Wgw]

These are your words. You're practically saying the literal six 6 account is inaccurate.

I very specifically did not say Genesis 1 was inaccurate.

 

[cgaviria]

I very specifically did not say Genesis 1 was inaccurate.

But then you went on to say that it was instead "poetical and allegorical" as if to imply that its literal account was not literal. Am I right?

 

[Wgw]

But then you went on to say that it was instead "poetical and allegorical" as if to imply that its literal account was not literal. Am I right?

This is what I wrote:

I privately believe Genesis 1 is a surprisingly accurate allegory of the process of creation, in that it basically describes the Big Bang, the organization of matter and energy resulting in stars, the formation of the planet, the evolution of plants and animals (ending with mammals and humans), and so on; I also believe this is rather irrelevant to the thread.

Now if you propose, by the way, to accuse me of hypocrisy by demanding a literal interpretation of say, John 1:1, while privately believing that Genesis is allegoricalical or metaphorical, I would salute you for a very nice try indeed, but then proceed to refute it on these grounds:

Firstly, I consider that nothing in Genesis is fundamentally inaccurate; rather, Genesis 1 is best understood as a hymn or poetical descripion which happens to more precisely align with our understanding of creation than any other "creation myth" from any other religion.

Secondly, a case could be made that every aspect of John 1:1 iss both accurate accordiing to context in the manner of Genesis 1, and also reflective of a broader reality. So for ancient Israel, it was enougfh to know that "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." For us, it is enough to know that "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This does not preclude John 1:1 from being interpreted as both correct and as an allusion to a higher reality tha is as yet beyond the realms of human comprehension, and might well remain as such past the Eschaton. This indeed aligns in a very general way with Orthodox theology, along the lines of St. Basil describing God as "the fullness of all qualities and perfections in their highest and infinite form."

Lastly, one might well observe that the point of this thread was to show that non--Trinitarianism is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture. I could hypothetically have made this point as a non-Trinitarian seeking oerrhaos tomdiscredit the canonical New Testament in favour of a Gnostic alternative. As it happens, this was not my point. I am inclined to regard the New Testament as more specifically literal than much of the Old Testament, however, such a view is not inherent to Trinitarianism, and I suspect that other Trinitarian participants in this thread hold to a more literal interpretation of the entire Bible. And I will not criticize them for doing so, provided theyu do not seek to engage in an abuse of scientific discourse.

Now, what @Hogshead1 has done, which I find greatly objectionable, is to make posts elsewhere in the forum criticizing young Earth creationists on, and those who reject evolution, among other things, the basis of science, while in this thread, he objects to proven science that directly relates to the scientific rationale used elsewhere. My belief is that if one is going to invoke science in a theological debate, one must be willing too accept science insofar as it directly disproves falsifiable claims in your theology. He seems willing to use science to falsify the views of others, but unwilling to accept science where it is contrary to his position.

I myself do not enter into threads of Young Earth Creationists because I don't care what they believe subjectively. One can also, in my view, not unreasonably, hold to various non-falsifiable rationalizations of a YEC perspective; for example, one might take the view that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a God-sent delusion of the sort mentioned several places in Scripture. I am not prepared to argue with that; it seeks to me a reasonable perspective.

Now, you might accuse me of Orwellian doublethink on this point, but I consider that one could entirely properly accept young Earth creationism on strictly religious grounds, while at the same time engaging in scientific work, for example,virology or generic engineering, where evolution is directly relevant. I see no reason why a an evolutionary biologist could not also be a young Earth creationist, provided they did not conflate the theological and scientific realms in which they worked. So one can say "science says X, I believe on religious grounds Y, I will not let X inform my religion or Y inform my science."

I myself don't do that; I don't think I need to do that, but I can understand it, and have no qualms about doing it. My own view is that all truths are of God, who is Truth, and I have nothing to fear from science; so I see the Big Bang theory and evolution as confirming rather than contraditing Genesis, I consider the blackness of space to be an example of the "dazzling darkness" proper to the Divine Nature; I find it quite compelling, the degree to which astronauts and cosmonauts (including Yuri Gagarin, who was privately, secretly Russian Orthodox, and Buzz Aldrin) have found a certain sense of spiriitual meaning in the course of space exploration.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have an inability to understand spacetime, Wgw Another unwarranted personal attack. Fact is, more than one scientist have spoken of the possibility of a universe existing before the Big Bang and which collapsed in singularity from which ours came. And when they do so, they speak in terms of a before and after. I noticed you overlooked this material in your emails.



Hard evidence from radiation proves that time has a finite origin? What hard evidence? The scientists can see back only to 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The rest is up for grabs, matter of speculation. That is why I seriously question of Hawking. At no point, did he state there nothing before the Big Bang. What he said is that we cannot see back that far and therefore it isn't worthwhile worrying about such matters. Also, more than one scientist has pointed out I is very hard to get your head around nothingness. That concept has been in question since the days of Zeno. Hence, some BB scientists talk about "infinite time.Also, a major question here is where do the laws of nature come from? From something external to the BB? Hence, I think it fair to say that the BB raises many unanswered questions.



My point about your citing Hawking as your major authority has no relevance here? It is most relevant, since you seem to use it as your badge of authority here. I can paly the same game. I can say I am using major process theologians a my reference point. I can play the same kind of upmanshjp.



Your defense here is that you can validate your opinion by appealing the celebs. OK, fine. I can also do the same.





I am doubting the whole community of physicists? Evidence please. I don't find the whole community against my position.





You didn't claim that your God is scientific C'mon. That is a favorites tactic you used to try and invalidate process.



You never attacked me personally? Oh, c'mon. You like to dwell on your opinion that I have no real comprehension of science, the BB, don't live up to yurt expectations how a Ph.D. should behave,etc. If you can't that, then I suggest you get some sensitivity training to help you read better the impact you are having on others. Now maybe in you neck of the woods, its OK to dwell on depicting your your opponent as ignorant, not living up to expectations, but it sure is in ours. Instead of personal attacks, how hard would it be to say I disagree with, Oghead1 and here's why? You need to remember that I come out of a strong scierntific education, a I have an M>S, in the behavioral sciences. So don't had me his you-don't-know-about-science. routine.



The cause of the BB is not a scientific issue? That isn't the way he scientists see it and that's what their work is about. The singularity, by definition, is wholly static? Whose definition? Plus, you did no address my point why a wholly astatic entity is an illogical idea.

I'm working form a preconceived philosophy? And you and the scientists aren't?



Once again we are dazzled by someone, me, who dazzles you with contempt for science? Pure yellow-dog journalism. So let me take a page from you book. I say, "Once again, I am confronted my an opponent who dazzles me in his contempt for me."



Scientists can't see into a black hole, but have hard evidence what is there? Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not in the real world of science, where what is beyond direct sensory observation is taken to be matter of speculation, however solid it may be. That's why Hawking and others say it is a matter of speculation what was or was not present before the BB.



It is not a personal attack when you dwell on my inability to underhand? If that is what you think, I seriously suggest you takes the time for some much-needed interpersonal sensitivity training> Meanwhile let me give you a dose of you own medicine by saying that I do not consider a personal attack on you when I give you a D- and point our how insulting you are, as that is just the faces of the matter.



You have solid scientific credentials? Well, you sure couldn't prove that by me. But if you do, don't be shy. Lets see them.

Geometry says there is no space in the singularity? Geometry is one thing, reality another. Points in geometry might be considered as extentionless, but nothing exists in the real world like that. Geometry says parallel lines never meet, but Einstein found they do.

You understand the scientific method ?Well, you presentation of the BB sure lacked a number of key points?



You don't know any Ph.D. who has the aversion to leaning that I do? You are one tough cookie who won't yield an inch in you infantile desire to verbally attack others. in your infantile desire to be orally sadistic and attack me personally and probably others as well. personally



It's settled in the church that New Age is a heresy. Maybe in you church, but certainly not in the more liberal ones, which, I realize you hate.

You never said I was dumb? c'mon, you dwell on that.

 

[Hoghead1]

Saying something has no dimensions amounts to saying it simply does not exist. Also, you say the singularity is one-dimensional, now dimensionless. Make up your mind. I add that the singularity can hardly be static. Something sure must of changed it, as its went from non-exploding to exploding. There is no absolute time? That is debatable.

 

[Wgw]

Saying something has no dimensions amounts to saying it simply does not exist.

No, it simply means there are no dimensions.

Make up your mind. I add that the singularity can hardly be static. Something sure must of changed it, as its went from non-exploding to exploding.

Well, indeed, and that's all it did. By itself, the singularity was nothing.

There is no absolute time? That is debatable.

Not if one accepts General Relativity.

 

[Wgw]

At any rate, as I believe I have, with the help of @Der Alter and several other members, made the point I set out to make in the OP, and since this thread has now descended entirely into an off-topic discussion that woukd be more appropriate for the Physical and Life Sciences or Philosophy forums, I am going to request the mods to lock it.

I want to thank all of the many pious, devout Trinitarian, Nicene Christians who have joined me in this thread. Axios!

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed at the OP's request.

MOD HAT OFF