Where do you get the Bob not being Andy? That's not Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. One "ousia" with 3 distinct personalities. And people do it all the time. You are spouse, mother, and worker. Each of those is distinct from the others with activities that are unique to each, but they are all you.
Is the father the son? I've never heard a Christian say that Jesus is the Father, but rather that both are God yet neither are each other. Or something to that effect.
I never claimed you couldn't criticize. I claimed that the criticism is invalid.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. You consider it invalid, which it may very well be, while I consider it valid, which it also may be.
And that is Trinity, except you have 3 entities. But waves do not behave as particles and vice versa, do they?
'Wave' and 'particle' are handy concepts to describe the entity's behaviour. Sometimes it's convenient to model them as waves, sometimes it's convenient to model them as particles. What it
actually is is anyone's guess. According to duality, it is both a wave and a particle, inasmuch as the terms mean anything.
If this is how the Trinity exists, then you are adhering to Modalism (a belief so heinous it's worse than the gays): 'Father', 'Son', 'Spirit', are just different ways of talking about the same thing, one entity taking on different job descriptions at different times.
That's fine. I consider Modalism to be logically coherent, and more in line with the Bible.
But it conflicts with the mainstream Trinity belief, so I doubt you adhere to it at all.
Look up that law and you will see.
I know what the law of the excluded middle says, and I don't see how wave-particle duality violates it.
"Every proposition is either true or not true."
So, we have the proposition "light is a particle". That is both true and not true.
Wave-particle duality doesn't say it isn't true, not all the time. Depending on how you look at it, 'particle' is a description of how light behaves some of the time and 'wave' is how it behaves the rest of the time. Or, you can see it 'wave' and 'particle' being colloquial terms for properties of light (wavelength, momentum, etc), which experiments can variously highlight.
It doesn't say it simultaneously both is and is not a particle.
The law of excluded middle isn't violated when I turn my tap off, since the truth of the statement "My tap is on" can vary with time.
No, data says we cannot have an invisible pink unicorn. What is "pink"? It's light that is reflected from an object. What is "invisible"? It's no light reflected.
Those are definitions, not data. Incompatible definitions violate logic.
They are conclusions based on data. Data shows that color -- any color -- comes from the wavelengths of visible light that is reflected from an object. Reflect all wavelengths and the color is white. Reflect none and the color is black. What is confusing you is that we use words to describe the summary of the data. You look at the word but forget to look beyond the word to the data that gave rise to how we use the word.
An object is seen when it 1) reflects light and 2) blocks transmission of light from objects behind it. Data again. An invisible object is transparent to light. Data again. So, a unicorn that is both invisible and pink contradicts all the data we have.
It also contradicts logic. If it wasn't
logically impossible, no amount of data would be able to disprove it. It is only logic that tells us something can't be both pink and invisible - someone with no concept of the EM spectrum could, in principle, come to the same conclusion.
Data are the facts. Light exists, it comes in spectra, etc, are all conclusions drawn from the data. Data tells us what
does exists, logic tells us what
can exist. Thus, if logic tells us it
can't exist, then the data
cannot tell us that it does - and if it is telling us that, then our interpretation of the data is wrong.
Logic trumps data.
Newtonian mechanics was not a "probability call". It was based on data. Based on experience of the universe up until then, that was how the universe was. When new experience of the universe was obtained -- Relativity, not QM -- Newtonian mechanics were shown to be only partially right.
Which is exactly what I said: belief in Newtonian mechanics was a probability call, inasmuch as the evidence garnered hitherto supported it. It was the most probable explanation for how things behaved, and alternatives (such as Aristotelian mechanics that preceded it, or quantum mechanics that would come after it) were less probable, based on the evidence at the time.
But data says the universe is not.
Agreed.
Nice to know you just left science. See? You do have faiths and are religious.
Welcome to creationist logic! See? I knew you operated on faith. You just rejected science in favor of your belief. That's what creationism does.
Question, why don't you apply that tentativeness to your views on the existence of deity? Any possibilty your views could be false? If not, why not?
I'm happy to discuss pretty much anything, but your tone seems aggressive and confrontational, which I frankly wouldn't expect from you.
My tentativeness is based on the evidence. I don't think wave-particle duality is a necessary explanation for given phenomena, when particle-only explanations suffice. Granted, most other scientists disagree with me, but there you go. I don't consider this to be a religious or faith-based thing at all; I'm not affirming the existence of spirits/souls (i.e., religion), nor am I affirming anything to be true without due rationale (which may or may not be out-of-date).
Obviously my views could be false. I'd be an idiot not to see that.
