Gregg R Thomas

If I was on that flight I would start singing “Allahu Akbar” and if asked to stop,would then sue the airline for religious discrimination.

@Simon – I am not trying to prove it false. I am evaluating whether it is textually grounded and conceptually coherent. I was doing conceptual analysis, not arguing metaphysics. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derivable from the text it claims as its source. My claim stands, irrespective of the existence or not of the Christian God. I’m not c…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The Trinity presupposes a God-concept that the Bible itself never articulates.

But that doesn’t prove the Trinity is wrong.

Can we atheists recognise the wrongness of a description of something we think doesn’t exist?  Not even wrong?

The Trinity presupposes a God-concept that the Bible itself never articulates. The God presented in the Bible is a single personal agent, whereas the Trinity redefines God as a “tri-personal” being which is a category shift not made by the biblical authors.

Simon Paynton wrote:
An AI proof isn’t proof.

Unless it’s a dedicated theorem prover, or an AI program which has specifically been asked to prove a theorem, without flattering the user.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
It puts out affirmation for every bit of nonsense

I think that AI flatters people.

@Simon – “They don’t share their entire beings, yet they share their God-nature.”

This is not Nicene Trinitarianism. The orthodoxy explicitly says that ‘Each person is fully God”. Not partially god, not a piece of God and certainly not overlapping subsets. When you say “The Venn diagram doesn’t fully overlap” you are asserting partial identit…[Read more]

I wonder what Arius who make of this version of Who by Fire (Leonard Cohen). I think Arius would be allergic to metaphysical inflation and ask Christians to stop smuggling mystery in where clarity will do. He would say that there is one ultimate source (God the Father). Creation runs largely on order, consequence, and necessity and there is no…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
If Father = fully God

And Son = fully God

And Father ≠ Son

Then “God” is both identical and non-identical.

You now have:

God = Father

God = Son

Father ≠ Son

This violates the basic identity logic: If A = C and B = C, then A = B.

You can’t escape bad logic with theological wordplay.

I’m not sure I agree that your refu…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
explain how a precise, formal model of it could be extracted from the immutable fabrics of reality: immaterial time and immaterial mathematics, converging at the crucifixion?

Coincidental synthetic patterns.  We can join the dots however we like.

King Iyk wrote:
explain why the foremost advancement of the human race in the…

[Read more]

Why do you reject what the Bible says about God and His son Jesus?

@King Iyk –  I reject Trinitarianism, not because I am an atheist but because I have studied the Bible. The word “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The fully formed doctrine of ‘one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons’ as described to me in Catholic school, is not explicitly stated in either the Old or New Testamen…[Read more]

@Robert – you’re assuming that the Bible is proposed as proof of God’s existence, when that may be too much burden.  Maybe the Bible is not supposed to make sense, but God does.

The thing is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, by logic or any other means, in this world we have.  Evidence would be nice; failing that, it’s unprovable either way.

I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken.  The answer’s 42.

King Iyk wrote:
the validity of the proof

Can you run it past a “theorem prover”?  I’m told they exist, for proving mathematical theorems.