Reg the Fronkey Farmer

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]

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 – “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]

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]

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.

I was just talking about Rosalind Franklin yesterday to someone! Her data was shared with Watson and Crick without her consent, via Wilkins and indirectly through Max Perutz. Her intellectual contribution was not recognized in 1953 the way it should have been, so by 1962 the Nobel committee did not see her as a third discoverer. Crick later said…[Read more]

Proof for Dracula.

The Nobel is about the invention, not the person. Shockley won his Nobel Prize for his role in the invention of the transistor. Late in life he spiralled into racist pseudoscience, eugenics, and intellectual self-destruction.

Pauling won his first on chemical bonding which was foundational. His work underpins everything from protein structure to…[Read more]

Yes, Telly on the telly had the lollipoppy, to be Frank.

I wonder which university this boy will attend?

Yes Jake, I agree with “it depends on how we view the proximate cause of its ruination.” 

The proximate cause depends on which lens you pick up. AI isn’t the culprit here, it’s the accelerant. It exposes the cracks and widens them, but it also widens the horizons for anyone who does think. The tragedy is that the number who engage critically has…[Read more]

Jake – Barney Fife? We are all caught in this circus together….

Many universities have become revenue-maximizing businesses, visa mills and research output farms. They have become corporations and this has diluted standards. They are no longer hostile to sacred cows and are willing to deplatform anyone who might upset them emotionally. Dissenting views are punished and a student’s “lived experience” trump…[Read more]