A meaningless tautology.
You are intitled to your opinion of course, as I am to disagree with it.
Since you view it as meaningless, discussing it is pointless, agreed?
Faith... and Trust: The Same Things?
by AGuest 452 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
PSacramento
-
EntirelyPossible
You are intitled to your opinion of course, as I am to disagree with it.
How is defining god as "greater than everything because being greater than everything means god" make sense? Why won't anyone ever define greater than what at what? Or what great means?
Since you view it as meaningless, discussing it is pointless, agreed?
I view the tautology as meaningless, no more or less.
-
cofty
PS - In what way is it not a tautology to define god into existence in this way?
It was my first thought as well when I read your post.
-
bohm
Okay so evidence something is true can be the result of knowing it is true? I think thats pretty circular, and the napoleon guy would have exactly the same evidence...
I just think we use these words completely differently.. Off to bed
-
exwhyzee
To me trust is earned and trust is based on past experience and current information.
Faith seems to be a "knowing" that transcends physical evidence. Unfortunately some people say they have faith when in reality its a way for them to feel smug about not wanting to bother to look any further into a matter.
-
AGuest
Red would exist if nobody had seen it, like the three flavors of quarks did in the fourties.
Interesting (peace to you all!). Red is red... even if we/humans/science says it isn't red because no one had seen it yet. Or until someone ("reputable"?) sees it, apparently...
Likewise, apparently although there were three different flavors of quarks... before we/humans (science) said there were... there actually weren't. Or so we were supposed to believe.
So, again (because I've asked this many, many... many times on this board): WHEN is something TRUE? When "is" it? When WE "say" it is? Or was it true... "it"... all along?
I offer than just because we don't have the means/tools/instruments to SAY that there are three flavors of quark doesn't mean there ISN'T... and the quote above seems to prove the truthfulness of that. Apparently, someone thought there were... or at least there was something... and went searching for it. And when he/she found it, said, "Lookit here, there's MORE than one flavor of quark!" And so had some other folks look... and since THEY could now see the additional quarks... well, lo and behold... there WERE three flavors of quark! They DID exist afterall!
Curious thought: say, one thought there were multiple flavors of quarks... because one had seen evidence that told THEM there was... then such one SEES the additional flavors... and then is asked by a blind man to show HIM such, too. Is there TRULY no additional quarks, or perhaps even the one... because the BLIND man can't see them?
Let's say, 10 blind men ask him. Or 50. 100. 1,000. Let's say there is a race of people who are blind due to a genetic malformation of their retinas. These number in the 100's of thousands, even millions. Do the multiple quark flavors... indeed, the initial quark itself... not exist because this particular race of people can't see them/it?
What, though, if they could use another aspect of their being, one they have finely tuned over centuries, even millenia, to compensate for the loss of sight, and using THIS sense... COULD "see" the additional flavors, even the primary quark itself... and, because of this LEARNED skill... didn't even need to use the tools the seeing man did? And what if they told that man that HE could learn to "see" in the SAME way as they... but he would have to learn not only to not rely on his tools... but on his own SIGHT?
All of this is rhetorical, of course. Because NO ONE can see something that others can't see... and NO ONE can hear something that others can't hear. Until the others can see and hear it, too. Of course.
Walk by sight... or is there something else one can walk by?
Just a thought.
Peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
EntirelyPossible
Red is red... even if we/humans/science says it isn't red because no one had seen it yet.
Red is simply light in a given wavelength. Just the name we gave it.
So, again (because I've asked this many, many... many times on this board): WHEN is something TRUE? When "is" it? When WE "say" it is? Or was it true... "it"... all along?
You are asking the wrong question. Whatever is is true.... just is. We are discovering things every day. That's why things are framed in the sense of current understanding, subject to change as we learn more. It's how science works, has always worked. And lest anyone invoke the GB comparison, it's not "new light". That's how it's supposed to work. Plus, no one is excommunicated for having a different opinion.
I offer than just because we don't have the means/tools/instruments to SAY that there are three flavors of quark doesn't mean there ISN'T...They DID exist afterall!
I am unable to parse that paragraph to understand what you are saying.
Let's say there is a race of people who are blind due to a genetic malformation of their retinas. These number in the 100's of thousands, even millions. Do the multiple quark flavors... indeed, the initial quark itself... not exist because this particular race of people can't see them/it?
Define "see". With their eyes? No one can do that. With math? Anyone can do that. With instruments? Anyone can do that. Physical eyesight has nothing to do with observing evidence for existence of quarks.
All of this is rhetorical, of course. Because NO ONE can see something that others can't see... and NO ONE can hear something that others can't hear. Until the others can see and hear it, too. Of course.
I can see my hands typing right now. No one else else can. Therefore, I, personally, can, at this very moment, see something no one else can see.
Walk by sight... or is there something else one can walk by?
A seeing eye dog, a slender rod to find your way, memory, trial and error, a map, a GPS, someone holding yoour hand to guide you....
-
AGuest
Red is simply light in a given wavelength. Just the name we gave it.
Yes, I get that, EP... and that was partially my point: "it" (red) apparently "isn't" until "we" say it is... although it already was. Long before "we" ever knew about "it." Seems that "we" think, however, that nothing "is"... until "we" say it is. And so, truth is what "we" say it is... WHEN "we" say it is.
You are asking the wrong question.
Actually, I asked the right question. You perhaps didn't understand it, though.
Whatever is is true.... just is.
Yep. Nothing new under the sun. I believe that. Do YOU?
We are discovering things every day.
"Discovering." Interesting word. The Spanish/English/French alliance pre-New World considered anything they "discovered" as new... and theirs. Although others had known about it... indeed, lived on it and as to it... for, well, some say tens if not hundreds of thousands of years BEFORE that alliance "discovered" it. So, my question, if this will make it easier to understand is: did the North American continent EXIST... before the Europeans DISCOVERED it? Or did it just some into existence WHEN they discovered it... or THEY agreed it actually existed?
That's why things are framed in the sense of current understanding, subject to change as we learn more.
So, what I "hear" you saying is that... so long as we don't UNDERSTAND it... it doesn't exist... and only comes into existence... AS WE UNDERSTAND it. Right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Well, only partly - I mean, I believe that things exist regardless of whether we understand them or not. Currently or not so currently. I have also come to know, however, that it is OUR UNDERSTANDING... or lack thereof... that often keeps us from knowing what truly DOES exist. "We" tend to restrict our... mmmmm... vision... to only that which is before our own noses. Well, eyes...
It's how science works, has always worked.
Hmmmm... well, I would say that if that's the case, science is [standing in] its own way... limiting itself... restricting itself. Why? It doesn't have to. It just thinks it does... because of its short-sightedness (I know, I know... how can one call science short-sighted... I do because science limits ITSELF... to that which is empircally-experienced. I would think, given the "pioneering spirit" of science, it would be the LAST among mankind to do that. But...).
And lest anyone invoke the GB comparison, it's not "new light". That's how it's supposed to work. Plus, no one is excommunicated for having a different opinion.
Well, no, it's not "new light," per se... but really, isn't it... even if that is how it's supposed to work?
Plus, no one is excommunicated for having a different opinion.
No, they're just run off social discussion boards... or specific threads... slandered, libeled... spoken of abusively, in public AND private... Which is not really the same thing as excommunicating...
I am unable to parse that paragraph to understand what you are saying.
And yet, it was stated very simply...
Define "see". With their eyes?
In the scenario stated, sort of. With their eyes, as in seeing... with their eyes... the evidence derived from his tools/instruments.
No one can do that.
That was understood. You overlooked where I stated that the first man "saw" them with his tools/instruments. Others wanted to see this "evidence", too. But did not possess the ability to see physically. Ohhhhhh...
With math? Anyone can do that.
Perhaps. Let's say he did his math equation on a chalkboard. And the others, those who were blind... wanted to see that equation for themselves. Not a Braille version, but that specific documentation.
With instruments? Anyone can do that.
Same scenario. They want to see what HE sees on, say, his computer screen. They want to see it on a screen JUST like he does.
Physical eyesight has nothing to do with observing evidence for existence of quarks.
This wasn't about quarks, EP. C'mon, you can do it: free you mind... and the rest will follow.
Yet, they exist...
Yep, they do. That was MY point.
I can see my hands typing right now. No one else else can. Therefore, I, personally, can, at this very moment, see something no one else can see.
You missed the... I was being facetious...
A seeing eye dog, a slender rod to find your way, memory, trial and error, a map, a GPS, someone holding yoour hand to guide you....
That last one... How about someone speaking to you... without touching you? You can HEAR him/her... and because you have learned to TRUST him/her, place your steps where his/her voice tells you ("Okay, EP, you're going to need to take four steps foreward and then, because there's a short flight of stairs, 6 steps up"). Could a person walk by that means?
Now let's say the person, the one talking and leading you, told you that somewhere along the road such as so would occur (because he can see what's on the road but you can't)... but to not worry because the outcome would be such and so.
Trust is that you will let that one lead you; faith... is knowing... he will get you where he said he would,regardless of what happens along the way.
The assured ("I know")... expectation... ("that I will recieve what I hope for/it will occur") of the thing hoped for (say, eternal life)... based on the evident demonstration (a voice) of reality (the owner is real, which is how he can speak)... though not beheld (you can't see him, though... because you are blind - Revelation 3:17)
Some things to think about, maybe. Enjoyed the exchange.
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
EntirelyPossible
Yes, I get that, EP... and that was partially my point: "it" (red) apparently "isn't" until "we" say it is... although it already was. Long before "we" ever knew about "it." Seems that "we" think, however, that nothing "is"... until "we" say it is. And so, truth is what "we" say it is... WHEN "we" say it is.
The wavelengths existed. We could just as easily move t he goal posts in either direction and call that color spectrum 'farnutgly'. The color and the wavelengths always existed, we just set artificial boundaries and game that a name so we could all know what we were talking about.
Actually, I asked the right question. You perhaps didn't understand it, though.
I completely understand that you didn't ask the right question.
Yep. Nothing new under the sun. I believe that. Do YOU?
Of course not. Everyday comsic rays from different stars hit the earth, rays that were never here before. They are new.
So, what I "hear" you saying is that... so long as we don't UNDERSTAND it... it doesn't exist... and only comes into existence... AS WE UNDERSTAND it. Right?
Utterly utterly completely wrong in every possible sense.
Hmmmm... well, I would say that if that's the case, science is [standing in] its own way... limiting itself... restricting itself.
You don't understand science.
This wasn't about quarks, EP. C'mon, you can do it: free you mind... and the rest will follow.
If you thought my post was about that, it's you that needs the understanding, not me.
Trust is that you will let that one lead you; faith... is knowing... he will get you where he said he would,regardless of what happens along the way.
Why the hell would you trust someone you didn't have faith in? It's the same thing. Semantic games get you nowhere.
Look, I've made the science stuff as plain as I can and you still don't grasp it at all. This is like, the 5000000th time someone has explained it to you and you aren't getting it. At all. Time to throw in the towel.
Because I care, I'll still point out when corrections are needed, but I won't try to explain it anymore. It would be as useful as me trying to do a crossword or jigsaw puzzle. No matter how much I try, my brain just isn't geared towards them. I just don't get it. Same with you and science. Not a slam, a slight or an insult. It just is what it is.
-
PSacramento
PS - In what way is it not a tautology to define god into existence in this way?
It was my first thought as well when I read your post.
I am not saying it isn't tautology, I am saying that if itis viewed as meaningless then why bother discussing it?
We have to have some common ground to discuss a subject, the moment one parties admits it is meaningless, why bother?
I don't discuss baseball because I don't like it and find it meaningless.
This is why I always say "IF", If God is GOD...that has huge undertones because if God is GOD, He is a being so far beyond our understanding that to try to comprehend, while a valiant endevour and perhaps noble, may will be futile because, going back to what I mentioned, we have no POR to understand God.
Unless of course God has indeed revealed (some of) Himself in Christ.