There is no space where particles cannot appear, but there is still space to encompass them.
1 Like
Is the distance between two static objects necessarily eventful?
Only slower than light objects see space.
Being slower than light is what makes physical vision possible.
2 Likes
That’s True! grin.
I was thinking at the speed of light, space and time fully collapse. There is no space to see, and we’re out of time.
Here is a visualization I recently posted if you didn’t see it Mike.
From the particles frame of reference it happens instantaneously, from our frame, it takes a certain amount of time to travel a particular distance.
An object in a suspended state of animation, is still subject to time. Right?
Only in our time reference is the object suspended through time.
In my write-up, I describe how one second for one person is seen as two seconds for another. Both exist through all timescales, the difference is the amount of time perceived.
You were getting there. grin
So why do we even have the doctrine of the Trinity? It seems to be more trouble than it’s worth. But it’s an important doctrine. Christians adopted monotheism from their Jewish heritage. Yet they clearly saw that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit were also divine. And so we have the doctrine of the Trinity to explain this seeming paradox.
3 Likes
Kind of like the diameter of the singularity in a black hole, a region of space, where space does not exist.
For me, it doesn’t matter either way, it’s like proving that atheism is not true, but solipsism is still a possibility.
The question is how do you tell the difference between the presence of God and your mind playing tricks on you, between a miracle of divine intervention and the coincidences of an unconscious intentionality.
Along these lines of what solipsism would be like, is where the beauty… the glory of the triune being shines forth its brilliant light, in that God did not have to suffer being alone, but became that in the person of Jesus.
I see the crux of your question; is there any good outside of God? Where do we draw the line and say that good is not of God? Is it a trick of the mind or a decision of who He is?
I also see the idea of only knowing God through reason. Is He not also spirit? Our mind reasons, it is our spirit that compels us. He promises to put His spirit in us, love, kindness, mercy… a change we are unable or unwilling to do ourselves. Keeping His promise and seeing the change in us comes by recognition, not concussion. This is also how we know. Witness.
Similarly, we use recognition, not reason to find a queen of hearts in a deck of cards. Reason will slow us down, “Look, a red queen, and she’s rich”.
Experience and test results beat theory every time. Reasoning is only one tool and not always the best one for a job.
What are ya tryin’ ta do, talk about the OP?
1 Like
When I thought I could know God through a philosophical argument or pure reason, I experienced the possibility of solipsism. And how unreal people seem in their sinfulness, only adds weight to the suspicion.
1 Like
We can know about God through reason, but since he is personal, we cannot know him personally through reason alone – there has to be interaction.
1 Like
Moral: It’s not enough to have a potential dance partner at a dance: ya gotta dance, … or go home alone.
3 Likes
Hey, that’s a decent analogy! 
1 Like
Nice diagram, Rave!! Just say that you and I are not God, and He is not us…and then all is well…(sort of)…
Three-in-One…very complex nature…like an object has width-depth-height while still being one object…but maybe not entirely like that…
The idea of a complex deity existed within Judaism before the time of Jesus, and it just got more complex with His arrival. You want to know what they are/He is like and what are their/His natures? and identical–how? This reminds me of a Hare Krishna who once told me he knew God’s home address (yes he did!)
All you and I have are the fact that He kept His face hidden from Moses. And lines like: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” And there is that other statement about God only being knowable to the extent that He has chosen to make Himself known.
So it is hard to make any grand comprehensive dissertation about “their natures” and all that—given the high unlikelihood that a Being who conceals Himself from even those whom He calls His friends (presumably for our sake)— would just discuss His good days and bad days with anyone…
…and I leave it at that.
We don’t need the doctrine of Trinity. The church was doing just fine without this so called “central doctrine of christianity”. it was near the 4th century before it became an official doctrine of the church. So what had happened in the previous time?
Paul did not know this doctrine. None of the apostles did not teach this doctrine. Even Jesus did not teach this doctrine. It was however became necessary to hold to this doctrine when arianism became a dominant heresy within the church. they believe that Jesus is actually a created being and therefore need not to be worshipped. (the present form could be found in JW). to combat this heresy, the church out of necessity at that time hold to the present formulation of the Trinity.
Now what was the belief before the doctrine of Trinity became a central doctrine? The early church fathers, the apostles and Paul himself knew that there were tension between their belief in one God and there is no other and Jesus as the son of God who claimed He was also God. so, what did they do? Nothing. it was a mystery to them. They did not try to resolve this. Smart and humble in my own opinion knowing who we are as humans to understand the nature of God. Like an ant try to understand the shape of an elephant. It is beyond us. Unless God reveals Himself to us, there is no way for us to formulate what kind of God he is.
So, I understand where the doctrine of Trinity was coming from. It does create many unanswered questions and it solves many other. Though, I understand the doctrine, I prefer to leave it as a mystery.
We have it because the church was fighting the rise of the Arian heresy, so the church was not doing just fine. Also, the church had to define just what that meant.
3 Likes
What i meant was, in the first three century, the church had rapidly growing and multiplying throughout the kingdom of Rome. The church had done all that without the doctrine of Trinity.