If Jesus Is God

[Guest end3]

Don't let it grieve you, I come here to vent my stress through debate.

 

So, if I have a point in the middle of three sets of temperatures and pressures and the point is at an equilibrium between those, then the point in my mind is not subject to any "sway" of each set.    Just saying why isn't the point independent.  If it fell subject to any imbalance then it would be one of the three states.

 

With that said, I have never sat down with a physicist and talked triple point shop before...

[mymistake]

End3, I still think we are misunderstanding each other, which grieves me.

 

The water analogy supports Oneness rather than Trinity.  But Florduh is right.  Trinity was invented by priests and it isn't suppose to make sense.

 

Incidentally exploring this issue was how I deconverted.  I found that Trinity was not Biblical.  When a friend tried to show me that Oneness ins't Biblical either I realized the Bible doesn't agree with itself on even the core issues.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Don't let it grieve you, I come here to vent my stress through debate.

 

So, if I have a point in the middle of three sets of temperatures and pressures and the point is at an equilibrium between those, then the point in my mind is not subject to any "sway" of each set.    Just saying why isn't the point independent.  If it fell subject to any imbalance then it would be one of the three states.

 

With that said, I have never sat down with a physicist and talked triple point shop before...

 

I'm not sure such a point could exist with water, at least at the molecular level.  More accurately, I'm fairly certain it couldn't (but I'm not a chemist).  In the middle there is a broad range of temperatures and pressures wherein H20 exists as liquid, and at either extreme of that spectrum you have either gas or solid.  However, as earlier noted, ice can be boiled so that one could produce solid, liquid and gaseous water simultaneously, but each individual molecule would still only exist in one state at a time.

 

Whether the nature of god is changeable or not, I have no idea; but as I've said, scripture says it is changeless.

 

For me, the water analogy fails to adequately explain the trinity for the reasons given by MyMistake above.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

 

 

I have to confess that the water analogy in describing the trinity never made much sense to me. In the analogy, despite the state of the elements, they are still the same element. But in the trinity, the godhead is three distinct beings that work in unity, as far as I understand it. The trinity is an obscure thing to glean from the bible, and I have never fully understood its relevance. It always made me curious as to why people prayed to the father and the son, but never the holy spirit. If they are all the same, why would it matter who you prayed to, or for that matter, in whose name you prayed in. Just made little sense to me, and I suppose, to others as well. Professor, care to expound with your vast wisdom on its premise and what you think about it? Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

To begin with, the claim that I have wisdom is a serious accusation for which I'm going to need you to provide proof.

2 Corinthians 13:1b : “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

Can I get a Witness!!!!?????

 

Apparently not, but I don't agree with the premise of 2 Cor. anyway.  It would be relatively easy to get 2 or 3 people to agree with you, irrespective of if your position were true or not.

 

 

Why did the Christian community stop at the three of the trinity, when they could have also had more persons in the supposed compound unity of Gd? The reason is that the highest deities in the other religions of the area also came in threes:

Babylon had: [1] Anu [2] Bel and [3] Ena;

Egypt had: [1] Osiris [2] Horus and [3] Isis

India had: [1] Brahma [2] Vishnu and [3] Shiva;

Rome had: [1] Jupiter [2] Pluto and [3] Neptune;

Greece had: [1] Zeus [2] Hades and [3] Poseidon;

And so the Christian community took their own trinity of only the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, disregarding the Lying Spirit, the Evil Spirit, and the Destroyer, not to mention the Burning Bush."

 

Interesting point of view. I think there may be a lot of Christians that serve the lying spirit and the evil spirit. Just my opinion.

 

Cool quoted article.  I have to disagree with the author when it comes to the Greeks and Romans, though.  There's no concept of three highest gods in a kind of unity in Greek religion.  The three mentioned are the three most powerful sons of Kronos, but Zeus far outstrips the other two in power, and on the other hand, what mattered for the individual were the gods honored by his own city.  Athena outstrips Poseidon in Athens, for example.  The three sons are in a triad because they preside over three of the four realms:  air, sea, underworld.  The fourth realm, the earth, is open to all the gods to play and fight on.  

 

In Rome, the Capitoline triad was Jupiter, Juno and Minerva:  temples to all three on the most important hill from the religious/cultic point of view.

 

Some people argue that the Church came up with the trinity because neo-Platonism had the One, Mind, and Soul.  But mind is dependent on the one, and soul on the other two, so this model is closer to Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity than to Western, catholic understandings.

 

Anyway, thanks for the quotation, Storm!  Good point about there being more than three manifestations of G-d in the OT.

[Guest end3]

 

Don't let it grieve you, I come here to vent my stress through debate.

 

So, if I have a point in the middle of three sets of temperatures and pressures and the point is at an equilibrium between those, then the point in my mind is not subject to any "sway" of each set.    Just saying why isn't the point independent.  If it fell subject to any imbalance then it would be one of the three states.

 

With that said, I have never sat down with a physicist and talked triple point shop before...

 

I'm not sure such a point could exist with water, at least at the molecular level.  More accurately, I'm fairly certain it couldn't (but I'm not a chemist).  In the middle there is a broad range of temperatures and pressures wherein H20 exists as liquid, and at either extreme of that spectrum you have either gas or solid.  However, as earlier noted, ice can be boiled so that one could produce solid, liquid and gaseous water simultaneously, but each individual molecule would still only exist in one state at a time.

 

Whether the nature of god is changeable or not, I have no idea; but as I've said, scripture says it is changeless.

 

For me, the water analogy fails to adequately explain the trinity for the reasons given by MyMistake above.

 

Granted this is Wiki, but:

 

The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapour by making arbitrarily small changes in pressure and temperature

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Don't let it grieve you, I come here to vent my stress through debate.

 

So, if I have a point in the middle of three sets of temperatures and pressures and the point is at an equilibrium between those, then the point in my mind is not subject to any "sway" of each set.    Just saying why isn't the point independent.  If it fell subject to any imbalance then it would be one of the three states.

 

With that said, I have never sat down with a physicist and talked triple point shop before...

 

I'm not sure such a point could exist with water, at least at the molecular level.  More accurately, I'm fairly certain it couldn't (but I'm not a chemist).  In the middle there is a broad range of temperatures and pressures wherein H20 exists as liquid, and at either extreme of that spectrum you have either gas or solid.  However, as earlier noted, ice can be boiled so that one could produce solid, liquid and gaseous water simultaneously, but each individual molecule would still only exist in one state at a time.

 

Whether the nature of god is changeable or not, I have no idea; but as I've said, scripture says it is changeless.

 

For me, the water analogy fails to adequately explain the trinity for the reasons given by MyMistake above.

 

Granted this is Wiki, but:

 

The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapour by making arbitrarily small changes in pressure and temperature

 

 

That is an interesting point.  I admit that chemistry is not my field of expertise, but I will definitely probe deeper into the subject to see if I can gain a better understanding of the analogy from your perspective.

[Storm]

 

 

Don't let it grieve you, I come here to vent my stress through debate.

 

So, if I have a point in the middle of three sets of temperatures and pressures and the point is at an equilibrium between those, then the point in my mind is not subject to any "sway" of each set.    Just saying why isn't the point independent.  If it fell subject to any imbalance then it would be one of the three states.

 

With that said, I have never sat down with a physicist and talked triple point shop before...

 

I'm not sure such a point could exist with water, at least at the molecular level.  More accurately, I'm fairly certain it couldn't (but I'm not a chemist).  In the middle there is a broad range of temperatures and pressures wherein H20 exists as liquid, and at either extreme of that spectrum you have either gas or solid.  However, as earlier noted, ice can be boiled so that one could produce solid, liquid and gaseous water simultaneously, but each individual molecule would still only exist in one state at a time.

 

Whether the nature of god is changeable or not, I have no idea; but as I've said, scripture says it is changeless.

 

For me, the water analogy fails to adequately explain the trinity for the reasons given by MyMistake above.

 

Granted this is Wiki, but:

 

The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapour by making arbitrarily small changes in pressure and temperature

 

This still doesn't help prove that the trinity exists. A single molecule of water cannot be solid, gaseous and liquid all at the same time. Water as a whole may be able to be at equilibrium with itself, but the individual molecules cannot be all three states at once.

[mymistake]

 

This still doesn't help prove that the trinity exists. A single molecule of water cannot be solid, gaseous and liquid all at the same time. Water as a whole may be able to be at equilibrium with itself, but the individual molecules cannot be all three states at once.

 

 

A few years before my deconversion I was struggling with many troubling ideas.  It really bothered me that Trinity was so foreign to the human mind and so foreign to nature.  If a tri-une God had created us and wanted us to understand God's nature then why not give us a brain where such a concept would seem normal and also give us similar things in nature so we can relate.  But I figured it out eventually.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

End3, other than the wiki article I have only been able to find one other article online that supported the triple-point hypothesis and it was only a thesis written by a graduate student.  I have not been able to find any peer-reviewed articles on the subject, but will resume the search tomorrow.

 

However, I'm afraid I will still be forced to agree with Florduh, that the trinity isn't meant to be understood and that this thread will ultimately go nowhere.  I will probably also still agree with Storm that even is water has properties we haven't explored, it still doesn't adequately explain the trinity.

[Guest end3]

End3, other than the wiki article I have only been able to find one other article online that supported the triple-point hypothesis and it was only a thesis written by a graduate student.  I have not been able to find any peer-reviewed articles on the subject, but will resume the search tomorrow.

 

However, I'm afraid I will still be forced to agree with Florduh, that the trinity isn't meant to be understood and that this thread will ultimately go nowhere.  I will probably also still agree with Storm that even is water has properties we haven't explored, it still doesn't adequately explain the trinity.

I appreciate the effort.  I am good friend with an retired physics prof....maybe I can bend his ear.  Just speculating, I would bet that an equilibrium is near impossible to achieve and the point is theoretical. 

[RogueScholar]

 

I am not a chemist, but I end up using a fair amount of chemistry in my studies.

 

I have not read the entire thread; however, maybe I can help illuminate a few things regarding the "triple point" discussion that should be considered.

 

If I understand the conversation we are talking about an individual molecule of water and how it relates to the concept of the triple point? If this is the case, we need to make sure we understand the triple point and the phase diagramme of water. The basic underlying point being that a phase diagramme looks at variables such as temperature and pressure. These are in a broad sense "average" measures of kinetic and potential energy. Actually, pressure is potential energy density, but potential energy is good enough for our discussion. These concepts are known as state variables and look at the "state" of a system in a thermodynamic context.

 

However, thermodynamics is all about large systems and state variables like temperature and pressure are average values of the entire system of molecules/particles. For example, temperature is the average kinetic energy of all the particles/molecules in a certain system. Therefore, an individual molecule/particle may have exceptionally high or low kinetic energy. The average temperature is what we actually see and measure however. In fact, the statistics we use to describe these "averages" are known as Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions and looking at them really gives one a sense of the "big picture," "average-ness" of thermodynamics. It is statistical in nature, hence the reason some will say it is built upon the mathematics of statistical mechanics.

 

So, we have established that this pressure/temperature/phase/triple point business is thermodynamics and thermodynamics looks at systems of particles/molecules. This means that asking about an individual molecule of water when using thermodynamics is not a particularly valid question.

 

Hopefully that helps.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks, Rogue, that does help.

[chrisstavrous]

Scratch that:

 

If jesus is god then all the christians are in deep shit, because non of them know a lick about god.

[sdelsolray]

Water, H2O, can be other things, or be part of many other things.  Two molecules of H2O can become 2 H2 + O2.  Add carbon and you can get methane, or a variety of sugars.  Add enough heat and H20 can become a plasma.  Add heat and pressure and you get nuclear fusion.

 

All of this is in accordance with known laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Unless the three gods to which H20 is being compared are subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry, I would suggest it is a category error to try to compare them, even by analogy.

[pawn]

Yeah, this whole water analogy is rather useless, since it doesn't really apply to god anyway....

[Guest end3]

Yeah, this whole water analogy is rather useless, since it doesn't really apply to god anyway..

 

 

 

What does apply to God P?

[Guest end3]

Water, H2O, can be other things, or be part of many other things.  Two molecules of H2O can become 2 H2 + O2.  Add carbon and you can get methane, or a variety of sugars.  Add enough heat and H20 can become a plasma.  Add heat and pressure and you get nuclear fusion.

 

All of this is in accordance with known laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Unless the three gods to which H20 is being compared are subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry, I would suggest it is a category error to try to compare them, even by analogy.

Eh, the well know laws can't seem to define this one...hence the comparison. 

[RogueScholar]

Actually, we can define and explain the triple point concept. However, you cannot apply it to a single molecule as suggested earlier. Talking about the "physical state" of something is irrelevant when looking at a single molecule. It's the intermolecular forces between molecules, Hydrogen bonding in the case of water that are responsible for "holding" water molecules together in certain states like liquid and solid. We have exceptionally good explanations of these processes. However, it takes a large group of molecules to make a liquid, gas or solid as you need multiple molecules interacting. You are using a "big picture" approach to define an esoteric concept.

[Guest end3]

Actually, we can define and explain the triple point concept. However, you cannot apply it to a single molecule as suggested earlier. Talking about the "physical state" of something is irrelevant when looking at a single molecule. It's the intermolecular forces between molecules, Hydrogen bonding in the case of water that are responsible for "holding" water molecules together in certain states like liquid and solid. We have exceptionally good explanations of these processes. However, it takes a large group of molecules to make a liquid, gas or solid as you need multiple molecules interacting. You are using a "big picture" approach to define an esoteric concept.

Ok, answer me this please R.  If 50 or 100 or 100,000,000 water molecules are in perfect equilibria at that point, what state is it in?

[Storm]

 

Water, H2O, can be other things, or be part of many other things.  Two molecules of H2O can become 2 H2 + O2.  Add carbon and you can get methane, or a variety of sugars.  Add enough heat and H20 can become a plasma.  Add heat and pressure and you get nuclear fusion.

 

All of this is in accordance with known laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Unless the three gods to which H20 is being compared are subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry, I would suggest it is a category error to try to compare them, even by analogy.

Eh, the well know laws can't seem to define this one...hence the comparison. 

 

This reply doesn't even make sense. It is Christians that are the ones trying to define what exactly the trinity is. So, by your statement you are essentially saying that because current laws of physics and thermodynamics don't seem to apply, they are unable to adequately explain the trinity? And because they cannot explain the trinity, and god is not bound by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, then the comparison is a moot one? The bible certainly doesn't validate the trinity, and apparently Christianity's own attempts to define it aren't sufficient, so then why the trinity? Why do Christians attempt to explain something that does not exist?

[Guest end3]

 

 

Water, H2O, can be other things, or be part of many other things.  Two molecules of H2O can become 2 H2 + O2.  Add carbon and you can get methane, or a variety of sugars.  Add enough heat and H20 can become a plasma.  Add heat and pressure and you get nuclear fusion.

 

All of this is in accordance with known laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Unless the three gods to which H20 is being compared are subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry, I would suggest it is a category error to try to compare them, even by analogy.

Eh, the well know laws can't seem to define this one...hence the comparison. 

 

This reply doesn't even make sense. It is Christians that are the ones trying to define what exactly the trinity is. So, by your statement you are essentially saying that because current laws of physics and thermodynamics don't seem to apply, they are unable to adequately explain the trinity? And because they cannot explain the trinity, and god is not bound by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, then the comparison is a moot one? The bible certainly doesn't validate the trinity, and apparently Christianity's own attempts to define it aren't sufficient, so then why the trinity? Why do Christians attempt to explain something that does not exist?

 

Feel free to answer the questions I have asked Storm and I will be glad to admit the analogy doesn't fit. 

 

Edit:  I am saying the laws DO apply but we as humans with ALL our knowledge and science can't define this even though we spew that we can, then HOW sir, are we sure we can rule out God. 

 

So please, feel free to answer at your leisure.

[RogueScholar]

I don't think you understand the concept of equilibrium in the context of the triple point. Some of the molecules will be in a liquid phase, some will be in a gas phase and some will be in a solid phase, but the three phases are in a state of equilibrium. The triple point is the point where the three phases can exist in equilibrium. Again, you are wanting to define the state of a single molecule. You asked "what state is it in." Therefore, I have to assume you want me to pick one molecule and say something about it's state. Again, that is not what the thermodynamic concepts discussed look at. They look at large systems of molecules. Once we go away from looking at the bigger picture to a single molecule, we cannot appreciate the intermolecular forces and ignore the very thing that make something a solid, liquid or gas in the context of this conversation.

[Ravenstar]

I don't know what you are going on about. It doesn't matter because a triune god/goddess is a pagan concept anyway, not a Judaic one and was never a part of ancient Hebrew theology. (though a god/goddess is a serious consideration for very early hebrew religion)

 

It's a syncretistic absorption of Egyptian, Canaanite, Greek, and other pagan polytheism by the christians and not even set as doctrine until the 4th century. I don't understand what this has to do with molecular physics.

 

"The doctrine of the Trinity, considered the core of Christian theology by Trinitarians, is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data, thrashed out in debate and treatises, eventually formulated at the First Council of Nicaeain 325 AD in a way they believe is consistent with the biblical witness, and further refined in later councils and writings.[1]The most widely recognized Biblical foundations for the doctrine's formulation are in the Gospel of John.[1]"

 

Nontrinitarianism is any of several Christian beliefs that reject the Trinitarian doctrine that God is three distinct persons in one being. Modern nontrinitarian groups views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

 

"The emergence of Christian theology has sometimes been presented as the triumph of Hellenistic rationality over the Hebraic faith of Jesus and the early disciples. The early African theologian Tertullian, for instance, complained that the 'Athens' of philosophy was corrupting the 'Jerusalem' of faith.[7] More recent discussions have qualified and nuanced this picture."

 

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_theology

 

 

"In the New Testament, Jews are described as rejecting Jesus' claims apparent claims to divinity, accusing him of blasphemy. In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, Jesus forgives a man's sins and some Jewish teachers thought to themselves: "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 5 In the Gospel of John, some Jews began to stone Jesus, explaining that they did so "for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 

 

The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides also rejected the Trinitarian beliefs of Christians. In his aversion to what he considered to be Christian dilutions of pure monotheism, especially in its doctrine of the Trinity, much of Maimonides' philosophical critique of Christian theology is similar to Islamic arguments against it. In his earlier work, Maimonides translated his theoretical disdain of Christianity into practice. He deemed Christians to be idolators and bemoaned the fact that political necessity forced many European Jews to live in Christian societies.7

 

Today, Jewish counter-missionary movements like "Jews for Judaism" seek to educate Jews about why belief in the Trinity is incompatible with Judaism."

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

[Guest end3]

I don't think you understand the concept of equilibrium in the context of the triple point. Some of the molecules will be in a liquid phase, some will be in a gas phase and some will be in a solid phase, but the three phases are in a state of equilibrium. The triple point is the point where the three phases can exist in equilibrium. Again, you are wanting to define the state of a single molecule. You asked "what state is it in." Therefore, I have to assume you want me to pick one molecule and say something about it's state. Again, that is not what the thermodynamic concepts discussed look at. They look at large systems of molecules. Once we go away from looking at the bigger picture to a single molecule, we cannot appreciate the intermolecular forces and ignore the very thing that make something a solid, liquid or gas in the context of this conversation.

I think it is a function of our inability to achieve the equilibrium due to the numbers.  Trust me, I hear you, but see your answer as a function of our lack of ability.

[Ravenstar]

Lack of ability?  I'm lost, sorry.. can you clarify that?