- Status
S
STT
Guest
What do you mean?
S
STT
Guest
This is a very good question but it is very hard. This idea never came to my mind. I think we should first define false and true thought and then processed to see what is the shape of thoughts. Lets define T={T1, T2, T3,…} as a set of thoughts and O={O1, O2, O3,…} as a set of operators which conjoin thoughts. We say that T is true if it is well-defined under operation of O. By well-define, we mean that we could reach from any member of T to another one under an operation of a member of O, Ti=Oz(Tj, Tk,…) for example. Think of T as a set of premises and conclusion for example. What do you think? I would be happy to have your idea about false and true thoughts also.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
No, it would not work at all. Remember, your idea is that thoughts are the result of shapes and movements. Therefore, it is shapes and movements what you have to use to characterize true and false statements. What are the shapes and movements that characterize true statements, truth seeker?
S
STT
Guest
Give the previous definition, I think that true statements should be closed surface (surface for sake of simplicity in imagination) and false statements should be open. What do you think?
S
STT
Guest
I was very serious.
Do you have any better idea?
K
Karen107
Guest
Jesus is the Word and the second person of God and the Word has is and always will be with us. Jesus is the Messenger of God and so became man and dwelt among us so God would be revealed to us by Jesus teaching us about God and to Save us from our sins so that we would enter eternal life with God so as to be One with God forever.
So 'and the Word became Flesh" refers to God becoming man= Jesus… The supernatural meets the natural world through Jesus Christ who made God known to us.
K
Karen107
Guest
With your mind wide open think about this. In science much of what is discovered is because of the effects of actions, even if those actions aren’t well understood. In other words hypothesis based upon a set of evidence. Well with God there is evidence of His presence all around us, You may call it Gods grand design… Now you may not see God because God is spirit, but you can see Gods presence in a new born baby, or nature, or how everything moves, imperfectly perfectly so to speak, from a Gods eye view of things (Gods providence) we go forward. Now the horrible horrible way people were treated in ancient times seem preposterous to us now, but not so back then… and that’s just an example of God changing the world so that people become more caring due to what God has done and taught us through Jesus Christ, to love our brothers and treat each other kindly with love and respect for human life. Well that’s more of the philosophical aspect of it. Now look at the scientific implications. God said long ago for us to take care of our planet but have we done that? We can see that people have forgotten our role in preserving the planet and it’s becomes less habitable for us to live. Can we survive without paying for or treating our water? Absolutely not, unless you live in a pretty pristine habitat. Anyway, when you leave the spiritual out, you have just the science but we’re more than just science, we’re people, complex and individual and the force of the Holy Spirit does affect us, always has and always will. Though we do not see the spirit we see the effects of the spirit on our world so explanation goes on beyond matter into the spiritual. God you see is the source of all things spiritual and scientific so the scientific isn’t an entity of it’s own because if you leave out the unseen spiritual world you cannot explain the seen material world which is sourced from God who is spirit. In fact science is a study anyway, not the cause of what we see in our material world… Oh I hope I’ve addressed the question you were asking anyway,. Next time you notice how many churches there are or why there are so many people giving their lives to God just think that these are a ‘sign’ of Gods presence in the world. That not only did He create all this but He enjoys living among us. . Happy New Year!
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
I think there tends to be two approaches to knowledge in science, particularly physics. There’s theoretical physics which relies on a lot of math (or reason) to understand and/or explain nature. Then there’s experimental physics which uses experiments to learn about nature. I tend to favor the latter because there is a folly in using reason (or math) alone, just as there is for using empiricism alone. Philosophers have long since dealt with this issue.
I recommend that until we get some empirical evidence into STT’s equation, that none of this will make much sense or it may lead to unnecessary assumptions/restrictions in our reasoning.
- Status