Bolu

Could someone advice if one is better than the other in terms of performance, durability and efficiency. I currently use a transformer based inverter at home to power most home appliances in the event of power outage. I am shopping to replace the current one but now have the choice of transformer-less ones. They come much lighter and more affordable. But are they as reliable?

Could someone advice if one is better than the other in terms of performance, durability and efficiency. I currently use a transformer based inverter at home to power most home appliances in the event of power outage. I am shopping to replace the current one but now have the choice of transformer-less ones. They come much lighter and more affordable. But are they as reliable?

This question is for those who believe the Bible but deny that there is a literal place of fire as punishment for all who reject God's salvation through Christ.

Mat 13: 24 - 30 Records a parable of Jesus popularly referred to as the "Parable of the Wheat and the Tares." As is expected of parables, he used the characters, objects and scenarios in symbolic form.

In verse 36, it is recorded that his disciples asked him for the INTERPRETATION of the parable. And from verse 37 - 43 He comes down with the INTERPRETATION.

Now if in the parable Jesus uses fire as a symbol but then comes to the INTERPRETATION and returns its INTERPRETATION to us as the Furnace of Fire, why do some teach that there is no such literal place?

Was Jesus still using symbolic language in an INTERPRETATION?

Again, from verse 47 - 48, he declares another parable. And as expected again the language is symbolic. However, from verse 49 -50 He again clears the INTERPRETATION with the Furnace of Fire repeated again. What makes this more interesting is that the parable here does not contain any use of fire in it as symbol, yet the INTERPRETATION still returns with a Furnace of Fire.

How then do those who claim to believe the Bible but not the Furnace of Fire as a literal place of torment reconcile this?

Can a SINCERE and HONEST person accept the literalness of every item of the INTERPRETATIONS of these two parables and then in the same breath deny the literalness of the Furnace of Fire part, twice returned by the Lord Jesus Himself?

Please read the passages well before responding and be objective and clear in your rebuttal if any.

This question is for those who believe in the Bible but reject Jesus as God. By God I mean not a god but God, eternal and Almighty.

Could you explain how you understand John 1:3

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (KJV)

Col3:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

The 'him' in these passages are definitely referent of Jesus. If according to the first quote, there is NOTHING (NO SINGLE THING) that was created that was not by the agency of Jesus, (in other words, ANY thing MADE was made by him) how come you still think he is a creation. For if he were a creation, he himself would be something made, and since he would not have made himself, he would thereby be the one thing that was made but was not made through himself and that would contradict the emphasis of the verse.

Also, Collosians says at the end of the verse that ALL things were made BY him and FOR him. I thought all things were made by God and for God. How would it then be said that all things were made FOR a created being. To be so said means that they exist for his sole purpose and pleasure.

Please only objective responses are expected, no prejudices or sentiments. Just explain how you understand the verses differently from me. You are free to cite other passages of the Bible for your argument but make it coordinated and concise. I will add updates to respond to each objective answer.

The Argument

If we have three persons, each a man and we therefore say that we have three men then if we have three persons, each God, we must logically also have three Gods. Multiple things that are each equal to something else are always together equal to the same multiple of that something else. Any reasoning that therefore makes one God of three persons, as Trinitarians teach by their doctrine of the Trinity, where each person is not just a part of God, but really and fully God, is either being deliberately mischievous or simply irrational. Thus summarily goes the argument against the logic of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nature of Logic

In order to effectively understand the argument, we need to first establish what logic really means and the nature of it.

Wikipedia defines logic as:

“the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference.”

Furthermore it states:

“Logic concerns the structure of statements and arguments in formal systems of inference and natural language.”

So, according to the foregoing, logic is essentially concerned with the structure and validity of statements and arguments. However, according to Wikipedia:

“The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.”

In other words, in logic, the truth or otherwise of the subject matter of an argument does not count, its validity is solely the function of its form. In this regard Wikipedia says:

“One thing we should note is that the validity of deduction is not at all affected by the truth of the premise or the truth of the conclusion.”

It then gives the following example of what is logically valid but not necessarily sound or true:

“All fire-breathing rabbits live on Mars

All humans are fire-breathing rabbits

Therefore all humans live on Mars”

The following is also stated to be equally logically valid even though the premises and the conclusion are false:

“All cups are green

Socrates is a cup

Therefore, Socrates is green”

From the foregoing it is evident that validity, in logic, is not equal to truth, and consequently, logic is not directly related to truth. So when the doctrine of the Trinity is said to be illogical, technically speaking, it does not mean it is untrue. Rather, it merely implies that the conclusion does not align with the common conformation of other arguments of the same form. The point here is that even if the doctrine of Trinity were to be indeed logically invalid it's truth or otherwise cannot be determined by this. That said, let us proceed to reconciling the doctrine with logic.

Understanding Logical Form

Since logical form is integral to logic, being considered as the sole determinant of the validity of a statement or argument, it is necessary to understand what it refers to. Wikipedia explains the relation of logical form to an argument as:

“The representation of its (argument) sentences using formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system to display its similarity with all other arguments of the same type.”

Continuing, Wikipedia expounds:

“It consists of stripping out all spurious grammatical features from the sentence (such as gender, and passive forms), and replacing all the expressions specific to the subject matter of the argument by schematic variables.”

So, as an example, Wikipedia says:

“The expression ‘all A’s are B’s shows the logical form which is common to the sentences ‘all men are mortals’, ‘all cats are carnivores’, ‘all Greeks are philosophers’, and so on.”

Using the above example as guide, the logical form of the doctrine of the Trinity could then be expressed as follows:

3P, where P is equal to G, is equal to G

Now, the argument of those who fault the logic of the doctrine is that multiple persons with each person equally something else is always equal to the same multiple of the something else and not less. For example, three persons, each equally a human being makes three human beings. Also, three persons, each an angel, makes three angels. Based on these they argue that three persons, each equally God would make three Gods and not one God as Trinitarians claim. The logical form of their argument could be expressed as follows:

3P, where P is equal to H, is equal to 3H

3P, where P is equal to A, is equal to 3A

Therefore 3P, where P is equal to G, is equal to 3G

Going by what we have found of logic so far, their argument appears logically valid. However, a concept closely related to logic is fallacy. According to the same Wikipedia,

“A fallacy is an argument that is not logically valid. “

Of interest is the section on Material Fallacies which identifies something called “Fallacy of Accident.” This is defined and exemplified as follows:

“A generalization that disregards exceptions

Example

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, s

If I'm not mistaken, I think evolution says life started from a big bang of some base materials. I take life to mean existence. What then is the source of those base materials which make up some form of existence as well, even if not conscious existence

I have noticed for several years now that when someone yawns near me I follow to yawn a few seconds after. I have tried to suppress it severally with no success