Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

@inconsekwenshul,

inconsekwenshul wrote:

Fido,
Indeed the world is round, and it is true that to look into any direction is to see into the direction opposite you because of the curvature of our planet. However it is impossible to see clearly around the whole circumference of the planet even figuratively speaking. Let's say your looking east and I am one mile west of you, you would have to look24,900.55 miles to see me (What is the circumference of the earth?, 2009 sic).

The point of Churchill and myself is that because whatever you see to the east blocks your ocular if you will, what is indeterminately west of you is unclear. So our perspectives, even when diametrically opposed, are both perhaps accurate concerning the abstract or ambiguous arena of philosophy and religion.

Short of an absolute the relative nature of life commands that all and none are correct. the we are both wrong and right at the same time based on the variables in our processes. However, I hold that some absolutes are true and these represent the control or constant in our experiment and hypothesis.

That said I am unsure as to what it means to be right, or if what is right is defined either by a person, whether the one or the many, or by a creator. I lean toward a creator because of the objectivity of a third party deity. I think confusion is manifested when the parties (deity and humanity) trade party roles and alter the power dynamics.

the naturalization of God and the exaltation of the individual have led the population of those concerned down a crooked path; myself included. The Bible refers to this as sinful nature, or simply the predisposition to unrighteousness.

I do not aim to devalue life, i hold mine and many others in the highest regard ascribable to each (according to me). however I am admittedly not altruistic, and do not pretend to care about or understand all of creation because my face is set in the direction I face and my back is to the others.

Churchhill was talking cant... I use rhtoric... Everyone does... But to avoid being used by it is the challenge.... When people are used to wit falling like pearls from your lips is when you are most likely to say something incredibly stupid...

Did I ever tell you about that guy who gave up all and went to the other side of the globe to find what life was... And when he found the wisest man in the world, and asked him what life was the guy told him life was a garden... And the traveller thought for a moment, and got angry, and said: you mean I quit my job, and left my wife and family and travelled here over mountains, deserts, and jungles to have you tell me life is a garden???

And the wise man said: So; It's not a garden...

The big difference between life and death is that dead you can never say stupid stuff or eat your words...

Considering the political uses and abuse to which God and religion have been turned, I think God as conceived oof by humanity is more the problem than the solution...
It is a real failing of humanity that we make sense of the world through cause and effect, so we need that first cause to make sense of all that follows... In fact, we are turning our logic on an infinite, and finding its weakness... Cause and effect do explain this portion of reality we have with life.... Reality is logical; but does that mean there is some logic behind all of it??? Where is logic in our own creation...If people could be logical about procreation then perhaps God was logical in the creation of all...We know too little to judge of anything.... We can say from our perspective that God as conceived is God as we would create him, caring, intelligent, powerful, comforting... God says everything about people, especially our lonliness and pain...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Logic is not a science at all... Where are you coming from???

6 semesters in college as a philosophy major?

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

6 semesters in college as a philosophy major?

I have no academic education but my logic will take on your fever anytime.

@xris,

No Fido, I am not familiar with that story, and iam not sure of its meaning. I would like to know what it means before we continue this dialogue because I don't think I can respond to your post without understanding it as you intend.

thank you

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

6 semesters in college as a philosophy major?

Logic is a tool of sorts, and a pretty flawed tool as far as I can tell...

There is an interesting book I just bought, and started called: Critique of Scientific Reason... So much of the application of reason to reality has to do with the particular frame of mind which one holds in regard to it... I guess I do not have a lot of time this morning to devote to this, but would offer the notion that since Huygens, that six of Descartes seven rules of impact are false... Well yes, and no... Scale and perspective have a great deal to do with it, or the sustances one is talking of... But again, I have not really read the book, and just bought it last week...

You know, when Copernicus advanced his idea of the universe, it was not really correct any more than ptoleme's universe was illogical given the observable reality...Clearly, if the Sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening it is easy to disregard a little problem with the retrograde movement of the planets.... Well, we look at the world and assume an underlying logic, which for the most part, escapes us... If people could fully accept the logic of reality they would abandon God and faith and fate and luck....

@inconsekwenshul,

inconsekwenshul wrote:

No Fido, I am not familiar with that story, and iam not sure of its meaning. I would like to know what it means before we continue this dialogue because I don't think I can respond to your post without understanding it as you intend.

thank you

What ever is life it isn't worth fighting over.

@inconsekwenshul,

inconsekwenshul wrote:

Also Aristotle was not real, rather he is a figure created by philosophers to lend imaginary credibility to their claims, in order that they might have significance in the qualification of their beliefs; thus becoming the god's of their own particular worlds.

What makes you think Aristotle is not real please,(evidence)?
Thank you.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Perhaps not; but freedom of will is one of those articles of faith which people first believe and then try to prove..

I dont understand you.
Article of faith:something that people who support a particular religion or idea believe completely,although it has not been proved.

In a sense we do have freedom of choice in that we can choose what is right and wrong, does that make us without free will?

Here we are clearly in the neighborhood of the 'rational appetite' accounts of will one finds in the medieval Aristotelians. The most elaborate medieval treatment is Thomas Aquinas's.[1] His account involves identifying several distinct varieties of willings. Here I note only a few of his basic claims. Aquinas thinks our nature determines us to will certain general ends ordered to the most general goal of goodness. These we will of necessity, not freely. Freedom enters the picture when we consider various means to these ends, none of which appear to us either as unqualifiedly good or as uniquely satisfying the end we wish to fulfill. There is, then, free choice of means to our ends, along with a more basic freedom not to consider something, thereby perhaps avoiding willing it unavoidably once we recognized its value. Free choice is an activity that involves both our intellectual and volitional capacities, as it consists in both judgment and active commitment. A thorny question for this view is whether will or intellect is the ultimate determinant of free choices. How we understand Aquinas on this point will go a long ways towards determining whether or not he is a sort of compatibilist about freedom and determinism.
Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

In a sense then we do have freedom of choice?

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

I dont understand you.
Article of faith:something that people who support a particular religion or idea believe completely,although it has not been proved.

In a sense we do have freedom of choice in that we can choose what is right and wrong, does that make us without free will?

Here we are clearly in the neighborhood of the 'rational appetite' accounts of will one finds in the medieval Aristotelians. The most elaborate medieval treatment is Thomas Aquinas's.[1] His account involves identifying several distinct varieties of willings. Here I note only a few of his basic claims. Aquinas thinks our nature determines us to will certain general ends ordered to the most general goal of goodness. These we will of necessity, not freely. Freedom enters the picture when we consider various means to these ends, none of which appear to us either as unqualifiedly good or as uniquely satisfying the end we wish to fulfill. There is, then, free choice of means to our ends, along with a more basic freedom not to consider something, thereby perhaps avoiding willing it unavoidably once we recognized its value. Free choice is an activity that involves both our intellectual and volitional capacities, as it consists in both judgment and active commitment. A thorny question for this view is whether will or intellect is the ultimate determinant of free choices. How we understand Aquinas on this point will go a long ways towards determining whether or not he is a sort of compatibilist about freedom and determinism.
Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

In a sense then we do have freedom of choice?

So will is not an idea???

You know, I would suggest you take will a step back, where you might decide, as Schopenhaur that there is not individual will as such, but that will as a thing in itself, is something possessed by all of humanity if not all life... As far as freedom goes, we can claim some... We are like living pinballs that can move within certain confines, go here, move that, and constrained always by our limits and natures...As well as being batted about from time to time...

@Fido,

Quote:

Fido wrote:
So will is not an idea???

Yes I'm beginning to understand.:bigsmile:

Quote:
FIDO
You know, I would suggest you take will a step back, where you might decide, as Schopenhaur that there is not individual will as such, but that will as a thing in itself, is something possessed by all of humanity if not all life... As far as freedom goes, we can claim some... We are like living pinballs that can move within certain confines, go here, move that, and constrained always by our limits and natures...As well as being batted about from time to time...

I will do that,(read up on Schopenhaur), thank you very much.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

I fail to see how the trinity is logically impossible. The belief is that there is a plurality of hypostases (persons) in a single divine Substance. There's nothing contradictory about this belief.

Care to expand on this a bit? What does it mean to be in a divine Substance. Is this like three people standing in a lake? Of course that's not contradictory. Where I worry about the contradiction is if we say that three separate people are also the same person. Perhaps they can have similarities, but to be completely separate and completely the same seems contradictory.

I have my theory, but will you please expand? Thanks.

@Axis Austin,

A schizophrenic god thats all we need..Flood them they need a lesson ..oh no give them a boat a big boat..yes alright but drown most of them..How many do we drown ? idont know how big is this boat..Two is company threes a crowd..

@Axis Austin,

Two is company; three is a trinity...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Two is company; three is a trinity...

Oh we must not giggle this is serious..:bigsmile:

@Axis Austin,

I am certain the propostition can proved, that God has a sense of humor; perhaps even a sense of humiliation...If he/she/it didn't like spit in the eyes and kicks in the teeth, why would it keep taking it???

@Caroline,

caroline i was being facetious i proposed that Aristotle is not real if i remember correctly according to the supposition that the measure of evidence for his existence is similar to the existence of Jesus Christ, and God by extension. Therefor by the standard set forth by my more ill-fated atheist contemporaries I could propose, as I have done, that Aristotle never was.

I wonder though if the idea of an existence coupled with a doctrine of belief is evidence enough for the existence of any overparticular thing. That is, that if something is universally accepted yet not directly experienced (per say) Aristotle, is that enough to make it "real" insomuch that this thing is a certifiable part of the reality we experience.

to fido:
I suppose then any further dialouge is to digress, demonstrated in the direct dilapidation of divulgencies, disregaurded by the direction of the delusion in our deepest . . . . I'm out of words never you mind.

@Axis Austin,

Buy a dictionary and you will never be at a loss for words... You do know that the trinity is a human, for the most part, representation of God...Jesus was the first humanist..Our Father, Etc.

@Fido,

Do you think the Trinity doctrine contradicts the doctrine of Divine Simplicity (found in Catholicism, and some protestants):

Trinity: God is One Being of three DISTINCT persons
Simple: God has no parts (Spacial, temporary and characteristics)

It seems contradictory to me.

-- Of course you could revise the definition of either of those doctrines, or even bin themm altogether, but I know that, for Roman Catholics, that would make you a heretic

@Axis Austin,

I consider myself having a mind (brain), body and soul.(character, personality, uniqueness) Perhaps it was just a metaphor for a spiritual being in a physical world, or one interacting in a physical world.

@Sympathypains,

Growing up Christian, I was baffled by the idea. I thought maybe it was a result of a confused mass of circulating beliefs in Christianity's infancy. Jesus is referred to at times as "Son of Man," a divine messianic figure from the Jewish apocalyptic literature who rules as an earthly king. First instance of Jesus being referred to as Son of God seems to be Colossians 3. Paul probably wanted to communicate a divine Jesus to the Greek converts. Ironically, "Son of God" to a Jew is actually an earthly man which signifies a king of Israel (see John 1:46?). The Matthew writer claims a virgin birth, but no other gospel writer does with no confirmation from Pauline writings (I think). The Luke writer and John writer are in disagreement on the first inception of the Holy Spirit.

It gets pretty crazy upon closer inspection. I was always basically told, "Hey its a mystery, don't ask, just believe." Apparently its dangerously heretical to not believe in it. Then John Locke tells me forced belief is impossible because it can never be genuine. I guess I'm screwed then. :Not-Impressed:

Philosophy Forum

Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

Quick Links

My Account

able2know