Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. Many cultures seem to have independently come upon paganism. Paganism deifies phenomena -- phenomena are observable, and observation fortifies logic -- it makes it concrete. Monotheism requires abstraction, and abstraction requires longer leaps of logic.

For a people without technology of any sort, paganism is logical since nature does not appear as one force, but many... But every God is a certain conception of power. much as the word firmament- the result of power- says... But how far have we advanced from their perspective on that subject???When people move from a multitude of Gods to a single God they are applying Ocham razor without being able to express the razor logically... The problem for them was the same for us...We want to believe, but the objective proof is lacking; so God rests upon subjective proof...If God saves you from destruction after you pray to him, you believe... Everyone facing destruction prays, and some are saved, so they have their proof, and they testify, so others believe without objective proof...

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

Growing up as a Christian, I thought God could do anything, including the logically impossible. Once I became a competent philosopher I concluded, as I think most would, that God cannot make square circles. Further, I don't think it is just philosophers who've realized this, but most Christians as well. But isn't the idea of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is both WHOLLY one and WHOLLY separate, logically impossible? Yet most Christians believe in this, and I personally have not come up with a satisfactory answer for myself. Any thoughts?:perplexed:

Lost within there iniquities of there perception, for man is force to read such in ones own perception and not the perception of God, with faith that thy will guide thee to the correct answer to that of which ye seek...

This is a thread that will help clear up there deluded knowlage...

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/members/no0ne/#vmessage57

Just cause God can do anything dosnt, mean thy will... for there allways be a why to the why.

:rolleyes:Is God a christain?

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Logic is man's vice, not God's. Give credit where it is due and don't lump God in to our creation. To create something is to suggest that one would have a use for it. So what need does God have for logic?

No God did not create anything because he needed it. God created the universe because he wished to. He could not have done it and still been God.

@Axis Austin,

Proof??????????????

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

No God did not create anything because he needed it. God created the universe because he wished to. He could not have done it and still been God.

Logic is what we use to understand and explain the unknown. Why would God create it when there is nothing that he doesn't know? You're treating logic like it's something holy, like only God could have created it. Moreover, you're treating logic like it's an object. Exactly what is wrong with saying that man created logic?

@Solace,

I've been away from the forum for a couple weeks: I was busy and then gone for a conference. Anywho...

I thought of something I find somewhat promising about the notion of the Trinity, and wondered what other people would think.

An ice cube is fundamentally distinct from water. They are physically fundamental and distinct. Similarly, steam is different from water. Each (ice, water & steam) is different and separate from the others. Thus their uniqueness.

Yet they're also all H20. Thus they're all also the same in the way. In a sense they share their essence of being; they're all "water".

Perhaps the Trinity works in the same way? All three entities, God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are physically separate and distinct. Yet all are God. Thus they are all separate yet all the same.

Does this have any promise in answering the seeming logical impossibility I expressed initially? Any constructive thoughts?

@Axis Austin,

The Trinity was invented as a meditative technique. I would encourage you to continue your line of thinking, and to take the discussion to a priest, perhaps even a variety of priests from different traditions, maybe even non-Christian teachers. The whole point is to develop your spiritual life: that's why the Trinity was taught, that's why Jesus taught. The Trinity is a tool: it looks to me like you are using that tool. Keep it up.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The Trinity was invented as a meditative technique. I would encourage you to continue your line of thinking, and to take the discussion to a priest, perhaps even a variety of priests from different traditions, maybe even non-Christian teachers. The whole point is to develop your spiritual life: that's why the Trinity was taught, that's why Jesus taught. The Trinity is a tool: it looks to me like you are using that tool. Keep it up.

You are confusing natural developments with invention... Jusus offers a different vision of God...The Gospels offer a vision of Jesus, sometimes as God... Now, this vision of God reached some sort of final development with the emperor Constantine.. According to Elaine Pagels who has written on the Gnostic Gospels, in Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospels of Thomas...Of this period she writes, that according to historian Erik Peterson: "Athanasius's claim that the son was entirely equal with the father implies that the bishops authority is equal to the emperor himself..Peterson claims that this correlates with Athenasius's refusal to take orders from any emperor, and pervaded the power struggles that characterized the relationship between Bishops and emperors in the west throughout the middle ages...Conversely, he says, that Arius formulation, which achknowledges the fathers priority over his son, survived for centuries in altered form in some of the Eastern Churches, which tended to accept imperial power over church affairs, and later would influence the structure of what became state churches."..Eric Peterson also said many people equate the holy spirit with the people of the church, as well as the Emperor as God the father and Jesus with the bishop... To the people it was allegorical... I think, as their belief in magic shows, much of which was sympathetic magic, symbols played a much greater part in their lives, and carried a greater meaning...

Athanasius was perhaps the man most responsible for the look of the modern Bible, and for the destruction of the Gnostic Bible... It was perhaps some believer's fear of burning the word of God that resulted in the preservation of the Nag Hamadi texts. Ultimately, the whole thing, trinity and all was about asserting earthly authority... Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria was deposed several time by the Arian people of Egypt, and his last replacement was lynched...Politics makes more enemies than friends.

@Fido,

The Universe is much more than a divine trinity, God is infinitely One.

=
MJA

@Axis Austin,

Well ya...Logically, if there is a God, then God is all, and where does that leave us??? And something else, We talk about God and the trinity...In fact, God began with power, undiferenciated power... As soon as we got a good God we got a bad god too... Forget the trinity, consider that the closest we have to a God of power is the Old testament God of Abraham who could clearly be a force as much for good as evil... But even that God could be dealt with... You see Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (sp) bargaining with the agents of destruction like a car salesman...There is something wrong with us or with our conception of God...It is illogical to think God is two, or three... One God sort of makes us all responsible for human evil as two Gods does not...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Well ya...Logically, if there is a God, then God is all, and where does that leave us??? ...

It leaves me without an "if" and or but.
Truth is that Way.

=
MJA

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

Growing up as a Christian, I thought God could do anything, including the logically impossible.

I never grew up believing that myself. I've always believed that God can do all things possible.

Axis Austin wrote:

Once I became a competent philosopher I concluded, as I think most would, that God cannot make square circles. Further, I don't think it is just philosophers who've realized this, but most Christians as well. But isn't the idea of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is both WHOLLY one and WHOLLY separate, logically impossible?

Our "logic" is rooted in our experiences. Our experiences are limited and therefore is our logic. Quantum mechanics showed us just how wrong our logic can be. Prior to the discovery/invention quantum mechanics the question Which hole did the particle go through? was a very meaningful question. After the discovery quantum mechanics that question lost its meaning.

New ideas stared to emerge. Now we describe things in totally different ways. A quantum system can exist in a superposition of states. Classically that's meaningless. But its meaningful in quantum mechanics. An analogy with the trinity would be like God being the superposition of the three eigenstates, i.e. "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit". The analogy continues when we experience God. When, for example, God collapsed into the eigenstate Son the world experienced this as the birth of Jesus.

This is merely an analogy. I don't want to imply this is how it is.

@Bostonian phil,

Fido: Athanasius did not develop the notion of the Trinity. The three men who did come up with the notion invented the notion as a meditative tool.

You are right about the influence of Athanasius, no doubt about it. But when we are talking about the Trinity, it is useful to go back to the concept's birth and look at what these people were trying to do with the concept.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Fido: Athanasius did not develop the notion of the Trinity. The three men who did come up with the notion invented the notion as a meditative tool.

You are right about the influence of Athanasius, no doubt about it. But when we are talking about the Trinity, it is useful to go back to the concept's birth and look at what these people were trying to do with the concept.

He was one of those making the argument for the trinity as we think of it; three equal facets of God... I must say that from my reading of history, until some one came up with the last Gospel, of John, they really did not have any evidence for Jesus as God... Until they had a different God they had no basis for a new hierarchy... Those pushing the trinity were not pushing meditation, but organization...They had plenty, almost unlimited meditation before that point... You simply cannot build a church out of numerous individual experiences of God... Trinity is Dogma...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Trinity is Dogma...

Glad we're all open-minded and sticking to the topic here. :sarcastic:

Thank to those who've address my question.

@Axis Austin,

To deny what it isn't is fine... Should I not suggest what it is, as well???

@Fido,

You're welcome to say what you think it is, but you should state your reasons for that thought. Saying it is dogma and leaving it at that is like saying you like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. I'd love to hear your reasons why the notion of the Trinity is dogma and whether or not any real sense can be made of it.

And I'm sorry about taking out on you my frustration with people departing from the topic when I am really curious about people's thoughts on the specific idea I mentioned. It just seems like people in this forum don't like giving direct answers, but rather they bring up the history of the idea, etc. when it's not necessarily applicable.

@Axis Austin,

Saying Trinity is Dogma isn't really saying anything at all. After all, what does the word Dogma mean? It's merely a synonym for Doctrine. Since the Trinity is particular Christian doctrine then all its saying is that the Trinity Doctrine is a Doctrine. While true it's not very helpful.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I must say that from my reading of history, until some one came up with the last Gospel, of John, they really did not have any evidence for Jesus as God

I don't understand this. What do you mean "until someome came up with..". What do you mean to impky by "until"?

It is my understanding that the Nicene council had the Gospel of John in hand when they formed the doctrine of the Trinity and it's John 10:30 in which Jesus said I and My Father are one.

@Bostonian phil,

Fido wrote:

He was one of those making the argument for the trinity as we think of it; three equal facets of God... I must say that from my reading of history, until some one came up with the last Gospel, of John, they really did not have any evidence for Jesus as God... Until they had a different God they had no basis for a new hierarchy... Those pushing the trinity were not pushing meditation, but organization...They had plenty, almost unlimited meditation before that point... You simply cannot build a church out of numerous individual experiences of God... Trinity is Dogma...

Yes, Athanasius argued in favor of the Trinity. And, yes, it is in John where we find this notion that Jesus is the "only begotten Son".

However, none of this negates my point: that the Trinity was conceived as a meditative tool by three Cappadocian Church Fathers. Whatever Athanasius' intentions, the Trinity was conceived as a meditative tool: not as an organizational tactic.

That Christianity offered meditative techniques prior to the Trinity is in no way evidence that the Trinity was not conceived as a meditative technique.

Philosophy Forum

Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

Quick Links

My Account

able2know