Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

@Didymos Thomas,

I think I can see the points you are making--taking my 'reading' is correct--and appreciate the response. While of course it may well end up being a matter of difference of opinion that need not be pursued beyond any level of just having been a position well presented, I will respond in a attempt to do that.

Didymos Thomas;50583 wrote:

That the first Christians did not make use of the Trinity is not an argument demonstrating the illogical nature of the Trinity; instead, it's the beginning of a solid argument as to why a Christian need not necessarily accept or make use of the Trinity.

(bold mine)

I fully agree with the highlighted point, yet only reason that it can be taken a bit further. In that as far as it can be determined, given the Jewish religious mind set, based on texts of the time, the earliest Christian had no need for substance definitions--as one would find in Greco-philosophical terms--for YHWH. The faith which especially the Pauline theology pushes, is one based on the former texts of the Jewish relgio-cultural world, is focused on Yeshua as the messiah, and simply a break from Mosaic Law--and thus the description/prescription of YHWH is fixed enough. Therefore, I reason that by application of the 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' principle, trying to fix the sufficient description/prescription of YWHW is an illogical thing.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That the concept of the Trinity is illogical is no strike against the Trinity: if the Trinity were presented as a logically coherent concept, it would lose it's meaning.

This point, I cannot disagree with. I would argue that any concept would most usually be seen to hold meaning for the application/usage that is attached to it at any point in time, by any group of individuals. ( I mean, it is for the likes of this that I reason that the very adaptation of the statement to define the substance of YHWH by any individuals, or individual groups in later Christianity is an illogical act.)

Also, I see this point as a good point--as you have mentioned, to use the concept for a focus of meditation, is a valid usage, I would agree. I would not, nevertheless, agree to the statement (trinity statement content) as having factuality or logicality--as you also seem to agree to.

Now, I am trying to follow the dialog which you, Didymos Thomas, are having with Fido, but am having a little trouble understanding a few points. It may well be due to that exchange having started sometime before my ever having posted on this thread, and in that case, may not be worth an effort to input, or to help reconcile? maybe? I'll try to follow.

@Axis Austin,

No..It is three men on a cross having a conversation...
First line: the Joker to the thief; Jesus was hung on a cross between two thieves..
Second line by Jesus, beginning Businessmen.
Third line is the thief to Jesus, beginning, No reason to get excited...
The two riders are angels, and the wild cat is Satan... The other people; servants and women are exactly that...
You know the song has a power, as all good poetry has, but it speaks to the subconscious with its apocolyptic vision.... These are eternal characters... I am perhaps most like the joker, making light of it right up till the last moment because it is not real, because it is not eternal... But that is only one way of dealing with fate, and sometimes I find myself like the thief trying till the end to find its ultimate meaning in some lasting truth... So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is growing late.
But the lament of Jesus brings to mind John Wilkes Booth, who in the moments before his death had his paralyzed hands held up before his face... And he said: useless, useless... It is frustrating, as the joker realized, to be handed so much to do with life, and so little time, and in the end to realize how impossible any good was to reach...

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin wrote:

I think I can see the points you are making--taking my 'reading' is correct--and appreciate the response. While of course it may well end up being a matter of difference of opinion that need not be pursued beyond any level of just having been a position well presented, I will respond in a attempt to do that.

I'm glad.

KaseiJin wrote:

I fully agree with the highlighted point, yet only reason that it can be taken a bit further. In that as far as it can be determined, given the Jewish religious mind set, based on texts of the time, the earliest Christian had no need for substance definitions--as one would find in Greco-philosophical terms--for YHWH. The faith which especially the Pauline theology pushes, is one based on the former texts of the Jewish relgio-cultural world, is focused on Yeshua as the messiah, and simply a break from Mosaic Law--and thus the description/prescription of YHWH is fixed enough. Therefore, I reason that by application of the 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' principle, trying to fix the sufficient description/prescription of YWHW is an illogical thing.

The thing is that the Trinity is not trying to "fix it", but rather improve upon, or provide another way to help people come to experience God.

KaseiJin wrote:

Also, I see this point as a good point--as you have mentioned, to use the concept for a focus of meditation, is a valid usage, I would agree. I would not, nevertheless, agree to the statement (trinity statement content) as having factuality or logicality--as you also seem to agree to.

No, I do not think the Trinity is factual nor do I think the Trinity is logical.

KaseiJin wrote:

Now, I am trying to follow the dialog which you, Didymos Thomas, are having with Fido, but am having a little trouble understanding a few points. It may well be due to that exchange having started sometime before my ever having posted on this thread, and in that case, may not be worth an effort to input, or to help reconcile? maybe? I'll try to follow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Fido: It's pretty hard to argue that the song begins with a conversation between three people when only two people say anything. Not to mention the fact that the Thief says "but you and I" - which references two, not three, people. Not to argue that the Joker cannot be seen as Jesus; I think that is a reasonable interpretation, but there is most certainly two and not three people engaged in the conversation.

@Axis Austin,

Thanks, Didymos Thomas, if something comes up, I'll ask. I guess on that one point about 'fixing it,' we'd probably not presently have agreement, which is fine as it is, of course. I see it as an effort to fix, even by seeing it as an effort to improve.

@KaseiJin,

It's just another tool by which we can better come to understand God. By you logic, Jesus should never have taught anything at all: he was providing new ways to understand God. He was doing what the Turkish Fathers who came up with the Trinity were doing.

@Axis Austin,

Didy; it is a change of tone, one joking, one frustrated and conscious of failure, and the other consoling... When Jesus says: all of them along the line; it is clear he is not talking to the others on the line of crosses, but praying.... And when the thief says: there are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke; Why would he say that to the joker??? Does the joker need to be reminded he is a joker???

On your other point, of tools.... This is not something Jesus came up with.... Those people who wanted to talk about God or heaven in tangible ways did not get it... He avoided the trappings of power, and the clear symbols of power, and official power...It was the wealth and the power of establishment priests that he seemed to oppose... Two priests walked by the injured man before the good Samaritan helped him.... He said do as they say, not as they do.... Do I think he would look at any power structure as superior to another??? I do not buy that he was any dogma sort of guy... He was instead pushing another form of relationship with God that was all relationship and no form... In a sense he was not far from the Samaritans himself, who were Jews who did not go to Babylon, and were not part of the religious power structure, so as in the past, each father offered his own family's sacrifice on the family altar...But there is some truth to the statement that he came not to end the law, but to fulfill the law...The whole of the law could be condensed into one sentence, and that whole sentence can be condensed into a single relationship with God and man... The power structure that appointed itself to lord over Christianity really did so on its own authority....In effect, Jesus never broke from Judaism, and did little to nothing for people outside of Judaism...There was one mother with a sick child who really had to call Jesus out to get any help from him, if I remember correctly.

@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:

Do you think it was meant for humans to be able to comprehend such thing?
And furthermore, I do not think it's a contradiction after all. "3 persons in one God" is not the same as "3 Gods in one God". The problem here is the comprehension of the nature of God existence itself, not the the logical impossibility of it.

@Axis Austin,

That is what Jesus was trying to tell people, that God, and heaven, all that was beyond conprehention... That does not stop people from trying to conceive of the inconceivable.....You do not have to know what God is to believe... But certainty is an easier sell that uncertainty...It is easier to build an authority structure around a certain form... But it is nonsense to think if there is such a thing as God that we will ever be able to get our arms around him...People do not like God as big as the cosmos...Instead they like God small and corrupt, easily bought off with gifts, swayed with a promise and a prayer...

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

Do you think it was meant for humans to be able to comprehend such thing?
And furthermore, I do not think it's a contradiction after all. "3 persons in one God" is not the same as "3 Gods in one God". The problem here is the comprehension of the nature of God existence itself, not the the logical impossibility of it.

In all honesty, I am not sure whether we are capable of comprehending all of God. But for the purpose of my question, yes I do think we are meant to comprehend God. I fully understand the notion that God goes beyond our logic, but I am concerned about that notion. If we can't understand him, then how can we intelligibly talk about him.

I don't completely understand the rest of what you said, will you please elaborate?

However, I must disagree with you last statement, that it's not about the logical impossibility. To say that each part of the Godhead is wholly separate and wholly one seems to defy logic. Thanks for the input. Smile

One last thing for Thomas: no God can't be logically proved (or disproved). But perhaps the Trinity isn't just a tool about God, perhaps it IS God (assuming the Trinity is true).

@Axis Austin,

You can't intelligibly talk about God...you can talk about theology... But people in every sense trying to define infinites only make themselves look stupid... Look about you... As the Greeks called the dome of the heavens the firmament, the result of power; look at it all and consider all beyond the sight of mankind...If God made all this then certainly God is greater, and more than all... As a guess...We want God small, and we want God to care because what ever life is, without the love of it, without the love of the cause of it, then all is dispare...We know we will die... We know someday all of humanity will die...If the earth does not fall into the sun, then the sun will expand to fry the earth to a cinder.... We think without God it is all so pointless, and without meaning... So what??? Have we not the courage to live without meaning??? What would be the point of being mancubs without courage??? Why not say, if there is no God, at least no God as we can sense, with personality, then why don't we behave as God and realize our own power to do Good, even without reason, and even if it is all futility????

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

You can't intelligibly talk about God...you can talk about theology... But people in every sense trying to define infinites only make themselves look stupid... Look about you... As the Greeks called the dome of the heavens the firmament, the result of power; look at it all and consider all beyond the sight of mankind...If God made all this then certainly God is greater, and more than all... As a guess...We want God small, and we want God to care because what ever life is, without the love of it, without the love of the cause of it, then all is dispare...We know we will die... We know someday all of humanity will die...If the earth does not fall into the sun, then the sun will expand to fry the earth to a cinder.... We think without God it is all so pointless, and without meaning... So what??? Have we not the courage to live without meaning??? What would be the point of being mancubs without courage??? Why not say, if there is no God, at least no God as we can sense, with personality, then why don't we behave as God and realize our own power to do Good, even without reason, and even if it is all futility????

I half completely disagree and half completely agree. If there is no God, then our lives would still having meaning. We should still act with courage and lead the best lives possible. Furthermore, I think that when Christians live ONLY for heaven, then they are really doing a disservice to themselves.

But as for grasping infinity, I disagree. I think people are too quick to say "God is far greater than us and thus transcends our logic, so we should just accept that we can't understand him". I don't think people should underestimate the capacity of the human mind. I personally can wrap my mind around some pretty deep stuff when it comes to thinking about God (though I am completely lost when it comes to theoretical physics). Though it is plausible that God created us without the capacity to fully understand him, isn't it not equally plausible that he created us with that ability? Does God have to transcend our logic to be "God"?

@Axis Austin,

From my perspective, over estimation of the capacity of the human mind is much more common...The progress we make today has been built upon many small steps and a few great steps... Do we think we are great if we understand the great??? I have some appreciation for the great, and for the tremendous leaps of insight making their progress possible...And I guess that no one can make a certain gain without knowing what is, at what stage progess rests, because so often what humanity has thought was certain knowledge was a dead end which required a step back. So what do we know??? What do we know since the infinite is not without end, but only without an appearant end... If we could see that end objectively we could say: this is it, this is the beginning, and this is the end.... We cannot see the end of creation... We cannot see the end of a creator, if there is one... What I would guess is that the creator became creation, that the creator does not stand outside of existence, but within... But there is no way to know, or show, or prove.. We have to live with what we are given...Or what we imagine... Reality is always beyond our grasp, and touched only with the greatest effort...

@Fido,

I suppose I'll settle with a difference in perspective on the first point. Beyond that, well said. I have nothing further to say for now.

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

I half completely disagree and half completely agree. If there is no God, then our lives would still having meaning. We should still act with courage and lead the best lives possible. Furthermore, I think that when Christians live ONLY for heaven, then they are really doing a disservice to themselves.

But as for grasping infinity, I disagree. I think people are too quick to say "God is far greater than us and thus transcends our logic, so we should just accept that we can't understand him". I don't think people should underestimate the capacity of the human mind. I personally can wrap my mind around some pretty deep stuff when it comes to thinking about God (though I am completely lost when it comes to theoretical physics). Though it is plausible that God created us without the capacity to fully understand him, isn't it not equally plausible that he created us with that ability? Does God have to transcend our logic to be "God"?

God does not have to transcend our logic to be God, its just that we as Finite beings cannot posses any full of infinity.

To picture it, imagine that we are finite containers of knowledge, and that we cannot transcend our finite intellectually capacity. But that doesn't mean we cannot grasp anything intelligible about God. Partly he is intelligible, the fact that we can have a CONCEPT of INFINITY itself, but knowledge of the infinite itself is far more infinite and cannot be contained in finite minds. Let us say that what we know about God is limited and cannot go beyond our finite minds.

@Axis Austin,

Thanks Axis...

If you cannot with truth say the last thing about some thing, how do you know you are saying the first true thing about that something.... You think you can say something intelligible about God... Okay, how do you know that everything unknown does not contradict what you think you know??? WE have faith because we do not know, so our faith is always faith in other people... Did God save you... Everyone in trouble prays....So everyone who is saved has prayed, and believes... They testify, and we believe... Who takes the testimony of the unsaved dead??? Do we think they did not pray, and do we think they deserved their fates??? In fact, we can know nothing, even if there is a God...The reason we believe will always be found in mankind, and not in objective evidence....The belief in God, and in Magic precedes reason in children, and while we may grow, we can never escape who we once were...We reconcile the past with the present in our lives... We never escape the past...

@Axis Austin,

It should be noted that being Christian does not mean accepting the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact Unitarian Christians reject the Trinity as to Muslims. Yet both accept Jesus as the Messiah.

@Bostonian phil,

Absolutely: many Christian sects reject the Trinity. Muslims often go so far as to argue that Trinitarian Christians are polytheists.

@Bostonian phil,

Bostonian wrote:

It should be noted that being Christian does not mean accepting the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact Unitarian Christians reject the Trinity as to Muslims. Yet both accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Scuse me...Is that a fact???? Maybe the Messiah does not actually equate to God... My understanding is that they hold Jesus to be a prophet in the old testament tradition... I think it would be hard to be a Christian without accepting Jesus as God....I think that many apostles considered that they were a branch, or a correction of Judaism...I think Islam thinks in much the same fashion, that without have a good understanding of Judaism or Christianity, that they are a correction... I do believe they are better Christians than most Christians, and perhaps better Jews than many Jews...

@Fido,

Right, Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, the second most important prophet, second only to Muhammad.

One need not accept Jesus as God in order to be a Christian. This would require the rejection of certain canon, like the Gospel of John, but many have done so in the past.

Christianity began as a Jewish reform movement. This matter can be viewed in two ways: that Christianity as a Jewish reformation grew into it's own faith tradition; or that Christianity was a Jewish reform movement, and that Judaism split between the Christian sect and Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70CE.

Islam was not a Jewish reform movement, but instead, a reformation of Arabic society around a new faith, that of Muhammad, who happened to learn religion from Jewish teachers. Something like a reworking of Judaism as understood by Muhammad for the people of Arabia.

@Axis Austin,

I do believe that Mohammid, peace be upon him, said virturally the same thing as jesus, that if a branch of a tree does not bear fruit it will be trimmed back to a new shoot...It is safe to say that Islam and Christianity have born more fruit however it is conceived... And Yet, Judaism may be more logically correct and true to its past.. Figure that...

Philosophy Forum

Isn't the Trinity Logically Impossible

Quick Links

My Account

able2know