The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know, guys. There's this thing called the internet. You might try doing some research on the Trinity instead of asking a half dozen random lay Christians to explain it. Personally, I'd like to see more atheists debate with atheists about atheist approaches to atheistic topics. It's an Atheist Forum afterall. That rather than constantly trying to lure the Christians into arguments.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you not read these boards at all, Neo, lol?

If you want to understand the trinity, a believer is the last person you should ask OP. You want to talk to a cultural anthropologist.

[Homeless Nutter]

Trinity - it's "Human Centipede", only with divine beings.

[GrandizerII]

While I doubt your intentions are for mutual understanding, here goes...

I've been there before (believing in the Trinity and defending it back as a Christian). Nothing further for me to understand. This is more of a challenge for theists to step up to the stage and give me their best shot at defending the Trinity as logical. That's if you're a Trinitarian Christian, I mean.

Your Father, Son, Holy Spirit statements are wrong and an obvious attempt to write into your question your conclusion.

Bullshit. This is mainstream Trinitarian belief. If you have a different conception of the Trinity, then that's your choice, but it doesn't reflect the traditional conception of the Trinity.

God is one thing. One soul. Even saying Jesus is God is technically wrong because Jesus =/= God. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit = God.

Oh, I see, another heretic.

Join Huggy's club then.

God is a soul. What is a soul? The soul or mind is an immaterial or spiritual substance that makes you you (the "I" when you refer to yourself). It is not equal to your brain but relies on it in our present state much like a computer software relies on computer hardware. The soul holds our consciousness, which includes our intellect and volition which allow us to be self-reflective and capable of self determination. I believe like J. P. Moreland that there are various type of souls--from a basic animal with simple reasoning abilities to Chimpanzees with richer capabilities, to humans with even more, to God at the pinnacle.

We experience that each of us has a soul/mind equipped with advanced rational cognitive faculties that we say is sufficient for personhood. God is one soul with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties with three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will. One immaterial soul containing three distinct persons. There are interesting attributes this creates like God is a relational being and is capable of relational interactions--even within himself (much like we are better people having relationships with other persons).

But other persons I have relationships with and I are not one and the same being, are we? Furthermore, even if we were all the same being, then how can this be if I am not any of them, and none of them are me?

Of course, if you don't accept the mainstream conception of the Trinity, then what I'm arguing here won't apply, but then you're NOT a mainstream Trinitarian Christian. And if you say that Jesus being God is wrong, then that would be a heresy according to the mainstream Christian circles.

While I am not going to say this is the absolute right way to view the trinity, it does counter any claims of being incoherent or illogical.

The way you're arguing this, sure. But that's not the Trinity conception described in the OP, which is based on mainstream Christian belief (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

---

I would say there was some logical derivation (or rather an attempt at it) that happened, using premises in the Scriptures. It's just that the conclusion itself defies logic.


You don't see how the way I described the Trinity (which you agree is an apt description) defies logic?

If F = G, and S = G, and H = G, is it true that F = S = H?

I suspect, that your mistake, is similar to those who say that there is a contradiction within in the trinity.  This is incorrect;  the law of non-contradiction states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, in the same way.  So  I would agree, that in one sense your equation above is correct.  This is similar to the fallacy of equivocation, in that some try to equate this to the other way, and say that they are not equal.  If they are equal and not equal, it is said that this a contradiction.  But this is wrong, because they are not talking about being 3 and being 1 in the same way. 

I hope that perhaps this clears things up.  I realize that I had to make some assumptions, as you didn't really state what you think it is that defies logic.  If you are referring to something else, then please clarify.

Bolded mine. This is the main thrust of your argument. So please enlighten me. Tell me exactly how my equation fails to illustrate anything wrong with the Trinity. Elaborate.

---

I don't know, guys. There's this thing called the internet. You might try doing some research on the Trinity instead of asking a half dozen random lay Christians to explain it. Personally, I'd like to see more atheists debate with atheists about atheist approaches to atheistic topics. It's an Atheist Forum afterall. That rather than constantly trying to lure the Christians into arguments.

What, don't like to be challenged? Ok, Neo, I'll make it easy for you. Just paste a link to a good article that really shows there is nothing logically wrong with the Trinity doctrine (the mainstream one, ok?). Best of luck.

[GrandizerII]

From the Nicene Creed, which all mainstream Christians are to believe in if they want to avoid being called heretics.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:

As you can see, it clearly says Jesus is God. So SteveII saying my description of the Trinity is wrong because I said such things as the Son is fully the one God, is not supported by the Nicene Creed itself. If SteveII himself does not follow that Creed, that doesn't change the fact that most other Christians do, and it doesn't mean that my description in the OP is wrong.

As for RR, I forgot to say that nowhere in the equation is there any symbol reference for Person vs. Being. If you (RR) agree with the description in the OP (which you said earlier was a fair description), then the equation fairly represents the description in the OP. If the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, the Holy Spirit is fully God, then the logical conclusion should follow that they are all equal to each other. Yet, this is not the case. So a logical contradiction occurs.

Furthermore, another consequence of the Trinity doctrine is that each of the Persons of God is God himself, but God is neither of the Persons, and this is also logically problematic. For if a = b, then b must = a. Yet, in this case, a = b, but b not = a.

[RoadRunner79]

It does seem that your problem is equivocation.

[Huggy Bear]

There is no distinction, Jesus clearly stated that he and the Father are one, and that if you see him then you see the Father.

This is John we're talking about. The last thing you want to do is take what he says literally. After all, do you literally eat Jesus and drink his blood when doing the Communion?

Where in the scriptures does it state that communion, represented the literal body and blood of Christ? Paul said to discern the Lords body, which means mentally not physically.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. - 1 Corinthians 11:29

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discern

Definition of discern
: to come to know or recognize mentally

Here is the only thing you need to know. When Jesus told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, every apostle baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the first being Peter; did Jesus not give Peter the key to the kingdom of heaven? So when Peter was asked how to get into heaven, his reply was to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that was the key. This proves according to scripture that Jesus Christ is all three, hence "fullness of the Godhead bodily".

I defy you to find anywhere in scripture where someone baptized using the titles 'father, son, and holy spirit', if you can't then ask yourself why the mass majority of denominations do it?

I'm telling you exactly what the scriptures say, and yet I'm the 'heretic'.

[GrandizerII]

It does seem that your problem is equivocation.

If you mean equivocation of Person with Being, that doesn't matter here, because nowhere in the equation is there reference to either. You agree that F = G, right? You agree that S = G, right? You agree that H = G, right? Therefore, F = S = H. Nothing in that equal symbol says anything about Person vs. Being. It just means simply that one side of the equation equals the other.

Huggy, that's fine. You're not a Trinitarian, so it's a waste of time arguing about something neither you nor I believe in. You can make a new thread for what you're arguing about.

[RoadRunner79]

It does seem that your problem is equivocation.

If you mean equivocation of Person with Being, that doesn't matter here, because nowhere in the equation is there reference to either. You agree that F = G, right? You agree that S = G, right? You agree that H = G, right? Therefore, F = S = H. Nothing in that equal symbol says anything about Person vs. Being. It just means simply that one side of the equation equals the other.

Huggy, that's fine. You're not a Trinitarian, so it's a waste of time arguing about something neither you nor I believe in. You can make a new thread for what you're arguing about.

You seem to be determined to pull a bait and switch here. If you make your full argument, then the answer is that you are not talking about the same thing in the same way. Therefore not a contradiction. You are not showing this in your equation.

[GrandizerII]

If you mean equivocation of Person with Being, that doesn't matter here, because nowhere in the equation is there reference to either. You agree that F = G, right? You agree that S = G, right? You agree that H = G, right? Therefore, F = S = H. Nothing in that equal symbol says anything about Person vs. Being. It just means simply that one side of the equation equals the other.

Huggy, that's fine. You're not a Trinitarian, so it's a waste of time arguing about something neither you nor I believe in. You can make a new thread for what you're arguing about.

You seem to be determined to pull a bait and switch here. If you make your full argument, then the answer is that you are not talking about the same thing in the same way. Therefore not a contradiction. You are not showing this in your equation.

The usual vague RR tactic. Why am I not surprised?

Let's see if I can get you to elaborate on what it means to be a Person of God. What is the Father with respect to God? Suppose that F stands for the Father, and G stands for God.

Is the Father just a state/version/mode/aspect of God? If so, then you don't agree that F = G. Instead of the equality symbol, it should be something else that represents that sort of relationship.

Is the Father just a part/component of God? If so, then you don't agree that F = G. Instead, F is an element of G would be more like it.

But if you agree the Father is fully God himself, the one and only God, then you must agree that F = G.

If you're a Trinitarian, you have to concede F = G, S (Son) = G, and H (Holy Spirit) = G.

And because F = G, S = G, and H = G, then F = S = H, necessarily. Yet, according to the Trinity, this is not the case. According to the doctrine, F != S, F != H, and S != H, even though the premises necessarily lead to F = S = H.

So there is a logical problem, and it's sad that you refuse to see that.