Refuting trinity.

[vorlon13]

violet ??

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not giving any atheist the satisfaction of heckling a serious theological debate between two believers.

[Crossless2.0]

I'm not giving any atheist the satisfaction of heckling a serious theological debate between two believers.

You will let us know if such a thing ever breaks out, won't you? I'm all about being among the first to witness something extraordinary.

[vorlon13]

My sig should have triggered one by now if such a thing were possible . . .

[Mister Agenda]

Aspects are different that what they are attributed to.
As such, God cannot have aspects.

To prove this is quite simple. 

God cannot lack a perfection. And whatever perfection he has must be ultimate. But Ultimate by definition can only be God's Sheer self, ultimate life, as such his perfections are in reality not him, but ways we relate to his one sheer perfect reality, that has no divisions or aspects. For example suppose he had a hand like Wahabis say,  then the hand would be not God, and hence not divine, and God would have non-divine attribute, or he would have an equal, and his hand would be just as ultimate as him, which would make him no so ultimate. Both are absurd. Hence, if God exists, he is One.

His attributes we know of him are different than what he is.  They are brought down angles that we relate to him by but the point to in all that, in whatever aspect we call him by,  is sheer ultimate oneness.

And because the independent by which all depends is God, he cannot beget himself, lest the dependent and himself be equal. And another proof, is if he can eternally beget, he would not have created us, but only beget sons, as that would be the right thing to do from love's perspective.

You may well be right that if there is a God, it is not a Trinity. Your argument is just a pile of assertions that you can't demonstrate to be true, though. There is no contradiction inherent in a universe creator being imperfect, so there goes your whole thing. If there is a God, it may e perfect or it may not (but if it's real, it obviously makes imperfect things, so there's that....). I'd have gone with parsimony as the explanation for why it's reasonable to trim the Trinity down.

Although I think polytheism makes more sense than either. The universe being made by a committee that didn't always agree and had different members with different levels of skill and talent seems to be a better match for the messy cosmos we observe.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seriously, though. Most of us could care less. If someone doesn't believe in unicorns in the first place, they aren't going to be interested in a debate about whether unicorns have pink hooves or purple hooves.

Plaid. 

Or paisley. 

Or the ones with the shooting stars.

---

I'm not giving any atheist the satisfaction of heckling a serious theological debate between two believers.

You will let us know if such a thing ever breaks out, won't you? I'm all about being among the first to witness something extraordinary.

Well, there was the Crusades.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm not giving any atheist the satisfaction of heckling a serious theological debate between two believers.

You don't need to give it to us.

We'll just take it anyway.

We're independently minded like that.

[possibletarian]

Got any arguments for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  I haven't seen enough of those.

What size pin ?
No wonder you never get your questions answered

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And another proof, is if he can eternally beget, he would not have created us, but only beget sons, as that would be the right thing to do from love's perspective.

I'm very nearly convinced by this, but it doesn't really answer the question, 'How exquisitely ironic is it that the patent for one of the earliest fire hydrants was destroyed in a fire?'.

Try to stay with what's important, mate.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

OP, it's simple. The Trinity doctrine is a thing because the early Church needed to reconcile the contradictions perceived in the Bible regarding the oneness of God. God is supposed to be one, yet Jesus is alluded to as God in John, and the Holy Spirit is seen as God as well. How can that he? Hmm, must be one substance but three different persons. Yeah, lets make a distinction where there can be none. This is why it comes off as illogical and why they therefore have to call it a Mystery.