Posts: 46855
Threads: 545
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
108
RE: Refuting trinity.
April 4, 2018 at 6:58 pm
(April 1, 2018 at 4:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Got any arguments for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I haven't seen enough of those.
This doesn't require arguments, just simple maths.
Step 1: Measure the head of the pin in question. Call this 'A'
Step 2: Measure arse of any angel. (for the purpose of this problem, you may assume that angel's arses possess a Divine uniformity). Call this 'B'.
(we needn't worry about the type of dancing performed by the angels, because I can't figure out how to work that in).
Step 3: Divide B into A. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 2435
Threads: 21
Joined: May 5, 2017
Reputation:
26
RE: Refuting trinity.
April 4, 2018 at 7:25 pm
This angel; nekkid or fully clothed?
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
Posts: 2872
Threads: 8
Joined: October 4, 2017
Reputation:
22
RE: Refuting trinity.
April 6, 2018 at 8:45 am
(April 4, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I'm not giving any atheist the satisfaction of heckling a serious theological debate between two believers.
You accept drich and MK's positions as valid? Even though both disagree with yours and each other? But you also reject the atheist position as invalid even though it is equally a theological position? That's some industrial grade hypocrisy right there.
And besides, why should anyone take seriously a debate about which imaginary sky fairy is the right one? It is absurd.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: Refuting trinity.
April 6, 2018 at 11:07 am
It's a shame, I love a good old Christ-off!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Refuting trinity.
April 8, 2018 at 8:36 am
(April 4, 2018 at 4:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: MysticKnight Wrote: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. Since Abrahamic faiths believe God is Ultimate, then it's a working ground.
I don't want to debate that premise, since we agree on it. As for proving, I believe I've done so many times, but have realized it's in poetic language and may not be understood by everyone or anyone but a few, these proofs I have offered.
Posts: 882
Threads: 6
Joined: November 14, 2014
Reputation:
26
RE: Refuting trinity.
April 8, 2018 at 2:15 pm
(April 8, 2018 at 8:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: (April 4, 2018 at 4:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. Since Abrahamic faiths believe God is Ultimate, then it's a working ground.
I don't want to debate that premise, since we agree on it. As for proving, I believe I've done so many times, but have realized it's in poetic language and may not be understood by everyone or anyone but a few, these proofs I have offered.
It must be shrooms; your supplier is a genius.
|
